Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Chronicle (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Walking into the theatre to see Chronicle I was pretty excited. I had not heard much about this movie, in fact I’ll be honest here… I heard a small amount of info about two months ago and then it dropped off my radar before a trailer appeared last Sunday.
The trailer was enough for me to believe that this movie was going to be different than some of the other superhero/people with powers movies out there. I must say I was not disappointed.
That being said, the movie was not quite what I expected. This film was not presented as a high-quality cinematic experience the way movies such as “X-men: First Class” were. Instead, think “Paranormal Activity” meets Heroe and you get a better understanding of the film. Most of the movie is viewed through a video camera that the main character is toting around to “chronicle” his life. The film also does a creative job of being able to portray events when it doesn’t make sense for the video camera to be around. Overall, I think they did a good job in the presentation. But now to the meat and potatoes.
Set in Seattle, Chronicle follows Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan, True Blood and In Treatment), a troubled teen who is having trouble fitting in with his fellow seniors at school. He has to deal with his abusive father and ill mother all the while traversing day to day life as the social reject. His cousin Matt (Alex Russell, Wasted on the Young) is his only real friend, and Andrew has his suspicions about that relationship as well.
At a high school party Matt and Steve Montgomery (Michael B. Jordan, Hard Ball and Friday Night Lights [TV]), the class president hopeful, come across a mysterious hole in the ground. Matt and Steve search Andrew out and convince him to go with them to record what could possibly be down in the hole.
They venture down in and find something almost indescribable. A meteor of some type had crashed in through the earth, only you don’t really know if this thing is a meteor or some type of living organism. Something goes wrong, and we are left wondering about the boys’ safety until we next see the boys a few weeks later and discover that they’ve been changed by their contact with this “meteor”. They now have telekinetic powers. Though weak at first, it is clear that the boys begin developing the power as they would a muscle and their relationship as friends begins to strengthen as well. We begin to focus on Andrew even more and see how he comes to terms with these new found abilities, and the affect it has on him as he continues to live his troubled life. As things begin to escalate, he starts to lose his grip on reality to a disastrous end.
While not a blockbuster movie in any sense of the word, this film definitely has a story to tell. It brings us back to a seemingly recurring theme over the past decade or so: don’t bully or ostracize people, or they could snap. While I did not feel that the events leading to the climatic high point in the movie were portrayed in such a fashion that you would believe Andrew would have reacted the way he did, it was still a very entertaining film.
The trailer was enough for me to believe that this movie was going to be different than some of the other superhero/people with powers movies out there. I must say I was not disappointed.
That being said, the movie was not quite what I expected. This film was not presented as a high-quality cinematic experience the way movies such as “X-men: First Class” were. Instead, think “Paranormal Activity” meets Heroe and you get a better understanding of the film. Most of the movie is viewed through a video camera that the main character is toting around to “chronicle” his life. The film also does a creative job of being able to portray events when it doesn’t make sense for the video camera to be around. Overall, I think they did a good job in the presentation. But now to the meat and potatoes.
Set in Seattle, Chronicle follows Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan, True Blood and In Treatment), a troubled teen who is having trouble fitting in with his fellow seniors at school. He has to deal with his abusive father and ill mother all the while traversing day to day life as the social reject. His cousin Matt (Alex Russell, Wasted on the Young) is his only real friend, and Andrew has his suspicions about that relationship as well.
At a high school party Matt and Steve Montgomery (Michael B. Jordan, Hard Ball and Friday Night Lights [TV]), the class president hopeful, come across a mysterious hole in the ground. Matt and Steve search Andrew out and convince him to go with them to record what could possibly be down in the hole.
They venture down in and find something almost indescribable. A meteor of some type had crashed in through the earth, only you don’t really know if this thing is a meteor or some type of living organism. Something goes wrong, and we are left wondering about the boys’ safety until we next see the boys a few weeks later and discover that they’ve been changed by their contact with this “meteor”. They now have telekinetic powers. Though weak at first, it is clear that the boys begin developing the power as they would a muscle and their relationship as friends begins to strengthen as well. We begin to focus on Andrew even more and see how he comes to terms with these new found abilities, and the affect it has on him as he continues to live his troubled life. As things begin to escalate, he starts to lose his grip on reality to a disastrous end.
While not a blockbuster movie in any sense of the word, this film definitely has a story to tell. It brings us back to a seemingly recurring theme over the past decade or so: don’t bully or ostracize people, or they could snap. While I did not feel that the events leading to the climatic high point in the movie were portrayed in such a fashion that you would believe Andrew would have reacted the way he did, it was still a very entertaining film.
The Richest Man In Babylon Audiobook App by George Samuel Clason
Book and Lifestyle
App
Groundbreaking Audiobook summary App puts your learning of George Samuel Clason-Success Principles...
Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill Summary Book
Book and Reference
App
All Purchases of this Audiobook Program Go To Supporting the Napoleon Hill Foundation ...
eBiblia La Santa Biblia & Mapas Biblicos Gratis
Lifestyle
App
One of the best applications Bible hope this application change their lives we want to share with...
Red Sea Geothermal Provinces
D. Chandrasekharam, Aref Lashin, Nassir Al Arifi and Abdulaziz M Al-Bassam
Book
"Today, over two billion people in developing countries live without any electricity. They lead...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (2020) in Movies
Feb 12, 2021
Give Chadwick the Oscar
Pulitzer Prize winning Playwright August Wilson wrote 10 plays that he labeled his “Century Cycle” - one placed in each decade of the 20th century that depicts the Negro experience in America. Denzel Washington has pledged to produce a film for each one of these plays.
The first film, FENCES (2016), earned Viola Davis an Oscar and was nominated for Best Film. The 2nd film, MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM looks to be just as awarded.
Set in a recording studio in Chicago in the 1920’s (the only play of Wilson’s Century Cycle NOT set in Pittsburgh), MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM tells the story of a recording session for Ma Rainey and her band.
Nominated for the Tony for Best Play of 1984, MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM is the perfect stage play, for it takes place in one room - the recording studio. The problem with turning this into a film is that Director George C. Wolf felt compelled to “open things up” and added scenes, mostly at the beginning of the film, that takes you out of the studio. He also included Ma Rainey in some of these scenes, thus taking away the power of her entrance about 1/3 of the way into the story. These added scenes add nothing to the story and waters down some of the strength that being confined in one place brings.
But, oh, with performances and dialogue like this, those things are quickly forgotten.
Davis, of course, is stellar as Ma Rainey grabbing the spotlight and commanding the room with her presence. Ma Rainey (and Davis) are not to be trifled with and this is a powerhouse performance, so much so that I can forgive the film for having Davis’ voice dubbed for much of her singing performance.
But…Davis performance pales in comparison to the elite level work of Chadwick Boseman in the central role of trumpet player Levee who has some demons to unpack, demons that drive both his artistic and emotional self. This is a difficult character to root for, but Boseman’s charm shines through and mixed with his rage and sadness, makes for a potent combination and an interesting character to watch. Adding to the poignancy of the performance is the knowledge that this as Boseman’s last role before succumbing to cancer.
Colman Domingo (my favorite actor in FEAR THE WALKING DEAD) brings a strong grounding to the preceedings in the role of Cutler while veteran character actor Glynn Turman (who I remember from the 1970’s mini-series CENTENNIAL) is at a career best as another musician, Toledo. Most of the film (and play) consist of Cutler, Toledo and Levee talking, arguing, bantering and pontificating and these 3 are more than up to this challenge.
All of this, of course, would not be possible without the power of the original stage play script by August Wilson. This work was ably adapted to the screen by Ruben Santiago-Hudson (a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination).
A very strong, very interesting tale with some very moving performances makes MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM a worthy Oscar-type film that should be checked out by all.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
The first film, FENCES (2016), earned Viola Davis an Oscar and was nominated for Best Film. The 2nd film, MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM looks to be just as awarded.
Set in a recording studio in Chicago in the 1920’s (the only play of Wilson’s Century Cycle NOT set in Pittsburgh), MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM tells the story of a recording session for Ma Rainey and her band.
Nominated for the Tony for Best Play of 1984, MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM is the perfect stage play, for it takes place in one room - the recording studio. The problem with turning this into a film is that Director George C. Wolf felt compelled to “open things up” and added scenes, mostly at the beginning of the film, that takes you out of the studio. He also included Ma Rainey in some of these scenes, thus taking away the power of her entrance about 1/3 of the way into the story. These added scenes add nothing to the story and waters down some of the strength that being confined in one place brings.
But, oh, with performances and dialogue like this, those things are quickly forgotten.
Davis, of course, is stellar as Ma Rainey grabbing the spotlight and commanding the room with her presence. Ma Rainey (and Davis) are not to be trifled with and this is a powerhouse performance, so much so that I can forgive the film for having Davis’ voice dubbed for much of her singing performance.
But…Davis performance pales in comparison to the elite level work of Chadwick Boseman in the central role of trumpet player Levee who has some demons to unpack, demons that drive both his artistic and emotional self. This is a difficult character to root for, but Boseman’s charm shines through and mixed with his rage and sadness, makes for a potent combination and an interesting character to watch. Adding to the poignancy of the performance is the knowledge that this as Boseman’s last role before succumbing to cancer.
Colman Domingo (my favorite actor in FEAR THE WALKING DEAD) brings a strong grounding to the preceedings in the role of Cutler while veteran character actor Glynn Turman (who I remember from the 1970’s mini-series CENTENNIAL) is at a career best as another musician, Toledo. Most of the film (and play) consist of Cutler, Toledo and Levee talking, arguing, bantering and pontificating and these 3 are more than up to this challenge.
All of this, of course, would not be possible without the power of the original stage play script by August Wilson. This work was ably adapted to the screen by Ruben Santiago-Hudson (a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination).
A very strong, very interesting tale with some very moving performances makes MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM a worthy Oscar-type film that should be checked out by all.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Army of the Dead (2021) in Movies
May 26, 2021
Took To Long To Get To The Fun Part
I love me a good Zombie flick. I also love me a good Heist flick. So…when I heard that Zack Snyder (JUSTICE LEAGUE) was making a “Zombie/Heist Flick”, I thought “what’s not to like”?
Turns out…plenty.
A pet project of Sndyer’s that has been stuck in “development hell” in Hollywood for almost 2 decades, ARMY OF THE DEAD tells the tale of a group of mercenaries that look to rob $200 million from a vault under the casinos of Las Vegas - one small problem…Las Vegas has been walled off as a way to contain a zombie plague.
My first warning that this was not going to a pleasant experience is that this film has a 2 1/2 hour run time. That certainly seems bloated for a Zombie film and the first 1 1/2 of this flick certainly proves this out as Snyder - ham handedly - seeks to flesh out each of the characters in long, boring exposition scenes that didn’t really add anything to the tension or action. Well…it did add something…restless boredom.
But…I gotta admit, once the group of mercenaries make their way to the vault in Las Vegas, the last hour of the film was pretty darn fun.
Dave Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films) leads the group of mercenaries and Ella Purnell (Emma in MISS PEREGRINE…) is his estranged daughter. I won’t bore you with the details of why these 2 are estranged…but they are and Bautista insists that his daughter NOT come along on this mission. So you know what happens next…yep, she comes along and I was rooting for her to get killed almost from the start. Neither of these 2 characters work and since they are central to the story they are really at the root of the problems with the first 1 1/2 hours of this film.
The rest of the ensemble, however, are a lot of fun and bring that “B Monster Movie” vibe to the proceedings and they look like they are having alot of fun. Tig Notero, Ana de La Reguera, Omari Hardwick and Theo Rossi are an enjoyable lot and know EXACTLY what type of film they are in.
But the standouts of the ensemble are the always great Garret Dillahunt (John Dorie in FEAR THE WALKING DEAD) who brings his usual “A” game to the proceedings. As does Nora Arnezeder (SAFE HOUSE) as “The Coyote” a survivor who has been in Las Vegas before and - especially - Matthias Schweighofer (RESISTANCE) who steals every scene he is in playing the German safecracker.
I would have loved it if Snyder would have cut the Bautista and daughter scenes (and characters) and just had this ensemble go after the loot - it would have been a much better - and shorter - film.
But…if you can last through the long, boring first 1 1/2 hours, the last hour is “good enough” Zombie action with an interesting “twist” on the genre that I will have to give Snyder credit for.
If you do all this, you’ll have a passably decent enough entertaining time.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Turns out…plenty.
A pet project of Sndyer’s that has been stuck in “development hell” in Hollywood for almost 2 decades, ARMY OF THE DEAD tells the tale of a group of mercenaries that look to rob $200 million from a vault under the casinos of Las Vegas - one small problem…Las Vegas has been walled off as a way to contain a zombie plague.
My first warning that this was not going to a pleasant experience is that this film has a 2 1/2 hour run time. That certainly seems bloated for a Zombie film and the first 1 1/2 of this flick certainly proves this out as Snyder - ham handedly - seeks to flesh out each of the characters in long, boring exposition scenes that didn’t really add anything to the tension or action. Well…it did add something…restless boredom.
But…I gotta admit, once the group of mercenaries make their way to the vault in Las Vegas, the last hour of the film was pretty darn fun.
Dave Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films) leads the group of mercenaries and Ella Purnell (Emma in MISS PEREGRINE…) is his estranged daughter. I won’t bore you with the details of why these 2 are estranged…but they are and Bautista insists that his daughter NOT come along on this mission. So you know what happens next…yep, she comes along and I was rooting for her to get killed almost from the start. Neither of these 2 characters work and since they are central to the story they are really at the root of the problems with the first 1 1/2 hours of this film.
The rest of the ensemble, however, are a lot of fun and bring that “B Monster Movie” vibe to the proceedings and they look like they are having alot of fun. Tig Notero, Ana de La Reguera, Omari Hardwick and Theo Rossi are an enjoyable lot and know EXACTLY what type of film they are in.
But the standouts of the ensemble are the always great Garret Dillahunt (John Dorie in FEAR THE WALKING DEAD) who brings his usual “A” game to the proceedings. As does Nora Arnezeder (SAFE HOUSE) as “The Coyote” a survivor who has been in Las Vegas before and - especially - Matthias Schweighofer (RESISTANCE) who steals every scene he is in playing the German safecracker.
I would have loved it if Snyder would have cut the Bautista and daughter scenes (and characters) and just had this ensemble go after the loot - it would have been a much better - and shorter - film.
But…if you can last through the long, boring first 1 1/2 hours, the last hour is “good enough” Zombie action with an interesting “twist” on the genre that I will have to give Snyder credit for.
If you do all this, you’ll have a passably decent enough entertaining time.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I think that almost everyone has some knowledge of Laurel and Hardy. Certainly growing up with a love of black and white comedies meant that I saw a fair few myself. There's certainly a familiarity in what we see from Coogan and Reilly that brings a smile to your face. The main problem is that it's such a hard act to follow. I can't say that I'm left raving about what was presented. It's a charming film... I'm just not sure if that's a compliment or not.
Seeing the BBC Films logo come up at the beginning gave me some hope. Having never really enjoy either of the main actor's work this actually gave me some hope that this would be an amazing sort of production that I've come to love from the BBC. Sadly, again, I wasn't wowed by what I saw.
Coogan and Reilly do both manage to capture their part of the double act well, and seeing those trademark moves briefly gives you that spark of joy. Nostalgia is a very powerful thing and you get a great buzz but I'm not sure it's enough to make up for the overall feeling of the film.
Both Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda make for a fiery support cast in the roles of Lucille Hardy and Ida Laurel, but I have to say that Ida was the character for me. Self promoting and yet fiercely loyal. Loving and yet tinged with a streak of harsh reality. It was pleasing to see how she evolved to show such heart and unite the pair at the end.
Capturing snippets of a lifetime is always difficult. There are so many things going on that you have to choose whether to feature or not and that inevitably leads to gaps and slight inconsistencies. Hardy's gambling made several appearances but at no point is it really shown as a severe problem , most of it was done in a very lighthearted manner which sort of defeated the point of it being mentioned at all.
The first half of the film is incredibly slow and dare I say dull. So much so that I did wonder whether it was anything like the film that the trailer had promised. While I did silently chuckle to myself it was by no means laugh out loud funny with it's comedy... although the woman across the aisle from me would probably disagree on that point.
Despite my rather bland feelings about the film it did have some excellent moments. The opening sequence of them walking through the studio lot is really well set up, but shots after that were all very traditional. My other stand out moment was right at the end where they're doing their last performance. In that moment I had a stream of tears running down my face. The fact that they managed to convey the end of Laurel and Hardy's career in such a relatively short sequence was amazing.
Ultimately I think some of the greats from history should probably be left in that iconic position. I'm really not sure that this added anything to their story.
What you should do
If you#re one for nostalgia then you should head on out to see this in January.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd have to have just a little piece of Stan Laurel's creativity and dedication.
Seeing the BBC Films logo come up at the beginning gave me some hope. Having never really enjoy either of the main actor's work this actually gave me some hope that this would be an amazing sort of production that I've come to love from the BBC. Sadly, again, I wasn't wowed by what I saw.
Coogan and Reilly do both manage to capture their part of the double act well, and seeing those trademark moves briefly gives you that spark of joy. Nostalgia is a very powerful thing and you get a great buzz but I'm not sure it's enough to make up for the overall feeling of the film.
Both Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda make for a fiery support cast in the roles of Lucille Hardy and Ida Laurel, but I have to say that Ida was the character for me. Self promoting and yet fiercely loyal. Loving and yet tinged with a streak of harsh reality. It was pleasing to see how she evolved to show such heart and unite the pair at the end.
Capturing snippets of a lifetime is always difficult. There are so many things going on that you have to choose whether to feature or not and that inevitably leads to gaps and slight inconsistencies. Hardy's gambling made several appearances but at no point is it really shown as a severe problem , most of it was done in a very lighthearted manner which sort of defeated the point of it being mentioned at all.
The first half of the film is incredibly slow and dare I say dull. So much so that I did wonder whether it was anything like the film that the trailer had promised. While I did silently chuckle to myself it was by no means laugh out loud funny with it's comedy... although the woman across the aisle from me would probably disagree on that point.
Despite my rather bland feelings about the film it did have some excellent moments. The opening sequence of them walking through the studio lot is really well set up, but shots after that were all very traditional. My other stand out moment was right at the end where they're doing their last performance. In that moment I had a stream of tears running down my face. The fact that they managed to convey the end of Laurel and Hardy's career in such a relatively short sequence was amazing.
Ultimately I think some of the greats from history should probably be left in that iconic position. I'm really not sure that this added anything to their story.
What you should do
If you#re one for nostalgia then you should head on out to see this in January.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd have to have just a little piece of Stan Laurel's creativity and dedication.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Why Him? (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
When an “out of touch” Midwesterner owner of a paper factory (Bryan Cranston) decides to take his family to California to spend Christmas with his college student daughter (Zoey Deutch) and meet her new tech-millionaire, but socially inept boyfriend (James Franco), a typical father vs boyfriend faceoff ensues. For many, Why Him? will be enough to satisfy the comedy itch. Those expecting to find the next gut busting comedy will be disappointed, while those thinking it will be a dull comedy will be pleasantly surprised. This film is somewhere in the middle. A constant stream of chuckles with a few bigger laughs here or there. But ultimately forgettable at the lack of main characters to root for.
The highlights of this film include Cranston who reminds us that he has comedic timing from his years in Malcom in the Middle. His chemistry and timing is played well across Megan Mullally who perfectly delivers a few genuine laughs as a Midwestern suburban wife trying to maintain the niceties. Their son (Griffin Gluck) also adds to the humorous family affair as a teenage brother trying to be taken seriously as an adult but still being treated as a child. Lastly, the always funny Keegan-Michael Key hilariously plays Gustav, the “estate manager” to the tech-millionaire boyfriend and spices up the film every time he seems to appear.
James Franco on the other hand quickly wears out is welcome as the socially inept tech-millionaire boyfriend. At times he is funny, however after the dropping the “f-bomb” so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless “caricature” only going for the low hanging fruit of crude jokes. Still, his crude, repeated, jokes are no longer funny after the first few times we see them. The film tries to give Franco some “mysterious depth” through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Franco’s character never actually evolves past his caricature shortcomings. It is a shame, because we actually like the girlfriend character (Zoey Deutch) and want to understand what she sees in Franco’s character, however since he never really evolves, there really is no reason to like or root for them to be together.
I also want to point out that this film acknowledges its biggest flaw. At one point in the film a character points out that there is a war going on between father and boyfriend, only the boyfriend isn’t actually fighting. That’s true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Franco’s boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranston’s father character only evolves because the movie devolves into “paint by numbers” territory in the last 10 minutes. Since there is no one to root, we do not really care the outcome as we got our chuckles throughout the film but will forget about it shortly after walking out the theater.
Why Him? Has a solid cast, a few unexpected cameos and delivers constant chuckles throughout, however without giving us a likeable boyfriend or any characters to root for, the lack of memorable gut busting laughs has this film as nothing more than a typical forgettable comedy.
The highlights of this film include Cranston who reminds us that he has comedic timing from his years in Malcom in the Middle. His chemistry and timing is played well across Megan Mullally who perfectly delivers a few genuine laughs as a Midwestern suburban wife trying to maintain the niceties. Their son (Griffin Gluck) also adds to the humorous family affair as a teenage brother trying to be taken seriously as an adult but still being treated as a child. Lastly, the always funny Keegan-Michael Key hilariously plays Gustav, the “estate manager” to the tech-millionaire boyfriend and spices up the film every time he seems to appear.
James Franco on the other hand quickly wears out is welcome as the socially inept tech-millionaire boyfriend. At times he is funny, however after the dropping the “f-bomb” so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless “caricature” only going for the low hanging fruit of crude jokes. Still, his crude, repeated, jokes are no longer funny after the first few times we see them. The film tries to give Franco some “mysterious depth” through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Franco’s character never actually evolves past his caricature shortcomings. It is a shame, because we actually like the girlfriend character (Zoey Deutch) and want to understand what she sees in Franco’s character, however since he never really evolves, there really is no reason to like or root for them to be together.
I also want to point out that this film acknowledges its biggest flaw. At one point in the film a character points out that there is a war going on between father and boyfriend, only the boyfriend isn’t actually fighting. That’s true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Franco’s boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranston’s father character only evolves because the movie devolves into “paint by numbers” territory in the last 10 minutes. Since there is no one to root, we do not really care the outcome as we got our chuckles throughout the film but will forget about it shortly after walking out the theater.
Why Him? Has a solid cast, a few unexpected cameos and delivers constant chuckles throughout, however without giving us a likeable boyfriend or any characters to root for, the lack of memorable gut busting laughs has this film as nothing more than a typical forgettable comedy.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Wolf (2019) in Movies
Sep 19, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
A group of Roman legionnaires in Britain are sent on a mission to find a group of missing messengers only to find themselves attacked by something that comes out with the full moon.
So basically it's Roman’s vs werewolves in the woods, a premise with so much potential. However it fails in oh so many ways. I feel a bit bad for this review because I did enjoy the film, admittedly I seemed to be the only one as everyone else left about half way through (ok there were only two other people there but they did leave) but as a film it was quite terrible. First off we have the legionnaires, the group have only been together for a few weeks and don't trust each other, and they consist of:
Shouting guy who has just been sent from Rome who can't seem to decide if he's channelling Nick Frost or Brian Blessed.
Not so shouting guy who is friends with shouting guy and likes to drink
Captain who doesn't seem very effective
Old guy who shouldn't be there, doesn’t get on with the captain
Tall blonde guy who is always on about his wife who about to have a baby
Germanic female scout that no one trusts
Ex slave woman who looks like she should be a witch (she’s not) who is friends with the captain
Black woman who has a brother
And two other guys I can't really remember
So, the film gets points for having a culturally mixed squad which is historically correct but they don’t act as a unit. They are always talking, even when hunting the creatures they never shut up. One of them say “We are Roman we do the hunting.” But they don't seem to know to be quite.
It does strike me that the film is trying to be (Or seem) historically accurate, there are mentions of tactical formations that can be used, everyone uses the names of an appropriate god and there is mention of what certain weapons are made of but all of this just adds to the feeling that the film has been made by a group of Roman reenactor enthusiasts.
I had a friend who said that ‘Cloverfield’ was one of the worst films ever because you never see the monster, we pointed out that you do but acknowledge that 'Cloverfield’ keeps the monster hidden to make it more mysterious and scary. Wolf does this as well, for most of the film all you see of the monsters are pink streaks that seem quite reminiscent of naked people and when you finally see the creatures they look like they could be extras in classic doctor who. The effects in general are a bit rubbish to the point of one the cast walking around with what looks like rice pudding or custard in his beard for ten minutes.
The camera work is sometimes shaky, shots of the sky blind you and there are times when it looks like the actors don't know how to hold a sword.
And the film doesn't end, there's a revelation, the survivors say they will continue the mission then the credits roll. There could be a sequel but if there is it will be because the cast want it and not on reviews (although I think I did enjoy it a bit).
So basically it's Roman’s vs werewolves in the woods, a premise with so much potential. However it fails in oh so many ways. I feel a bit bad for this review because I did enjoy the film, admittedly I seemed to be the only one as everyone else left about half way through (ok there were only two other people there but they did leave) but as a film it was quite terrible. First off we have the legionnaires, the group have only been together for a few weeks and don't trust each other, and they consist of:
Shouting guy who has just been sent from Rome who can't seem to decide if he's channelling Nick Frost or Brian Blessed.
Not so shouting guy who is friends with shouting guy and likes to drink
Captain who doesn't seem very effective
Old guy who shouldn't be there, doesn’t get on with the captain
Tall blonde guy who is always on about his wife who about to have a baby
Germanic female scout that no one trusts
Ex slave woman who looks like she should be a witch (she’s not) who is friends with the captain
Black woman who has a brother
And two other guys I can't really remember
So, the film gets points for having a culturally mixed squad which is historically correct but they don’t act as a unit. They are always talking, even when hunting the creatures they never shut up. One of them say “We are Roman we do the hunting.” But they don't seem to know to be quite.
It does strike me that the film is trying to be (Or seem) historically accurate, there are mentions of tactical formations that can be used, everyone uses the names of an appropriate god and there is mention of what certain weapons are made of but all of this just adds to the feeling that the film has been made by a group of Roman reenactor enthusiasts.
I had a friend who said that ‘Cloverfield’ was one of the worst films ever because you never see the monster, we pointed out that you do but acknowledge that 'Cloverfield’ keeps the monster hidden to make it more mysterious and scary. Wolf does this as well, for most of the film all you see of the monsters are pink streaks that seem quite reminiscent of naked people and when you finally see the creatures they look like they could be extras in classic doctor who. The effects in general are a bit rubbish to the point of one the cast walking around with what looks like rice pudding or custard in his beard for ten minutes.
The camera work is sometimes shaky, shots of the sky blind you and there are times when it looks like the actors don't know how to hold a sword.
And the film doesn't end, there's a revelation, the survivors say they will continue the mission then the credits roll. There could be a sequel but if there is it will be because the cast want it and not on reviews (although I think I did enjoy it a bit).