Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 26, 2021
Until going back to the cinema this year I'd not watched a trailer or read any reviews of Cruella. When I finally saw it on the big screen, I was excited... but also terrified of the Disney live action antics.
Estella is a young aspiring designer with a wild side and an even wilder hairstyle. Making friends with a ragtag duo in London, she sets up in the shadows of a high profile department store that sets her down a path with a dark future.
Of all the live action films recently this has definitely given me some hope (which I'm sure I'll regret saying at some point). It starts the set-up of what we know Cruella to be. Origin story, villain, you know I'm in. And I loved the way that she wasn't inherently evil, it was the circumstances around her that created it by twisting her wild side.
My two favourite Emmas in one movie, it's a dream. Let's start with the lead, Emma Stone. It must have been amazing fun doing this role, at least it looked like that was the case and she could really let loose. You see Estella's spark of creativity, the embers of the young Cruella inside her even as an adult, and the blazing fire as the evil starts to peek through. I loved how they managed to get some nods in to the animated movie, and how she managed to capture them perfectly. If you asked me to cast someone in this role, I'm not sure I could have come up with someone better.
Emma Thompson was a surprise to me, it wasn't until the trailer that I realised she was in this. The instant I saw her I knew that I was going to love her. The Baroness is a force to be reckoned with and you can see the influence that she has. Ruthless and driven, every scene felt right.
Henchmen next, and of course I'm using "henchmen" in its loosest terms for Jasper and Horace. Another perfect vision of what's to come. Joel Fry as Jasper makes for an interesting take on the story, and while I can see why it's there, and I generally enjoy Fry's acting, I did not love Jasper quite as much as everyone around him. Particularly as he was paired with Paul Walter Hauser. Hauser is a great actor, if a little typecast in the slightly bumbling characters. His take on Horace is my favourite thing about this whole film. As a double act with Wink it was glorious and understated humour. I'd happily sit through a film entirely of them just being them.
I can't really talk Cruella without talking costume design. If this doesn't win all the awards then quite frankly it's complete insanity. Everything design-wise in this was amazing as far as I'm concerned. Cruella's hair changes and dresses blew me away. Eccentric, flamboyant, and just the right amount of crazy.
I'm not sure how I feel about the possibility of a sequel, but I really enjoyed this one. Everything from the film itself, to the posters, it ticked all the boxes.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/06/cruella-movie-review.html
Estella is a young aspiring designer with a wild side and an even wilder hairstyle. Making friends with a ragtag duo in London, she sets up in the shadows of a high profile department store that sets her down a path with a dark future.
Of all the live action films recently this has definitely given me some hope (which I'm sure I'll regret saying at some point). It starts the set-up of what we know Cruella to be. Origin story, villain, you know I'm in. And I loved the way that she wasn't inherently evil, it was the circumstances around her that created it by twisting her wild side.
My two favourite Emmas in one movie, it's a dream. Let's start with the lead, Emma Stone. It must have been amazing fun doing this role, at least it looked like that was the case and she could really let loose. You see Estella's spark of creativity, the embers of the young Cruella inside her even as an adult, and the blazing fire as the evil starts to peek through. I loved how they managed to get some nods in to the animated movie, and how she managed to capture them perfectly. If you asked me to cast someone in this role, I'm not sure I could have come up with someone better.
Emma Thompson was a surprise to me, it wasn't until the trailer that I realised she was in this. The instant I saw her I knew that I was going to love her. The Baroness is a force to be reckoned with and you can see the influence that she has. Ruthless and driven, every scene felt right.
Henchmen next, and of course I'm using "henchmen" in its loosest terms for Jasper and Horace. Another perfect vision of what's to come. Joel Fry as Jasper makes for an interesting take on the story, and while I can see why it's there, and I generally enjoy Fry's acting, I did not love Jasper quite as much as everyone around him. Particularly as he was paired with Paul Walter Hauser. Hauser is a great actor, if a little typecast in the slightly bumbling characters. His take on Horace is my favourite thing about this whole film. As a double act with Wink it was glorious and understated humour. I'd happily sit through a film entirely of them just being them.
I can't really talk Cruella without talking costume design. If this doesn't win all the awards then quite frankly it's complete insanity. Everything design-wise in this was amazing as far as I'm concerned. Cruella's hair changes and dresses blew me away. Eccentric, flamboyant, and just the right amount of crazy.
I'm not sure how I feel about the possibility of a sequel, but I really enjoyed this one. Everything from the film itself, to the posters, it ticked all the boxes.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/06/cruella-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Murder on the Orient Express is a mystery drama directed by, and starring, Kenneth Branagh and is based on the 1934 Agatha Christie novel of the same name. The film brings in a spectacular cast alongside Branagh, including Penelope Cruz, Willem Dafoe, Judi Dench, Johnny Depp, Josh Gad, Michelle Pfeiffer and Daisy Ridley. Also part of the main cast, while not well known, but equally as talented, are Tom Bateman, Derek Jacobi, Leslie Odom Jr. and Lucy Boynton.
For those unfamiliar with the novel, or the 1974 and 2001 adaptations, Murder tells the story of, well… a murder. On a train. It’s really a lot more than that. Branagh portrays Hercule Poirot, a famed Belgian detective who is looking forward to some time off. But during his travels, a most unfortunate thing happens. Two things actually. Someone is murdered aboard the train he is traveling on, the Orient Express (naturally). And the murderer would’ve gotten away free and clear had storm not caused an avalanche, which thanks to a derailed engine, caused the train to become stuck and the body to be discovered. Poirot’s friend, Bouc (Bateman), runs the train and requested that Poirot solve the mystery before the police arrive in fear of someone innocent being accused, and to save himself from a heyday with his father. Can Poirot find out who is the killer between the star-studded cast?
I’ve read the novel. Seen both adaptations. This film blows those earlier adaptations out of the water. There is no contest here. Now clearly, nothing can beat the book. But Murder is about as great a film you can get in the murky land of Hollywood these days. As mentioned, Branagh directed and starred in the film, which he shot on 65 mm. The last time he did this was with Hamlet in 1996. It looked good then, and it looks even better now. With eye-popping visuals throughout the entirety of the film, and a masterful soundtrack that seamlessly blended with the tones and themes of each scene, the film is a modern masterpiece.
It wasn’t without its faults. (Most) every film has them. And there are a lot of people who are upset with Branagh’s portrayal of Poirot, particularly the representation of his eccentric facial hair. I am not one of those people. I believe it, along with other amazing moments, lent a bit of humor to the movie to break up what should otherwise be, and is, a serious whodunit mystery. Also, I felt they changed a few things in the adaptation that didn’t necessarily need to be changed.
I found it hard to sit and write about the film though. Given the nature of a great mystery, I can’t tell you too much about it without risk of giving out crucial details to the plot and outcome. So I will leave you with this, boys, girls, and everything in between and beyond… with a great and talented cast (bravo to Michelle Pfeiffer in particular) who nailed home their characters, to great visuals, and a great score, this movie is definitely one you want to catch.
For those unfamiliar with the novel, or the 1974 and 2001 adaptations, Murder tells the story of, well… a murder. On a train. It’s really a lot more than that. Branagh portrays Hercule Poirot, a famed Belgian detective who is looking forward to some time off. But during his travels, a most unfortunate thing happens. Two things actually. Someone is murdered aboard the train he is traveling on, the Orient Express (naturally). And the murderer would’ve gotten away free and clear had storm not caused an avalanche, which thanks to a derailed engine, caused the train to become stuck and the body to be discovered. Poirot’s friend, Bouc (Bateman), runs the train and requested that Poirot solve the mystery before the police arrive in fear of someone innocent being accused, and to save himself from a heyday with his father. Can Poirot find out who is the killer between the star-studded cast?
I’ve read the novel. Seen both adaptations. This film blows those earlier adaptations out of the water. There is no contest here. Now clearly, nothing can beat the book. But Murder is about as great a film you can get in the murky land of Hollywood these days. As mentioned, Branagh directed and starred in the film, which he shot on 65 mm. The last time he did this was with Hamlet in 1996. It looked good then, and it looks even better now. With eye-popping visuals throughout the entirety of the film, and a masterful soundtrack that seamlessly blended with the tones and themes of each scene, the film is a modern masterpiece.
It wasn’t without its faults. (Most) every film has them. And there are a lot of people who are upset with Branagh’s portrayal of Poirot, particularly the representation of his eccentric facial hair. I am not one of those people. I believe it, along with other amazing moments, lent a bit of humor to the movie to break up what should otherwise be, and is, a serious whodunit mystery. Also, I felt they changed a few things in the adaptation that didn’t necessarily need to be changed.
I found it hard to sit and write about the film though. Given the nature of a great mystery, I can’t tell you too much about it without risk of giving out crucial details to the plot and outcome. So I will leave you with this, boys, girls, and everything in between and beyond… with a great and talented cast (bravo to Michelle Pfeiffer in particular) who nailed home their characters, to great visuals, and a great score, this movie is definitely one you want to catch.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Moulin Rouge! (2001) in Movies
Apr 15, 2020
In My "ALL TIME TOP 10"
If one would look at the BankofMarquis "All Time Top 10" film list, you will see such stalwarts as THE GODFATHER, SINGIN' IN THE RAIN and CITIZEN KANE. It also would contain a "more modern" film that doesn't, necessarily, find itself on these types of lists - Baz Luhrman's MOULIN ROUGE from 2001.
Yes...it's that good.
Set at the turn of the century (the 19th to the 20th century) during the Bohemian Revolution in Paris, MOULIN ROUGE tells the tale of the...you guessed it...the Moulin Rouge theater/club where a young writer (Ewan McGregor) gets pulled into the lives of the artists and others trying to make a living, falling in love with a young courtesan, Satine (Nicole Kidman) all under the watchful eye of Harold Zidler (Jim Broadbent).
But it is not the story, but the telling of the story that sets this film apart. It is chaotic, wild, colorful, sexy, grimy, loving, alcoholic and spectacular - all things that not only describe this film, but the Moulin Rouge itself. Directer Baz Luhrman really shines in his vision of this picture that juxtaposes colorful sets and costumes, unique characters and songs and dance and music that tells the tale in a a unique way.
Oh...did I mention that most of this music is MODERN music? From Elton John's YOUR SONG to Roger's and Hammerstein's THE SOUND OF MUSIC to LADY MARMALADE to the ingenious use of Sting's ROXANNE (in a tango scene no less), this film is an amalgam of song that fits each scene perfectly. At what first seems incongruous, upon further viewings, the songs are slyly picked to accent the emotions and dramatic purpose of each scene.
As for the acting, McGregor and Kidman are beautifully cast (pun intended) as the young lovers. Their good looks radiate across the screen and I thought they had great chemistry. John Leguzamo and the other "Bohemians" pop in and out and are uniquely outrageous without being annoying. Richard Roxburgh's antagonist, "the Duke", came across in this viewing as not nearly as annoying as I have found him to be previously. Maybe there is more to this character/performance than meets the eye.
But it is Jim Broadbent's portrayal of the Master Shoman, Harold Zidler, that steals this film for me. He is a cunning and ingenious showman who (more than once) proves that he will stop at nothing for the "show to go on", but there are many notes to Zidler, at once in control and at the same time trying to KEEP control of events spiraling out of his control that actually shows a desperate man doing whatever he can to survive.
Add all these ingredients up and you have a film that gets deeper and richer with each subsequent viewing. I have yet to get tired of this film - and I am looking forward to the next time I immerse myself into this world.
Letter Grade: A +
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes...it's that good.
Set at the turn of the century (the 19th to the 20th century) during the Bohemian Revolution in Paris, MOULIN ROUGE tells the tale of the...you guessed it...the Moulin Rouge theater/club where a young writer (Ewan McGregor) gets pulled into the lives of the artists and others trying to make a living, falling in love with a young courtesan, Satine (Nicole Kidman) all under the watchful eye of Harold Zidler (Jim Broadbent).
But it is not the story, but the telling of the story that sets this film apart. It is chaotic, wild, colorful, sexy, grimy, loving, alcoholic and spectacular - all things that not only describe this film, but the Moulin Rouge itself. Directer Baz Luhrman really shines in his vision of this picture that juxtaposes colorful sets and costumes, unique characters and songs and dance and music that tells the tale in a a unique way.
Oh...did I mention that most of this music is MODERN music? From Elton John's YOUR SONG to Roger's and Hammerstein's THE SOUND OF MUSIC to LADY MARMALADE to the ingenious use of Sting's ROXANNE (in a tango scene no less), this film is an amalgam of song that fits each scene perfectly. At what first seems incongruous, upon further viewings, the songs are slyly picked to accent the emotions and dramatic purpose of each scene.
As for the acting, McGregor and Kidman are beautifully cast (pun intended) as the young lovers. Their good looks radiate across the screen and I thought they had great chemistry. John Leguzamo and the other "Bohemians" pop in and out and are uniquely outrageous without being annoying. Richard Roxburgh's antagonist, "the Duke", came across in this viewing as not nearly as annoying as I have found him to be previously. Maybe there is more to this character/performance than meets the eye.
But it is Jim Broadbent's portrayal of the Master Shoman, Harold Zidler, that steals this film for me. He is a cunning and ingenious showman who (more than once) proves that he will stop at nothing for the "show to go on", but there are many notes to Zidler, at once in control and at the same time trying to KEEP control of events spiraling out of his control that actually shows a desperate man doing whatever he can to survive.
Add all these ingredients up and you have a film that gets deeper and richer with each subsequent viewing. I have yet to get tired of this film - and I am looking forward to the next time I immerse myself into this world.
Letter Grade: A +
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Arrival (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wow – what a surprise.
Sometimes I can get very irritated by a trailer for giving too much away (case in point, “Room” – which I recut – and more recently “Passengers”). Sometimes I can get very excited by a really good teaser trailer (case in point, “10 Cloverfield Lane”). But most of the time a “ho hum” trailer typically drives the expectation of a “ho hum” film: “Jack Reacher: Never Look Back” being a good recent example. Then there is “Arrival”…
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Jurassic World: Dominion (2022) in Movies
Jun 10, 2022
Time For This To Go Extinct
Like it was millions of years ago, the time of the dinosaurs is coming to a close. With JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION, we end the Jurassic World trilogy (after having the Jurassic Park trilogy) and it is high time we do so.
A retro-film (as I’ve been calling these nostalgia-flicks that bring back old actors/characters from previously beloved properties), JURARSSIC WORLD DOMINION is entertaining enough - but the creative brains behind this franchise is just running out of clever ways to put the same group of characters in danger of being eaten by a dinosaur.
Written by Emily Carmichael based on a story by Derek Connolly and Colin Trevorrow and Directed by Trevorrow (returning to helm this franchise after Directing the first Jurassic World flick, but not the 2nd), JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION follows our favorite bickering couple, Clare (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Owen (Chris Pratt) and their pseudo-pet Velociraptor, Blue as they, once again, go into the Jurassic World fighting a money-grubbing Corporate Billionaire who wants the genetic technology for his own, greedy purposes and not what might be for the good of all - the Earth, the Humans and the Dinosaurs. Along the way good ol’ Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Dr. Ian Malcolm (the always quirky Jeff Goldblum) are, somehow, shoe-horned into this story.
And that, ultimately, is the issue with Dominion, the script feels like an amalgam of characters that needed to be serviced and set-pieces that needed to be shown, but the overall story-line and character development (not that there is much here) is shoved to the side, so at the end the emotional connection to this film - and it’s characters - is negligible.
What little character interest there is here is based solely on the charisma of the actors and they are…good enough. Pratt, of course, is able to carry the center of this flick as Owen Grady - but he doesn’t seem to be occupying the center square with the twinkle in his eye that he had in the first Jurassic World film. Bryce Dallas Howard is plucky enough as Clare, but this actress has been gaining traction lately as a “go-to” Director (like her father, Ron Howard) and that is probably a better career trajectory for her. Sam Neill and Laura Dern are “game enough” in what they are asked to do, but they both look just a bit tired of running around in front of green screen dinosaurs. Only Jeff Goldblum shines as Ian Malcolm and that’s because Trevorrow, wisely, decides to let Goldblum be Goldblum - odd and quirky.
Of the other actors in this film, DeWanda Wise (FATHERHOOD) really shines as a pilot who helps out the gang. On the other hand, Dichen Lachman (SEVERENCE) is completely wasted as a “top-notch” henchman that is pretty inept. However, it was good to see Omar Sy (who was in the first JURASSIC WORLD movie and then became a star thanks to his work on the French TV show LUPINE - which is terrific, by the way) back in the fold as it was good to see Campbell Scott back up on the big screen as the villain of the piece - a role that he brings an interesting twist to but, ultimately, the role leads to nowhere.
And that’s the issue with this film, the characterizations lead to nowhere, for Trevorrow focuses most of his attention on the battle scenes and the scares - and while not all of them are exciting and unusual, I did find myself jumping in my seat on more than one occasion and there is one scene with Bryce Dallas Howard escaping a dino in a swamp that was pretty intense.
Go see JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION if you’ve seen the other 5 - you’ve already invested this much time, you might as well complete the series. But, this film really brings nothing new and is, ultimately, less than what one hopes for in this type of film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
A retro-film (as I’ve been calling these nostalgia-flicks that bring back old actors/characters from previously beloved properties), JURARSSIC WORLD DOMINION is entertaining enough - but the creative brains behind this franchise is just running out of clever ways to put the same group of characters in danger of being eaten by a dinosaur.
Written by Emily Carmichael based on a story by Derek Connolly and Colin Trevorrow and Directed by Trevorrow (returning to helm this franchise after Directing the first Jurassic World flick, but not the 2nd), JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION follows our favorite bickering couple, Clare (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Owen (Chris Pratt) and their pseudo-pet Velociraptor, Blue as they, once again, go into the Jurassic World fighting a money-grubbing Corporate Billionaire who wants the genetic technology for his own, greedy purposes and not what might be for the good of all - the Earth, the Humans and the Dinosaurs. Along the way good ol’ Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Dr. Ian Malcolm (the always quirky Jeff Goldblum) are, somehow, shoe-horned into this story.
And that, ultimately, is the issue with Dominion, the script feels like an amalgam of characters that needed to be serviced and set-pieces that needed to be shown, but the overall story-line and character development (not that there is much here) is shoved to the side, so at the end the emotional connection to this film - and it’s characters - is negligible.
What little character interest there is here is based solely on the charisma of the actors and they are…good enough. Pratt, of course, is able to carry the center of this flick as Owen Grady - but he doesn’t seem to be occupying the center square with the twinkle in his eye that he had in the first Jurassic World film. Bryce Dallas Howard is plucky enough as Clare, but this actress has been gaining traction lately as a “go-to” Director (like her father, Ron Howard) and that is probably a better career trajectory for her. Sam Neill and Laura Dern are “game enough” in what they are asked to do, but they both look just a bit tired of running around in front of green screen dinosaurs. Only Jeff Goldblum shines as Ian Malcolm and that’s because Trevorrow, wisely, decides to let Goldblum be Goldblum - odd and quirky.
Of the other actors in this film, DeWanda Wise (FATHERHOOD) really shines as a pilot who helps out the gang. On the other hand, Dichen Lachman (SEVERENCE) is completely wasted as a “top-notch” henchman that is pretty inept. However, it was good to see Omar Sy (who was in the first JURASSIC WORLD movie and then became a star thanks to his work on the French TV show LUPINE - which is terrific, by the way) back in the fold as it was good to see Campbell Scott back up on the big screen as the villain of the piece - a role that he brings an interesting twist to but, ultimately, the role leads to nowhere.
And that’s the issue with this film, the characterizations lead to nowhere, for Trevorrow focuses most of his attention on the battle scenes and the scares - and while not all of them are exciting and unusual, I did find myself jumping in my seat on more than one occasion and there is one scene with Bryce Dallas Howard escaping a dino in a swamp that was pretty intense.
Go see JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION if you’ve seen the other 5 - you’ve already invested this much time, you might as well complete the series. But, this film really brings nothing new and is, ultimately, less than what one hopes for in this type of film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Ending The Game
Contains spoilers, click to show
Avengers: Endgame - the concluding installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's 'Infinity Saga', has made box office history, breaking a number of records on its' journey (thus far) of becoming the second highest grossing movie ever in a short period of time. Bringing together the story threads of 21 films before it 'Endgame' had a number of hurdles to overcome - not only did the Russo Brothers have to find a satisfying way to reverse the effects of 'The Decimation' (if you have to ask then you're probably reading the wrong review!) but they had to do so in a way that did not lessen the impact of 'Infinity War', whilst bringing to a close a number of character arcs for many well respected and founding members of Marvel's flagship superhero team and setting the course and direction for whatever comes next.
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
It may have been a mistake to see the original animated version before seeing this live-action offering. It's incorrect to say it's a remake, they've taken a 64-minute movie and stripped out the principle idea and made a completely new film that's near two hours long.
I'm going to start with the moaning, but bear with me because it'll get better, I promise.
Let's address the elephant in the room, no not Dumbo, but the fact that they made something live action when it's almost entirely talking animals. (And yes, I'm already concerned for Lion King.) To actually get some human characters in there they've turned it on its head and made the story about the circus and its family. I don't have a problem with them doing this but everything I saw in the run-up to the film made me believe that it was a remake and not an adaptation. Possibly I just got caught up in all the hype of the other remakes Disney are producing. but it did colour my impression.
It's evident that Disney have tried to account for the fact that people won't be getting what they loved so much from the original, everywhere there are nods to the original. All of this is sadly far from that nostalgic fun, instead it felt like a bit of a slap in the face. "Hey look!! Remember this bit?!!" There's a quick nod to the storks, Dumbo getting drunk, and possibly the creepiest of them all, that happy-go-lucky train... you really should have left that one alone.
We're also severely lacking in those wonderful songs. I had heard the Arcade Fire version of Baby Mine in a trailer and it gave me goosebumps, but while it's a lovely scene in the film the song itself doesn't hold nearly enough weight. Disney to me is as much about the music as it is about the story and in this instance they've dropped the ball.
With Tim Burton at the helm it was going to be bleak... but geez! Mum's dead, Dad's missing an arm from war... and that mad elephant scene? "I want to go bigger than spanking an animated child." "I don't think we can have a scene where we spank a child in this day and age." "No, you're right, first thing we're going to need is a coroner." There were a lot of things in this that cut a very fine line, and I think that it's crossed over into a film that isn't really for kids anymore.
Despite these quibbles they've managed to do something magical with Dumbo. All of that magic from the animated version is still there in this little fella. I don't know how you get that much emotion out of something that isn't there, it was wonderful. Dumbo's reactions to feathers throughout, that eyes wide excitement, and when he sees Colette "flying" up to him... honestly, I don't know how to describe it. Hands down my favourite bit has to be the pink elephants bit, Dumbo watching intently and his head bobbing along was so pure.
I still don't know how I feel about the acting in Dumbo, beyond our little pachyderm I was underwhelmed by the whole thing. I wasn't particularly fond of the child characters. They seemed to decide that Milly should be a role model to other little girls, "you can be a scientist", but I don't know that making a role model out of someone who isn't exactly likeable is the way to go with this. They've also given Milly and her brother, Joe, the appointment of elephant trainers, and that frustrated me no end too, but for completely over thought reasons.
Danny Devito was a treat, his character is obviously intended to be dislikeable but is allowed to get some redemption in the end, which was nice to see. His scenes with the monkey were particularly fun.
This review has taken me so long to write, I think that's mainly because I just don't know about these human characters. Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell), V.A. Vandervere (Michae Keaton) and Colette Marchant (Eva Green) all just don't do anything for me... they seem very much like padding for a film that probably shouldn't have been made.
I don't want to run into any major spoilers, but that ending... it needs mentioning... it's ridiculous and clichéd. There was a perfectly good ending point they could have taken but sadly someone made the choice that the "happy ever after" ending needed to be spelt out for everyone.
I am torn about this film. You couldn't have remade the original exactly as it was, mild racism and a drunk minor just aren't going to cut it in a kids film. Potentially there is a new version in there somewhere, but I'm not sure that this dark human heavy one was the way to go.
What you should do
It's the Easter holidays, those kids need to be entertained somehow, Dumbo would not be the worst choice you could make.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I don't think I have room for a baby elephant, so if someone could just cut all the footage of him together and give me a DVD containing all those good feelings that would be great.
I'm going to start with the moaning, but bear with me because it'll get better, I promise.
Let's address the elephant in the room, no not Dumbo, but the fact that they made something live action when it's almost entirely talking animals. (And yes, I'm already concerned for Lion King.) To actually get some human characters in there they've turned it on its head and made the story about the circus and its family. I don't have a problem with them doing this but everything I saw in the run-up to the film made me believe that it was a remake and not an adaptation. Possibly I just got caught up in all the hype of the other remakes Disney are producing. but it did colour my impression.
It's evident that Disney have tried to account for the fact that people won't be getting what they loved so much from the original, everywhere there are nods to the original. All of this is sadly far from that nostalgic fun, instead it felt like a bit of a slap in the face. "Hey look!! Remember this bit?!!" There's a quick nod to the storks, Dumbo getting drunk, and possibly the creepiest of them all, that happy-go-lucky train... you really should have left that one alone.
We're also severely lacking in those wonderful songs. I had heard the Arcade Fire version of Baby Mine in a trailer and it gave me goosebumps, but while it's a lovely scene in the film the song itself doesn't hold nearly enough weight. Disney to me is as much about the music as it is about the story and in this instance they've dropped the ball.
With Tim Burton at the helm it was going to be bleak... but geez! Mum's dead, Dad's missing an arm from war... and that mad elephant scene? "I want to go bigger than spanking an animated child." "I don't think we can have a scene where we spank a child in this day and age." "No, you're right, first thing we're going to need is a coroner." There were a lot of things in this that cut a very fine line, and I think that it's crossed over into a film that isn't really for kids anymore.
Despite these quibbles they've managed to do something magical with Dumbo. All of that magic from the animated version is still there in this little fella. I don't know how you get that much emotion out of something that isn't there, it was wonderful. Dumbo's reactions to feathers throughout, that eyes wide excitement, and when he sees Colette "flying" up to him... honestly, I don't know how to describe it. Hands down my favourite bit has to be the pink elephants bit, Dumbo watching intently and his head bobbing along was so pure.
I still don't know how I feel about the acting in Dumbo, beyond our little pachyderm I was underwhelmed by the whole thing. I wasn't particularly fond of the child characters. They seemed to decide that Milly should be a role model to other little girls, "you can be a scientist", but I don't know that making a role model out of someone who isn't exactly likeable is the way to go with this. They've also given Milly and her brother, Joe, the appointment of elephant trainers, and that frustrated me no end too, but for completely over thought reasons.
Danny Devito was a treat, his character is obviously intended to be dislikeable but is allowed to get some redemption in the end, which was nice to see. His scenes with the monkey were particularly fun.
This review has taken me so long to write, I think that's mainly because I just don't know about these human characters. Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell), V.A. Vandervere (Michae Keaton) and Colette Marchant (Eva Green) all just don't do anything for me... they seem very much like padding for a film that probably shouldn't have been made.
I don't want to run into any major spoilers, but that ending... it needs mentioning... it's ridiculous and clichéd. There was a perfectly good ending point they could have taken but sadly someone made the choice that the "happy ever after" ending needed to be spelt out for everyone.
I am torn about this film. You couldn't have remade the original exactly as it was, mild racism and a drunk minor just aren't going to cut it in a kids film. Potentially there is a new version in there somewhere, but I'm not sure that this dark human heavy one was the way to go.
What you should do
It's the Easter holidays, those kids need to be entertained somehow, Dumbo would not be the worst choice you could make.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I don't think I have room for a baby elephant, so if someone could just cut all the footage of him together and give me a DVD containing all those good feelings that would be great.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Going Down in Flames (Going Down in Flames, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
For once, I think my instincts were right (not that I ever listen) about Going Down in Flames. I was expecting a lot more.
The idea and the concept were unique and interesting. Shape-shifting dragons? Check. Oddball at a prestigious boarding school Bryn is being sent to on her sixteenth birthday? Check. Proof that the Directorate isn't always right? Check. TRYING to stay alive? Ooo, interesting. Check! All the ingredients of a great book. I was even so excited about DRAGONS!
<img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cuqBh1sDPEY/U6NzNu6g3hI/AAAAAAAADhs/Pb2oaXOydkQ/s1600/how_to_train_your_dragon_2_gif_by_thegrzebol-d6wlb2k.gif"; height="106" width="320">
Plus, the pretty cover and the tag line: If her love life is going down in flames, she might as well spark a revolution.
WHAT REVOLUTION?!?!?! is my biggest question right at this very moment. There's no revolution, not really. At least, not one that Bryn starts. That revolution, which is apparently peaceful and started by Zavien-Not-Zayn, was there well before Bryn comes around. She doesn't even know about that revolution or even the fact that she's a dragon until said dude starts stalking her for awhile.
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-98SDXmeq-i8/U6Nzpun3IGI/AAAAAAAADh0/d0iqv6tv0OU/s1600/giphy.gif"; height="175" width="320">
So I'm really curious as to the definition of revolution here. Because in the long run, it's all sparkly rainbows and unicorns with the abrupt end. The last sentence? Damn Directorate. If anything, damning the Directorate shows there hasn't been a revolution. Sure, Bryn makes her point. She's a crossbreed and she's just like any other dragon. She made a change. To have a love life, that is, but it's not like she gets to choose. I mean, her grandmother and the mom of the dude she hates most attempts at playing matchmaker. Arranged marriage still exists.
*sighs* Not a dramatic change if you ask me. A change for future crossbreeds, sure. Certainly the Directorate wasn't overthrown.
<img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1ffyT3n870o/U6N0wvDSjhI/AAAAAAAADiA/3S69yaZT8RM/s1600/giphy+(2).gif"; height="176" width="320">
Perhaps the most interesting part of Going Down in Flames for me were the death threats. The way they're written and set up. They're thrown in at surprising, yet right times. Oh, and there's no warning on those attempts. It kept me at the edge of my seat trying to guess where the next attack would be at.
There also seems to be something missing from the characters. Particularly with Jaxon and Bryn. They hate each other and then all of a sudden, he starts helping her. Not just to save his reputation, but to protect her. There is something remotely wrong with a character who hates you from the bottom of their hearts to "protecting you." O_o
<blockquote>Jaxon: I also did it to help you.
Bryn: I saved your life. Dont get snippy with me.
Jaxon: *slams coffee cup down* I came to secure protection for your life.</blockquote>
Tell me there isn't something wrong with that. O_o Because it ends shortly after, and now I can't really decide if Bryn gets stuck marrying Jaxon due to arranged marriage or she gets to choose who she wants to marry. If there are any other life threatening stuff going on afterward or the dragons that used to hate her now treat her as an equal. If her mother actually gets a happy reunion with her parents. If Zavien is still stuck with his intended or if he and the Revisionists peacefully achieve more individual rights for dragons.
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-v3e-NYdq7P8/U6N2FJxKKNI/AAAAAAAADiM/7xswneekUqs/s1600/giphy+(3).gif"; height="239" width="320">
There are just so many questions that aren't answered yet, that this feels like an entire end is missing and Going Down in Flames is the very first of a trilogy or series. Yet... this is a stand alone... according to Goodreads. Am I missing something, or did anyone else who read this feel the same way?
--------------------------
Advanced copy provided by the publisher
Original Rating: 2.5
This review and more found over at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/06/arc-review-going-down-in-flames-by-chris-cannon.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gi5Rk5yLloA/UtliaUbdL3I/AAAAAAAACbE/J27z92_qrYU/s1600/Official+Banner.png"; /></a>
The idea and the concept were unique and interesting. Shape-shifting dragons? Check. Oddball at a prestigious boarding school Bryn is being sent to on her sixteenth birthday? Check. Proof that the Directorate isn't always right? Check. TRYING to stay alive? Ooo, interesting. Check! All the ingredients of a great book. I was even so excited about DRAGONS!
<img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cuqBh1sDPEY/U6NzNu6g3hI/AAAAAAAADhs/Pb2oaXOydkQ/s1600/how_to_train_your_dragon_2_gif_by_thegrzebol-d6wlb2k.gif"; height="106" width="320">
Plus, the pretty cover and the tag line: If her love life is going down in flames, she might as well spark a revolution.
WHAT REVOLUTION?!?!?! is my biggest question right at this very moment. There's no revolution, not really. At least, not one that Bryn starts. That revolution, which is apparently peaceful and started by Zavien-Not-Zayn, was there well before Bryn comes around. She doesn't even know about that revolution or even the fact that she's a dragon until said dude starts stalking her for awhile.
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-98SDXmeq-i8/U6Nzpun3IGI/AAAAAAAADh0/d0iqv6tv0OU/s1600/giphy.gif"; height="175" width="320">
So I'm really curious as to the definition of revolution here. Because in the long run, it's all sparkly rainbows and unicorns with the abrupt end. The last sentence? Damn Directorate. If anything, damning the Directorate shows there hasn't been a revolution. Sure, Bryn makes her point. She's a crossbreed and she's just like any other dragon. She made a change. To have a love life, that is, but it's not like she gets to choose. I mean, her grandmother and the mom of the dude she hates most attempts at playing matchmaker. Arranged marriage still exists.
*sighs* Not a dramatic change if you ask me. A change for future crossbreeds, sure. Certainly the Directorate wasn't overthrown.
<img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1ffyT3n870o/U6N0wvDSjhI/AAAAAAAADiA/3S69yaZT8RM/s1600/giphy+(2).gif"; height="176" width="320">
Perhaps the most interesting part of Going Down in Flames for me were the death threats. The way they're written and set up. They're thrown in at surprising, yet right times. Oh, and there's no warning on those attempts. It kept me at the edge of my seat trying to guess where the next attack would be at.
There also seems to be something missing from the characters. Particularly with Jaxon and Bryn. They hate each other and then all of a sudden, he starts helping her. Not just to save his reputation, but to protect her. There is something remotely wrong with a character who hates you from the bottom of their hearts to "protecting you." O_o
<blockquote>Jaxon: I also did it to help you.
Bryn: I saved your life. Dont get snippy with me.
Jaxon: *slams coffee cup down* I came to secure protection for your life.</blockquote>
Tell me there isn't something wrong with that. O_o Because it ends shortly after, and now I can't really decide if Bryn gets stuck marrying Jaxon due to arranged marriage or she gets to choose who she wants to marry. If there are any other life threatening stuff going on afterward or the dragons that used to hate her now treat her as an equal. If her mother actually gets a happy reunion with her parents. If Zavien is still stuck with his intended or if he and the Revisionists peacefully achieve more individual rights for dragons.
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-v3e-NYdq7P8/U6N2FJxKKNI/AAAAAAAADiM/7xswneekUqs/s1600/giphy+(3).gif"; height="239" width="320">
There are just so many questions that aren't answered yet, that this feels like an entire end is missing and Going Down in Flames is the very first of a trilogy or series. Yet... this is a stand alone... according to Goodreads. Am I missing something, or did anyone else who read this feel the same way?
--------------------------
Advanced copy provided by the publisher
Original Rating: 2.5
This review and more found over at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/06/arc-review-going-down-in-flames-by-chris-cannon.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gi5Rk5yLloA/UtliaUbdL3I/AAAAAAAACbE/J27z92_qrYU/s1600/Official+Banner.png"; /></a>
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Karma (2021) in Movies
Sep 6, 2021
Neat idea for a movie (1 more)
Samantha Belle
Script is rambling and needs much tightening up (1 more)
Acting is often sub-par
You’ve got to admire the effort here.
Positives:
- There’s a quirky joy behind the story and it did keep me watching until the end to find out how it turned out.
- I enjoyed Samantha Belle’s performance. Whilst she has a few rough acting edges, she channelled a sort of cross between Ally Sheedy and Geena Davis that was cute. Elsewhere in the cast, Karl Haas (as Harry, the homeless guy) and Keegan Luther as the luckless Emilio gave, for me, the most naturalistic (and therefore best) performances.
- There’s an ending that, while feeling inconclusive and circuitous, did at least leave me with a smile on my face. (I hope permission was gained for the use of the name in the end titles!).
Negatives:
- If you watch, for example, “The Father” you quickly appreciate that the reason Anthony Hopkins and Olivia Colman are so GREAT in the movie is you NEVER get the feeling that they are acting. Unfortunately, in “Instant Karma”, while I appreciate that all of the cast are giving of their best, almost EVERYONE appears to be acting. While it’s seldom ‘hold your head in your hands’ terrible, the chasm of skill between this cast and the top-flight is vast. - - The script doesn’t help this by introducing a torrent of different ‘rider’ cast, many of whom should never have been put in front of a camera to deliver lines.
- While the story has potential, the script rambles around and never quite decides what genre it’s going for. Drama? It’s not dramatic enough. Thriller? It tries to go that way in the final reel, but never convincingly (and WHATEVER HAPPENED TO POOR EMILIO????). Comedy? Humourous at times maybe, but never laugh-out-loud funny. (It actually might have made a pretty good comedy – a variant on the “Do you think I asked for a million ducks?” bar joke! This idea (C) Bob Mann 2021!).
- The script is also incomplete and tonally inconsistent. There are sub-plots (e.g. Emilio’s request for the money) that are never fleshed out. And Samantha seems to veer from excitable and supportive sexy wife to full-on psycho-bitch-marital-nightmare from scene to scene.
- When you’ve got a loose script, and a cast with limited experience, don’t over-egg the pudding! The movie is 115 minutes long: I would personally have gone to town in the editing room and got it down to sub-90 minutes. The overall concoction would have been much better. As it is, we have far too many instances of “Karma” in the first half of the film and some ‘filler’ scenes that go on and on (and on and on) without adding anything to the story. For example, there is a ‘spending spree’ montage that, while very nicely put together, goes on for almost two whole minutes. Chop, chop, chop!
- Technically, the sound needs more work. There’s a lot of noise on the soundtrack and some poorly mixed music cues. Lighting inside the car was also an issue in some scenes.
Summary Thoughts on “Instant Karma”: I enjoyed watching this one more than my long list of “suggested improvements” might suggest.
I remain in awe of a team, with a limited budget, being able to project manage a movie like this to completion. And especially since this was filmed during the pandemic and in the searing heat of an Arizona summer, with the temperature rising to 117 degrees. As such, I hate to fire as many negatives at the film as I have, but I have to review things on a level playing field. With so many rough edges, I can’t give it a better rating than I have, but it gets an A+ for effort, and it’s far from being the worst film I’ve seen so far in 2021.
(For the full graphical review, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks)
- There’s a quirky joy behind the story and it did keep me watching until the end to find out how it turned out.
- I enjoyed Samantha Belle’s performance. Whilst she has a few rough acting edges, she channelled a sort of cross between Ally Sheedy and Geena Davis that was cute. Elsewhere in the cast, Karl Haas (as Harry, the homeless guy) and Keegan Luther as the luckless Emilio gave, for me, the most naturalistic (and therefore best) performances.
- There’s an ending that, while feeling inconclusive and circuitous, did at least leave me with a smile on my face. (I hope permission was gained for the use of the name in the end titles!).
Negatives:
- If you watch, for example, “The Father” you quickly appreciate that the reason Anthony Hopkins and Olivia Colman are so GREAT in the movie is you NEVER get the feeling that they are acting. Unfortunately, in “Instant Karma”, while I appreciate that all of the cast are giving of their best, almost EVERYONE appears to be acting. While it’s seldom ‘hold your head in your hands’ terrible, the chasm of skill between this cast and the top-flight is vast. - - The script doesn’t help this by introducing a torrent of different ‘rider’ cast, many of whom should never have been put in front of a camera to deliver lines.
- While the story has potential, the script rambles around and never quite decides what genre it’s going for. Drama? It’s not dramatic enough. Thriller? It tries to go that way in the final reel, but never convincingly (and WHATEVER HAPPENED TO POOR EMILIO????). Comedy? Humourous at times maybe, but never laugh-out-loud funny. (It actually might have made a pretty good comedy – a variant on the “Do you think I asked for a million ducks?” bar joke! This idea (C) Bob Mann 2021!).
- The script is also incomplete and tonally inconsistent. There are sub-plots (e.g. Emilio’s request for the money) that are never fleshed out. And Samantha seems to veer from excitable and supportive sexy wife to full-on psycho-bitch-marital-nightmare from scene to scene.
- When you’ve got a loose script, and a cast with limited experience, don’t over-egg the pudding! The movie is 115 minutes long: I would personally have gone to town in the editing room and got it down to sub-90 minutes. The overall concoction would have been much better. As it is, we have far too many instances of “Karma” in the first half of the film and some ‘filler’ scenes that go on and on (and on and on) without adding anything to the story. For example, there is a ‘spending spree’ montage that, while very nicely put together, goes on for almost two whole minutes. Chop, chop, chop!
- Technically, the sound needs more work. There’s a lot of noise on the soundtrack and some poorly mixed music cues. Lighting inside the car was also an issue in some scenes.
Summary Thoughts on “Instant Karma”: I enjoyed watching this one more than my long list of “suggested improvements” might suggest.
I remain in awe of a team, with a limited budget, being able to project manage a movie like this to completion. And especially since this was filmed during the pandemic and in the searing heat of an Arizona summer, with the temperature rising to 117 degrees. As such, I hate to fire as many negatives at the film as I have, but I have to review things on a level playing field. With so many rough edges, I can’t give it a better rating than I have, but it gets an A+ for effort, and it’s far from being the worst film I’ve seen so far in 2021.
(For the full graphical review, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Cloverfield (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Shrouded in mystery and riding a wave of fan hype, “Cloverfield” has at last arrived in theaters and delivers the goods. The film is produced by J.J. Abrams who is the mastermind behind “LOST”, “Alias”, “Mission Impossible 3”, and the next “Star Trek Film”. With a pedigree like this, it is clear that Abrams has a clear understanding of what fans want in their action/fantasy and he supplies it in droves.
The film cleverly tells the story through footage from a video camera that has been recovered in what used to be Central Park. The audience informed of this in the opening scenes when a series of coded missives against a Government warning indicates that this footage is now classified.
The footage in the camera is footage of a group of friends preparing a surprise party for their friend Rob (Michael Stahl-David), who is about to go to Japan as part of his new job as a V.P. of his company. The fact that such a young man has raised to such a prestigious position shows that Rob is clearly a motivated young man with a future, and based on the large turnout at his party, a very popular one at that.
Through footage that has been recorded over and pops up occasionally in the film, we learn that Rob and his friend Beth (Odette Yustman) had a recent physical relationship that has caused issues between them due to Rob’s pending departure for Japan. This becomes heated at the party, as amongst the throngs of well wishers, Rob and Beth have a fight that ends with Beth leaving and Rob verbally lashing out at her.
As his brother Jason (Mike Vogel), and best friend Hud (T.J. Miller), try to console Rob, the party is wracked by a sever jolt, that startles everyone in attendance. Thinking it is an earthquake, the guests are informed via television that there has been a platform overturned in the harbor, and before the guests know what hit them, there is an explosion followed by the head of the Statue of Liberty hurling through the streets.
Horrified by the noise and destruction about them, many of the guests as well as the local populace seek to exit the city, and make their way toward bridges out of Manhattan. Things go from bad to worse, and Rob, Hud, Jason, and their friends soon find themselves trapped.
Wracked by guilt over his conversation with Beth, Rob is surprised when she calls him saying that she is injured and trapped, which forces Rob to make a decision, as he and his friends, race back towards the carnage, in an effort to save Beth instead of seeking the safety before them.
Thus the stage is set for one of the more entertaining films of this genre in recent memory. The film moves along briskly, as with a running time of an hour and ten minutes, never becomes dull or overstays its welcome.
The action is intense as Rob and his friends are faced with a world gone mad, as what was once thought to be a terrorist attack goes madly astray when they see a giant creature wrecking havoc on Manhattan despite the best efforts of the military.
The intense action combined with the constant unknown as well as the suspense of the situation helps place the audience into the shoes of the characters, who unlike most genre films, come across as very real characters, despite little attention to their histories. This works very well, as we know what we need to about them as they are clearly close friends who when faced in an amazing situation, support and listen to each other without turning on one another.
Some may question the lack of answers in the film as many of the who, what, when, and why’s of the situation are not clearly explained, but the film works this in, as the audience learns and sees, only what the group of ordinary people see as they flee the streets. Since they are not high ranking military or government types, they are not given the answer, nor do they become fixated on finding them, as they are simply trying to survive.
Since the film is shot from a video camera, there are many scenes that are very herky-jerky, and some people exiting our screener mentioned that they were a bit dizzy from all of the motion. While it was at times difficult, it was also very realistic, and added to the immersion process, as you at times truly felt like you were right at Rob’s side with his friends. I did have to question how the camera, which was on constantly during the ordeal, never lost charge or needed to have the battery replaced, but in fantasy, suspension of belief is often a key criteria to propel the plot.
Much has been speculated as to the creature that is key to the plot of the film as very fan sites have run wild with speculation and claims to have the inside story. While I will not ruin the surprise, I will say that it turns out to be highly effective and engaging, and only adds to the mystery and horror of the situation. Once again, Abrams and company are to be applauded for taking an old formula of a creature on the loose in a large city, and making it fresh and invigorating.
“Cloverfield” is a solid and highly entertaining film, that would stand up with any of the past summer blockbusters and was a very welcome and refreshing way to kick off the 08 movie year, and a nice change from the comedies and dramas that usually dominate theaters this time of year.
The film cleverly tells the story through footage from a video camera that has been recovered in what used to be Central Park. The audience informed of this in the opening scenes when a series of coded missives against a Government warning indicates that this footage is now classified.
The footage in the camera is footage of a group of friends preparing a surprise party for their friend Rob (Michael Stahl-David), who is about to go to Japan as part of his new job as a V.P. of his company. The fact that such a young man has raised to such a prestigious position shows that Rob is clearly a motivated young man with a future, and based on the large turnout at his party, a very popular one at that.
Through footage that has been recorded over and pops up occasionally in the film, we learn that Rob and his friend Beth (Odette Yustman) had a recent physical relationship that has caused issues between them due to Rob’s pending departure for Japan. This becomes heated at the party, as amongst the throngs of well wishers, Rob and Beth have a fight that ends with Beth leaving and Rob verbally lashing out at her.
As his brother Jason (Mike Vogel), and best friend Hud (T.J. Miller), try to console Rob, the party is wracked by a sever jolt, that startles everyone in attendance. Thinking it is an earthquake, the guests are informed via television that there has been a platform overturned in the harbor, and before the guests know what hit them, there is an explosion followed by the head of the Statue of Liberty hurling through the streets.
Horrified by the noise and destruction about them, many of the guests as well as the local populace seek to exit the city, and make their way toward bridges out of Manhattan. Things go from bad to worse, and Rob, Hud, Jason, and their friends soon find themselves trapped.
Wracked by guilt over his conversation with Beth, Rob is surprised when she calls him saying that she is injured and trapped, which forces Rob to make a decision, as he and his friends, race back towards the carnage, in an effort to save Beth instead of seeking the safety before them.
Thus the stage is set for one of the more entertaining films of this genre in recent memory. The film moves along briskly, as with a running time of an hour and ten minutes, never becomes dull or overstays its welcome.
The action is intense as Rob and his friends are faced with a world gone mad, as what was once thought to be a terrorist attack goes madly astray when they see a giant creature wrecking havoc on Manhattan despite the best efforts of the military.
The intense action combined with the constant unknown as well as the suspense of the situation helps place the audience into the shoes of the characters, who unlike most genre films, come across as very real characters, despite little attention to their histories. This works very well, as we know what we need to about them as they are clearly close friends who when faced in an amazing situation, support and listen to each other without turning on one another.
Some may question the lack of answers in the film as many of the who, what, when, and why’s of the situation are not clearly explained, but the film works this in, as the audience learns and sees, only what the group of ordinary people see as they flee the streets. Since they are not high ranking military or government types, they are not given the answer, nor do they become fixated on finding them, as they are simply trying to survive.
Since the film is shot from a video camera, there are many scenes that are very herky-jerky, and some people exiting our screener mentioned that they were a bit dizzy from all of the motion. While it was at times difficult, it was also very realistic, and added to the immersion process, as you at times truly felt like you were right at Rob’s side with his friends. I did have to question how the camera, which was on constantly during the ordeal, never lost charge or needed to have the battery replaced, but in fantasy, suspension of belief is often a key criteria to propel the plot.
Much has been speculated as to the creature that is key to the plot of the film as very fan sites have run wild with speculation and claims to have the inside story. While I will not ruin the surprise, I will say that it turns out to be highly effective and engaging, and only adds to the mystery and horror of the situation. Once again, Abrams and company are to be applauded for taking an old formula of a creature on the loose in a large city, and making it fresh and invigorating.
“Cloverfield” is a solid and highly entertaining film, that would stand up with any of the past summer blockbusters and was a very welcome and refreshing way to kick off the 08 movie year, and a nice change from the comedies and dramas that usually dominate theaters this time of year.