Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Jan 19, 2020
Well Acted Scenes Do Not A Good Movie Make
Noah Baumbach is one of those filmmakers that is highly regarded in the "Art House" community for his semi-autobiographical humanistic films. These are domestic dramas heavy on dialogue - the type of film that "A-List" Actors swarm to perform in for the acting challenges it brings. His latest, MARRIAGE STORY, is no exception as it follows the dissolution of a marriage and the struggles of the 2 main players involved. The husband and wife are written realistically (according to Baumbach) with moments of pathos and moments of repulsion thrown in at equal measure.
So, naturally, Baumbach (THE SQUID AND THE WHALE) was able to draw 2 of the better performers working in film today to play the leads - Scarlett Johannson and Adam Driver - and they deliver the goods (along with Laura Dern) - all 3 were deserved Oscar nominees - and the performances of ALL of the actors on screen are worth watching.
But...that's about all this film has going for it. For I found the first hour and a half of this film tedious with (at times) preposterous dialogue that looked good on paper - and was enthusiastically performed - but wrang (at least to me) as unrealistic. Consequently, this film is filled with well acted scenes that I kept saying to myself - "that was a well acted scene and that was an interesting choice that that actor made in that scene", but I found that these disparate scenes in this part of the film did not hold together as a movie. It seemed to me a series of acting class scenes and not a film.
And, for that, I blame Writer/Director Baumbach. This film, purportedly, parallels his divorce from actress Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8) and it shows. It's a little too "on the nose" and "inside baseball" for my tastes. The dialogue, at times, was "too cute" and the pacing was deliberate - which is a nice way of saying "slow".
What saves this film is the performances. Johannson dominates the first part of this film and she brings her "A" game, bringing a strength and awakening purpose to her character that will have you rooting for her - at the beginning. The first half of the film (for the most part) is Johannson's film and is what gives her her Oscar nomination (she won't win), but she deserves the nomination.
Laura Dern is also Oscar nominated for her role as Johannson's Divorce Attorney. Bright, funny, articulate and a shark in the courtroom and boardroom, Dern's character was fascinating to watch onscreen. While I thought this performance was "fine" and I was "okay" with it getting an Oscar nomination, I kept waiting for the "Oscar scene" for this supporting character - and about 2/3 of the way into the film this character had that moment - and Dern killed it. I would now say Dern is the deserved frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress (ironically, over Johansson who is ALSO nominated for Supporting Actress for JoJo Rabbit).
This scene propels the last 1/3 of this film into interesting territory - a place that this film had not gone to thus far. I was sucked into this last part and I think it is in no small reason due to the fact that this part of the film is driven (no pun intended) by Adam Driver's character. I've always found Driver to be a fascinating actor and while his character was not front and center much in the first part of the film, he commands center stage in the last part and I could not take my eyes off of his powerful performance. In a strong year of Best Acting performances, he shines and I would be happily surprised and satisfied if he won the Best Actor Oscar.
Alan Alda, as usual, brings an interesting character to the screen as does Julie Hagerty (remember her from AIRPLANE?) as Scarlett's mother. The surprise to me was the strong play of Ray Liotta as one of Driver's lawyers - it is his best work in quite some time and shows he does have some acting chops. Finally, good ol' Wallace Shawn (the "inconceivable" Count Visini in PRINCESS BRIDE) was fun - and annoying - in his scenes.
So...if you want to see some good acting in scenes that I am sure will end up as good scenes in an acting class performed very strongly, then check out MARRIAGE STORY. Just make sure you are well rested. A fast-paced romp it is not.
Letter Grade: B (for the strong performances)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So, naturally, Baumbach (THE SQUID AND THE WHALE) was able to draw 2 of the better performers working in film today to play the leads - Scarlett Johannson and Adam Driver - and they deliver the goods (along with Laura Dern) - all 3 were deserved Oscar nominees - and the performances of ALL of the actors on screen are worth watching.
But...that's about all this film has going for it. For I found the first hour and a half of this film tedious with (at times) preposterous dialogue that looked good on paper - and was enthusiastically performed - but wrang (at least to me) as unrealistic. Consequently, this film is filled with well acted scenes that I kept saying to myself - "that was a well acted scene and that was an interesting choice that that actor made in that scene", but I found that these disparate scenes in this part of the film did not hold together as a movie. It seemed to me a series of acting class scenes and not a film.
And, for that, I blame Writer/Director Baumbach. This film, purportedly, parallels his divorce from actress Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8) and it shows. It's a little too "on the nose" and "inside baseball" for my tastes. The dialogue, at times, was "too cute" and the pacing was deliberate - which is a nice way of saying "slow".
What saves this film is the performances. Johannson dominates the first part of this film and she brings her "A" game, bringing a strength and awakening purpose to her character that will have you rooting for her - at the beginning. The first half of the film (for the most part) is Johannson's film and is what gives her her Oscar nomination (she won't win), but she deserves the nomination.
Laura Dern is also Oscar nominated for her role as Johannson's Divorce Attorney. Bright, funny, articulate and a shark in the courtroom and boardroom, Dern's character was fascinating to watch onscreen. While I thought this performance was "fine" and I was "okay" with it getting an Oscar nomination, I kept waiting for the "Oscar scene" for this supporting character - and about 2/3 of the way into the film this character had that moment - and Dern killed it. I would now say Dern is the deserved frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress (ironically, over Johansson who is ALSO nominated for Supporting Actress for JoJo Rabbit).
This scene propels the last 1/3 of this film into interesting territory - a place that this film had not gone to thus far. I was sucked into this last part and I think it is in no small reason due to the fact that this part of the film is driven (no pun intended) by Adam Driver's character. I've always found Driver to be a fascinating actor and while his character was not front and center much in the first part of the film, he commands center stage in the last part and I could not take my eyes off of his powerful performance. In a strong year of Best Acting performances, he shines and I would be happily surprised and satisfied if he won the Best Actor Oscar.
Alan Alda, as usual, brings an interesting character to the screen as does Julie Hagerty (remember her from AIRPLANE?) as Scarlett's mother. The surprise to me was the strong play of Ray Liotta as one of Driver's lawyers - it is his best work in quite some time and shows he does have some acting chops. Finally, good ol' Wallace Shawn (the "inconceivable" Count Visini in PRINCESS BRIDE) was fun - and annoying - in his scenes.
So...if you want to see some good acting in scenes that I am sure will end up as good scenes in an acting class performed very strongly, then check out MARRIAGE STORY. Just make sure you are well rested. A fast-paced romp it is not.
Letter Grade: B (for the strong performances)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Upside (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Not the 5* French classic, but a fun and moving movie nonetheless.
So, the movie-going audience for this film will divide into two categories:
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Star Is Born (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Dullsville Arizona.
It’s unusual for the illustrious Mrs. Movie-Man and I to disagree over our opinion of a movie. Sure, she doesn’t like some genres like horror and sci-fi that I do, and I will often go to them alone. But in the main if we sit there together then we tend to have the same general view as to whether we liked it or not. (I guess that’s why we’ve been such a good match for nearly 40 years!). Not so though with this film.
The story has been filmed three times before: in 1937 (with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March); 1954 (with Judy Garland and James Mason) and 1976 (with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson). In all of these films the story has been the same: an alcoholic and over-the-hill actor (or with Kris Kristofferson, rock star) finds a young talented ingenue to love and develop into a superstar.
The modern day remake is a little different in that Jackson Maine, our older star (now played by Bradley Cooper), is a stadium-filling mega-rock-star, recognised and idolised in every bar he goes into…. and he frequents a LOT of bars. Maine mixes the cocktail with drugs in this version meaning that as one star is ascending, his seems destined to be heading into a black hole.
At its heart, this is a good story of having self-confidence in your own abilities, no matter how people around you try to put you down. Gaga’s Ally is one such person; a waitress who is constantly being told, especially by her blue-collar dad and his boozy friends, that although she has a great voice she’s “never going to make it” because of the way she looks. In chilled fashion she meets Jackson Maine, who hears her sing and thinks she might be on the edge of glory. Not worried about her big nose, he appreciates she was born that way: in fact he likes her so much he wants to poke her face. (Sorry… couldn’t resist it).
I appreciate from the IMDB rating that I am probably in a minority here. (At the time of writing this – pre-general release – it is a ridiculously high – and I suspect artificially pumped up – 8.8). But for me, I found the whole thing a dull affair. I can’t remember the last time I went to a film when I actively looked at my watch… but 1 hour 45 into this, I did (it had another 30 minutes to run).
For one thing, I just didn’t believe Bradley Cooper as the rock star character. He just came across as totally false and unbelievable to me. I had more resonance with Gaga’s Ally. Even though she is a novice actor (and it showed at times) in general I thought she did a creditable job. But given these two factors together, there are long and indulgent exchanges between the pair that seemed to me to go on in–ter–min–ably. Best actor in the film for me was Sam Elliott as Jackson’s brother Bobby. The mellowing of the brothers is a scene that I found genuinely touching.
I’d also like a glance at the original script, since there are some passages (the “boyfriend/husband” lines is a case in point) where it felt like one of them made an script mistake and, instead of Cooper (as director) shouting “cut”, they kept it going as some sort of half-arsed improv.
What is impressive is that they got to film at live concerts (including at Glastonbury), although most of this footage is of the hand-held nausea-inducing variety. There is zero doubt that Gaga can belt out a song better than anyone. But I didn’t get that same feeling about Bradley Cooper’s singing: like a lot of this film (with Cooper as co-producer, co-screenwriter AND director) it felt to me like a self-indulgent piece of casting.
I know music is extremely subjective, and “country” isnt really my think anyway. But the songs by Gaga and Lukas Nelson were – “Shallow” aside – for me rather forgetable.
Overall, in a couple of years that have brought us some great musicals – “La La Land“; “Sing Street“; “The Greatest Showman” – here’s a film about the music industry that did nothing for me I’m afraid.
But with my new user-rating system (this is the first post on the new web site) you have a chance to have YOUR say, so vote away!
The story has been filmed three times before: in 1937 (with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March); 1954 (with Judy Garland and James Mason) and 1976 (with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson). In all of these films the story has been the same: an alcoholic and over-the-hill actor (or with Kris Kristofferson, rock star) finds a young talented ingenue to love and develop into a superstar.
The modern day remake is a little different in that Jackson Maine, our older star (now played by Bradley Cooper), is a stadium-filling mega-rock-star, recognised and idolised in every bar he goes into…. and he frequents a LOT of bars. Maine mixes the cocktail with drugs in this version meaning that as one star is ascending, his seems destined to be heading into a black hole.
At its heart, this is a good story of having self-confidence in your own abilities, no matter how people around you try to put you down. Gaga’s Ally is one such person; a waitress who is constantly being told, especially by her blue-collar dad and his boozy friends, that although she has a great voice she’s “never going to make it” because of the way she looks. In chilled fashion she meets Jackson Maine, who hears her sing and thinks she might be on the edge of glory. Not worried about her big nose, he appreciates she was born that way: in fact he likes her so much he wants to poke her face. (Sorry… couldn’t resist it).
I appreciate from the IMDB rating that I am probably in a minority here. (At the time of writing this – pre-general release – it is a ridiculously high – and I suspect artificially pumped up – 8.8). But for me, I found the whole thing a dull affair. I can’t remember the last time I went to a film when I actively looked at my watch… but 1 hour 45 into this, I did (it had another 30 minutes to run).
For one thing, I just didn’t believe Bradley Cooper as the rock star character. He just came across as totally false and unbelievable to me. I had more resonance with Gaga’s Ally. Even though she is a novice actor (and it showed at times) in general I thought she did a creditable job. But given these two factors together, there are long and indulgent exchanges between the pair that seemed to me to go on in–ter–min–ably. Best actor in the film for me was Sam Elliott as Jackson’s brother Bobby. The mellowing of the brothers is a scene that I found genuinely touching.
I’d also like a glance at the original script, since there are some passages (the “boyfriend/husband” lines is a case in point) where it felt like one of them made an script mistake and, instead of Cooper (as director) shouting “cut”, they kept it going as some sort of half-arsed improv.
What is impressive is that they got to film at live concerts (including at Glastonbury), although most of this footage is of the hand-held nausea-inducing variety. There is zero doubt that Gaga can belt out a song better than anyone. But I didn’t get that same feeling about Bradley Cooper’s singing: like a lot of this film (with Cooper as co-producer, co-screenwriter AND director) it felt to me like a self-indulgent piece of casting.
I know music is extremely subjective, and “country” isnt really my think anyway. But the songs by Gaga and Lukas Nelson were – “Shallow” aside – for me rather forgetable.
Overall, in a couple of years that have brought us some great musicals – “La La Land“; “Sing Street“; “The Greatest Showman” – here’s a film about the music industry that did nothing for me I’m afraid.
But with my new user-rating system (this is the first post on the new web site) you have a chance to have YOUR say, so vote away!
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Who’s That Girl? in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Edie's life is going along just fine, she supposes. Until the fateful day of Jack and Charlotte's wedding, when everything changes. Edie is caught in a particular transgression with the groom, Jack, and immediately everyone blames her, without knowing the full story. Since Jack, Charlotte, and Edie work together, Edie finds life at work unbearable and winds up taking an assignment from her boss in Nottingham, her hometown. There she meets famous actor (think "Game of Thrones" famous) Elliot Owen, for whom Edie must ghost write his autobiography. But things only seem to go from bad to worse, as Elliot seems a pompous, self-absorbed actor and Edie's sister and father don't exactly seem thrilled she's living back home again. Not to mention she can't show her face on social media (or in public) due to Charlotte's revengeful friends, who all hate her... will things ever go right for Edie again?
I admit that I really didn't really know (remember?) the genre of this novel when I picked it up. It's a bit confusing at first, though certainly has its charming moments, especially as a romance.
<i>"Do we ever choose who we fall for? Edie has many a long lonely evening in with only Netflix for company to contemplate that one."</I>
Edie's quest for love is just one of the book's central themes. In many ways, she's on a journey to find herself, and only in doing so, can find love. The novel switches between the present tense (starting with the wedding) and also gives us a little of the past in some places. My biggest beef was how the adults in this book acted like bullying schoolchildren. So, Edie's transgression is really so bad that she's completely ostracized and the subject of intense in-life and cyber shaming and scrutiny? It seems like high school gone really wrong. Her "friend" Louis is just awful; are people really like this?! It's a commentary on social media and cyber bullying, perhaps, but also just terrible and hard to believe at times. These are grown adults! I found myself a little too appalled and couldn't believe grown people would act this way. It's really sad if they do, honestly...
However, once you get further past the wedding day and more into Nottingham, the novel picks up. Edie isn't always the most enjoyable of characters, but I did like her, as I liked Elliot. Parts of the book are just downright funny; I actually found myself laughing out loud. Edie's friends from school are particularly hilarious and a good fit for her. Her boss, too, even if he falls a bit on the dramatic side.
Just when it all seemed normal, it did get a little preposterous again, but hey, that can come with a good romance at times. Overall, while I found some of the characters and plot points frustrating on this one, much of it was balanced out by the charm and humor of the novel. 3.5 stars.
I received an ARC of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss (thank you!).
I admit that I really didn't really know (remember?) the genre of this novel when I picked it up. It's a bit confusing at first, though certainly has its charming moments, especially as a romance.
<i>"Do we ever choose who we fall for? Edie has many a long lonely evening in with only Netflix for company to contemplate that one."</I>
Edie's quest for love is just one of the book's central themes. In many ways, she's on a journey to find herself, and only in doing so, can find love. The novel switches between the present tense (starting with the wedding) and also gives us a little of the past in some places. My biggest beef was how the adults in this book acted like bullying schoolchildren. So, Edie's transgression is really so bad that she's completely ostracized and the subject of intense in-life and cyber shaming and scrutiny? It seems like high school gone really wrong. Her "friend" Louis is just awful; are people really like this?! It's a commentary on social media and cyber bullying, perhaps, but also just terrible and hard to believe at times. These are grown adults! I found myself a little too appalled and couldn't believe grown people would act this way. It's really sad if they do, honestly...
However, once you get further past the wedding day and more into Nottingham, the novel picks up. Edie isn't always the most enjoyable of characters, but I did like her, as I liked Elliot. Parts of the book are just downright funny; I actually found myself laughing out loud. Edie's friends from school are particularly hilarious and a good fit for her. Her boss, too, even if he falls a bit on the dramatic side.
Just when it all seemed normal, it did get a little preposterous again, but hey, that can come with a good romance at times. Overall, while I found some of the characters and plot points frustrating on this one, much of it was balanced out by the charm and humor of the novel. 3.5 stars.
I received an ARC of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss (thank you!).
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of The Evil Within 2 in Video Games
Mar 5, 2018 (Updated Mar 5, 2018)
Gameplay mechanics (2 more)
Horrifically beautiful graphics
A fantastic antagonist
Some odd voice acting (1 more)
Some duff lines of dialogue
A Gruesomely Good Time
Contains spoilers, click to show
I was a fan of the first Evil Within game, which I felt was criminally underrated. However, I must admit I slept on this game. This was due to all of the fantastic games that were released in 2017 that I was trying to catch up on at the time of this game's release.
4 months after the game's initial release, I finally got my hands on it and I loved the time I spent in this insane world.
The Evil Within 2 does what all great sequels should aim to do, which is to take the best concepts and systems from the first game and expand on them, while adding in some fresh concepts and discarding a lot of the excess fat that dragged the first game down.
This game is a much more streamlined action-horror adventure than the first entry and while it starts out with some creepy and uneasy moments, it focuses more on the action element than the horror side of things in comparison with the first game. I do however feel that the game finds a nice equal balance of horror and action, in a way that feels reminiscent of the modern classic, Resident Evil 4. Even though Shinji Mikami didn't direct this game as he did the first entry, this one actually feels more like a traditional Shinji Mikami game.
The villain that torments you for the first third of the game is brilliant, he is engaging, threatening and over the top in all of the best possible ways. The one issue I have with him is, (SPOILERS,) they kill him off far too early and replace him with a more bland, less entertaining villain.
There is also some ropey voice acting present, they changed the actor playing Kidman and the new VO artist isn't as engaging in her performance. The actor playing the protagonist's daughter Lily, is also, quite awkward and stilted sounding. There are also some strange lines of dialogue that don't feel very natural and come across a bit pantomime, but you must remember that this is a Japanese game, written in Japanese and then translated into English. I did experience some technical issues whilst playing through the final third of the game, mostly to do with the use of the radio transmitter and I experienced one slight hiccup with the in-game physics. Unfortunately, although these weren't game-breaking issues, they are still present 4 months after the game's initial release, meaning I am forced to knock a point off of my overall score.
Overall though, this is a damn good time for any horror fan out there. The fact that this game is a great deal easier than the first may bother some hardcore gamers out there, but for me it was fine as I was mostly playing for the story anyway rather than the challenge. The optional first person mode is also a nice addition and adds a cool incentive to play through the New Game Plus.
4 months after the game's initial release, I finally got my hands on it and I loved the time I spent in this insane world.
The Evil Within 2 does what all great sequels should aim to do, which is to take the best concepts and systems from the first game and expand on them, while adding in some fresh concepts and discarding a lot of the excess fat that dragged the first game down.
This game is a much more streamlined action-horror adventure than the first entry and while it starts out with some creepy and uneasy moments, it focuses more on the action element than the horror side of things in comparison with the first game. I do however feel that the game finds a nice equal balance of horror and action, in a way that feels reminiscent of the modern classic, Resident Evil 4. Even though Shinji Mikami didn't direct this game as he did the first entry, this one actually feels more like a traditional Shinji Mikami game.
The villain that torments you for the first third of the game is brilliant, he is engaging, threatening and over the top in all of the best possible ways. The one issue I have with him is, (SPOILERS,) they kill him off far too early and replace him with a more bland, less entertaining villain.
There is also some ropey voice acting present, they changed the actor playing Kidman and the new VO artist isn't as engaging in her performance. The actor playing the protagonist's daughter Lily, is also, quite awkward and stilted sounding. There are also some strange lines of dialogue that don't feel very natural and come across a bit pantomime, but you must remember that this is a Japanese game, written in Japanese and then translated into English. I did experience some technical issues whilst playing through the final third of the game, mostly to do with the use of the radio transmitter and I experienced one slight hiccup with the in-game physics. Unfortunately, although these weren't game-breaking issues, they are still present 4 months after the game's initial release, meaning I am forced to knock a point off of my overall score.
Overall though, this is a damn good time for any horror fan out there. The fact that this game is a great deal easier than the first may bother some hardcore gamers out there, but for me it was fine as I was mostly playing for the story anyway rather than the challenge. The optional first person mode is also a nice addition and adds a cool incentive to play through the New Game Plus.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Outsider (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
The concept of ‘The Outsider’ is a very interesting one, and partially why I was so drawn to the film in the first place. The film follows a former American GI by the name of Nick Lowell who joins the Yakuza, and that synopsis alone was enough to grab my attention. The second reason was the fact it starred Jared Leto, as I believe he’s a very good actor based on his performances in ‘Requiem for a Dream’, ‘Dallas Buyers Club’ and ‘American Psycho’.
Coming into this film, I had incredibly high hopes and was expecting an afternoon of thrilling scenes and engaging characters. As it was so easily accessible on Netflix, I also had no excuse to pass up the opportunity to get it watched. Unfortunately for me, I was left mostly disappointed by what ‘The Outsider’ delivered.
Running at 2 hours, it seems to drag on for much longer than that because the pacing of the film is poor. To be clear, I have no issue with films that have long runtimes provided they can make it work (‘The Wolf of Wall Street’, for example, runs at 3 hours yet seems to fly by), but this film has tedious scenes that simply didn’t do enough to hold my interest. They could’ve easily cut out half an hour’s worth of footage and still made the film work, in my opinion. It seems strange that a film about the Yakuza could be so boring, but sadly it was.
Jared Leto’s character, Nick, doesn’t have a clear backstory and because of this he’s a very uninteresting character. When we’re first introduced to him, I liked the fact he was such an enigma and assumed we’d learn more about him, but we never really do save for a few chunks of information scattered randomly throughout the narrative. As a Leto fan, I was disappointed that he didn’t really bring anything special to the role and literally any other actor could’ve taken his place and still delivered the same story.
The characters that Nick encounters throughout the film aren’t particularly noteworthy either, as they seem to exist to just berate Nick and frown at him, and not much happens beyond that. It seems very lazy that a film like ‘The Outsider’ has so many characters that are sloppily written, with no backstories to keep the audience interested.
‘The Outsider’ did have some redeeming features, though not enough for me to say I particularly enjoyed watching the film. There are a few gory, intense moments that hold your attention and make you squirm, but much less than I expected from a supposed crime film, especially one that focuses on such a notorious criminal organisation. Cinematically, it’s a decent film to look at based on the camerawork and colour grading throughout, but the absence of any decent story makes it fall flat.
Martin Zandvliet’s cinematic portrayal of the Japanese Yakuza is mediocre at best, and not what I expected based on the marketing I’d seen prior to watching the film. I wanted a violent, sexy, engaging crime film and got absolutely none of that.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/the-outsider/
Coming into this film, I had incredibly high hopes and was expecting an afternoon of thrilling scenes and engaging characters. As it was so easily accessible on Netflix, I also had no excuse to pass up the opportunity to get it watched. Unfortunately for me, I was left mostly disappointed by what ‘The Outsider’ delivered.
Running at 2 hours, it seems to drag on for much longer than that because the pacing of the film is poor. To be clear, I have no issue with films that have long runtimes provided they can make it work (‘The Wolf of Wall Street’, for example, runs at 3 hours yet seems to fly by), but this film has tedious scenes that simply didn’t do enough to hold my interest. They could’ve easily cut out half an hour’s worth of footage and still made the film work, in my opinion. It seems strange that a film about the Yakuza could be so boring, but sadly it was.
Jared Leto’s character, Nick, doesn’t have a clear backstory and because of this he’s a very uninteresting character. When we’re first introduced to him, I liked the fact he was such an enigma and assumed we’d learn more about him, but we never really do save for a few chunks of information scattered randomly throughout the narrative. As a Leto fan, I was disappointed that he didn’t really bring anything special to the role and literally any other actor could’ve taken his place and still delivered the same story.
The characters that Nick encounters throughout the film aren’t particularly noteworthy either, as they seem to exist to just berate Nick and frown at him, and not much happens beyond that. It seems very lazy that a film like ‘The Outsider’ has so many characters that are sloppily written, with no backstories to keep the audience interested.
‘The Outsider’ did have some redeeming features, though not enough for me to say I particularly enjoyed watching the film. There are a few gory, intense moments that hold your attention and make you squirm, but much less than I expected from a supposed crime film, especially one that focuses on such a notorious criminal organisation. Cinematically, it’s a decent film to look at based on the camerawork and colour grading throughout, but the absence of any decent story makes it fall flat.
Martin Zandvliet’s cinematic portrayal of the Japanese Yakuza is mediocre at best, and not what I expected based on the marketing I’d seen prior to watching the film. I wanted a violent, sexy, engaging crime film and got absolutely none of that.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/the-outsider/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Spoiler free section: Pet Sematary starring Jason Clarke, Amy Seimetz and John Lithgow wasn’t badly cast, it felt perfect actually, even the child actor Jete Laurence was above average. There wasn’t anything wrong with their performance either, each actor performed their role really well and their characters were believable. But the movie just left me needing so much more.
Pet Sematary is a movie about a family who moves from Boston to escape big city life and spend more quality family time in the country side. Little do they know that their new property contains a pet cemetery! Horror ensues… well kinda, a little bit does at least.
The movie moves at a slow creeping pace, which is fine for a horror movie to start but there needs to be payoff. The build up to payoff ratio is about 90-10. It’s all build up with a few aspects of the movie never having any sort of payoff whatsoever. Even the movie as a whole ended without solid resolution.
The atmosphere in the movie was average for a main stream horror movie but if you are a hardcore horror movie fan you will be disappointed. The movie drew a lot of unintentional laughter from the audience at times when the movie should have been building tension. There was the occasion where the movie was doing it intentionally and that’s really when the movie was at its best. I use the term “best” loosely as the movie sets the bar pretty low.
If you were expecting this reboot of the Stephen King classic to be on the same level as IT, you will be greatly disappointed.
Spoiler section: The unresolved stories in this movie really bugged me.
There is a character played by Obssa Ahmed, who is a car accident victim who kinda haunts the family but says it’s because the main character tried to help him before he died. He seems like he’s eventually going to play a saving role but never does, he just exists, for no reason.
The actual Pet Sematary is meaningless. It’s actually not haunted, and nothing exceptional happens there. It’s just a passing through point to the actual haunted place a mile away. Boring.
Kids with the masks and the funeral procession that looked really cool in the preview meant nothing…
Supernatural things kept happening in the house. Was the house haunted? I couldn’t tell if it was the family, the house or just the area a mile behind the house that was haunted. The only thing I was sure about was that the titular pet cemetery was the only thing not haunted at all.
This movie is not for hard core horror fans, its more for your mom who likes scary movies occasionally. I can’t recommend this movie. It’s very forgettable and not worth the price of admission. Super vanilla, pointless characters and plot points, and only a few jump scares make this movie a hard pass. 1.5 out 5 stars. That Ramones song during the end credits is catchy as hell though J
Pet Sematary is a movie about a family who moves from Boston to escape big city life and spend more quality family time in the country side. Little do they know that their new property contains a pet cemetery! Horror ensues… well kinda, a little bit does at least.
The movie moves at a slow creeping pace, which is fine for a horror movie to start but there needs to be payoff. The build up to payoff ratio is about 90-10. It’s all build up with a few aspects of the movie never having any sort of payoff whatsoever. Even the movie as a whole ended without solid resolution.
The atmosphere in the movie was average for a main stream horror movie but if you are a hardcore horror movie fan you will be disappointed. The movie drew a lot of unintentional laughter from the audience at times when the movie should have been building tension. There was the occasion where the movie was doing it intentionally and that’s really when the movie was at its best. I use the term “best” loosely as the movie sets the bar pretty low.
If you were expecting this reboot of the Stephen King classic to be on the same level as IT, you will be greatly disappointed.
Spoiler section: The unresolved stories in this movie really bugged me.
There is a character played by Obssa Ahmed, who is a car accident victim who kinda haunts the family but says it’s because the main character tried to help him before he died. He seems like he’s eventually going to play a saving role but never does, he just exists, for no reason.
The actual Pet Sematary is meaningless. It’s actually not haunted, and nothing exceptional happens there. It’s just a passing through point to the actual haunted place a mile away. Boring.
Kids with the masks and the funeral procession that looked really cool in the preview meant nothing…
Supernatural things kept happening in the house. Was the house haunted? I couldn’t tell if it was the family, the house or just the area a mile behind the house that was haunted. The only thing I was sure about was that the titular pet cemetery was the only thing not haunted at all.
This movie is not for hard core horror fans, its more for your mom who likes scary movies occasionally. I can’t recommend this movie. It’s very forgettable and not worth the price of admission. Super vanilla, pointless characters and plot points, and only a few jump scares make this movie a hard pass. 1.5 out 5 stars. That Ramones song during the end credits is catchy as hell though J
365Flicks (235 KP) rated The Hollow (2016) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Often all it takes for me to put a flick on is to see a name of an Actor that I have loved in other movies, this can often make me more forgiving and open to watch the next flick that comes along. When I received The Hollow for the intentions of reviewing. I was smacked in the face by two such names, William Sadler (Shawshank, Die Hard 2) and William Forsythe (Things to Do in Denver When Your Dead, The Rock). Neither actor is setting the world on fire as of late but as a movie fan you know your about to get some solid performances. I was not wrong.
The Hollow is yet another Small Town backwoods crime drama genre in a long line of VOD releases. The difference being that The Hollow has a certain amount of Backwoods charm to it that usually tends to fall flat upon replication, This is in no small part due to the performances driving the Flick. Writer, Director and Star Miles Doleac plays corrupt as balls Deputy Sheriff Ray Everett. In a town that seems to have been forgotten by the outside world Ray is able to function as a truly horrendous unlikable character, But fear not because just about everyone in this down is a bonafide Asshole. The movie kicks into gear fairly quickly when we witness a triple murder down by Make-Out Creek (Thats what they call places like that right). One of the victims being an under-age girl we witnessed barely 10 minutes ago giving Officer Ray some pretty bad head (Like a said he is a proper shit bag)… The FBI comes swarming into town when it is revealed one of the other victims is the daughter of a US Congressman. The game of small town cover up vs government stooges begins.
I’m not going to dive to deep into this flick because it is your standard by the numbers Crime/Drama. I said towards the start of this write-up that sometimes all it takes is a couple of names that you recognize as regular Jobbers who tend to put in solid performances and that is certainly one of the things this movie has going for it. Forsythe, Sadler and Jeff Fahey all being shining lights for me. Not to be out shone in his own movie though Doleac manages to portray a truly horrendous shit bag with no redeeming quality’s at all pretty expertly and that is where your Movie can live or die. Take nothing away from the supporting cast either they were all great just that most characters were fairly one dimensional.
Personally I feel like The Hollow is a good enough movie with some solid performances that you would be kept entertained. The script is not exactly Tarantino levels, while it does at times feel like thats what Doleac was going for, but as I said at the start when you sit down to this movie, you know what your getting.
Its a solid Recommend from 365HQ in a sea of by the numbers Crime/Dramas The Hollow has some pretty great performances and for the directors second Feature Film its a solid effort.
The Hollow is yet another Small Town backwoods crime drama genre in a long line of VOD releases. The difference being that The Hollow has a certain amount of Backwoods charm to it that usually tends to fall flat upon replication, This is in no small part due to the performances driving the Flick. Writer, Director and Star Miles Doleac plays corrupt as balls Deputy Sheriff Ray Everett. In a town that seems to have been forgotten by the outside world Ray is able to function as a truly horrendous unlikable character, But fear not because just about everyone in this down is a bonafide Asshole. The movie kicks into gear fairly quickly when we witness a triple murder down by Make-Out Creek (Thats what they call places like that right). One of the victims being an under-age girl we witnessed barely 10 minutes ago giving Officer Ray some pretty bad head (Like a said he is a proper shit bag)… The FBI comes swarming into town when it is revealed one of the other victims is the daughter of a US Congressman. The game of small town cover up vs government stooges begins.
I’m not going to dive to deep into this flick because it is your standard by the numbers Crime/Drama. I said towards the start of this write-up that sometimes all it takes is a couple of names that you recognize as regular Jobbers who tend to put in solid performances and that is certainly one of the things this movie has going for it. Forsythe, Sadler and Jeff Fahey all being shining lights for me. Not to be out shone in his own movie though Doleac manages to portray a truly horrendous shit bag with no redeeming quality’s at all pretty expertly and that is where your Movie can live or die. Take nothing away from the supporting cast either they were all great just that most characters were fairly one dimensional.
Personally I feel like The Hollow is a good enough movie with some solid performances that you would be kept entertained. The script is not exactly Tarantino levels, while it does at times feel like thats what Doleac was going for, but as I said at the start when you sit down to this movie, you know what your getting.
Its a solid Recommend from 365HQ in a sea of by the numbers Crime/Dramas The Hollow has some pretty great performances and for the directors second Feature Film its a solid effort.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated GoodFellas (1990) in Movies
Jun 26, 2020
LIKE A FINE WINE - gets better with age
I have to admit, when I first watched GOODFELLAS 30 years ago, I thought it was "good" but not "great".
The years and subsequent viewings of this epic masterpiece has slowly changed my mind.
Directed by one of the finest Directors of all-time, GOODFELLAS is based on the real-life experience of former "Wiseguy" Nicholas Pileggi (from his book) and depicts mob life in New York City in the 1960's and the 1970's.
Scorcese knows this world and it's looks & feels and you can sense that world while watching this movie. Whether it's the clothing, the set decorations, the vocal inflections or the music choices, Scorcese meticulously blends all of the minutiae of these eras and these people extremely effectively to draw a vivid picture of people - and gangsters - of another era.
It helps tremendously that he has an "A" cast to inherit the characters. Robert DeNiro shows his ferocious personae as a "force to be reckoned with" as legendary (their word) mobster Jimmy Conway. He has a danger to him that could erupt at any time, but he also has something else - probably even more dangerous - he's smart and wily and will meticulously plan his crimes out. This makes him stand out in a world where most are acting out of impulse. Joe Pesci, rightfully, won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his take on psychopathic gangster Tommy DeVito. What struck me on this viewing of the film was how small a role in this film that Tommy is. Pesci is not on-screen all that much, but for the scenes that he is in, he is incredibly powerful. You can see that Tommy is dangerous and needs to be handled with "kit gloves".
Scorcese took a chance by centering this film on an unknown actor on who's shoulders that this film will stand or fall - and he chose wisely - for Ray Liotta's performance as Henry Hill is fascinating to watch. He has a charisma and charm to him that draws you in, but there is also an air about him that repels you away at the same time. Scorcese cast another unknown, Lorraine Bracco as Henry's wife, Karen Hill, who is drawn towards the power and danger of Henry (and his world). Bracco was nominated for an Oscar and Liotta never came close to this level of performance for the rest of his career.
Credit, therefore, must be given to the Directorial job that Scorcese put in on this film. This is his masterpiece (despite what the Oscars say). Years from now when scholars look back on his career, this (along with Raging Bull) will be the films that are shown (not THE DEPARTED - the film that he, finally, won his Oscar for).
I find more and more nuance and richness to this film upon subsequent re-watches, and I drank those in on this viewing. GOODFELLAS is like a fine wine, it gets better with age.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars out of 10 (and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
The years and subsequent viewings of this epic masterpiece has slowly changed my mind.
Directed by one of the finest Directors of all-time, GOODFELLAS is based on the real-life experience of former "Wiseguy" Nicholas Pileggi (from his book) and depicts mob life in New York City in the 1960's and the 1970's.
Scorcese knows this world and it's looks & feels and you can sense that world while watching this movie. Whether it's the clothing, the set decorations, the vocal inflections or the music choices, Scorcese meticulously blends all of the minutiae of these eras and these people extremely effectively to draw a vivid picture of people - and gangsters - of another era.
It helps tremendously that he has an "A" cast to inherit the characters. Robert DeNiro shows his ferocious personae as a "force to be reckoned with" as legendary (their word) mobster Jimmy Conway. He has a danger to him that could erupt at any time, but he also has something else - probably even more dangerous - he's smart and wily and will meticulously plan his crimes out. This makes him stand out in a world where most are acting out of impulse. Joe Pesci, rightfully, won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his take on psychopathic gangster Tommy DeVito. What struck me on this viewing of the film was how small a role in this film that Tommy is. Pesci is not on-screen all that much, but for the scenes that he is in, he is incredibly powerful. You can see that Tommy is dangerous and needs to be handled with "kit gloves".
Scorcese took a chance by centering this film on an unknown actor on who's shoulders that this film will stand or fall - and he chose wisely - for Ray Liotta's performance as Henry Hill is fascinating to watch. He has a charisma and charm to him that draws you in, but there is also an air about him that repels you away at the same time. Scorcese cast another unknown, Lorraine Bracco as Henry's wife, Karen Hill, who is drawn towards the power and danger of Henry (and his world). Bracco was nominated for an Oscar and Liotta never came close to this level of performance for the rest of his career.
Credit, therefore, must be given to the Directorial job that Scorcese put in on this film. This is his masterpiece (despite what the Oscars say). Years from now when scholars look back on his career, this (along with Raging Bull) will be the films that are shown (not THE DEPARTED - the film that he, finally, won his Oscar for).
I find more and more nuance and richness to this film upon subsequent re-watches, and I drank those in on this viewing. GOODFELLAS is like a fine wine, it gets better with age.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars out of 10 (and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Sep 1, 2019
Entertaining Enough
In the battle of DC vs Marvel in the Cinematic world, the prevailing theory is that DC is "righting the ship" with back-to-back decent films - AQUAMAN and SHAZAM. And...after viewing both of these films, I will agree that they are moving the ship in the correct direction, but they have a long, long way to go before they can say they have "righted" this ship.
SHAZAM is a fun. light, comedic-ish film that will appeal to kids and tweens and will be considered "not bad" by older teens and adults - and that is an improvement for a DC comic book film.
Asher Angel stars as Billy Batson, a troubled teenager with family/parental issues (is there any other kind in these types of films?) who is given the power of SHAZAM by a mysterious wizard (the always dependable Djimon Hounsou), when he says the magical word SHAZAM he is instantly changed into the SuperHero SHAZAM. The Superhero part of this character is played by Zachary Levi (TV's CHUCK) and that is the first problem for me with this film, I didn't feel that these 2 actors connected much to form the illusion of 1 person. Asher is all "broody and moody" - you know, the way an adult would direct a teenage actor to perform as a troubled teen - while Levi, who is having some fun, looks like he is trying just a bit too hard to showcase his "inner teenager" while wrapped inside a body hugging, muscle enhancing costume.
Billy Batson is sent to a foster home full of a "It's A Small World" group of troubled youth that have - despite their differences - formed into a family. Want to bet that Billy figures out that "family" does not mean his mother and father who abandoned him but rather those around you that love and care for you?
All of the kids in this "family" are well played, as are the "father and mother" figures. Standouts are Faithe Herman as smart-as-a-whip/cute-as-a-button Darla and, especially, Jack Dylan Grazer (hypochondriac Eddie in IT: CHAPTER 1) as the lad who becomes Billy's best friend. He is just as fun and charismatic as he was in IT. To be honest, I think I wanted more of a movie about this group of people than the typical "Super Hero/Super Villain" film.
However, I can forgive this film for focusing on the Hero/Villain dynamic for Mark Strong (SHERLOCK) is wonderfully villainous as the bad guy with daddy issues of his own and "that guy" actor John Glover is in it all too briefly as his dad.
Director David F. Sandberg (ANNABELLE: CREATION) does a nice job of keeping the action going at a fast enough pace to keep things entertaining - albeit in a way that was rather pedestrian and "nothing new". But he aims this film squarely at the older kid/younger tween audience and they will enjoy this very much, whilst the rest of us will not be bored as we accompany them.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
SHAZAM is a fun. light, comedic-ish film that will appeal to kids and tweens and will be considered "not bad" by older teens and adults - and that is an improvement for a DC comic book film.
Asher Angel stars as Billy Batson, a troubled teenager with family/parental issues (is there any other kind in these types of films?) who is given the power of SHAZAM by a mysterious wizard (the always dependable Djimon Hounsou), when he says the magical word SHAZAM he is instantly changed into the SuperHero SHAZAM. The Superhero part of this character is played by Zachary Levi (TV's CHUCK) and that is the first problem for me with this film, I didn't feel that these 2 actors connected much to form the illusion of 1 person. Asher is all "broody and moody" - you know, the way an adult would direct a teenage actor to perform as a troubled teen - while Levi, who is having some fun, looks like he is trying just a bit too hard to showcase his "inner teenager" while wrapped inside a body hugging, muscle enhancing costume.
Billy Batson is sent to a foster home full of a "It's A Small World" group of troubled youth that have - despite their differences - formed into a family. Want to bet that Billy figures out that "family" does not mean his mother and father who abandoned him but rather those around you that love and care for you?
All of the kids in this "family" are well played, as are the "father and mother" figures. Standouts are Faithe Herman as smart-as-a-whip/cute-as-a-button Darla and, especially, Jack Dylan Grazer (hypochondriac Eddie in IT: CHAPTER 1) as the lad who becomes Billy's best friend. He is just as fun and charismatic as he was in IT. To be honest, I think I wanted more of a movie about this group of people than the typical "Super Hero/Super Villain" film.
However, I can forgive this film for focusing on the Hero/Villain dynamic for Mark Strong (SHERLOCK) is wonderfully villainous as the bad guy with daddy issues of his own and "that guy" actor John Glover is in it all too briefly as his dad.
Director David F. Sandberg (ANNABELLE: CREATION) does a nice job of keeping the action going at a fast enough pace to keep things entertaining - albeit in a way that was rather pedestrian and "nothing new". But he aims this film squarely at the older kid/younger tween audience and they will enjoy this very much, whilst the rest of us will not be bored as we accompany them.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)