Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 27, 2019
A missed opportunity
Like crossing the vast expanse of oceans in a sailing ship, rocketing across the vast expanse of our Galaxy would, naturally, lead one to self-contemplation. In the film AD ASTRA Brad Pitt spends a lot of time contemplating.
Unfortunately, that is pretty much all PItt - and this film - does.
AD ASTRA follows the adventure of Astronaut Roy McBride (Pitt) who's father Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) is a fabled Astronaut who disappeared while on a deep space mission to Neptune. When a Galaxy-wide energy pulse emanating from Neptune threatens life on Earth, suspicion is that Clifford is still alive in orbit around Neptune and the hope is that Roy can contact him and stop this life threatening force.
Sounds like an interesting premise, doesn't it? And it could have been. And the world that was built for this movie - a world set in the "near future", one where we did not stop going to the moon and space and there are now space stations - and colonies and pirates(!) - on the Moon and Mars, is an interesting concept and I really wanted to explore that world.
Unfortunately, Director and Writer James Gray (THE LOST CITY OF Z) was not interested in exploring this (so why build it?!?) - he was more interested in contemplating the meaning of life's purpose and fate and legacies and do the sins of the father really come back to seek payment by the son? And I do mean contemplate, for that is what Pitt's character does through most of this film - sit and think (which we hear through voice over), while contemplative music plays wistfully.
It's a good recipe to cure insomnia.
While Pitt does a nice enough job in the lead - an actor can only do so much with looking, thoughtfully, out the window. Ruth Negga and Donald Sutherland both try to inject some life in this film, but their parts are, in essence, extended cameos and the likes of "that guy" actors like Donnie Kashawarz, John Finn and John Ortiz pop up for a scene or two along the way as we travel across our Galaxy with Pitt but don't really register Only Tommy Lee Jones manages to liven things up...but his presence is too little too late.
Like a parent, I am not upset at this film, just disappointed at the choices that were made. I thought Pitt and Gray knew better.
Letter Grade: B- (it is well made and pretty to look at)
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Unfortunately, that is pretty much all PItt - and this film - does.
AD ASTRA follows the adventure of Astronaut Roy McBride (Pitt) who's father Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) is a fabled Astronaut who disappeared while on a deep space mission to Neptune. When a Galaxy-wide energy pulse emanating from Neptune threatens life on Earth, suspicion is that Clifford is still alive in orbit around Neptune and the hope is that Roy can contact him and stop this life threatening force.
Sounds like an interesting premise, doesn't it? And it could have been. And the world that was built for this movie - a world set in the "near future", one where we did not stop going to the moon and space and there are now space stations - and colonies and pirates(!) - on the Moon and Mars, is an interesting concept and I really wanted to explore that world.
Unfortunately, Director and Writer James Gray (THE LOST CITY OF Z) was not interested in exploring this (so why build it?!?) - he was more interested in contemplating the meaning of life's purpose and fate and legacies and do the sins of the father really come back to seek payment by the son? And I do mean contemplate, for that is what Pitt's character does through most of this film - sit and think (which we hear through voice over), while contemplative music plays wistfully.
It's a good recipe to cure insomnia.
While Pitt does a nice enough job in the lead - an actor can only do so much with looking, thoughtfully, out the window. Ruth Negga and Donald Sutherland both try to inject some life in this film, but their parts are, in essence, extended cameos and the likes of "that guy" actors like Donnie Kashawarz, John Finn and John Ortiz pop up for a scene or two along the way as we travel across our Galaxy with Pitt but don't really register Only Tommy Lee Jones manages to liven things up...but his presence is too little too late.
Like a parent, I am not upset at this film, just disappointed at the choices that were made. I thought Pitt and Gray knew better.
Letter Grade: B- (it is well made and pretty to look at)
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
PRANK ME! 2 Trick Your Friends for iPhone & iPod touch
Catalogs and Productivity
App
*********************************** LAUNCH SPECIAL: $1.99 CENTS!! GET IT NOW BEFORE THE PRICE GOES...
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Jul 24, 2017
The limited cast is great (1 more)
The sound design is amazing
Expect the Unexpected
Contains spoilers, click to show
I remember when the first Cloverfield movie was released, it was made in secret and after the trailer dropped people were really hyped. Then the movie came out and it was okay, but nowhere near as good as the trailer and most people quickly forgot about it and it has kind of faded into obscurity since then, remembered only as an interesting experiment that never really lived up to its full potential. So when a follow up movie set in the same universe was announced at the start of this year, you can imagine the surprise of movie fans. Again this movie was made in secret, not an easy thing to do in this day and age and although it shared a name with the first movie, this isn’t necessarily a sequel or a prequel. This review will contain a spoiler free section then a section where I will spoil the hell out of everything in the movie, but don’t worry I’ll give you fair warning before I do that.
This movie is an example of why sometimes it is better to have a small, focused team of people working on a restrictive budget towards a collective aim and end product, because what we end up with is a concentrated, purposeful film, in which each aspect has been handled with care. First off, this movie has three characters and that’s it, so the performances have to be nothing less than stellar for the piece to work. Luckily they are here. Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays a young girl called Michelle who has just left her man, however it is when she is driving away that she has a car accident and wakes up in the basement of Howard’s Doomsday bunker, the character played by John Goodman. As the film’s traumatising event unfold, she shows resilience, persistence, tenacity and resourcefulness and she pulls it off in a believable way. John Gallagher Jr plays a man called Emmet who has known John Goodman’s character from before the events of the movie play out. He is the comic relief of the movie, but his character is just as important as the other two and he delivers a spot on performance. However John Goodman’s performance in this film is of a different class, he runs away with the movie and steals every scene he is in. This film is a great reminder of why he is considered one of the great character actors of our time. it is very rare that I will say that an actor is perfect in a role, to be a perfect performance, the character must have no lines or scenes that I dislike, steal every scene that they are in and make me totally forget about the actor playing the part and only see the character that they are portraying. The last person to successfully pull it off was JK Simmons in Whiplash, that is the level of quality that we are talking about here, definitely Goodman’s best performance of the last decade.
The other star of this film is the audio, both the score used and the sound effects are so well timed and effective. The various tracks played throughout mixed with the straight up terrifying noises of simple things in the environment, especially the door of Michelle’s room, which honestly sounds like a woman screaming every time it is opened or closed. Also, I don’t know if John Goodman’s breathing was amplified in any way, but it is terrifying. The editing in this movie is also fantastic, best executed during Michelle’s crash at the start of the movie, the abrupt nature of the scenes and sound effects instantly let you know what kind of ride you are in for, for the next 90 minutes.
Okay, from this point on major plot points and twists will be spoiled, you have been warned.
As the film progresses, we learn that Howard had a daughter called Megan, but Emmet and Michelle suspect that he may have killed his daughter or at least some other young girls, so they hatch a plan to break out. Howard finds evidence of the plan and confronts the pair, Emmett takes the blame and what is one of the most shocking scenes I have seen in cinema, Howard shoots him point blank in the head with a thunderous gunshot. After this, Michelle realises he really is crazy and she has to get out, but he also catches her with evidence of the escape plan and chases her around the bunker. Michelle then kicks acid over him and makes for the exit hatch in a terrifying chase sequence. After she gets out the bunker explodes, but she soon realises she isn’t in the clear yet. A dog like monster chases her around the garden which she runs from, then a large alien ship lifts her up, but just as it is about to devour her, she makes a Molotov cocktail and throws it into the mouth of the beast blowing it up, she then drives away and the movie ends. People have a problem with the end of this movie after Michelle leaves the bunker, but although I will say that the first half is definitely superior, I still enjoyed the ending and overall this is probably my favourite movie of 2016 so far.
This movie is an example of why sometimes it is better to have a small, focused team of people working on a restrictive budget towards a collective aim and end product, because what we end up with is a concentrated, purposeful film, in which each aspect has been handled with care. First off, this movie has three characters and that’s it, so the performances have to be nothing less than stellar for the piece to work. Luckily they are here. Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays a young girl called Michelle who has just left her man, however it is when she is driving away that she has a car accident and wakes up in the basement of Howard’s Doomsday bunker, the character played by John Goodman. As the film’s traumatising event unfold, she shows resilience, persistence, tenacity and resourcefulness and she pulls it off in a believable way. John Gallagher Jr plays a man called Emmet who has known John Goodman’s character from before the events of the movie play out. He is the comic relief of the movie, but his character is just as important as the other two and he delivers a spot on performance. However John Goodman’s performance in this film is of a different class, he runs away with the movie and steals every scene he is in. This film is a great reminder of why he is considered one of the great character actors of our time. it is very rare that I will say that an actor is perfect in a role, to be a perfect performance, the character must have no lines or scenes that I dislike, steal every scene that they are in and make me totally forget about the actor playing the part and only see the character that they are portraying. The last person to successfully pull it off was JK Simmons in Whiplash, that is the level of quality that we are talking about here, definitely Goodman’s best performance of the last decade.
The other star of this film is the audio, both the score used and the sound effects are so well timed and effective. The various tracks played throughout mixed with the straight up terrifying noises of simple things in the environment, especially the door of Michelle’s room, which honestly sounds like a woman screaming every time it is opened or closed. Also, I don’t know if John Goodman’s breathing was amplified in any way, but it is terrifying. The editing in this movie is also fantastic, best executed during Michelle’s crash at the start of the movie, the abrupt nature of the scenes and sound effects instantly let you know what kind of ride you are in for, for the next 90 minutes.
Okay, from this point on major plot points and twists will be spoiled, you have been warned.
As the film progresses, we learn that Howard had a daughter called Megan, but Emmet and Michelle suspect that he may have killed his daughter or at least some other young girls, so they hatch a plan to break out. Howard finds evidence of the plan and confronts the pair, Emmett takes the blame and what is one of the most shocking scenes I have seen in cinema, Howard shoots him point blank in the head with a thunderous gunshot. After this, Michelle realises he really is crazy and she has to get out, but he also catches her with evidence of the escape plan and chases her around the bunker. Michelle then kicks acid over him and makes for the exit hatch in a terrifying chase sequence. After she gets out the bunker explodes, but she soon realises she isn’t in the clear yet. A dog like monster chases her around the garden which she runs from, then a large alien ship lifts her up, but just as it is about to devour her, she makes a Molotov cocktail and throws it into the mouth of the beast blowing it up, she then drives away and the movie ends. People have a problem with the end of this movie after Michelle leaves the bunker, but although I will say that the first half is definitely superior, I still enjoyed the ending and overall this is probably my favourite movie of 2016 so far.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
If you check back in the archives of The Wasteland you will see that from time to time I do find myself down the dark, fascinating yet morbid rabbit hole of true crime documentary. I do find the majority of them a little ghoulish, but when done particularly well they can become incredible insights into the human condition at its worst, and the state of the legal and punitive systems that deal with the most extreme cases. How these systems fail, and why, is more of a draw for me than any attempt to understand the person behind the evil crimes. Although I must admit to some curiosity in that regard on a certain level.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Grave's a Fine and Private Place: A Flavia de Luce Mystery Book 9 in Books
Jan 15, 2018
Flavia! (2 more)
Relationship between Flavia and Dogger
Mystery plot
Another excellent entry in Bradley's Flavia de Luce series
In the ninth (! - how is that possible?) Flavia de Luce mystery, we see Flavia away from her home turf, as she and her sisters have been sent away from Buckshaw on a holiday to try to help them recover from the death of their father. But instead (of course) Flavia discovers a dead body. As the gang is boating, she drags her hand along the water, it snags on something and boom - she catches her fingers on a corpse. Only our Flavia! Of course, Flavia isn't content to leave things to the local Constable. The dead man is named Orlando, and his death leads Flavia into a world of a traveling circus, a famous Canon renowned for poisoning three women, and much more.
I am an unabashed fan of Flavia and this book didn't disappoint. It has all the staples of an excellent Flavia novel-- a strong mystery to unravel and a bunch of clever, witty, and surprisingly uncanny lines from our beloved protagonist. By now, our dear twelve-year-old Flavia has been through a lot. She's more mature, and she's as feisty and clever as ever. I admit that some of the chemistry in these novels goes over my head (I'm not as smart as Flavia, and I'm completely fine admitting that). But I love the mystery plots, and more than that, I love Flavia. I've felt protective of her since the first novel, even though the thought of that would anger her more than anything.
There's a good eclectic cast of supporting characters in this one, including an aged actor, an undertaker's son, and a woman who used to know Dogger. And, of course, we get some appearances from Flavia's ever-suffering sisters, Daffy and Feely. The best part of this novel, however, for me, was the strengthening relationship between Dogger and Flavia. Their bond is one of the highlights of the book. I love those two. By now, Flavia and Dogger feel like friends, or even family. It's a sign of how well Bradley writes and creates these characters that you feel so attached to them.
Suffice to say, I thoroughly enjoyed this one. If you're a fan of Bradley's series, you probably will as well. If you haven't picked up this series, I do suggest starting near the beginning, as you'll form a better bond with the characters. But you will be able to jump in with this book, too, as the mystery stands alone. The ending of this one also leaves me excited and looking forward to what I hope will be book #10.
I was very excited to receive a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review.
I am an unabashed fan of Flavia and this book didn't disappoint. It has all the staples of an excellent Flavia novel-- a strong mystery to unravel and a bunch of clever, witty, and surprisingly uncanny lines from our beloved protagonist. By now, our dear twelve-year-old Flavia has been through a lot. She's more mature, and she's as feisty and clever as ever. I admit that some of the chemistry in these novels goes over my head (I'm not as smart as Flavia, and I'm completely fine admitting that). But I love the mystery plots, and more than that, I love Flavia. I've felt protective of her since the first novel, even though the thought of that would anger her more than anything.
There's a good eclectic cast of supporting characters in this one, including an aged actor, an undertaker's son, and a woman who used to know Dogger. And, of course, we get some appearances from Flavia's ever-suffering sisters, Daffy and Feely. The best part of this novel, however, for me, was the strengthening relationship between Dogger and Flavia. Their bond is one of the highlights of the book. I love those two. By now, Flavia and Dogger feel like friends, or even family. It's a sign of how well Bradley writes and creates these characters that you feel so attached to them.
Suffice to say, I thoroughly enjoyed this one. If you're a fan of Bradley's series, you probably will as well. If you haven't picked up this series, I do suggest starting near the beginning, as you'll form a better bond with the characters. But you will be able to jump in with this book, too, as the mystery stands alone. The ending of this one also leaves me excited and looking forward to what I hope will be book #10.
I was very excited to receive a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
May 11, 2019
"if you are nothing without the suit then you shouldn't have it."
A John Hughes-esque coming-of-age movie, disguised as a friendly neighborhood adventure from the MCU; Spider-Man: Homecoming is more about growing up, and less about saving the world.
Tom Holland is great as Spider-man. His Spidey is different, and in a way, refreshing. I like how the origin story is skipped, and instead, we dive head into the day-to-day adventures of a semi-awkward, fifteen-year-old. I'm more interested in the growth of Peter Parker, than the development of Holland's Spider-Man Spidey-Powers. I'm still undecided about the way Spidey looks in his costume. To me, he looks more like a CGI goofnut, than an Avenger. But, how many kids get to have Jennifer Connelly on standby, whenever they need a helpful voice?
Homecoming might not feel and act like your typical MCU movie, but it does prove we still need Tony Stark, Happy Hogan and Pepper Potts in our lives. I smiled with all the screen time Happy has. He's truly an underrated character in the MCU. Plus, Tony plays the "cool uncle" spot-on.
One of the biggest criticisms with the MCU people have is the boring villain. Not in this case. Michael Keaton plays reverse-Batman, and his character actually has depth, an interesting storyline and a surprise twist. Bookem Woodbine plays a fun henchman, and all movies benefit from the presence of Donald Glover. The bad guys are not a snore nor a bore at this Homecoming Dance with the Devil.
I hope I wasn't the only one laughing at the casting of Tony Revolori as Flash the Bully. He's about as intimidating as a can of ravioli. Zendaya is way underused, but she shines in her scenes. I wish Ned was my best friend, but the poor fella will probably be typecast for life. However, he's a hilarious guy. How can you not like him?
Did you think I forgot about Aunt May? Of course not! Marisa Tomei is smokin' and brings honest energy to her supporting role.
The final boss battle is fun. So are the scenes on a ferry and a national monument. There's action, and there's a lot of growing up for Peter Parker and his friends. I'm not MCU fatigued after watching, but I do have a sudden urge to revisit Pretty in Pink.
Tom Holland is great as Spider-man. His Spidey is different, and in a way, refreshing. I like how the origin story is skipped, and instead, we dive head into the day-to-day adventures of a semi-awkward, fifteen-year-old. I'm more interested in the growth of Peter Parker, than the development of Holland's Spider-Man Spidey-Powers. I'm still undecided about the way Spidey looks in his costume. To me, he looks more like a CGI goofnut, than an Avenger. But, how many kids get to have Jennifer Connelly on standby, whenever they need a helpful voice?
Homecoming might not feel and act like your typical MCU movie, but it does prove we still need Tony Stark, Happy Hogan and Pepper Potts in our lives. I smiled with all the screen time Happy has. He's truly an underrated character in the MCU. Plus, Tony plays the "cool uncle" spot-on.
One of the biggest criticisms with the MCU people have is the boring villain. Not in this case. Michael Keaton plays reverse-Batman, and his character actually has depth, an interesting storyline and a surprise twist. Bookem Woodbine plays a fun henchman, and all movies benefit from the presence of Donald Glover. The bad guys are not a snore nor a bore at this Homecoming Dance with the Devil.
I hope I wasn't the only one laughing at the casting of Tony Revolori as Flash the Bully. He's about as intimidating as a can of ravioli. Zendaya is way underused, but she shines in her scenes. I wish Ned was my best friend, but the poor fella will probably be typecast for life. However, he's a hilarious guy. How can you not like him?
Did you think I forgot about Aunt May? Of course not! Marisa Tomei is smokin' and brings honest energy to her supporting role.
The final boss battle is fun. So are the scenes on a ferry and a national monument. There's action, and there's a lot of growing up for Peter Parker and his friends. I'm not MCU fatigued after watching, but I do have a sudden urge to revisit Pretty in Pink.
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated The Conjuring (2013) in Movies
May 13, 2019
The Conjuring Review
Contains spoilers, click to show
Originally wrote in 2013:
As an avid fan of horror I look for a few little things which if aren't apparent within the first minute decide on whether I'm going to bother with the rest of the film. Usually the company releasing the movie is a good starting point, reputable/recognised director or producer, recognisable actor/s, good production values - that sort of thing. I've seen some hum-dingers over the years - those films where Johnny Nobody has gathered several of his buddies together with a cheap camcorder or two and filmed some alleged zombie epic in the woods at the back of their school.
**The Conjuring is not one of those**
I like to think I have a strong disposition when it comes to scares - usually it takes a lot to make me squint. Examples that come to mind are 'Sinister', 'The Grudge', the end of 'The Ring' (you know, the scary dark haired girl climbing out of the TV!). The Conjuring is one of those - I watched this in the middle of the morning and found it pretty scary in places.
James Wan certainly knows how to make a movie of this type and is great at evoking atmosphere and notching up the scares as the film develops. In a nutshell, this is the alleged real life story of the Perron family who in 1971 moved into a new farmhouse. It isn't long before the usual shenanigans begin - pictures pulled off walls, doors knocking in the dead of night, the children befriending mysterious 'imaginary' kids (who we all know watching are going to show up at some point). The film sticks to the tried and tested story - gradual possession of one of the adults (Lily Taylor), gradually increasing appearances by ghostly figures, calling in the ghostbusters, gathering the proof, then the exorcism. It may be join the dots territory but it works.
Patrick Wilson shines and seems to be making his mark in films of this nature (Insidious and Insidious Chapter 2) - he portrays real life paranormal investigator Ed Warren who with his wife Lorraine (played just as well by Vera Farmiga) become immersed in the life of the Perron's making themselves targets of the supernatural force at work in the process.
The demonic spirit at work is that of a witch who was married to the guy who built the house back in the 1800's who cursed the land before committing suicide after murdering their child whilst a few days old. There is one particularly pant browning scene where the witch makes her first appearance atop a bedroom wardrobe....and I'll leave it there!
Quality. Best horror I've seen since Sinister.
As an avid fan of horror I look for a few little things which if aren't apparent within the first minute decide on whether I'm going to bother with the rest of the film. Usually the company releasing the movie is a good starting point, reputable/recognised director or producer, recognisable actor/s, good production values - that sort of thing. I've seen some hum-dingers over the years - those films where Johnny Nobody has gathered several of his buddies together with a cheap camcorder or two and filmed some alleged zombie epic in the woods at the back of their school.
**The Conjuring is not one of those**
I like to think I have a strong disposition when it comes to scares - usually it takes a lot to make me squint. Examples that come to mind are 'Sinister', 'The Grudge', the end of 'The Ring' (you know, the scary dark haired girl climbing out of the TV!). The Conjuring is one of those - I watched this in the middle of the morning and found it pretty scary in places.
James Wan certainly knows how to make a movie of this type and is great at evoking atmosphere and notching up the scares as the film develops. In a nutshell, this is the alleged real life story of the Perron family who in 1971 moved into a new farmhouse. It isn't long before the usual shenanigans begin - pictures pulled off walls, doors knocking in the dead of night, the children befriending mysterious 'imaginary' kids (who we all know watching are going to show up at some point). The film sticks to the tried and tested story - gradual possession of one of the adults (Lily Taylor), gradually increasing appearances by ghostly figures, calling in the ghostbusters, gathering the proof, then the exorcism. It may be join the dots territory but it works.
Patrick Wilson shines and seems to be making his mark in films of this nature (Insidious and Insidious Chapter 2) - he portrays real life paranormal investigator Ed Warren who with his wife Lorraine (played just as well by Vera Farmiga) become immersed in the life of the Perron's making themselves targets of the supernatural force at work in the process.
The demonic spirit at work is that of a witch who was married to the guy who built the house back in the 1800's who cursed the land before committing suicide after murdering their child whilst a few days old. There is one particularly pant browning scene where the witch makes her first appearance atop a bedroom wardrobe....and I'll leave it there!
Quality. Best horror I've seen since Sinister.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dirty Grandpa (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Dirty De Niro
It’s hard to imagine an acting career that has continuously impressed as much as that of Robert De Niro. The two-time Academy Award-winner has also racked up an incredible five further nominations at the Oscars, cementing him as a Hollywood great.
However, over the last few years, this acting veteran has spiralled into rather dangerous territory. Taking on thankless role after thankless role with terrible romantic comedies, his filmography makes for grim reading these days.
His latest movie sees him star alongside the hunky Zac Efron in Dirty Grandpa, a gross-out comedy following the pair on a road trip from Atlanta to Florida, but does it do enough to restore some sheen to De Niro’s CV?
De Niro stars as Richard ‘Dick’ Kelly, an army veteran mourning the loss of his late wife. To ease his grief, he and his uptight lawyer grandson Jason (Efron) take a trip together as a way of catching up. Though for Dick, there’s more than scenery on his mind.
I’ll get this off my chest before we go any further. The script is absolutely atrocious and one of the worst I have ever come across in the genre, and Dan Mazer’s inconsistent direction only highlights these major flaws.
Both Efron and De Niro look uncomfortable with the overly offensive dialogue that targets homosexuals and ethnic minorities just to try and raise a laugh. This is comedy at its laziest and Dirty Grandpa is more than happy to admit that to you – it’s definitely not ashamed of what it is.
Nevertheless, it’s such a shame to see a former Oscar winner taking on the role of a borderline perverted grandparent. The constant leering at college girls and the cringe-worthy talk of sex just don’t sit well with those who know of De Niro’s once unrivalled talent and this is why he feels sorely miscast.
Efron too starts off incredibly poorly. As the uptight lawyer, he spouts legalese that you know he doesn’t truly understand, though once he starts to unwind we see him at his best. The actor knows that he works well in films where he can use his cracking smile and body to full effect and it’s certainly out in force here.
Elsewhere, a supporting cast that includes Parks and Recreation’s Aubrey Plaza fares much better with Plaza being the film’s standout character. Her sex-obsessed Lenore is actually very funny indeed and provides Dirty Grandpa with what it sorely needs – genuine comedy.
Unfortunately, despite a few laughs, the film tries too hard with the tired old clichés. From fart jokes to racism and sexism, it’s all there – all the while unaware it’s adding another nail in the coffin of Robert De Niro’s acting career.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/05/dire-de-niro-dirty-grandpa-review/
However, over the last few years, this acting veteran has spiralled into rather dangerous territory. Taking on thankless role after thankless role with terrible romantic comedies, his filmography makes for grim reading these days.
His latest movie sees him star alongside the hunky Zac Efron in Dirty Grandpa, a gross-out comedy following the pair on a road trip from Atlanta to Florida, but does it do enough to restore some sheen to De Niro’s CV?
De Niro stars as Richard ‘Dick’ Kelly, an army veteran mourning the loss of his late wife. To ease his grief, he and his uptight lawyer grandson Jason (Efron) take a trip together as a way of catching up. Though for Dick, there’s more than scenery on his mind.
I’ll get this off my chest before we go any further. The script is absolutely atrocious and one of the worst I have ever come across in the genre, and Dan Mazer’s inconsistent direction only highlights these major flaws.
Both Efron and De Niro look uncomfortable with the overly offensive dialogue that targets homosexuals and ethnic minorities just to try and raise a laugh. This is comedy at its laziest and Dirty Grandpa is more than happy to admit that to you – it’s definitely not ashamed of what it is.
Nevertheless, it’s such a shame to see a former Oscar winner taking on the role of a borderline perverted grandparent. The constant leering at college girls and the cringe-worthy talk of sex just don’t sit well with those who know of De Niro’s once unrivalled talent and this is why he feels sorely miscast.
Efron too starts off incredibly poorly. As the uptight lawyer, he spouts legalese that you know he doesn’t truly understand, though once he starts to unwind we see him at his best. The actor knows that he works well in films where he can use his cracking smile and body to full effect and it’s certainly out in force here.
Elsewhere, a supporting cast that includes Parks and Recreation’s Aubrey Plaza fares much better with Plaza being the film’s standout character. Her sex-obsessed Lenore is actually very funny indeed and provides Dirty Grandpa with what it sorely needs – genuine comedy.
Unfortunately, despite a few laughs, the film tries too hard with the tired old clichés. From fart jokes to racism and sexism, it’s all there – all the while unaware it’s adding another nail in the coffin of Robert De Niro’s acting career.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/05/dire-de-niro-dirty-grandpa-review/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated June: A Novel in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Cassie is twenty-five and living in the dilapidated mansion, Two Oaks, she inherited from her grandmother, June. The house is literally falling down around her: also a pretty good metaphor for Cassie's life. She's fled her life as an artist in New York and come to St. Jude, Ohio, to grieve for her grandmother and lick her wounds. That basically amounts to hiding in the house, ignoring the phone, and letting the mail (and bills) pile up around her. But even she can't ignore the constant ringing of the doorbell. With it comes some pretty shocking news: Cassie has been named sole heir to the fortune of the legendary movie star, Jack Montgomery. Considering Cassie only barely knew of Jack's name, this comes as quite a surprise. Why did this famous actor leave her his fortune? Did Jack know Cassie's grandmother, June? Suddenly Jack's two daughters show up, wanting answers as well, and Cassie's life will never be the same.
There are really no words for this book. It's a beautiful and magical adventure. It takes what should be a fairly simple event - figuring out whether Cassie is related to Jack - and turns it into a lovely, suspenseful read. I simply couldn't put this book down. The characters are so real, so fully actualized that they jump off the page. Cassie, June, June's childhood friend Lindie, Jack, the people of St. Jude - they are all there, truly vivid in your mind's eye. The book really does simply set out to determine if and how Cassie and Jack are tied together, but it's this amazing and compelling read.
You're pulled into the spellbinding world of then versus now... the story twists between present day, told from Cassie's point of view and the 1950s, which is really accurately portrayed. I'm usually a contemporary fiction reader all the way, but this period portrayal is so well-done, and I loved it. The character of Lindie, especially, makes your heart ache. As the book flips between time and the story unfolds, you become completely enmeshed in the characters' world; Beverly Whittemore does such a good job of creating them that you feel with them and really become part of their lives.
I am trying to think of any flaws, but I can't. I guessed at a few of the plot twists, but only narrowly before they happened, and it certainly didn't ruin my enjoyment of the story whatsoever. Cassie can be a frustrating character at times (read your mail, darn-it), but it's only because she's so well-created. Overall, this is really a beautiful, suspenseful book that brings you into its world. I highly recommend it. 4.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from Librarything (thank you!); it is available everywhere on 5/31.
There are really no words for this book. It's a beautiful and magical adventure. It takes what should be a fairly simple event - figuring out whether Cassie is related to Jack - and turns it into a lovely, suspenseful read. I simply couldn't put this book down. The characters are so real, so fully actualized that they jump off the page. Cassie, June, June's childhood friend Lindie, Jack, the people of St. Jude - they are all there, truly vivid in your mind's eye. The book really does simply set out to determine if and how Cassie and Jack are tied together, but it's this amazing and compelling read.
You're pulled into the spellbinding world of then versus now... the story twists between present day, told from Cassie's point of view and the 1950s, which is really accurately portrayed. I'm usually a contemporary fiction reader all the way, but this period portrayal is so well-done, and I loved it. The character of Lindie, especially, makes your heart ache. As the book flips between time and the story unfolds, you become completely enmeshed in the characters' world; Beverly Whittemore does such a good job of creating them that you feel with them and really become part of their lives.
I am trying to think of any flaws, but I can't. I guessed at a few of the plot twists, but only narrowly before they happened, and it certainly didn't ruin my enjoyment of the story whatsoever. Cassie can be a frustrating character at times (read your mail, darn-it), but it's only because she's so well-created. Overall, this is really a beautiful, suspenseful book that brings you into its world. I highly recommend it. 4.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from Librarything (thank you!); it is available everywhere on 5/31.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Nov 22, 2018
Dull, boring & confused
I'll start by saying I've never been enamoured with the idea of the Fantastic Beasts films. For me, the wizarding world should have been left alone. The first film was enjoyable to a point (mainly because of Eddie Redmayne and the niffler), but this second film is inexcusable. And the fact that they're making another 3 more... totally unnecessary.
This film doesn't get off to a good start with the opening sequence, and rarely gets any better throughout the entire 2+ hour runtime. Some of the camera angles and shots used are terrible, jumping around all over the place even when it's just dialogue and the action scenes are virtually unwatchable. Whilst the effects are good, the plot is convoluted, confusing and just plain old boring. The majority of the film is just dialogue, and not well scripted dialogue at that and it gets very dull very quickly.
The characters that were likeable in the first film were either poorly used or turned into something completely different to what was likeable about them in the first place. There are far too many characters in this and even with the far too long run time, there isn't much time for character development. Johnny Depp is horrendous as Grindelwald. Not only because the character himself is the least menacing villain you've ever seen, but he's just not a very good actor anymore. I actually think his original incarnation as Colin Farrell in the first film would've been much better. I also couldn't figure out what crimes he had committed until the final act. The only person to come out of this film fairly intact was Jude Law, who played a likeable Dumbledore even if he wasn't on screen nearly enough. And really, it was only the creatures that made this worth watching and there just wasn't enough of them. Definitely not enough Niffler antics!
My main issue with this film is that it's messing with canon, bringing in characters we don't want to see and telling a story we don't need to hear. We didn't need to see Hogwarts, Dumbledore, McGonagall, Nagini and a few others I won't name. It's turning the wizarding world into a convoluted mess. They could have made a fairly decent standalone first Fantastic Beasts film that didn't link in with Grindelwald or the history at all, but instead they've made this nonsense.
And if I didn't think it could get any worse, the reveal of Credence's real identity right at the end nearly had me shouting at the screen it was that bad and ridiculous.
I probably could have walked out of this film after half an hour and not been bothered. Terrible.
This film doesn't get off to a good start with the opening sequence, and rarely gets any better throughout the entire 2+ hour runtime. Some of the camera angles and shots used are terrible, jumping around all over the place even when it's just dialogue and the action scenes are virtually unwatchable. Whilst the effects are good, the plot is convoluted, confusing and just plain old boring. The majority of the film is just dialogue, and not well scripted dialogue at that and it gets very dull very quickly.
The characters that were likeable in the first film were either poorly used or turned into something completely different to what was likeable about them in the first place. There are far too many characters in this and even with the far too long run time, there isn't much time for character development. Johnny Depp is horrendous as Grindelwald. Not only because the character himself is the least menacing villain you've ever seen, but he's just not a very good actor anymore. I actually think his original incarnation as Colin Farrell in the first film would've been much better. I also couldn't figure out what crimes he had committed until the final act. The only person to come out of this film fairly intact was Jude Law, who played a likeable Dumbledore even if he wasn't on screen nearly enough. And really, it was only the creatures that made this worth watching and there just wasn't enough of them. Definitely not enough Niffler antics!
My main issue with this film is that it's messing with canon, bringing in characters we don't want to see and telling a story we don't need to hear. We didn't need to see Hogwarts, Dumbledore, McGonagall, Nagini and a few others I won't name. It's turning the wizarding world into a convoluted mess. They could have made a fairly decent standalone first Fantastic Beasts film that didn't link in with Grindelwald or the history at all, but instead they've made this nonsense.
And if I didn't think it could get any worse, the reveal of Credence's real identity right at the end nearly had me shouting at the screen it was that bad and ridiculous.
I probably could have walked out of this film after half an hour and not been bothered. Terrible.
