Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated Dark Crimes (2018) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Dark Crimes starts when Tadek (Carrey) still investigating the murder of a police officer, gets a new lead when Kozlov (Csokas) writes a new book which has an eerily similarity to the murder, leading him to take a dangerous road investigating the murder, which includes challenge the former girlfriend Kasia (Gainsbourg).
The investigation has plenty of ties to the secret sex club known as the cage, where the men get to do whatever they want to the women, Tadek must put his professional and person life on the line to get to the bottom of this investigations.
Thoughts on Dark Crimes
Characters – Tadek is a police officer, he is preparing for retirement (I think) only he wants to solve one final case, which involves the murder of a fellow officer, he goes down dangerous paths which put his career on the line, his marriage on the line, hoping to find the answers. Kozlov is an author that has written a book that sounds too similar to the unsolved case, he becomes the target of the investigation because of his history with the known sex club. Kasia is a former worker in the club, she does have a connection to Kozlov and the victim.
Performances – Jim Carrey is an actor that I like seeing him doing serious roles, sadly, this is one of his worst performances in a long time, he can keep the accent up jumping around all over the place. Marton Csokas usually does well in film, but because the character isn’t very interesting, he struggles to keep our attention. Charlotte Gainsbourg disappoints too, she does everything we expect her to without making the impact.
Story – The story follows a detective that is investigating the murder of a fellow officer that could have found the confession inside a novel, which leads him to target the author in search for the truth. The problem here is we get slow moving conversations which don’t go anywhere, we don’t get into the evidence of the case, it just seems to be watching one man starting to go too far in his search. The case doesn’t seem long enough to make feature film story either.
Crime – The crime side of the film follows the investigation into the murder of a police officer which might be opened up again, it never feels urgent either.
Settings – The film uses the settings to show how the club could be easily accessed without needing to be too far away.
Scene of the Movie – Nothing.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The dragging story.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the worst crime stories because it just never feels like the case is that important.
Overall: Just a drag.
The investigation has plenty of ties to the secret sex club known as the cage, where the men get to do whatever they want to the women, Tadek must put his professional and person life on the line to get to the bottom of this investigations.
Thoughts on Dark Crimes
Characters – Tadek is a police officer, he is preparing for retirement (I think) only he wants to solve one final case, which involves the murder of a fellow officer, he goes down dangerous paths which put his career on the line, his marriage on the line, hoping to find the answers. Kozlov is an author that has written a book that sounds too similar to the unsolved case, he becomes the target of the investigation because of his history with the known sex club. Kasia is a former worker in the club, she does have a connection to Kozlov and the victim.
Performances – Jim Carrey is an actor that I like seeing him doing serious roles, sadly, this is one of his worst performances in a long time, he can keep the accent up jumping around all over the place. Marton Csokas usually does well in film, but because the character isn’t very interesting, he struggles to keep our attention. Charlotte Gainsbourg disappoints too, she does everything we expect her to without making the impact.
Story – The story follows a detective that is investigating the murder of a fellow officer that could have found the confession inside a novel, which leads him to target the author in search for the truth. The problem here is we get slow moving conversations which don’t go anywhere, we don’t get into the evidence of the case, it just seems to be watching one man starting to go too far in his search. The case doesn’t seem long enough to make feature film story either.
Crime – The crime side of the film follows the investigation into the murder of a police officer which might be opened up again, it never feels urgent either.
Settings – The film uses the settings to show how the club could be easily accessed without needing to be too far away.
Scene of the Movie – Nothing.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The dragging story.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the worst crime stories because it just never feels like the case is that important.
Overall: Just a drag.
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Leopard (2016) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
A Beautiful, Twisted, Dark, Intense and Mesmerizing tale of Betrayal, Violence and Heart Breaking Brotherly Love..
Anyone who listens to ourleopard5-1 Podcast knows that while Chris and myself love the fanfare of the Huge Blockbuster Marvel/DC/Star Wars releases. Well nothing can quite compare to the
smaller Independent Films that you just know every second of screen time came straight from one persons passion to make a piece of Cinema that is all there’s. A movie that can display such mastery of there craft and hit you square in the heart (or balls) and make you feel something that… In my opinion Capes and Spandex just cant do.
Leopard is available On Demand this month from Osiris Entertainment.
Leopard is exactly that type of movie. A true passion piece that is driven by the wonderfully carefully calculated mind of its Writer/Director/Actor, BUT smashed out of the park by his outstanding team of Actors. Most revleopard6iews and articles I have read liken this movie to the wonderful Paris,Texas but I personally thought it had a feeling of Shane Meadows Dead Man Shoes.
Leopard tells the story of Jack (Eoin Macken. Merlin, NBCs Night Shift Also the Writer/Director) and his brother Tom (Tom Hopper. Merlin, Black Sails). Jack is returning to his home town in Ireland after a prolonged absence and it is clear from the outset he is not all that welcome. We find that his father has passed away and he is back for the reading of the Will along with his brother Tom who is not all there (Think Lenny from Mice and Men). There relationship is fairly strained and we spend the course of the movie figuring out what happened 5 years ago and where that has left the two brothers now. Throw in some Hostile locals, A left for Dead girl to become the point of Toms fixation and a creepy Strip Club, you have leopard.
Chris and I cannot speak highly enough of this movie it ticks all of our boxes when looking for something a little bit different. The Irish setting not only makes for a great backdrop but also becomes a character within itself. The score to this movie is often hopeful and optimistic but full of eerie dread at the same time, truly wonderful. Eoin and Tom bring a level of chemistry you would hope for after there time together on Merlin. However I am going to say it here and now Tom Hopper is a Brit star to watch out for he smashed this out of the park. There is also a damn fine supporting cast in Jack Reynor (Transformers: Age of Extinction) Rebecca Night (Sky 1s The Starlings) and Helen Pearson (Mrs O from Hollyoaks).
Anyone who listens to ourleopard5-1 Podcast knows that while Chris and myself love the fanfare of the Huge Blockbuster Marvel/DC/Star Wars releases. Well nothing can quite compare to the
smaller Independent Films that you just know every second of screen time came straight from one persons passion to make a piece of Cinema that is all there’s. A movie that can display such mastery of there craft and hit you square in the heart (or balls) and make you feel something that… In my opinion Capes and Spandex just cant do.
Leopard is available On Demand this month from Osiris Entertainment.
Leopard is exactly that type of movie. A true passion piece that is driven by the wonderfully carefully calculated mind of its Writer/Director/Actor, BUT smashed out of the park by his outstanding team of Actors. Most revleopard6iews and articles I have read liken this movie to the wonderful Paris,Texas but I personally thought it had a feeling of Shane Meadows Dead Man Shoes.
Leopard tells the story of Jack (Eoin Macken. Merlin, NBCs Night Shift Also the Writer/Director) and his brother Tom (Tom Hopper. Merlin, Black Sails). Jack is returning to his home town in Ireland after a prolonged absence and it is clear from the outset he is not all that welcome. We find that his father has passed away and he is back for the reading of the Will along with his brother Tom who is not all there (Think Lenny from Mice and Men). There relationship is fairly strained and we spend the course of the movie figuring out what happened 5 years ago and where that has left the two brothers now. Throw in some Hostile locals, A left for Dead girl to become the point of Toms fixation and a creepy Strip Club, you have leopard.
Chris and I cannot speak highly enough of this movie it ticks all of our boxes when looking for something a little bit different. The Irish setting not only makes for a great backdrop but also becomes a character within itself. The score to this movie is often hopeful and optimistic but full of eerie dread at the same time, truly wonderful. Eoin and Tom bring a level of chemistry you would hope for after there time together on Merlin. However I am going to say it here and now Tom Hopper is a Brit star to watch out for he smashed this out of the park. There is also a damn fine supporting cast in Jack Reynor (Transformers: Age of Extinction) Rebecca Night (Sky 1s The Starlings) and Helen Pearson (Mrs O from Hollyoaks).
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
Hoo boy. If you are a fan of “whodunit” movies, you are in for a real treat. Rian Johnson directs Knives Out, a film that that brings a great modern twist to the whodunit genre with an amazing all star cast.
Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer) is an acclaimed mystery murder novelist who has committed suicide on the night of his birthday party. At least it seems so at first. A mysterious entity has hired the last of the southern gentlemen detectives, Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig), to aid Lieutenant Elliot (LaKeith Stanfield) and Trooper Wagner (Noah Segan) in their investigation into what appeared to be a suicide. But soon, the stories of the party-goers starts to crumble, and you see there is something more afoot. Someone killed Mr. Thrombey, but who could it be? The list of suspects is long, and all are close to the deceased in their own way: his daughter, Linda Drysdale (Jamie Lee Curtis); her husband, Richard Drysdale (Don Johnson); or their son, Ransom Drysdale (Chris Evans)? Could it possibly be his son, Walt Thrombey (Michael Shannon); his wife Donna (Riki Lindhome); or their son Jacob (Jaeden Martell). Maybe it was Joni Thrombey (Toni Collette), his widowed daughter-in-law; or her daughter Meg (Katherine Langford). Or it could be Marta Cabrera (Ana de Armas), Mr. Thrombey’s nurse. It’s a large list of suspects who attended the party that night, and it could be any of them.
I am a huge fan of this genre of movie, and I will say that Knives Out, while predictable at some points, did have me guessing, and second-guessing, all the way to the very end. I can’t really give you a lot more without spoiling some major plot points, but the film is outstanding. It was a little slow to start, but I believe there was a purpose behind this. Each actor playing a part that is not their typical role (for the most part) ended up being the real selling point. They all did fantastic, even though it did take a little getting used to seeing James Bond with a southern accent, and Captain America as a bona fide jackass.
The movie gave us a perfect blend of humor, mystery, and even a little action in order to give us what could be a modern masterpiece in the genre. Flay me all you want if you disagree, but it’s been a while since a really good whodunit has been put out that wasn’t a period piece. There were some flaws, but the movie made you connect to these characters, as zany as they seemed. Definitely a good film to check out on a date night.
Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer) is an acclaimed mystery murder novelist who has committed suicide on the night of his birthday party. At least it seems so at first. A mysterious entity has hired the last of the southern gentlemen detectives, Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig), to aid Lieutenant Elliot (LaKeith Stanfield) and Trooper Wagner (Noah Segan) in their investigation into what appeared to be a suicide. But soon, the stories of the party-goers starts to crumble, and you see there is something more afoot. Someone killed Mr. Thrombey, but who could it be? The list of suspects is long, and all are close to the deceased in their own way: his daughter, Linda Drysdale (Jamie Lee Curtis); her husband, Richard Drysdale (Don Johnson); or their son, Ransom Drysdale (Chris Evans)? Could it possibly be his son, Walt Thrombey (Michael Shannon); his wife Donna (Riki Lindhome); or their son Jacob (Jaeden Martell). Maybe it was Joni Thrombey (Toni Collette), his widowed daughter-in-law; or her daughter Meg (Katherine Langford). Or it could be Marta Cabrera (Ana de Armas), Mr. Thrombey’s nurse. It’s a large list of suspects who attended the party that night, and it could be any of them.
I am a huge fan of this genre of movie, and I will say that Knives Out, while predictable at some points, did have me guessing, and second-guessing, all the way to the very end. I can’t really give you a lot more without spoiling some major plot points, but the film is outstanding. It was a little slow to start, but I believe there was a purpose behind this. Each actor playing a part that is not their typical role (for the most part) ended up being the real selling point. They all did fantastic, even though it did take a little getting used to seeing James Bond with a southern accent, and Captain America as a bona fide jackass.
The movie gave us a perfect blend of humor, mystery, and even a little action in order to give us what could be a modern masterpiece in the genre. Flay me all you want if you disagree, but it’s been a while since a really good whodunit has been put out that wasn’t a period piece. There were some flaws, but the movie made you connect to these characters, as zany as they seemed. Definitely a good film to check out on a date night.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Ninja Assassin (2009) in Movies
Dec 2, 2019
Bland Characters Equals Meh Movie
A former member of a sect of secret ninjas escapes the clan, but has to fight for his life when the past catches up to him.
Acting: 4
I have seen paper bags act better than Rain the actor who plays main character Raizo. I think the screenwriters knew this and tried to mask his lack of chops with less lines, but it definitely didn’t work. He is as bland as the chicken I feed my dog when he has diarrhea. The rest of the crew isn’t terribly better and aren’t worth much of a mention.
Beginning: 10
The movie actually gets off to a great start. It starts off in a gangster hideout and an old man is giving one of the gangsters a tattoo. A letter shows up with black sand in it. Black sand is basically the kiss of death for these ninjas so it’s not too long after that bedlam ensues. Dope scene, got me excited to watch more.
Characters: 2
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 10
The action was also a plus. The beginning is definitely an indicator of things to come. You want crazy martial fighting? Check. Blood and gore? Blamo! Insane slowmo sequences? Coming right up. This is basically an action junkie’s wet dream. Actually, I think I’m giving it too much credit…
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 7
Pace: 7
While I appreciate certain things like at least making an attempt at a backstory, there were other portions that slowed the movie down in a couple of spots. Like seriously, how much training do we need to see this dude do? A few rounds on the good ole speed bag will suffice for me, thanks. Nope, this dude is doing splits, using ninja swords, fighting air. I also thought they spent a bit too much time on the main detective Mika (Naomie Harris) researching the ninjas. Pretty painful, but mostly fine.
Plot: 8
I didn’t hate the story. As I mentioned above, it was cool that you got a look into Raizo’s earlier life in the ninja clan and what got him to where he was. Crappy character, but I appreciated the effort to develop him. While the story got sidetracked here and there, it got you from Point A to Point B fairly smoothly.
Resolution: 6
Overall: 69
What disappoints me most about Ninja Assassin is the sheer amount of potential it had. Because it didn’t invest in quality actors or working in characters we care about, there is little margin for error in the rest of the movie. It wants to be likable, yet it didn’t put in the work to earn your friendship. I do not recommend.
Acting: 4
I have seen paper bags act better than Rain the actor who plays main character Raizo. I think the screenwriters knew this and tried to mask his lack of chops with less lines, but it definitely didn’t work. He is as bland as the chicken I feed my dog when he has diarrhea. The rest of the crew isn’t terribly better and aren’t worth much of a mention.
Beginning: 10
The movie actually gets off to a great start. It starts off in a gangster hideout and an old man is giving one of the gangsters a tattoo. A letter shows up with black sand in it. Black sand is basically the kiss of death for these ninjas so it’s not too long after that bedlam ensues. Dope scene, got me excited to watch more.
Characters: 2
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 10
The action was also a plus. The beginning is definitely an indicator of things to come. You want crazy martial fighting? Check. Blood and gore? Blamo! Insane slowmo sequences? Coming right up. This is basically an action junkie’s wet dream. Actually, I think I’m giving it too much credit…
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 7
Pace: 7
While I appreciate certain things like at least making an attempt at a backstory, there were other portions that slowed the movie down in a couple of spots. Like seriously, how much training do we need to see this dude do? A few rounds on the good ole speed bag will suffice for me, thanks. Nope, this dude is doing splits, using ninja swords, fighting air. I also thought they spent a bit too much time on the main detective Mika (Naomie Harris) researching the ninjas. Pretty painful, but mostly fine.
Plot: 8
I didn’t hate the story. As I mentioned above, it was cool that you got a look into Raizo’s earlier life in the ninja clan and what got him to where he was. Crappy character, but I appreciated the effort to develop him. While the story got sidetracked here and there, it got you from Point A to Point B fairly smoothly.
Resolution: 6
Overall: 69
What disappoints me most about Ninja Assassin is the sheer amount of potential it had. Because it didn’t invest in quality actors or working in characters we care about, there is little margin for error in the rest of the movie. It wants to be likable, yet it didn’t put in the work to earn your friendship. I do not recommend.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Uncut Gems (2019) in Movies
Jan 5, 2020
Sandler deserves an Oscar Nomination
Adam Sandler deserves and Oscar nomination.
I never thought I'd ever write that sentence, but after seeing his performance in the Safdie brothers film, UNCUT GEMS, I can make that statement with solid confidence.
Following the constant hustle of NYC jewelry dealer (and degenerate gambler), Howard Ratner (Sandler), UNCUT GEMS is an unrelenting look at a person who is never satisfied with where he is - he's always looking for the next "big score".
As portrayed by Sandler, Ratner is charming, charismatic, a BS artist of the highest order and quick with a joke and a scheme in every situation. This is a tour-de-force performance by Sandler who is in virtually every moment of this film. His character is ruthless and relentless - never giving up or losing energy - and it was the constant rat-a-tat-tat of this character/performance that caused great angst in me - as well as great appreciation for the fine performance I was witnessing.
The film was written and directed by the Safdie Brothers (Benny and Josh) who are known in the Independent film world, but who are new to me. I was intrigued by the story, the world and the logistics of this film. It is a smart - and fast paced - film that doesn't try to "dumb it down" for the audience. I applaud them for their work here - and I look forward to what they do next.
A performance like Sandler's is only good if he has good actors to play off of - and he does (in spades) here. From veteran actor Judd Hirsch, to Broadway Superstar Idina Menzel to the great (and underused, in my opinion) Eric Brogosian to the always watchable Lakeith Stanfield, Sandler was able to spar and parry with these performers at a breakneck pace that was intriguing, fascinating and hard to watch.
But the biggest surprise (besides Sandler's dramatic acting chops) was the performance of NBA Superstar Kevin Garnett. Playing a fictionalized and younger (this film is set in 2011) version of himself, Garnett brought the same authority to the screen that he brought to the court.
This is a VERY adult film (according to reports, this film has the 7th most "F-Bombs" of any film in history) with adult subjects and adult situations - all swirling around Sandler's character at a breakneck pace that will be simultaneously satisfying - and hard to watch. Are you watching a person spiraling out of control - or are you watching a very smart person weaving his way in and out of precarious situations?
Watch UNCUT GEMS - and you be the judge.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I never thought I'd ever write that sentence, but after seeing his performance in the Safdie brothers film, UNCUT GEMS, I can make that statement with solid confidence.
Following the constant hustle of NYC jewelry dealer (and degenerate gambler), Howard Ratner (Sandler), UNCUT GEMS is an unrelenting look at a person who is never satisfied with where he is - he's always looking for the next "big score".
As portrayed by Sandler, Ratner is charming, charismatic, a BS artist of the highest order and quick with a joke and a scheme in every situation. This is a tour-de-force performance by Sandler who is in virtually every moment of this film. His character is ruthless and relentless - never giving up or losing energy - and it was the constant rat-a-tat-tat of this character/performance that caused great angst in me - as well as great appreciation for the fine performance I was witnessing.
The film was written and directed by the Safdie Brothers (Benny and Josh) who are known in the Independent film world, but who are new to me. I was intrigued by the story, the world and the logistics of this film. It is a smart - and fast paced - film that doesn't try to "dumb it down" for the audience. I applaud them for their work here - and I look forward to what they do next.
A performance like Sandler's is only good if he has good actors to play off of - and he does (in spades) here. From veteran actor Judd Hirsch, to Broadway Superstar Idina Menzel to the great (and underused, in my opinion) Eric Brogosian to the always watchable Lakeith Stanfield, Sandler was able to spar and parry with these performers at a breakneck pace that was intriguing, fascinating and hard to watch.
But the biggest surprise (besides Sandler's dramatic acting chops) was the performance of NBA Superstar Kevin Garnett. Playing a fictionalized and younger (this film is set in 2011) version of himself, Garnett brought the same authority to the screen that he brought to the court.
This is a VERY adult film (according to reports, this film has the 7th most "F-Bombs" of any film in history) with adult subjects and adult situations - all swirling around Sandler's character at a breakneck pace that will be simultaneously satisfying - and hard to watch. Are you watching a person spiraling out of control - or are you watching a very smart person weaving his way in and out of precarious situations?
Watch UNCUT GEMS - and you be the judge.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated The Incredible Hulk (2008) in Movies
Feb 11, 2020 (Updated Apr 7, 2020)
The second entry into the ever expanding MCU has it's flaws, but it's still an entertaining enough monster movie featuring one of Marvel Comics most beloved characters.
Edward Norton is a fantastic actor, and his involvement here as Bruce Banner is an inspired choice. It's a shame that behind the scenes politics resulted in him leaving the franchise so soon, even though I love Mark Ruffalo!
He plays Banner as a fairly broody individual, but with an awkward edge, a man who's constantly in fear if what he can turn into.
Liv Tyler plays Betty Ross, and she's pretty much just Liv Tyler throughout. She's actually pretty charming as the character and it would be nice to see her turn up in future MCU films (hey, if they can get Natalie Portman involved again then surely it's a possibility!)
Tim Roth and William Hurt play the antagonists to Banner, and are both enjoyable in the more villainous roles, even if Roth is more or less relegated to spouting out cheesy one liners. Hurt has of course reprised his role in later films and is a welcome main stay in the franchise.
We also have Tim Blake Nelson and Ty Burrell, set up as future characters (The Leader and Doc Samson respectively), but neither of these have yet to come to fruition, so as it stands, both feel like wasted opportunities.
The narrative is pretty straightforward as Banner is pursued across the planet, but it gets the job done, ending in a big showdown between Hulk and Abomination in the middle of Harlem.
One of my main criticisms stems from this scene actually, with the film climaxing in a big CGI fight, between the hero, and an evil version of the hero, exactly like in Iron Man, and unfortunately, in a fair few MCU films further down the line (Iron Man 2, Black Panther, Ant Man). The CGI, whilst still good enough, doesn't hold up anywhere near as well as Iron Man however (which came out in the same year), and the green/grey colour scheme of both characters, and the night-time setting, gives the whole scene a dull edge, even if Hulk does tear a car in half and use both halves as boxing gloves...
The Incredible Hulk is a mostly decent film, but it shows signs of a franchise still finding its feet, and these signs grow in obviousness the older it gets, which is a big contrast when compared to the confident nature of Iron Man.
It also feels a bit stuck in the "look at this cool shot" superhero formula that became rampant during the 2000s.
It's still a fun film however, and deserves it's place in a Marvel movie marathon.
Edward Norton is a fantastic actor, and his involvement here as Bruce Banner is an inspired choice. It's a shame that behind the scenes politics resulted in him leaving the franchise so soon, even though I love Mark Ruffalo!
He plays Banner as a fairly broody individual, but with an awkward edge, a man who's constantly in fear if what he can turn into.
Liv Tyler plays Betty Ross, and she's pretty much just Liv Tyler throughout. She's actually pretty charming as the character and it would be nice to see her turn up in future MCU films (hey, if they can get Natalie Portman involved again then surely it's a possibility!)
Tim Roth and William Hurt play the antagonists to Banner, and are both enjoyable in the more villainous roles, even if Roth is more or less relegated to spouting out cheesy one liners. Hurt has of course reprised his role in later films and is a welcome main stay in the franchise.
We also have Tim Blake Nelson and Ty Burrell, set up as future characters (The Leader and Doc Samson respectively), but neither of these have yet to come to fruition, so as it stands, both feel like wasted opportunities.
The narrative is pretty straightforward as Banner is pursued across the planet, but it gets the job done, ending in a big showdown between Hulk and Abomination in the middle of Harlem.
One of my main criticisms stems from this scene actually, with the film climaxing in a big CGI fight, between the hero, and an evil version of the hero, exactly like in Iron Man, and unfortunately, in a fair few MCU films further down the line (Iron Man 2, Black Panther, Ant Man). The CGI, whilst still good enough, doesn't hold up anywhere near as well as Iron Man however (which came out in the same year), and the green/grey colour scheme of both characters, and the night-time setting, gives the whole scene a dull edge, even if Hulk does tear a car in half and use both halves as boxing gloves...
The Incredible Hulk is a mostly decent film, but it shows signs of a franchise still finding its feet, and these signs grow in obviousness the older it gets, which is a big contrast when compared to the confident nature of Iron Man.
It also feels a bit stuck in the "look at this cool shot" superhero formula that became rampant during the 2000s.
It's still a fun film however, and deserves it's place in a Marvel movie marathon.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
This doesn’t need to be a long review; the film itself doesn’t merit a lot of reflection. But, I have set myself the task of recording every piece of cultural media I consume, and there is already a backlog. So, here come a few quickfire bits on things that I found less than impressive. There is some value in identifying why something failed. Especially, as in the case of Glass, when there was an expectation it might be quite exciting.
I am not the biggest M. Night Shyamalan fan, to be honest. I will give you The Sixth Sense and Signs (to an extent), but even those contain some dodgy direction, plotting and unforgivable dialogue that hasn’t weathered the test of time well. 75% of his output is so bad it becomes funny; I mean, The Happening and Lady in the Water – WTF!? And the less said about The Last Airbender the better. My favourite of his works would have to be Unbreakable, from 2000. At least there is a satisfying story arc and the “twist” makes sense. Often with him it is so preposterous or an non-event, it makes you wonder why he bothered.
Sixteen years later, and Split sprung a surprise by being not bad at all, largely thanks to James McAvoy’s performance as a man with multiple personality disorder – a striking, terrifying, turn that showcased his abilities as an actor superbly. So there was some anticipation that bringing those two film worlds together would yield something very interesting and at least fun. So, it is sad to say that, once again, he pretty much botched it.
Don’t get me wrong, it is watchable and entertaining, up to a point – that point being when the story tries to gel all its strands together in a cohesive new twist, and fails utterly to do so. McAvoy is yet again the standout. Here he pushes the split personalities at his command to a brain spinning degree, switching from one to the other effortlessly – I would much rather just have watched him talking and twitching for two hours, to be fair. Bruce Willis has little to do but brood, and Samuel L. Jackson becomes totally laughable as he strains with the script to find any grounding in real character, and descends into cartoon / pantomime villain very quickly, losing all validity carried over from Unbreakable.
It’s a shame, because there is an idea in there somewhere; this just wasn’t it. No doubt, he has left it open for further exploration with these characters, and will in time return to them. I just hope he takes his time to consider the script properly before diving headlong into another disappointment of cliche and bad plotting. I just feel sorry for McAvoy, who deserved much better.
I am not the biggest M. Night Shyamalan fan, to be honest. I will give you The Sixth Sense and Signs (to an extent), but even those contain some dodgy direction, plotting and unforgivable dialogue that hasn’t weathered the test of time well. 75% of his output is so bad it becomes funny; I mean, The Happening and Lady in the Water – WTF!? And the less said about The Last Airbender the better. My favourite of his works would have to be Unbreakable, from 2000. At least there is a satisfying story arc and the “twist” makes sense. Often with him it is so preposterous or an non-event, it makes you wonder why he bothered.
Sixteen years later, and Split sprung a surprise by being not bad at all, largely thanks to James McAvoy’s performance as a man with multiple personality disorder – a striking, terrifying, turn that showcased his abilities as an actor superbly. So there was some anticipation that bringing those two film worlds together would yield something very interesting and at least fun. So, it is sad to say that, once again, he pretty much botched it.
Don’t get me wrong, it is watchable and entertaining, up to a point – that point being when the story tries to gel all its strands together in a cohesive new twist, and fails utterly to do so. McAvoy is yet again the standout. Here he pushes the split personalities at his command to a brain spinning degree, switching from one to the other effortlessly – I would much rather just have watched him talking and twitching for two hours, to be fair. Bruce Willis has little to do but brood, and Samuel L. Jackson becomes totally laughable as he strains with the script to find any grounding in real character, and descends into cartoon / pantomime villain very quickly, losing all validity carried over from Unbreakable.
It’s a shame, because there is an idea in there somewhere; this just wasn’t it. No doubt, he has left it open for further exploration with these characters, and will in time return to them. I just hope he takes his time to consider the script properly before diving headlong into another disappointment of cliche and bad plotting. I just feel sorry for McAvoy, who deserved much better.
JT (287 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
As an action connoisseur I know what I like. I’m easily pleased and not overly bothered by plot. It doesn’t always have to make sense, and set pieces can be incoherently over the top. This is why Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw is so enjoyable.
It’s clear to see that out of the franchise’s many characters Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) have been by far the most entertaining. Johnson arrived in Fast & Furious 5 as the agent tasked with capturing Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and his crew, while Statham’s debut was via a mid-credits scene during Fast & Furious 6 which connected to Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift.
What carries the film through the odd bump here and there is the chemistry between Johnson and Statham. They are not pleased at having to work together in order to locate a deadly virus called ‘Snowflake’. The pair engage in a number of funny put-downs and quips that start to build a love hate relationship. By the end of the film it’s pretty much guaranteed they are going to be back for a sequel.
Fast & Furious is well known for pushing boundaries when it comes to action sequences and this installment continues the trend. From running down a high-rise building to a chase through the streets of London, culminating with a totally bonkers helicopter finale that must be seen to be believed. The fight scenes are well choreographed and slick, all catering to the actor in question, with a vast array of objects at hand to be used as lethal weapons.
Idris Elba‘s Brixton Lore is an admirable villain. With built in cybernetic augmentations he has a spidey sense that is second to none. But he doesn’t get the screen time he deserves and his back story feels rushed. That said, his motorbike has a distinct Transformers feel about it and not surprisingly it emanates a familiar sound during a high speed pursuit.
What carries the film through the odd bump here and there is the chemistry between Johnson and Statham.
As if all of that wasn’t enough, there are a couple of great cameos thrown which actually work quite well [we won’t spoil them]. Helen Mirren pops up as Queenie, the matriarch of the Shaw family and Deckard’s sister Hattie (Vanessa Kirby) has an integral role to play.
Whatever you might think of the franchise or how tired it has become, there is no getting away from the fact that it has made a shed load of money. Things certainly don’t look like slowing down either, with the release of Fast & Furious 9 due out next year – although it could be minus this dynamic duo.
It’s clear to see that out of the franchise’s many characters Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) have been by far the most entertaining. Johnson arrived in Fast & Furious 5 as the agent tasked with capturing Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and his crew, while Statham’s debut was via a mid-credits scene during Fast & Furious 6 which connected to Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift.
What carries the film through the odd bump here and there is the chemistry between Johnson and Statham. They are not pleased at having to work together in order to locate a deadly virus called ‘Snowflake’. The pair engage in a number of funny put-downs and quips that start to build a love hate relationship. By the end of the film it’s pretty much guaranteed they are going to be back for a sequel.
Fast & Furious is well known for pushing boundaries when it comes to action sequences and this installment continues the trend. From running down a high-rise building to a chase through the streets of London, culminating with a totally bonkers helicopter finale that must be seen to be believed. The fight scenes are well choreographed and slick, all catering to the actor in question, with a vast array of objects at hand to be used as lethal weapons.
Idris Elba‘s Brixton Lore is an admirable villain. With built in cybernetic augmentations he has a spidey sense that is second to none. But he doesn’t get the screen time he deserves and his back story feels rushed. That said, his motorbike has a distinct Transformers feel about it and not surprisingly it emanates a familiar sound during a high speed pursuit.
What carries the film through the odd bump here and there is the chemistry between Johnson and Statham.
As if all of that wasn’t enough, there are a couple of great cameos thrown which actually work quite well [we won’t spoil them]. Helen Mirren pops up as Queenie, the matriarch of the Shaw family and Deckard’s sister Hattie (Vanessa Kirby) has an integral role to play.
Whatever you might think of the franchise or how tired it has become, there is no getting away from the fact that it has made a shed load of money. Things certainly don’t look like slowing down either, with the release of Fast & Furious 9 due out next year – although it could be minus this dynamic duo.
Kaz (232 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2019 (Updated Jul 31, 2019)
A film which I can't figure out.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I read the novel 'Pet Semetary' last year and, although there are some questionable elements to the story, I thought that generally, it was a good, creepy read.
Having just watched the 2019 remake, (I must point out that I haven't watched the original film) I'm not sure what to make of it.
For me, the novel 'Pet Semetary' is really dark and creepy. What this film version does, is add to that atmosphere and made it even more sinister, which I really liked.
Another good thing about this adaptation, was that it stayed pretty close to the original text, for the most part. Usually I don't like changes when a book is being made into a film, but actually, thinking about it, some of the changes in 'Pet Semetary' were wise, due to practicalities,
For example, in the novel, Gage is the one that dies and not Ellie. I would imagine the producers of this film, might have thought that it would either be too extreme to show a 2-3 year old running around with a knife and also it would be difficult to direct a child in this type of scene. So I understand why this was changed.
I thought that the acting was ok, but nothing special. I think John Lithgow was underused as Judd and actually, I thought his character was much less likable, than Judd in the book. I would give a special mention to the child actor who plays Ellie, as I thought she played her role well.
Now, let's talk about the ending. Whilst I thought the ending of the book was rather questionable, I could understand the thinking behind it. This book's general theme is grief and so Louis' decision to resurrect his wife, illustrates that his grief was so powerful, that he would do almost anything to bring his loved on,e back from the dead.
The ending to the film version though, was very disappointing. For me, Stephen King, not only writes books which satisfy a reader's enjoyment for being scared, but also has other themes and messages running through them too. So, by changing the ending to this film, it kind of took away that sad, powerful message of grief and replaced it with a conventional, 'horror film' ending. This was really disappointing for me, because by putting in that ending, it kind of demeaned everything that the book was trying to do.
This film was ok and had some positive points, but I don't think it does the original book, sufficient justice.
Having just watched the 2019 remake, (I must point out that I haven't watched the original film) I'm not sure what to make of it.
For me, the novel 'Pet Semetary' is really dark and creepy. What this film version does, is add to that atmosphere and made it even more sinister, which I really liked.
Another good thing about this adaptation, was that it stayed pretty close to the original text, for the most part. Usually I don't like changes when a book is being made into a film, but actually, thinking about it, some of the changes in 'Pet Semetary' were wise, due to practicalities,
For example, in the novel, Gage is the one that dies and not Ellie. I would imagine the producers of this film, might have thought that it would either be too extreme to show a 2-3 year old running around with a knife and also it would be difficult to direct a child in this type of scene. So I understand why this was changed.
I thought that the acting was ok, but nothing special. I think John Lithgow was underused as Judd and actually, I thought his character was much less likable, than Judd in the book. I would give a special mention to the child actor who plays Ellie, as I thought she played her role well.
Now, let's talk about the ending. Whilst I thought the ending of the book was rather questionable, I could understand the thinking behind it. This book's general theme is grief and so Louis' decision to resurrect his wife, illustrates that his grief was so powerful, that he would do almost anything to bring his loved on,e back from the dead.
The ending to the film version though, was very disappointing. For me, Stephen King, not only writes books which satisfy a reader's enjoyment for being scared, but also has other themes and messages running through them too. So, by changing the ending to this film, it kind of took away that sad, powerful message of grief and replaced it with a conventional, 'horror film' ending. This was really disappointing for me, because by putting in that ending, it kind of demeaned everything that the book was trying to do.
This film was ok and had some positive points, but I don't think it does the original book, sufficient justice.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Inherent Vice (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
“Inherent Vice” Follows Doc (Joaquin Phoenix), a private investigator, as he falls down a dark rabbit hole into a world of crime and systemic corruption.
Phoenix is a transformative actor, delving deep into his role. We’ve seen him do it before in movies like “Walk the Line.” He becomes his character to the point that it is conceivable this just might be the real him.
It is set in bohemian 1970s California. Everything from the way the camera captures the scene, to the outfits that adorn the characters, exudes a hippy-grunge vibe.
The film encompasses multiple genres including crime, comedy, and drama.
Similar to movies like “The Big Lebowski,” it is filled with humorous moments as Doc, a well-meaning and laid back stoner, is constantly found in the middle of the proverbial shit.
When his ex-girlfriend Shasta Fay (Katherine Waterston) reappears one random day, telling him of a plot to kidnap her billionaire boyfriend and then disappears shortly after, Doc becomes consumed by his investigation into her whereabouts. He is led into a conspiracy-like web of drugs, crime, and corruption.
It is not a typical movie with a coherent storyline, rather it is an experience of what Doc goes through as a mind bending mystery unfolds before him.
Strange, subtle details leave a trail of breadcrumbs for the audience to follow along with Doc, as he tries to make some sense out of the connections he stumbles across.
The plot transpires in a blur, floating into the perceptions of the audience like the winding smoke of an opium den. With a few dull moments, it drags on at times, much like the reality of human experience tends to do.
The musical selection only adds to the film’s tantalizing stylistic ambiance – at times it’s a dull and prolonged high, other times it’s a seedy bluesy underground, or absolute instrumental lunacy. Interestingly, much of the music was composed by Radiohead lead guitarist Jonny Greenwood.
Adding to the intricacy and authenticity of the film, is a brief cameo by what is perhaps the most psychedelic band of our time, The Growlers. This moment will only be recognized by fans who are paying close attention, but is an absolutely fitting detail.
Director Paul Thomas Anderson adapted the film from the original novel written by Thomas Pynchon. Like reading a novel, the film is consuming. But because it goes by much quicker than reading a book, it may need to be watched several times for the viewer to grasp exactly what happened.
Audiences will leave theaters with a resonating feeling of pure delirium from the cerebral experience that is “Inherent Vice.”
A surreal masterpiece, I give “Inherent Vice” 5 out of 5 stars.
Phoenix is a transformative actor, delving deep into his role. We’ve seen him do it before in movies like “Walk the Line.” He becomes his character to the point that it is conceivable this just might be the real him.
It is set in bohemian 1970s California. Everything from the way the camera captures the scene, to the outfits that adorn the characters, exudes a hippy-grunge vibe.
The film encompasses multiple genres including crime, comedy, and drama.
Similar to movies like “The Big Lebowski,” it is filled with humorous moments as Doc, a well-meaning and laid back stoner, is constantly found in the middle of the proverbial shit.
When his ex-girlfriend Shasta Fay (Katherine Waterston) reappears one random day, telling him of a plot to kidnap her billionaire boyfriend and then disappears shortly after, Doc becomes consumed by his investigation into her whereabouts. He is led into a conspiracy-like web of drugs, crime, and corruption.
It is not a typical movie with a coherent storyline, rather it is an experience of what Doc goes through as a mind bending mystery unfolds before him.
Strange, subtle details leave a trail of breadcrumbs for the audience to follow along with Doc, as he tries to make some sense out of the connections he stumbles across.
The plot transpires in a blur, floating into the perceptions of the audience like the winding smoke of an opium den. With a few dull moments, it drags on at times, much like the reality of human experience tends to do.
The musical selection only adds to the film’s tantalizing stylistic ambiance – at times it’s a dull and prolonged high, other times it’s a seedy bluesy underground, or absolute instrumental lunacy. Interestingly, much of the music was composed by Radiohead lead guitarist Jonny Greenwood.
Adding to the intricacy and authenticity of the film, is a brief cameo by what is perhaps the most psychedelic band of our time, The Growlers. This moment will only be recognized by fans who are paying close attention, but is an absolutely fitting detail.
Director Paul Thomas Anderson adapted the film from the original novel written by Thomas Pynchon. Like reading a novel, the film is consuming. But because it goes by much quicker than reading a book, it may need to be watched several times for the viewer to grasp exactly what happened.
Audiences will leave theaters with a resonating feeling of pure delirium from the cerebral experience that is “Inherent Vice.”
A surreal masterpiece, I give “Inherent Vice” 5 out of 5 stars.