Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Death on the Nile (2022) in Movies
Feb 19, 2022
I don't like to go into a film with a negative impression... but... #NotMyPoirot #SlashTheStash.
Linnet Ridgeway goes to Poirot with fears for her safety, and that of her new husband, when an old mutual acquaintance shows up at each new location on their honeymoon.
An Agatha Christie novel always makes for a great plot, and this one has had several different adaptations over the years. Don't go into it expecting a faithful adaptation though, this one comes out a bit spicier. It also takes some liberties with Poirot's backstory, which does add some interesting context to things about him, but at the same time, it's not the source material.
As with Death Train, Death Boat has a star-studded cast. While I love most of them in other things, I found the whole dynamic to be a little all over the place. Tom Bateman and Ali Fazal were solid, Russell Brand was surprisingly good, but everyone else was either rather bland or too over the top. Then there's Kenneth... I'll give it to them, it feels wrong thinking that Poirot is sexy... but there's one moment where even I, a Ken denier, took a sharp intake of breath.
Death on the Nile comes in at 2 hours and 7 minutes, had they cut what felt like 10 minutes of Gal Gadot walking down the length of the ship, it could easily have come in under 2 hours.
I think that identifies the issue I have with these new adaptations. This one in particular has a very theatrical feel to it. A lot of the boat shots early on feel like you're watching it happen on a stage. I don't object to that style, I like watching theatre, but having it thrown in randomly threw me.
My other big gripe was the choice of shots. Death Boat really likes to not show you faces when people are talking. Watching these scenes was off-putting, it felt like they'd been re-edited and had a new audio track overlaid... badly. There's also a scene where the camera swoops backwards and forwards between the people who are talking, and after a while, I could feel the motion sickness building.
It isn't until films like this come out that you realise just how much of one is computer generated. I have to assume that the majority of this budget went on the cast, it certainly wasn't spent on the effects. The de-aging on Branagh in the opening was awful, and must have cost more than hiring a younger actor to do those scenes. The generated scenery wasn't any better, it was painfully obvious which weren't real.
Death on the Nile is, at the end of the day, another classic Christie story, and even with some butchering, there's still a great mystery to unfold. That being said, I would rather sit through one of the other adaptations again if they were all laid out in front of me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/death-on-nile-movie-review.html
Linnet Ridgeway goes to Poirot with fears for her safety, and that of her new husband, when an old mutual acquaintance shows up at each new location on their honeymoon.
An Agatha Christie novel always makes for a great plot, and this one has had several different adaptations over the years. Don't go into it expecting a faithful adaptation though, this one comes out a bit spicier. It also takes some liberties with Poirot's backstory, which does add some interesting context to things about him, but at the same time, it's not the source material.
As with Death Train, Death Boat has a star-studded cast. While I love most of them in other things, I found the whole dynamic to be a little all over the place. Tom Bateman and Ali Fazal were solid, Russell Brand was surprisingly good, but everyone else was either rather bland or too over the top. Then there's Kenneth... I'll give it to them, it feels wrong thinking that Poirot is sexy... but there's one moment where even I, a Ken denier, took a sharp intake of breath.
Death on the Nile comes in at 2 hours and 7 minutes, had they cut what felt like 10 minutes of Gal Gadot walking down the length of the ship, it could easily have come in under 2 hours.
I think that identifies the issue I have with these new adaptations. This one in particular has a very theatrical feel to it. A lot of the boat shots early on feel like you're watching it happen on a stage. I don't object to that style, I like watching theatre, but having it thrown in randomly threw me.
My other big gripe was the choice of shots. Death Boat really likes to not show you faces when people are talking. Watching these scenes was off-putting, it felt like they'd been re-edited and had a new audio track overlaid... badly. There's also a scene where the camera swoops backwards and forwards between the people who are talking, and after a while, I could feel the motion sickness building.
It isn't until films like this come out that you realise just how much of one is computer generated. I have to assume that the majority of this budget went on the cast, it certainly wasn't spent on the effects. The de-aging on Branagh in the opening was awful, and must have cost more than hiring a younger actor to do those scenes. The generated scenery wasn't any better, it was painfully obvious which weren't real.
Death on the Nile is, at the end of the day, another classic Christie story, and even with some butchering, there's still a great mystery to unfold. That being said, I would rather sit through one of the other adaptations again if they were all laid out in front of me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/death-on-nile-movie-review.html
The Nantucket Beachfront Inn (Sconset Beach #1)
Book
She's 54, broken-hearted, and starting over.... High-powered New York attorney Ava Flynn finds...
Contemporary Women's Fiction
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Marvels (2022) in Movies
Nov 10, 2023
Fun. Lightweight Romp
If you, like many others, have opted out of the past few Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films and are, likewise, suffering from “SuperHero” fatigue but are now looking for a re-entry into the MCU, then THE MARVELS is the film for you, for unlike some previous MCU films, it does not take much in the way of previous knowledge to get into the flow of this (somewhat) lightweight, fun action comic-book flick.
Academy Award winner Brie Larson returns as Captain Marvel and is joined (literally) with Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris - who’s SuperHero Origin story can be found in the DisneyPlus TV Series WANDAVISION, but is summed up pretty quickly here, so you’ll get the drift) as well as young MS. MARVEL (Iman Vellani, who’s origin story is told in the DisnePlus TV Series MS. MARVEL but who’s story is summed pretty quickly - and pretty well - here). They join forces to fight a villain, Dar-Benn (Zawe Ashton) intent on inflicting revenge/punishment on Captain Marvel. Also along for the ride is good ol’ Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury (in his 15th appearance in an MCU vehicle). They all bounce around the scenarios with a winking knowledge - and earnestness - about what kind of movie they are making…and with which what tone they need to hit.
In the hands of Director Nia DaCosta (the 2020 remake of CANDYMAN), THE MARVELS moves along at a brisk pace, injecting some humor and decent (enough) action sequences and CGI mixed in with a clever segment or 2 (one scene set to a classic Musical Theater song is worth the price of admission in and of itself). There is enough light, breezy sequences and banter that the main word that comes out of this film is “fun”. DaCosta succeeds, very well, with fun in this film. Where she doesn’t succeed as well is in emotional heft. Captain Marvel is given a few “self reflective” moments and while Larson is a terrific actor and tries to succeed with these moments, they didn’t feel earned, so they fell flat. Unfortunately, the other characters are there to battle and throw off one-liners…and not much more.
Wisely, DaCosta limits this film to 1 hours and 45 minutes - the shortest MCU film to date - and this is a positive for she just “gets to it” and doesn’t linger on any of the moments that don’t work or would fall apart if anyone had anytime to think about them.
And, of course, the “extra scenes” (an MCU staple) set up 2 new franchises, so you want to stick around for them (but you don’t need to stick around to the end of the credits).
All-in-all - Ms. Marvel is a fun, lightweight romp that will entertain for the time you are in the cineplex. But not much more. But…isn’t that what going to the movies is all about?
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Academy Award winner Brie Larson returns as Captain Marvel and is joined (literally) with Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris - who’s SuperHero Origin story can be found in the DisneyPlus TV Series WANDAVISION, but is summed up pretty quickly here, so you’ll get the drift) as well as young MS. MARVEL (Iman Vellani, who’s origin story is told in the DisnePlus TV Series MS. MARVEL but who’s story is summed pretty quickly - and pretty well - here). They join forces to fight a villain, Dar-Benn (Zawe Ashton) intent on inflicting revenge/punishment on Captain Marvel. Also along for the ride is good ol’ Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury (in his 15th appearance in an MCU vehicle). They all bounce around the scenarios with a winking knowledge - and earnestness - about what kind of movie they are making…and with which what tone they need to hit.
In the hands of Director Nia DaCosta (the 2020 remake of CANDYMAN), THE MARVELS moves along at a brisk pace, injecting some humor and decent (enough) action sequences and CGI mixed in with a clever segment or 2 (one scene set to a classic Musical Theater song is worth the price of admission in and of itself). There is enough light, breezy sequences and banter that the main word that comes out of this film is “fun”. DaCosta succeeds, very well, with fun in this film. Where she doesn’t succeed as well is in emotional heft. Captain Marvel is given a few “self reflective” moments and while Larson is a terrific actor and tries to succeed with these moments, they didn’t feel earned, so they fell flat. Unfortunately, the other characters are there to battle and throw off one-liners…and not much more.
Wisely, DaCosta limits this film to 1 hours and 45 minutes - the shortest MCU film to date - and this is a positive for she just “gets to it” and doesn’t linger on any of the moments that don’t work or would fall apart if anyone had anytime to think about them.
And, of course, the “extra scenes” (an MCU staple) set up 2 new franchises, so you want to stick around for them (but you don’t need to stick around to the end of the credits).
All-in-all - Ms. Marvel is a fun, lightweight romp that will entertain for the time you are in the cineplex. But not much more. But…isn’t that what going to the movies is all about?
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Greatest Beer Run Ever (2022) in Movies
Oct 10, 2022
Touched Me In The End
The new Apple TV+ original film THE GREATEST BEER RUN EVER is being advertised as kind of a “wacky buddy comedy” with a bunch of New York slackers looking for beer in Viet Nam.
This advertisement is doing this film a great disservice for this movie is much, much more than that and deserves some attention - and eyeballs looking at it.
Starring Zach Efron (who has turned into an actor who is much, much more than Troy Bolton of HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL fame) and directed by Peter Farrelly (one of the Farrelly brothers that brought you such comedies as THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY and KINGPIN), THE GREATEST BEER RUN EVER tells the tale of a New Yorker in the late 1960’s who is big on talk and little on action. To shut those around him up, Chickie Donohue (Efron) decides to bring his buddies that are fighting in Viet Nam some beer from home. What starts out as a lark, evolves into something much more serious…and meaningful…for both Chickie and the audience.
Efron is quite good in the central role as Chickie and this film needs his inherent charisma in the center of this film as he is in every scene. Efron exudes goodness and sincerity even though, at times, he his speaking out of the sides of his mouth - or a place much further down his anatomy. And, as his character learns more and more about what is really going on in the war in Vietnam, his bravado and bluster fade and we get a glimpse of the real person underneath who is horrified by what he sees in this war.
Russell Crowe - who is finding a career renaissance in Supporting Roles - is strong (naturally) as a war photographer who befriends Chickie and takes him under his wing while the myriad of young, unknown actors who play Chickie’s friends scattered across various theaters of action in Viet Nam are appropriately played as folks who think what Chickie is doing is hilarious to those who are horrified that Chickie would voluntarily enter this war zone.
The tone of the film shifts from fun and silly to deep and meaningful throughout it’s 2 hour, 6 minute run-time, all under the watchful eye of Farrelly. He really has a handle on the deeper war-torn aspects of this film, while he (purposefully, I would imagine) shies away from his expected comedy and zaniness that could have been the first part of this movie. IMHO, Farrelly could have imparted some more zaniness at the start - to give the film a better kickstart (the beginning is a little slow) while also more starkly contrasting the beginning and end of the film - and the change in Chickie because of this experience.
I was drawn in - and touched - by the latter part of this BEER RUN and would strongly encourage everyone to check out this fine film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This advertisement is doing this film a great disservice for this movie is much, much more than that and deserves some attention - and eyeballs looking at it.
Starring Zach Efron (who has turned into an actor who is much, much more than Troy Bolton of HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL fame) and directed by Peter Farrelly (one of the Farrelly brothers that brought you such comedies as THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY and KINGPIN), THE GREATEST BEER RUN EVER tells the tale of a New Yorker in the late 1960’s who is big on talk and little on action. To shut those around him up, Chickie Donohue (Efron) decides to bring his buddies that are fighting in Viet Nam some beer from home. What starts out as a lark, evolves into something much more serious…and meaningful…for both Chickie and the audience.
Efron is quite good in the central role as Chickie and this film needs his inherent charisma in the center of this film as he is in every scene. Efron exudes goodness and sincerity even though, at times, he his speaking out of the sides of his mouth - or a place much further down his anatomy. And, as his character learns more and more about what is really going on in the war in Vietnam, his bravado and bluster fade and we get a glimpse of the real person underneath who is horrified by what he sees in this war.
Russell Crowe - who is finding a career renaissance in Supporting Roles - is strong (naturally) as a war photographer who befriends Chickie and takes him under his wing while the myriad of young, unknown actors who play Chickie’s friends scattered across various theaters of action in Viet Nam are appropriately played as folks who think what Chickie is doing is hilarious to those who are horrified that Chickie would voluntarily enter this war zone.
The tone of the film shifts from fun and silly to deep and meaningful throughout it’s 2 hour, 6 minute run-time, all under the watchful eye of Farrelly. He really has a handle on the deeper war-torn aspects of this film, while he (purposefully, I would imagine) shies away from his expected comedy and zaniness that could have been the first part of this movie. IMHO, Farrelly could have imparted some more zaniness at the start - to give the film a better kickstart (the beginning is a little slow) while also more starkly contrasting the beginning and end of the film - and the change in Chickie because of this experience.
I was drawn in - and touched - by the latter part of this BEER RUN and would strongly encourage everyone to check out this fine film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Nov 27, 2017
Decent cast performances (1 more)
Good fun
Varying quality of SFX (1 more)
Painfully safe
Justice At Last For DC Fans?
Last weekend, a movie dropped that most comic book fans have been hotly anticipating for the last few decades. The follow up to the disappointment that was Dawn of Justice, Justice League had a lot to live up to. I’m not going to try and convince you that it is a perfect movie, but I enjoyed it. If I was judging the movie on it’s own I would probably be much harsher with my rating etc, but in the context of other DCEU movies, it’s a breath of fresh air.
The first half of the movie is extremely choppy and unfocused and feels more like a grab bag of scenes cut together to resemble a story rather than any sort of coherent story. Then the last half of the movie plays it incredibly safe and plays out exactly how you would predict. There are no surprises or twists and then the credits roll and half heartedly set up a potential sequel, although with the huge amount of money Warner Bros lost on this movie if the rumoured budget amount of 300 million is to be believed, we may not be getting another entry any time soon. Which is sort of a shame because there are aspects of this movie that I really like, such as Batfleck and Jeremy Irons as Alfred.
There isn’t really much to talk about here, which is disappointing. Although Batman V Superman left a great deal to be desired as a decent comic book movie, it at least gave all of us something to talk about. The cast is alright, Affleck was just as great as Batman as he’s been up until now, Cavill puts in a decent Superman performance if you can get by that dodgy CGI upper lip, Gal Gadot is great as Wonder Woman, Ray Fisher does fine as Cyborg, Jason Momoa’s Aquaman is pretty one dimensional, but I think that’s more to do with the script than with the actor. Ezra Miller is annoying but clearly supposed to be the comic relief in the film. JK Simmons is wasted as Jim Gordon, but it’s nice to see Amy Adams in a reduced role here. I don’t hate Amy Adams, but I am not a fan of her portrayal as Lois Lane and surprisingly, she actually serves a purpose in this film, as opposed to pondering about with a camera looking surprised. The SFX varies greatly, with some really impressive visual effects and some that look like absolute garbage.
Slight spoilers going forwards I guess, but it’s not exactly a shocking revelation that they resurrect Superman from the dead in this movie, which as a long time comic book fan, I feel like could have been handled better.
Overall, it’s not the worst movie in the world; it’s not even the worst movie in this universe, but really it should be great. This movie should be so much better than, ‘okay,’ it’s the Justice League for Christssake. This film isn’t even as good as Thor Ragnarok, the third sequel in one of the least popular Avenger’s solo film. Justice League should have blown Thor out of the water, both commercially and critically! However, as a standalone film, without any context around it, it is a fun film and I did enjoy my time with it.
The first half of the movie is extremely choppy and unfocused and feels more like a grab bag of scenes cut together to resemble a story rather than any sort of coherent story. Then the last half of the movie plays it incredibly safe and plays out exactly how you would predict. There are no surprises or twists and then the credits roll and half heartedly set up a potential sequel, although with the huge amount of money Warner Bros lost on this movie if the rumoured budget amount of 300 million is to be believed, we may not be getting another entry any time soon. Which is sort of a shame because there are aspects of this movie that I really like, such as Batfleck and Jeremy Irons as Alfred.
There isn’t really much to talk about here, which is disappointing. Although Batman V Superman left a great deal to be desired as a decent comic book movie, it at least gave all of us something to talk about. The cast is alright, Affleck was just as great as Batman as he’s been up until now, Cavill puts in a decent Superman performance if you can get by that dodgy CGI upper lip, Gal Gadot is great as Wonder Woman, Ray Fisher does fine as Cyborg, Jason Momoa’s Aquaman is pretty one dimensional, but I think that’s more to do with the script than with the actor. Ezra Miller is annoying but clearly supposed to be the comic relief in the film. JK Simmons is wasted as Jim Gordon, but it’s nice to see Amy Adams in a reduced role here. I don’t hate Amy Adams, but I am not a fan of her portrayal as Lois Lane and surprisingly, she actually serves a purpose in this film, as opposed to pondering about with a camera looking surprised. The SFX varies greatly, with some really impressive visual effects and some that look like absolute garbage.
Slight spoilers going forwards I guess, but it’s not exactly a shocking revelation that they resurrect Superman from the dead in this movie, which as a long time comic book fan, I feel like could have been handled better.
Overall, it’s not the worst movie in the world; it’s not even the worst movie in this universe, but really it should be great. This movie should be so much better than, ‘okay,’ it’s the Justice League for Christssake. This film isn’t even as good as Thor Ragnarok, the third sequel in one of the least popular Avenger’s solo film. Justice League should have blown Thor out of the water, both commercially and critically! However, as a standalone film, without any context around it, it is a fun film and I did enjoy my time with it.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011) in Movies
May 31, 2017
Blackbeard (Ian McShane) (2 more)
New cast members relieve us of the same old faces
It's not the usual PotC film, but still recognizable
New lore and a Great cast
This is actually one of my favourite installments of the franchise. I loved the first film for its humour and charm, the second was awesome with good action and a sense of fantasy, the third had great action but not enough charm in my opinion, and this fourth installment is able to mix all three of those films, but not quite to the full extent as I'd hoped.
When I heard Blackbeard was coming into the franchise I was happy but cautious. Then when I heard that Ian McShane was to portray the role, I was happier because he is a great actor! He did not disappoint either. His portrayal of Blackbeard was menacing, with the looks alone, you could believe that this was Blackbeard, the most feared pirate during his time. Then there was the fantasy element of his power to control ships with his sword, or his dabbling in voodoo magic as well as being able to capture ships and place them into bottles, which includes Jack's beloved Black Pearl.
Whilst Will (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth (Keira Knightley) do not make an appearance in this film (due to not being paid enough I believe) the film does not lack in replacing them with other great actors and characters. The character of Angelica replaces Elizabeth and honestly, I prefer Angelica. She's strong, keeps Jack on his toes, and is as fearsome as Blackbeard herself when she needs to be. It would have been nice to have seen her in Salazar's Revenge after what happens in this film's finale, which I won't spoil here.
Philip (Sam Claflin) seems to replace Will in this film, but as a more innocent character who falls in love with a mermaid.....did I mention this film has mermaids? This film has mermaids!
I should warn you though, these mermaid don't wish to sing jolly songs for pleasure, they sing to lure sailors to their death. These are the mermaids of legend, also known as sirens, who sing beautiful songs and lure sailors over the side of the ship, before dragging them to the depths for reasons often debated. Some say to mate with before eating them, others just say to eat them, but either way, being dragged to the bottom of the sea is not something you'd want either way. I loved this aspect as we had never seen mermaids in this franchise until now and it was great to see more and more historical lore being brought into the franchise with the fantasy aspect of the film.
The film doesn't quite make it to the top of my favourite films lists, but it's certainly in my top favourite pirate media lists. (I've not seen enough films to just make it a film list so I include film, TV, books and games). I would recommend this to any Pirate fan, and to anyone who has not yet seen it due to it's lesser reviews by critics.
Here's a tip for any film....don't listen to critics. If their is a film you want to see, but it's got a low rating by critics on Rotten Tomatoes or in the film magazines, then by all means read them, but do it after you see the film, because if you read it before, you're going to pick the film apart and it ruins the experience in my opinion.
When I heard Blackbeard was coming into the franchise I was happy but cautious. Then when I heard that Ian McShane was to portray the role, I was happier because he is a great actor! He did not disappoint either. His portrayal of Blackbeard was menacing, with the looks alone, you could believe that this was Blackbeard, the most feared pirate during his time. Then there was the fantasy element of his power to control ships with his sword, or his dabbling in voodoo magic as well as being able to capture ships and place them into bottles, which includes Jack's beloved Black Pearl.
Whilst Will (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth (Keira Knightley) do not make an appearance in this film (due to not being paid enough I believe) the film does not lack in replacing them with other great actors and characters. The character of Angelica replaces Elizabeth and honestly, I prefer Angelica. She's strong, keeps Jack on his toes, and is as fearsome as Blackbeard herself when she needs to be. It would have been nice to have seen her in Salazar's Revenge after what happens in this film's finale, which I won't spoil here.
Philip (Sam Claflin) seems to replace Will in this film, but as a more innocent character who falls in love with a mermaid.....did I mention this film has mermaids? This film has mermaids!
I should warn you though, these mermaid don't wish to sing jolly songs for pleasure, they sing to lure sailors to their death. These are the mermaids of legend, also known as sirens, who sing beautiful songs and lure sailors over the side of the ship, before dragging them to the depths for reasons often debated. Some say to mate with before eating them, others just say to eat them, but either way, being dragged to the bottom of the sea is not something you'd want either way. I loved this aspect as we had never seen mermaids in this franchise until now and it was great to see more and more historical lore being brought into the franchise with the fantasy aspect of the film.
The film doesn't quite make it to the top of my favourite films lists, but it's certainly in my top favourite pirate media lists. (I've not seen enough films to just make it a film list so I include film, TV, books and games). I would recommend this to any Pirate fan, and to anyone who has not yet seen it due to it's lesser reviews by critics.
Here's a tip for any film....don't listen to critics. If their is a film you want to see, but it's got a low rating by critics on Rotten Tomatoes or in the film magazines, then by all means read them, but do it after you see the film, because if you read it before, you're going to pick the film apart and it ruins the experience in my opinion.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Lost In Translation (2003) in Movies
May 13, 2018
Solid Film
When a famous actor hops over to Tokyo to shoot a commercial, he meets a young woman that fills an empty void in his life.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
My son hates dramas and rightfully so as he's a thirteen-year-old boy. He wants to see things blowing up and people getting thrown through walls. Yet somehow, the first ten minutes of Lost In Translation sucked him in as much as it did me prompting him to watch the whole thing. From the time he touches down in Tokyo, Bob Harris (Bill Murray) sucks you in and holds on to your attention for dear life. You're anxious to see what this man is going to do next.
Characters: 10
Staying on Bob for a moment, his character made the film. His dry sense of humor and pure disinterest in everything going on around him is so sincere and captured just perfectly. He's torn between his sense of duty with work and family, so much so that he's almost forgotten how to enjoy life. When Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) comes along, everything changes for him. Charlotte is innocent and sweet and is somehow drawn to Bob like a moth to a flame. Like most "opposites attract" relationships, the two fit extremely well together and add a sense of appeal to the film. Watching them both interact with the Japanese people and try to bridge cultural and language gaps was easy comedy that works everytime.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 7
Genre: 10
Memorability: 9
There are a number of memorable scenes that stick out in my head with a couple of favorites I keep replaying. The first is where he's trying to shoot his commercial. The director is trying to relay something to Bob in Japanese which a translator is telling Bob in English. The scene is only five minutes long and had me cracking up from start to finish. In my other favorite scene, Bob has a run-in in his hotel room with a Japanese prostitute. Again, the language disparity makes the entire interaction one hilarious situation.
Outside of memorable scenes, Lost In Translation gives you a pause for introspection and contemplative thought. Oftentimes we wander aimlessly through the relationships in our lives...but what do they really mean? What are relationships without happiness or closeness? What is the real meaning of a connection?
Pace: 9
Plot: 10
Had this film's story taken place in North America somewhere, it wouldn't have been nearly as impactful. With the setting in Japan, it throws a monkey-wrench into a plot that could have been extremely simple and makes it way more intriguing. Are Bob and Charlotte truly falling for each other or are they just connecting because they are lonely and so far from home? Definite food for thought.
Resolution: 8
Ah, the famous ending of Lost In Translation. What did she say? What does it all mean? How does the story end anyway? The ending, while it does leave you hanging, is an intriguing one for sure. I understand the ambiguity and I don't love it, but I'm ok with it.
Overall: 92
Bill Murray is like the Marvel Cinematic Universe...on steroids. They have been putting out hits for a decade now. Murray has been starring in classics for decades. This film is another notch on his belt. Loved it!
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
My son hates dramas and rightfully so as he's a thirteen-year-old boy. He wants to see things blowing up and people getting thrown through walls. Yet somehow, the first ten minutes of Lost In Translation sucked him in as much as it did me prompting him to watch the whole thing. From the time he touches down in Tokyo, Bob Harris (Bill Murray) sucks you in and holds on to your attention for dear life. You're anxious to see what this man is going to do next.
Characters: 10
Staying on Bob for a moment, his character made the film. His dry sense of humor and pure disinterest in everything going on around him is so sincere and captured just perfectly. He's torn between his sense of duty with work and family, so much so that he's almost forgotten how to enjoy life. When Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) comes along, everything changes for him. Charlotte is innocent and sweet and is somehow drawn to Bob like a moth to a flame. Like most "opposites attract" relationships, the two fit extremely well together and add a sense of appeal to the film. Watching them both interact with the Japanese people and try to bridge cultural and language gaps was easy comedy that works everytime.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 7
Genre: 10
Memorability: 9
There are a number of memorable scenes that stick out in my head with a couple of favorites I keep replaying. The first is where he's trying to shoot his commercial. The director is trying to relay something to Bob in Japanese which a translator is telling Bob in English. The scene is only five minutes long and had me cracking up from start to finish. In my other favorite scene, Bob has a run-in in his hotel room with a Japanese prostitute. Again, the language disparity makes the entire interaction one hilarious situation.
Outside of memorable scenes, Lost In Translation gives you a pause for introspection and contemplative thought. Oftentimes we wander aimlessly through the relationships in our lives...but what do they really mean? What are relationships without happiness or closeness? What is the real meaning of a connection?
Pace: 9
Plot: 10
Had this film's story taken place in North America somewhere, it wouldn't have been nearly as impactful. With the setting in Japan, it throws a monkey-wrench into a plot that could have been extremely simple and makes it way more intriguing. Are Bob and Charlotte truly falling for each other or are they just connecting because they are lonely and so far from home? Definite food for thought.
Resolution: 8
Ah, the famous ending of Lost In Translation. What did she say? What does it all mean? How does the story end anyway? The ending, while it does leave you hanging, is an intriguing one for sure. I understand the ambiguity and I don't love it, but I'm ok with it.
Overall: 92
Bill Murray is like the Marvel Cinematic Universe...on steroids. They have been putting out hits for a decade now. Murray has been starring in classics for decades. This film is another notch on his belt. Loved it!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Paddington 2 (2017) in Movies
Feb 3, 2019
Wonderful, whimsical film for kids and adults alike
As I was perusing various "Top Films of 2018" lists, one surprising film kept showing up on these lists, so I thought I'd better check it out.
And I'm glad I did for PADDINGTON 2 is a charming family film that entranced me from beginning to end with wonderful performances and a charm and whimsy that hooked me from start to finish.
A follow-up to the moderate 2014 hit (based on the beloved children's books series) about a Peruvian bear that heads to 19th Century London seeking adventure - and finds a family - PADDINGTON 2 follows said Bear as he is caught up in a robbery and is mistakenly jailed for the crime. Can Paddington make friends with the burly inmates in the prison? Can the Brown family help find the true perpetrator of the crime and help spring Paddington? Can faith and love triumph in a time of skepticism and darkness?
It's a family film, what do you think?
The joy in this film is in the telling - and Paul King (returning as Director/Writer) does a wonderful job telling a joyous, family-friendly story without diving into sacrine-ness (is that a word? It is now) and schmaltz. He tells the story with a sly wink in his eye and dives deep into whimsical detail of late 19th century London - a London racing full throttle into the steam age. There is a light cyber-punk sensibility to the proceedings and this works wonderfully well.
As you would expect, King does a nice job getting the actors to click into the sensibilities and style of this film. Ben Wishaw is back as the voice of Paddington - and he is perfectly cast. Wishaw has a naivete and sense of wonder to his voice that serves the Paddington character well. Jim Broadbent, Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins and Julie Walters all reprise their roles - in winning fashion. But it is the newcomers that shine. Brendan Gleeson shows off some comic chops as main prison bad guy "Knuckles" McGinty who forms an unlikely friendship/partnership with Paddington and, especially Hugh Grant as vain, egotistical actor Phoenix Buchanan. I won't spoil the antics of Grant's character but I have a feeling that Mr. Grant had as much fun bringing this character to screen as I did watching him.
Two final things - the finale really works for me as King sets up each character's "special skill" at the beginning of the film that they will need to bring to bear (no pun intended) during the action at the end. To often, character's and character threads are set up at the beginning of a film only to be abandoned by the end, so it is satisfying to me when King sets up items at the beginning of this film and then PAYS THEM OFF at the end.
And, finally, STAY THROUGH THE CREDITS. There is a scene in the credits that is as good as anything that is in the film. I won't spoil the fun for you, but want you to know about this so you won't miss it.
A wonderful, whimsical, time at the movies. If you have kids (5,6,7 years old), this is a MUST SEE. For the rest of you, if you're looking for fun escape from the world, this film will do it.
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And I'm glad I did for PADDINGTON 2 is a charming family film that entranced me from beginning to end with wonderful performances and a charm and whimsy that hooked me from start to finish.
A follow-up to the moderate 2014 hit (based on the beloved children's books series) about a Peruvian bear that heads to 19th Century London seeking adventure - and finds a family - PADDINGTON 2 follows said Bear as he is caught up in a robbery and is mistakenly jailed for the crime. Can Paddington make friends with the burly inmates in the prison? Can the Brown family help find the true perpetrator of the crime and help spring Paddington? Can faith and love triumph in a time of skepticism and darkness?
It's a family film, what do you think?
The joy in this film is in the telling - and Paul King (returning as Director/Writer) does a wonderful job telling a joyous, family-friendly story without diving into sacrine-ness (is that a word? It is now) and schmaltz. He tells the story with a sly wink in his eye and dives deep into whimsical detail of late 19th century London - a London racing full throttle into the steam age. There is a light cyber-punk sensibility to the proceedings and this works wonderfully well.
As you would expect, King does a nice job getting the actors to click into the sensibilities and style of this film. Ben Wishaw is back as the voice of Paddington - and he is perfectly cast. Wishaw has a naivete and sense of wonder to his voice that serves the Paddington character well. Jim Broadbent, Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins and Julie Walters all reprise their roles - in winning fashion. But it is the newcomers that shine. Brendan Gleeson shows off some comic chops as main prison bad guy "Knuckles" McGinty who forms an unlikely friendship/partnership with Paddington and, especially Hugh Grant as vain, egotistical actor Phoenix Buchanan. I won't spoil the antics of Grant's character but I have a feeling that Mr. Grant had as much fun bringing this character to screen as I did watching him.
Two final things - the finale really works for me as King sets up each character's "special skill" at the beginning of the film that they will need to bring to bear (no pun intended) during the action at the end. To often, character's and character threads are set up at the beginning of a film only to be abandoned by the end, so it is satisfying to me when King sets up items at the beginning of this film and then PAYS THEM OFF at the end.
And, finally, STAY THROUGH THE CREDITS. There is a scene in the credits that is as good as anything that is in the film. I won't spoil the fun for you, but want you to know about this so you won't miss it.
A wonderful, whimsical, time at the movies. If you have kids (5,6,7 years old), this is a MUST SEE. For the rest of you, if you're looking for fun escape from the world, this film will do it.
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Into the Night in Books
Mar 6, 2019
Intriguing and refreshing mystery
Detective Sergeant Gemma Woodstock is working in Melbourne now, trying to negotiate relationships with her new boss, Chief Inspector Toby Isaacs, and her partner, Detective Sergeant Fleet. She has been in Melbourne for three months; this has meant leaving behind her five-year-old son, Ben, and his father, Scott. She's keeping busy with a series of cases, including that of a homeless man, Walter Miller, who was brutally killed and one with the famous actor, Sterling Wade, who was stabbed while filming a high-profile zombie film. Alone and away from her son, Gemma throws herself into her work, but will these difficult cases prove too much for her and her emotional well-being?
"I was high-functioning but deeply broken and eventually something had to give. When the opportunity to transfer to Melbourne arose, I needed to take it. Living in Smithson was slowly killing me."
This novel picks up a few years after the first Gemma book. Gemma has been haunted by the Rosalind Rose case featured in Bailey's superb first novel, The Dark Lake, as well as her affair with her former partner, Felix. We find her lost and floundering. This serves a dual-purpose for us, the reader. We get to read a novel with a complicated, realistic character in Gemma. She's true to herself. On the other hand, she's not always the easiest to like or even empathize with. This is a woman who has left her child behind, after all. I have to congratulate Bailey on having Gemma not make the easy/safe choices in life, or the ones you typically see in detective novels. Not only do we get a strong yet vulnerable female character, we get one who is flawed, real, and struggling to find her way in the world. I certainly didn't always agree with her choices, but I do enjoy reading about them.
Even better, Gemma features in an excellent complicated and captivating mystery, with several cases that keep you guessing. The prominent one is the Sterling Wade case. Bailey brings in various Hollywood elements, and there are a lot of characters to suspect and pieces to put together. I quite liked not knowing who had killed Sterling. Even the detectives were flummoxed at times: how refreshing. Throughout all her cases, Gemma is working out where she fits in her new department and how she relates to her new partner, Fleet. There's a lot going on, but Bailey handles it all quite deftly. The excellent writing I enjoyed so much in her first novel is on display again here; you'll be impressed at the way she can pull together her story and bring out her characters.
"'Or maybe this case is just fucking with my mind,' I say, 'and making me think that Agatha Christie plots are coming to life.'"
Overall, I found this book intriguing and refreshing. Gemma is a complicated and complex character who is matched by the intricate cases she attempts to solve. Those who enjoy a character-driven mystery will be drawn to Gemma's prickly exterior, while those who simply enjoy a hard-to-solve case will find plenty to like here as well. Sarah Bailey is certainly a go-to author for me.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
"I was high-functioning but deeply broken and eventually something had to give. When the opportunity to transfer to Melbourne arose, I needed to take it. Living in Smithson was slowly killing me."
This novel picks up a few years after the first Gemma book. Gemma has been haunted by the Rosalind Rose case featured in Bailey's superb first novel, The Dark Lake, as well as her affair with her former partner, Felix. We find her lost and floundering. This serves a dual-purpose for us, the reader. We get to read a novel with a complicated, realistic character in Gemma. She's true to herself. On the other hand, she's not always the easiest to like or even empathize with. This is a woman who has left her child behind, after all. I have to congratulate Bailey on having Gemma not make the easy/safe choices in life, or the ones you typically see in detective novels. Not only do we get a strong yet vulnerable female character, we get one who is flawed, real, and struggling to find her way in the world. I certainly didn't always agree with her choices, but I do enjoy reading about them.
Even better, Gemma features in an excellent complicated and captivating mystery, with several cases that keep you guessing. The prominent one is the Sterling Wade case. Bailey brings in various Hollywood elements, and there are a lot of characters to suspect and pieces to put together. I quite liked not knowing who had killed Sterling. Even the detectives were flummoxed at times: how refreshing. Throughout all her cases, Gemma is working out where she fits in her new department and how she relates to her new partner, Fleet. There's a lot going on, but Bailey handles it all quite deftly. The excellent writing I enjoyed so much in her first novel is on display again here; you'll be impressed at the way she can pull together her story and bring out her characters.
"'Or maybe this case is just fucking with my mind,' I say, 'and making me think that Agatha Christie plots are coming to life.'"
Overall, I found this book intriguing and refreshing. Gemma is a complicated and complex character who is matched by the intricate cases she attempts to solve. Those who enjoy a character-driven mystery will be drawn to Gemma's prickly exterior, while those who simply enjoy a hard-to-solve case will find plenty to like here as well. Sarah Bailey is certainly a go-to author for me.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).