Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Chernobyl Diaries (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
What do you get when you pair the director of “Paranormal Activity” with a handful of unknown actors, a one-hit wonder soap-star-turned-singer, and a plot based upon the Chernobyl meltdown? You guessed it: a sub-par suspense film with a poorly executed ending.
Meet Chris, Amanda, and Natalie – a trio of pretty Americans touring Europe and en route to Russia to meet Chris’ older brother, Paul, in Minsk. Unbeknownst to Amanda, Chris confides in his older brother his plan to propose to her upon their arrival in Moscow, their next destination. However, Paul decides to intervene and proposes a new plan: an extreme tourism excursion in the abandoned city of Pripyat, just outside of the Chernobyl nuclear plant. Despite Chris’ pleas, the group decides to take up Paul’s offer and embark the next day to Chernobyl/Pripyat under the guide of Uri, an ex-Soviet Special Forces agent.
Piling into an assault-van of sorts and accompanied by a pair of last minute travelers – an Aussie named Mike and his blonde Norse girlfriend, Zoe – they set off on the 2-hour drive to Pripyat. However, it is upon arrival at their destination that they find the area restricted to tourists by the Soviet guard. Undaunted, Uri drives the van to another remote access point, stealing them into the abandoned city of Pripyat for their excursion. It is there, as one can imagine, that some unknown element intercedes and prevents them from leaving the city. Somehow wires to the van’s starter are cut and they are forced to stay overnight. It’s at this point, as you can imagine, the horror movie element sets in and the typical suspense-film-plot takes over.
Of course, people leave the van to investigate “strange noises” and, of course, they are picked off one by one. As the movie progresses and the horror-film starts to settle in, the plot unravels and you’re ultimately left with one of the lamest endings conceived. Basically, you’ve had almost two hour’s worth of build-up and suspense for absolutely nothing.
Suspense-wise, you’re definitely going to jump here and there; my poor date had to suffer through my grabbing his hand and leg on more than one occasion. Acting wise, there’s nothing substantial. Jesse McCartney draws upon his experience as a soap actor for the more emotional role and Devin Kelley who plays Amanda seems more adept at sticking out her chest than acting her way out of a bag. But I digress, horror movies aren’t exactly based on strong acting skills, right?
If you’re looking for a good suspense film, something that gives you an excuse to grab your date’s hand or squeal like a girl, then this is a good film for that. If you’re looking for something twisted, something akin to “The Hills Have Eyes” or “Silent Hill,” then this falls rather short in comparison. The director had so many opportunities to delve further into the Chernobyl mystery and play up the radiation/mutation stab, but failed to provide any substance behind his direction. For my taste, there were too many unanswered questions and vague allusions for me to be wholly impressed with the movie. The premise had a lot of potential and promise but honestly failed to deliver.
Meet Chris, Amanda, and Natalie – a trio of pretty Americans touring Europe and en route to Russia to meet Chris’ older brother, Paul, in Minsk. Unbeknownst to Amanda, Chris confides in his older brother his plan to propose to her upon their arrival in Moscow, their next destination. However, Paul decides to intervene and proposes a new plan: an extreme tourism excursion in the abandoned city of Pripyat, just outside of the Chernobyl nuclear plant. Despite Chris’ pleas, the group decides to take up Paul’s offer and embark the next day to Chernobyl/Pripyat under the guide of Uri, an ex-Soviet Special Forces agent.
Piling into an assault-van of sorts and accompanied by a pair of last minute travelers – an Aussie named Mike and his blonde Norse girlfriend, Zoe – they set off on the 2-hour drive to Pripyat. However, it is upon arrival at their destination that they find the area restricted to tourists by the Soviet guard. Undaunted, Uri drives the van to another remote access point, stealing them into the abandoned city of Pripyat for their excursion. It is there, as one can imagine, that some unknown element intercedes and prevents them from leaving the city. Somehow wires to the van’s starter are cut and they are forced to stay overnight. It’s at this point, as you can imagine, the horror movie element sets in and the typical suspense-film-plot takes over.
Of course, people leave the van to investigate “strange noises” and, of course, they are picked off one by one. As the movie progresses and the horror-film starts to settle in, the plot unravels and you’re ultimately left with one of the lamest endings conceived. Basically, you’ve had almost two hour’s worth of build-up and suspense for absolutely nothing.
Suspense-wise, you’re definitely going to jump here and there; my poor date had to suffer through my grabbing his hand and leg on more than one occasion. Acting wise, there’s nothing substantial. Jesse McCartney draws upon his experience as a soap actor for the more emotional role and Devin Kelley who plays Amanda seems more adept at sticking out her chest than acting her way out of a bag. But I digress, horror movies aren’t exactly based on strong acting skills, right?
If you’re looking for a good suspense film, something that gives you an excuse to grab your date’s hand or squeal like a girl, then this is a good film for that. If you’re looking for something twisted, something akin to “The Hills Have Eyes” or “Silent Hill,” then this falls rather short in comparison. The director had so many opportunities to delve further into the Chernobyl mystery and play up the radiation/mutation stab, but failed to provide any substance behind his direction. For my taste, there were too many unanswered questions and vague allusions for me to be wholly impressed with the movie. The premise had a lot of potential and promise but honestly failed to deliver.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Dictator (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Sacha Baron Cohen is undoubtedly one of the most daring names in comedy recently. A Cambridge graduate, the comedian-actor who has starred in fairly controversial films “Bruno” and “Borat” returns with director Larry Charles in 2012’s “The Dictator”. What can be said about Cohen, over other contemporary comedians, is his absolutely excellent ability to inhabit a character role – both in and out of the film he is portrayed in. “The Dictator” is no exception to this, yet it might be the controversy regarding the Academy Awards snub that is remembered more than this film.
Cohen plays the hilariously named Admiral General Aladeen, a megalomaniacal dictator of a fictional oil-rich North African country named Waadeya. While on his trip to the UN to deliver a speech, he is thrown from his oppressive dictatorial role into that of a lost New Yorker, desperate to get back to his position as dictator. He meets others along the way to help him, namely Aasif Mandvi and Anna Farris.
The film’s plot is about as formulaic and basic as a comedy can get, simply serving as a vehicle to push from one joke to the next. If you were expecting any sort of compelling narrative, with jokes sprinkled throughout, then this movie will not be enjoyable. It completely rides upon its humor, which is both beneficial and detrimental. If the film at least attached you to particular characters other than Admiral General Aladeen then it might benefit more from its gags featuring multiple characters.
The real highlight of the film is Cohen’s consistent portrayal of this outrageous ruler. He is funny throughout; and even though he might be a horrible person with villainous qualities, he has a childish heart underneath. It is that mixture of qualities that makes for some very hilarious moments.
The actual jokes and gags themselves hold their own throughout. As mentioned, the film plods forward from one gag or joke to the next, with story simply setting up the scenes. Most of the jokes were grin worthy, and a handful of them were laugh-out-loud hilarious. Yet, overall I would not call it the funniest movie of the year. There’s a bit of everything in the movie. Sacha Baron Cohen’s trademark shocking and offensive humor will please the college moviegoers and his more clever witty humor will amuse older watchers. Yet, even the offensive humor appears to be more tame than his other movies’ most memorable moments. The whole film also deals heavily with contemporary political issues – specifically the power-obsessed dictators which have filled the news as of late. Cohen’s character pokes fun at both the absurdity of people like Colonel Ghadafi as well as the hangers-on who surround such people.
Overall, the movie maintains a consistent level of humor throughout. While that level of humor may remain at simply grin-level comedy, it still has a handful of laugh-out-loud moments. It might not be the funniest movie of the year, but it is by no means bad at what it does. A less formulaic plot would have benefited the movie’s gags by allowing other comedians in the movie to shine more. As it stands, it is a movie centered completely on Cohen’s comedy and held up by it as well. Not completely unlike the self-centered nature of his character, Admiral General Aladeen.
Cohen plays the hilariously named Admiral General Aladeen, a megalomaniacal dictator of a fictional oil-rich North African country named Waadeya. While on his trip to the UN to deliver a speech, he is thrown from his oppressive dictatorial role into that of a lost New Yorker, desperate to get back to his position as dictator. He meets others along the way to help him, namely Aasif Mandvi and Anna Farris.
The film’s plot is about as formulaic and basic as a comedy can get, simply serving as a vehicle to push from one joke to the next. If you were expecting any sort of compelling narrative, with jokes sprinkled throughout, then this movie will not be enjoyable. It completely rides upon its humor, which is both beneficial and detrimental. If the film at least attached you to particular characters other than Admiral General Aladeen then it might benefit more from its gags featuring multiple characters.
The real highlight of the film is Cohen’s consistent portrayal of this outrageous ruler. He is funny throughout; and even though he might be a horrible person with villainous qualities, he has a childish heart underneath. It is that mixture of qualities that makes for some very hilarious moments.
The actual jokes and gags themselves hold their own throughout. As mentioned, the film plods forward from one gag or joke to the next, with story simply setting up the scenes. Most of the jokes were grin worthy, and a handful of them were laugh-out-loud hilarious. Yet, overall I would not call it the funniest movie of the year. There’s a bit of everything in the movie. Sacha Baron Cohen’s trademark shocking and offensive humor will please the college moviegoers and his more clever witty humor will amuse older watchers. Yet, even the offensive humor appears to be more tame than his other movies’ most memorable moments. The whole film also deals heavily with contemporary political issues – specifically the power-obsessed dictators which have filled the news as of late. Cohen’s character pokes fun at both the absurdity of people like Colonel Ghadafi as well as the hangers-on who surround such people.
Overall, the movie maintains a consistent level of humor throughout. While that level of humor may remain at simply grin-level comedy, it still has a handful of laugh-out-loud moments. It might not be the funniest movie of the year, but it is by no means bad at what it does. A less formulaic plot would have benefited the movie’s gags by allowing other comedians in the movie to shine more. As it stands, it is a movie centered completely on Cohen’s comedy and held up by it as well. Not completely unlike the self-centered nature of his character, Admiral General Aladeen.
Sukhmani Sahib : Paath in Gurmukhi Hindi English Translation and Meaning
Book and Reference
App
Sukhmani Sahib now in Gurmukhi, Hindi, English and also Translation in English. Each line is...
NIV Bible: British Text New International Version
Book and Reference
App
The official UK NIV Bible reading app with British Text from Hodder & Stoughton, publishers of the...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hamilton (2020) in Movies
Jul 5, 2020
Captures the power of being in "the room where it happens"
I'll just cut to the chase, the filmed version of the mega-hit stage musical HAMILTON (now streaming on Disney+) is terrific. If you are one of the few that have not seen this, check it out - you'll be glad you did.
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Rebecca (2020) in Movies
Nov 1, 2020
A dull adaptation
Rebecca is an adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier’s 1938 novel of the same name, following a young woman’s whirlwind romance and her battle to rid her new marriage and home of the shadow of her husband’s first wife.
Rebecca as a novel is a classic and a book I very much enjoyed, and whilst I’ve never seen the Hitchcock adaptation, it’s often referred to as a fairly legendary classic too. However I’m afraid to say the same cannot be said about this new version. The basic plot and story is present, although rather frustratingly the ending has been extended unnecessarily, but it has not been executed very well.
The trailer made this look quite sinister and spooky, which is quite right when the original novel is a gothic horror with aspects of a ghost story thrown in. However this film turns out to be nothing of the sort. It’s more of a romantic drama with a hint of thriller thrown in – the gothic horror ghost story is nowhere to be seen and neither is any form of intrigue or suspense. In fact I’d be so bold as to say this is just outright dull, and even the campy over the top sinister vibes from Kristin Scott Thomas’s housekeeper Mrs Danvers are laughable at best. The most interesting part of this was the opening scene with it’s sinister score but this just didn’t carry through to the rest of the film.
Sadly the cast don’t fare very well in this either. Lily James is a great actor, but her version of the new wife is too mousy and timid and you wonder what on earth Maxim ever sees in her. The character herself is very frustrating and irksome as she’s far too naïve and sweet. And Armie Hammer is miscast as Maxim De Winter himself. He looks the part, dashing and handsome, but he’s lacking in the intrigue, charm and secrecy that you’d expect this character to have. He’s also missing the age gap that is rather notable in the book.
The cinematography in this is rather concerning. The scenes in Monte Carlo are far too colourful and garish and they just look out of place, even more so for something that is meant to be a gothic horror. I’m unsure of why this has been done, other than to show a striking difference between Monte Carlo and Maxim’s Cornish home of Manderley. In fact what is most concerning about this film is why Ben Wheatley wanted to direct it. By far the biggest shock of this film was finding out Wheatley, of Kill List and Sightseers fame, had directed it. Wheatley is known for psychological dark (and often funny) thrillers and there is nothing of his style to be seen in this film at all. Which is a shame, as I think a little more of his dark style would’ve propelled this film into more than just a sub-par drama.
Overall this a very disappointing and long winded adaptation of a classic novel. Whilst there are a few decent scenes and a good, if not out of character, performance from Lily James, these are nowhere near enough to save this from being a bit of a bore.
Rebecca as a novel is a classic and a book I very much enjoyed, and whilst I’ve never seen the Hitchcock adaptation, it’s often referred to as a fairly legendary classic too. However I’m afraid to say the same cannot be said about this new version. The basic plot and story is present, although rather frustratingly the ending has been extended unnecessarily, but it has not been executed very well.
The trailer made this look quite sinister and spooky, which is quite right when the original novel is a gothic horror with aspects of a ghost story thrown in. However this film turns out to be nothing of the sort. It’s more of a romantic drama with a hint of thriller thrown in – the gothic horror ghost story is nowhere to be seen and neither is any form of intrigue or suspense. In fact I’d be so bold as to say this is just outright dull, and even the campy over the top sinister vibes from Kristin Scott Thomas’s housekeeper Mrs Danvers are laughable at best. The most interesting part of this was the opening scene with it’s sinister score but this just didn’t carry through to the rest of the film.
Sadly the cast don’t fare very well in this either. Lily James is a great actor, but her version of the new wife is too mousy and timid and you wonder what on earth Maxim ever sees in her. The character herself is very frustrating and irksome as she’s far too naïve and sweet. And Armie Hammer is miscast as Maxim De Winter himself. He looks the part, dashing and handsome, but he’s lacking in the intrigue, charm and secrecy that you’d expect this character to have. He’s also missing the age gap that is rather notable in the book.
The cinematography in this is rather concerning. The scenes in Monte Carlo are far too colourful and garish and they just look out of place, even more so for something that is meant to be a gothic horror. I’m unsure of why this has been done, other than to show a striking difference between Monte Carlo and Maxim’s Cornish home of Manderley. In fact what is most concerning about this film is why Ben Wheatley wanted to direct it. By far the biggest shock of this film was finding out Wheatley, of Kill List and Sightseers fame, had directed it. Wheatley is known for psychological dark (and often funny) thrillers and there is nothing of his style to be seen in this film at all. Which is a shame, as I think a little more of his dark style would’ve propelled this film into more than just a sub-par drama.
Overall this a very disappointing and long winded adaptation of a classic novel. Whilst there are a few decent scenes and a good, if not out of character, performance from Lily James, these are nowhere near enough to save this from being a bit of a bore.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Little Things (2021) in Movies
Feb 1, 2021
3 Strong Actors Elevate This Above Mediocrity
Generally, when a movie is “dumped” in January, it is a sure sign of a bad film, filled with Liam Neeson kicking butt or CGI monsters attacking a small group of survivors in an isolated location, but these being times that they are, Warner Brothers release of THE LITTLE THINGS simultaneously in Movie Theaters and on HBO MAX gave me reason to change my thinking.
And…I’m glad I did for THE LITTLE THINGS is an intriguing mystery with 3 very strong actors going toe-to-toe with each other.
Written and Directed by John Lee Hancock (THE BLIND SIDE), THE LITTLE THINGS stars the great Denzel Washington as a former L.A. Detective (now a Sherriff in some small town) who returns to L.A. and teams up with his hot shot replacement (Rami Malek) to track down a serial killer (the main suspect being Jared Leto).
It is a moody, atmospheric piece with Hancock taking his time telling the story he wants to tell in the way he wants to tell it, letting this trio of Oscar winning actors take over the story while he creates interesting, moody pictures/scenarios/scenes.
And…this approach mostly works. 2 time Oscar winner Denzel Washington, as you can imagine, is terrific as Joe “Deke” Deacon a cracker-jack Detective that is living with some demons from his last case in L.A.. He is in 90% of the scenes in this film and he is more than capable of carrying this film through some pretty slow and sloggy scenes.
I would love to say that Oscar winner Rami Malek is equal to the task of playing against Washington and keeping the middle part of this film interesting - but he just isn’t. Not to say that Malek is bad - he is very good. He just isn’t as good as Washington and the chemistry between these two characters was just not all that strong.
That said…without spoiling anything…Malek has a scene at the end of this film where he is TERRIFIC and shows that he is a VERY, VERY good actor.
The wild card in this film is Oscar winner Jared Leto as the prime suspect in this case - and he is more than up to the task. As is often the case in these sorts of film (think David Fincher’s SEVEN), Leto does not show up in full force until about 2/3 of the way through the film and that is too bad for he creates sparks on the screen the moment he enters the proceedings and the 3 way interrogation scene between these 3 Oscar winners is, I’m sure, what drew all 3 of these performers to this project and is the best thing in the film.
The praise and the criticism of this film must fall on Writer/Director Hancock, for he was smart enough to cast these 3 actors and direct them well while also falling prey to falling in love too much with the script and atmosphere he created to the detriment of the film. He could have used someone telling him to speed things up.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And…I’m glad I did for THE LITTLE THINGS is an intriguing mystery with 3 very strong actors going toe-to-toe with each other.
Written and Directed by John Lee Hancock (THE BLIND SIDE), THE LITTLE THINGS stars the great Denzel Washington as a former L.A. Detective (now a Sherriff in some small town) who returns to L.A. and teams up with his hot shot replacement (Rami Malek) to track down a serial killer (the main suspect being Jared Leto).
It is a moody, atmospheric piece with Hancock taking his time telling the story he wants to tell in the way he wants to tell it, letting this trio of Oscar winning actors take over the story while he creates interesting, moody pictures/scenarios/scenes.
And…this approach mostly works. 2 time Oscar winner Denzel Washington, as you can imagine, is terrific as Joe “Deke” Deacon a cracker-jack Detective that is living with some demons from his last case in L.A.. He is in 90% of the scenes in this film and he is more than capable of carrying this film through some pretty slow and sloggy scenes.
I would love to say that Oscar winner Rami Malek is equal to the task of playing against Washington and keeping the middle part of this film interesting - but he just isn’t. Not to say that Malek is bad - he is very good. He just isn’t as good as Washington and the chemistry between these two characters was just not all that strong.
That said…without spoiling anything…Malek has a scene at the end of this film where he is TERRIFIC and shows that he is a VERY, VERY good actor.
The wild card in this film is Oscar winner Jared Leto as the prime suspect in this case - and he is more than up to the task. As is often the case in these sorts of film (think David Fincher’s SEVEN), Leto does not show up in full force until about 2/3 of the way through the film and that is too bad for he creates sparks on the screen the moment he enters the proceedings and the 3 way interrogation scene between these 3 Oscar winners is, I’m sure, what drew all 3 of these performers to this project and is the best thing in the film.
The praise and the criticism of this film must fall on Writer/Director Hancock, for he was smart enough to cast these 3 actors and direct them well while also falling prey to falling in love too much with the script and atmosphere he created to the detriment of the film. He could have used someone telling him to speed things up.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
J.K. Simmons recommended Juno (2007) in Movies (curated)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Fast & Furious 9 (2021) in Movies
Jul 11, 2021
I might not be obsessed with this series but I can't argue with its ridiculous action. I had a catch up on the others as it had been a while, though I discovered I watched them in the wrong order... never mind! Here's a bit of a rundown.
The Fast and the Furious - good
2 Fast 2 Furious - meh
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift - too peoply, not enough cars
Fast & Furious - good
Fast Five - my favourite
Fast & Furious 6 - good
Furious 7 - good
The Fate of the Furious - good
F9...
Who really needs an extended synopsis on this one? Cars, family, Corona, space the final frontier. And does it even need any comments on the plot? At this point it's very much random bits of chaos and ridiculous things with cars. Quite honestly, that's the reason I enjoy the films more now they lean into it. Although this one may have become a little too self-aware... in an amusing way.
It wasn't until I did the rewatch that I noticed how much they ignore the concept of genetics when it comes to adding family members. Here we have John Cena playing Jakob, Dom and Mia's brother. It's not the most unbelievable thing in the movie, but it's well up there. Cena has grown on me as an actor, I enjoyed him in The Marine, Bumblebee, and his comedy stylings in Blockers... but we don't talk about Playing With Fire... we never talk about Playing With Fire. He can do funny and he can do serious, but I'm not convinced he was the best choice to combine the two here. His performance was okay, but his style didn't really fit with any of the others. I don't know who I might have put in this role instead, but I think they could have gone with recognisable but not quite as high profile/
As for the other cast members, well, same sh*t different day as they say! Gibson and Ludacris have the same fun dynamic and bring their comedic element to the proceedings. Vin Diesel says the requisite amount of "family" throughout the films, and everyone else does their thing.
Doing the rewatch made me surprisingly emotional when they did the Paul Walker send-off, and there was a nice out to keep the legacy intact. And while it's nice that they keep him in the films, maybe it should just be something that's accepted and not talked about. There's a moment in the film where they say Dom's son is with Brian, and my first thought was horror because I forgot Brian is alive in the franchise, and the look on Dom's face didn't help in that moment either.
F9 has some even whackier action, and it is entirely satisfying to watch. Though unsurprisingly it doesn't take them long to defy the laws of physics... spectacular destruction nevertheless. We know we're in for a tenth instalment, we can only hope for a musical or LEGO version... that last one would be my approved choice.
(I have so many spoiler comments t make about this, but I don't want to ruin the fun of discovering them all for yourself.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/f9-fast-saga-movie-review.html
The Fast and the Furious - good
2 Fast 2 Furious - meh
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift - too peoply, not enough cars
Fast & Furious - good
Fast Five - my favourite
Fast & Furious 6 - good
Furious 7 - good
The Fate of the Furious - good
F9...
Who really needs an extended synopsis on this one? Cars, family, Corona, space the final frontier. And does it even need any comments on the plot? At this point it's very much random bits of chaos and ridiculous things with cars. Quite honestly, that's the reason I enjoy the films more now they lean into it. Although this one may have become a little too self-aware... in an amusing way.
It wasn't until I did the rewatch that I noticed how much they ignore the concept of genetics when it comes to adding family members. Here we have John Cena playing Jakob, Dom and Mia's brother. It's not the most unbelievable thing in the movie, but it's well up there. Cena has grown on me as an actor, I enjoyed him in The Marine, Bumblebee, and his comedy stylings in Blockers... but we don't talk about Playing With Fire... we never talk about Playing With Fire. He can do funny and he can do serious, but I'm not convinced he was the best choice to combine the two here. His performance was okay, but his style didn't really fit with any of the others. I don't know who I might have put in this role instead, but I think they could have gone with recognisable but not quite as high profile/
As for the other cast members, well, same sh*t different day as they say! Gibson and Ludacris have the same fun dynamic and bring their comedic element to the proceedings. Vin Diesel says the requisite amount of "family" throughout the films, and everyone else does their thing.
Doing the rewatch made me surprisingly emotional when they did the Paul Walker send-off, and there was a nice out to keep the legacy intact. And while it's nice that they keep him in the films, maybe it should just be something that's accepted and not talked about. There's a moment in the film where they say Dom's son is with Brian, and my first thought was horror because I forgot Brian is alive in the franchise, and the look on Dom's face didn't help in that moment either.
F9 has some even whackier action, and it is entirely satisfying to watch. Though unsurprisingly it doesn't take them long to defy the laws of physics... spectacular destruction nevertheless. We know we're in for a tenth instalment, we can only hope for a musical or LEGO version... that last one would be my approved choice.
(I have so many spoiler comments t make about this, but I don't want to ruin the fun of discovering them all for yourself.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/f9-fast-saga-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) in Movies
Jul 14, 2019
A nice "palate cleanser" after Endgame
After the richness - both in emotion and spectacle - of the previous entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (that would be the epic that is AVENGERS: ENDGAME), SPIDERMAN: FAR FROM HOME is a palate cleanser.
And that is a smart move by the honchos at Marvel. It brings us back into this Universe acknowledging - and playing homage to - the previous film - but also points us to the future as we fondly remember, but don't dwell on, the past. This Spidey-film takes the titular web-slinger on a roadtrip to Europe where he teams up with Mysterio to fight the Elementals as Peter Parker grapples with the legacy of Tony Stark and a blossoming relationship with MJ.
And...it's a darn fine film. Director Jon Watts and writers Chis McKenna and Erik Sommers craft a light, fun action flick that leans heavily on the personality and charm of Peter Parker/Spiderman and this succeeds tremendously thanks to the continued strong performance of Tom Holland. He has grown into this role and has now fully embraced it a makes it his own. This is the 5th film that Holland has played Spiderman and he is fully in control of the character and is a joyous character to watch.
Ably joining in is Jake Gyllenhaal as Mysterio - another hero who just might be another strong mentor-like presence for Parker. A fine actor of interesting dimensions, Gyllenhaal understands the type of film that he is in and adapts his performance (and presence) accordingly. Jacob Batalon returns as Peter's friend Ned, and he is everything we've come to expect from Ned. The same can be said for Jon Favreau's Happy Hogan and Marisa Tomei's Aunt May - both are welcome, warming, presences that help everyone feel good.
The biggest surprise for me is Zendaya's performance as MJ - I really enjoyed it - and that's a surprise. It is one of those nuanced-type performances (in a Superhero film - of all things) that will make me re-assess my thinking about her as a performer. I thought she was that good.
Samuel L. Jackson and Cobie Smulders reprise their roles as Nick Fury and Maria Hill and they are solid while Martin Starr and J.B. Smoove provide broad comic relief as the two teachers who are chaperones of these high school kids (remember they are high school aged in this film - they'll have to graduate into college for the next one, their age is beginning to show). I've read/heard some negative comments on how "out of place" the 2 teachers were in style to the rest of this film (and the MCU in general) and I couldn't disagree more. I thought they brought just the right size of comedy to what is a light film.
And, make no mistake, this is a light film (which is why I call it a "palate cleanser" after Endgame) and that's just fine. The stakes are an excuse to spend time with this characters - and to dazzle with some interesting special effects that I thought were very well done.
If you're into Spiderman - or the Marvel Cinematic Universe - you'll like this film.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that is a smart move by the honchos at Marvel. It brings us back into this Universe acknowledging - and playing homage to - the previous film - but also points us to the future as we fondly remember, but don't dwell on, the past. This Spidey-film takes the titular web-slinger on a roadtrip to Europe where he teams up with Mysterio to fight the Elementals as Peter Parker grapples with the legacy of Tony Stark and a blossoming relationship with MJ.
And...it's a darn fine film. Director Jon Watts and writers Chis McKenna and Erik Sommers craft a light, fun action flick that leans heavily on the personality and charm of Peter Parker/Spiderman and this succeeds tremendously thanks to the continued strong performance of Tom Holland. He has grown into this role and has now fully embraced it a makes it his own. This is the 5th film that Holland has played Spiderman and he is fully in control of the character and is a joyous character to watch.
Ably joining in is Jake Gyllenhaal as Mysterio - another hero who just might be another strong mentor-like presence for Parker. A fine actor of interesting dimensions, Gyllenhaal understands the type of film that he is in and adapts his performance (and presence) accordingly. Jacob Batalon returns as Peter's friend Ned, and he is everything we've come to expect from Ned. The same can be said for Jon Favreau's Happy Hogan and Marisa Tomei's Aunt May - both are welcome, warming, presences that help everyone feel good.
The biggest surprise for me is Zendaya's performance as MJ - I really enjoyed it - and that's a surprise. It is one of those nuanced-type performances (in a Superhero film - of all things) that will make me re-assess my thinking about her as a performer. I thought she was that good.
Samuel L. Jackson and Cobie Smulders reprise their roles as Nick Fury and Maria Hill and they are solid while Martin Starr and J.B. Smoove provide broad comic relief as the two teachers who are chaperones of these high school kids (remember they are high school aged in this film - they'll have to graduate into college for the next one, their age is beginning to show). I've read/heard some negative comments on how "out of place" the 2 teachers were in style to the rest of this film (and the MCU in general) and I couldn't disagree more. I thought they brought just the right size of comedy to what is a light film.
And, make no mistake, this is a light film (which is why I call it a "palate cleanser" after Endgame) and that's just fine. The stakes are an excuse to spend time with this characters - and to dazzle with some interesting special effects that I thought were very well done.
If you're into Spiderman - or the Marvel Cinematic Universe - you'll like this film.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)