Search
Search results
Fighting Fantasy: The Forest of Doom
Games and Book
App
Nostalgia overload! Fighting Fantasy returns with Ian Livingstone's classic, The Forest of Doom. ...
Ronyell (38 KP) rated Return to Oz (1985) in Movies
Jul 24, 2020
The Dark Side of Oz!
Dorothy Gale had just come back from the Land of Oz, but when she tried to tell her aunt and uncle about her adventures in Oz, they thought that Dorothy had gone crazy, so they decided to take her to a doctor that will give her treatment for her insanity. The treatment turns out to be shock therapy and Dorothy, with a little help from a mysterious girl, escapes from the mental hospital and ended up in the land of Oz once again. But, once Dorothy arrives in Oz, she discovers that the Land of Oz has been taken over by the Nome King and that the Scarecrow, who was the King of Oz, has been kidnapped by the Nome King. So, Dorothy along with some help from a pumpkin man named Jack Pumpkinhead, a mechanical robot named Tik-Tok, her hen Billina and a half moose half sofa creature named the Gump try to journey to the Nome King's kingdom to rescue the Scarecrow, while encountering nightmarish creatures such as Princess Mombi and the Wheelers along the way.
Now I have a confession to make. Whenever I talked to people who have seen "Return to Oz" when they were little, many people were terrified of this movie when they were kids. Me however, I wasn't that scared of the movie when I was little and I actually found it to be pretty interesting and I still find it pretty interesting to this very day! This movie has actually turned my expectations on its head as it is a much darker sequel to "The Wizard of Oz" that has caused some controversy among "Oz" fans and yet, it was pulled off extremely well to make it stand out from "The Wizard of Oz." The surprising thing about all this is that this was the most faithful adaptation of L. Frank Baum's "Oz" books in terms of tone, even though "The Wizard of Oz" is hailed as one of the greatest movies of all time. What I really loved about this movie was the fact that it was darker and edgier than "The Wizard of Oz" and the villains in this movie seem genuinely threatening and are actually out to harm Dorothy and her friends. Probably my favorite scenes in this movie were any scenes with the Nome King as he seems to be friendly towards Dorothy and her friends, but you can tell that he has some evil intentions up his sleeves and he actually means to trick Dorothy into a sense of security in order to manipulate her throughout her adventures. I loved the new friends that Dorothy makes along the way, especially Tik-Tok and Jack Pumpkinhead as they were truly original and fun to see on screen.
Parents should know that this movie can be pretty terrifying for small children. There are many scenes where Dorothy and her friends are in constant peril and are in danger of being killed by the villains. Also, there are some genuinely scary scenes such as the scene where Dorothy accidentally wakes up a headless Princess Mombi, who tries to capture Dorothy and the scenes with the Wheelers. Parents might want to screen this movie first before showing it to their children. Also, the reason why I took off half a point from the rating was because the movie can get pretty confusing at times and it was hard for me to follow what exactly happened in the plot at times.
Overall, "Return to Oz" is a truly enjoyable film that "Oz" fans would enjoy extremely well! However, this movie can get pretty scary at times, so watch this film with extreme caution.
Originally posted on: http://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/movie-review-return-to-oz-1985.html
Now I have a confession to make. Whenever I talked to people who have seen "Return to Oz" when they were little, many people were terrified of this movie when they were kids. Me however, I wasn't that scared of the movie when I was little and I actually found it to be pretty interesting and I still find it pretty interesting to this very day! This movie has actually turned my expectations on its head as it is a much darker sequel to "The Wizard of Oz" that has caused some controversy among "Oz" fans and yet, it was pulled off extremely well to make it stand out from "The Wizard of Oz." The surprising thing about all this is that this was the most faithful adaptation of L. Frank Baum's "Oz" books in terms of tone, even though "The Wizard of Oz" is hailed as one of the greatest movies of all time. What I really loved about this movie was the fact that it was darker and edgier than "The Wizard of Oz" and the villains in this movie seem genuinely threatening and are actually out to harm Dorothy and her friends. Probably my favorite scenes in this movie were any scenes with the Nome King as he seems to be friendly towards Dorothy and her friends, but you can tell that he has some evil intentions up his sleeves and he actually means to trick Dorothy into a sense of security in order to manipulate her throughout her adventures. I loved the new friends that Dorothy makes along the way, especially Tik-Tok and Jack Pumpkinhead as they were truly original and fun to see on screen.
Parents should know that this movie can be pretty terrifying for small children. There are many scenes where Dorothy and her friends are in constant peril and are in danger of being killed by the villains. Also, there are some genuinely scary scenes such as the scene where Dorothy accidentally wakes up a headless Princess Mombi, who tries to capture Dorothy and the scenes with the Wheelers. Parents might want to screen this movie first before showing it to their children. Also, the reason why I took off half a point from the rating was because the movie can get pretty confusing at times and it was hard for me to follow what exactly happened in the plot at times.
Overall, "Return to Oz" is a truly enjoyable film that "Oz" fans would enjoy extremely well! However, this movie can get pretty scary at times, so watch this film with extreme caution.
Originally posted on: http://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/movie-review-return-to-oz-1985.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Live By Night (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
I’m a sucker for a Prohibition-set yarn. It’s a fascinating period in history and typically yields excellent filmmaking with gritty, no-nonsense performances, gorgeous production design and hard-boiled action. It was De Palma’s The Untouchables that hooked me. Some would call it a guilty pleasure; and sure, Morricone’s score is a little over-the-top, De Niro is more caricature than character actor as Al Capone and I’m not going to argue that Connery’s Oscar was a “sympathy vote”, but it’s got everything I mentioned above in spades and for me it’ll always be the high benchmark of the Prohibition era gangster epic. Ben Affleck’s fourth turn as director has done nothing to change my position on that.
Live by Night is an uninspired mess, from voice-over laden start to disastrously predictable end, bringing nothing new or exciting to the table. Beat for beat, its weak script moves from one sigh-inducing cliché to another, reaching clumsily for moments of high emotion that ring hollow and false. If anyone needs any further proof that Matt Damon did all the heavy lifting on the script for Good Will Hunting, they need look no further. It feels wrong to come down so hard on Affleck after his back-to-back successes as a director, but this is more akin to the first work of a blundering novice, and also certainly not what we’ve come to expect of a Dennis Lehane adaptation (see Mystic River, Shutter Island and Affleck’s own incredible directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone). His decision to wear so many hats on this project, producing, directing, sole screenwriter and lead actor, has to be the reason for this stumble. The script desperately needed another set of eyes and the part of Joe Coughlin was clearly written for someone younger and more capable of performing with the subtlety needed to play someone who has to traverse the number of moral dilemmas he’s faced with. Hopefully, this inevitable failure will be what convinces Affleck that his place should be behind the camera directing other people’s scripts and guiding other people’s performances.
Speaking of the performances, there is a massive curve in this collection of acting that swings wildly from the cartoonish to the nuanced. To start with, we have Matthew Maher as a KKK member out for his cut and Robert Glenister as an Irish mob boss, both of whom are supposed to be playing dangerous and threatening but can’t do any better than laughable and two-dimensional. Then there’s Chris Messina and Affleck himself as the hoods on the rise, their chemistry is ill-advised at best as they both seem to think they’re in a buddy comedy as opposed to a serious piece of gangster melodrama A favorite of mine, Brendan Gleeson, sadly leaves the screen within the first twenty minutes and that left me with only the inimitable Chris Cooper to look forward to. The subplot involving him and Elle Fanning, as his born-again daughter speaking out against Coughlin’s sinful ways is not without problems of its own, but at least they sell it. That should be no surprise on Cooper’s part, but now between this and The Neon Demon last summer; Fanning is firmly on my radar as one to watch. My hope was that we were going to get some tremendous battle of wills between her and Affleck’s character akin to Paul Dano and Daniel Day-Lewis’ conflict in There Will Be Blood, but that was definitely asking too much. Fanning’s role, like Gleeson’s, is unfortunately cut short just as it gets good.
I guess The Untouchables is starting to sound less like a guilty pleasure and more like a masterpiece when compared to this regrettable misfire.
Live by Night is an uninspired mess, from voice-over laden start to disastrously predictable end, bringing nothing new or exciting to the table. Beat for beat, its weak script moves from one sigh-inducing cliché to another, reaching clumsily for moments of high emotion that ring hollow and false. If anyone needs any further proof that Matt Damon did all the heavy lifting on the script for Good Will Hunting, they need look no further. It feels wrong to come down so hard on Affleck after his back-to-back successes as a director, but this is more akin to the first work of a blundering novice, and also certainly not what we’ve come to expect of a Dennis Lehane adaptation (see Mystic River, Shutter Island and Affleck’s own incredible directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone). His decision to wear so many hats on this project, producing, directing, sole screenwriter and lead actor, has to be the reason for this stumble. The script desperately needed another set of eyes and the part of Joe Coughlin was clearly written for someone younger and more capable of performing with the subtlety needed to play someone who has to traverse the number of moral dilemmas he’s faced with. Hopefully, this inevitable failure will be what convinces Affleck that his place should be behind the camera directing other people’s scripts and guiding other people’s performances.
Speaking of the performances, there is a massive curve in this collection of acting that swings wildly from the cartoonish to the nuanced. To start with, we have Matthew Maher as a KKK member out for his cut and Robert Glenister as an Irish mob boss, both of whom are supposed to be playing dangerous and threatening but can’t do any better than laughable and two-dimensional. Then there’s Chris Messina and Affleck himself as the hoods on the rise, their chemistry is ill-advised at best as they both seem to think they’re in a buddy comedy as opposed to a serious piece of gangster melodrama A favorite of mine, Brendan Gleeson, sadly leaves the screen within the first twenty minutes and that left me with only the inimitable Chris Cooper to look forward to. The subplot involving him and Elle Fanning, as his born-again daughter speaking out against Coughlin’s sinful ways is not without problems of its own, but at least they sell it. That should be no surprise on Cooper’s part, but now between this and The Neon Demon last summer; Fanning is firmly on my radar as one to watch. My hope was that we were going to get some tremendous battle of wills between her and Affleck’s character akin to Paul Dano and Daniel Day-Lewis’ conflict in There Will Be Blood, but that was definitely asking too much. Fanning’s role, like Gleeson’s, is unfortunately cut short just as it gets good.
I guess The Untouchables is starting to sound less like a guilty pleasure and more like a masterpiece when compared to this regrettable misfire.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Snowpiercer (2013) in Movies
Jun 7, 2020
You know when someone tells you you should watch something... and then someone else does... and after every new "oh my god, you haven't seen it?!" you become more stubborn about watching it? That's exactly why it has taken me so long to watch Snowpiercer.
With the world on the edge of a complete climate collapse scientists launched what they hoped was the solution to the crisis, they would cool the atmosphere and save everyone... but their solution proved to be the world's undoing. What's left of the human race now rides a purpose-built train outrunning an icy end. The people of the tail section are living a terrible life, no natural light, barely any food... they want things to change, but the rest of the train has other ideas.
There's an all star cast on board for Snowpiercer, they've definitely not scrimped in that department. Together everyone works, even with some strong character personalities.
Chris Evans plays our lead, Curtis. Evans can do a lot of different genres but this sort of science fiction didn't seem to suit him. Curtis is a flawed character by design but at no point did he feel like someone to get behind, it's possible to like a flawed leader but this one didn't have the strength to make it convincing.
Tilda Swinton pops up and gives us the much expected slightly nuts performance that only she could muster. While I enjoyed it I'm not sure what it added to the proceedings apart from a very over the top sci-fi edge.
In the confined spaces of the train you get a great sense of how they're living and the cameras are placed in such a way that it never feels claustrophobic. Even in the tail section where you'd expect that, the closeness boosts the bond between characters and the way their planning comes together.
The film has a very clear divide when it comes to life both inside and out of the train. The sweeping bright white landscape with the dark and vibrant interiors, the dull tones of the tail to the richness of the ticketed sections. There's a lot to see in all of it and I'm certainly keen to give it another watch to try and pick out more details from inside the train and what's hidden in the snow... though I have some issues believing that some of that stuff would have still been visible with the wind and weather... but anyway.
There's some movie "magic" that I have a problem with in Snowpiercer, specifically a shoot-out scene that I actively dislike because it's ridiculous. I happily suspend my logical thinking for so many things but this scene annoyed me a lot, there were so many alternative ways to do it that would have been believable... ugh... *deep breath*. I'm going to stop on that now to avoid ranting and spoilers.
It's a great idea and the original story from the graphic novel is an excellent piece to work off, and while the adaptation might not be faithful to that it does add something that's necessary for a single film format. Because of the story and the design of the set there's automatically a natural progression to everything but the film isn't entirely balanced. The beginning feels very heavy and drawn out then we get a sprint for the finish. There's a lot of opportunity for expanded story in the middle but it's not taken up, including it may have changed the tone of the film as it definitely wasn't in keeping with the rest but it would have been interesting to find out more about it. (This is one thing I'm hoping we get to see a bit more of in the TV show.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/snowpiercer-movie-review.html
With the world on the edge of a complete climate collapse scientists launched what they hoped was the solution to the crisis, they would cool the atmosphere and save everyone... but their solution proved to be the world's undoing. What's left of the human race now rides a purpose-built train outrunning an icy end. The people of the tail section are living a terrible life, no natural light, barely any food... they want things to change, but the rest of the train has other ideas.
There's an all star cast on board for Snowpiercer, they've definitely not scrimped in that department. Together everyone works, even with some strong character personalities.
Chris Evans plays our lead, Curtis. Evans can do a lot of different genres but this sort of science fiction didn't seem to suit him. Curtis is a flawed character by design but at no point did he feel like someone to get behind, it's possible to like a flawed leader but this one didn't have the strength to make it convincing.
Tilda Swinton pops up and gives us the much expected slightly nuts performance that only she could muster. While I enjoyed it I'm not sure what it added to the proceedings apart from a very over the top sci-fi edge.
In the confined spaces of the train you get a great sense of how they're living and the cameras are placed in such a way that it never feels claustrophobic. Even in the tail section where you'd expect that, the closeness boosts the bond between characters and the way their planning comes together.
The film has a very clear divide when it comes to life both inside and out of the train. The sweeping bright white landscape with the dark and vibrant interiors, the dull tones of the tail to the richness of the ticketed sections. There's a lot to see in all of it and I'm certainly keen to give it another watch to try and pick out more details from inside the train and what's hidden in the snow... though I have some issues believing that some of that stuff would have still been visible with the wind and weather... but anyway.
There's some movie "magic" that I have a problem with in Snowpiercer, specifically a shoot-out scene that I actively dislike because it's ridiculous. I happily suspend my logical thinking for so many things but this scene annoyed me a lot, there were so many alternative ways to do it that would have been believable... ugh... *deep breath*. I'm going to stop on that now to avoid ranting and spoilers.
It's a great idea and the original story from the graphic novel is an excellent piece to work off, and while the adaptation might not be faithful to that it does add something that's necessary for a single film format. Because of the story and the design of the set there's automatically a natural progression to everything but the film isn't entirely balanced. The beginning feels very heavy and drawn out then we get a sprint for the finish. There's a lot of opportunity for expanded story in the middle but it's not taken up, including it may have changed the tone of the film as it definitely wasn't in keeping with the rest but it would have been interesting to find out more about it. (This is one thing I'm hoping we get to see a bit more of in the TV show.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/snowpiercer-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Snowman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We’re trudging through the slush”.
Unlike its animated namesake, “The Snowman” is not a good film. Frustratingly it has all the right ingredients:
A story by bestselling Nordic writer Jo Nesbø;
Gorgeously photogenic snowy scenes of Oslo and Bergen;
A stellar cast (Michael Fassbender (“Alien: Covenant“); Rebecca Ferguson (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“); J.K. Simmons (“Whiplash“); Toby Jones (“Dad’s Army“); Chloe Sevigny (“Love and Friendship“); Charlotte Gainsbourg (“Independence Day: Resurgence“, very sexy as Fassbender’s ex-squeeze) and even Val Kilmer (“Top Gun”, whose mother – interesting fact – is actually Swedish).
snowman2
That sinking feeling when you realise you’ve been drinking all night and its too late for bed before work.
And while these elements congeal in the snow together quite well as vignettes, the whole film jerks from vignette to vignette in a most unsatisfactory way. I haven’t read the book (which might be much better) but the inclusion in the (terrible!) trailers of key scenes that never made the final cut (where was the fire for example?, the fish? the man trap?) implied to me that the director (Tomas Alfredson, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”) and screenwriting team – Peter Straughan (also “Tinker, Tailor”), Hossein Amini (“The Two Faces of January“) and Søren Sveistrup (TV’s “The Killing”) – either didn’t have (or didn’t agree on) the direction they wanted the film to go in.
Film Title: The Snowman
Arve Stop (J.K. Simmons) and Katrine (Rebecca Ferguson) having a “Weinstein moment” at the hotel.
Nesbø (and indeed most crime writers these days) litter their work with damaged cops…. you have to question whether the detective application form has a mandatory check-box with “alcoholic and borderline psycho” on it!. This film is no exception. Fassbender plays Nesbø’s master sleuth Harry Hole: an alcoholic insomniac well off the rails between homicide cases. “If only Oslo had a higher murder rate” bemoans his boss (Ronan Vibert). He joins forces with newby officer Katrine Bratt (Rebecca Ferguson), who has her fair share of mental demons to fight, in investigating a series of missing person/murder cases. The duo unearth a link between the cases – all happen when the snow starts to fall and to particular types of women, with the protagonist leaving a snowman at the scene.
snowman5
One of the cuter snowmen… they get worse… much worse.
The plot is highly formulaic – I guessed who the killer was within about 20 minutes. But what makes this movie stand out, for all the wrong reasons, is that it has one of the most stupid, vacuous, flaccid, inane, ridiculous … (add 50 other thesaurus entries)… endings imaginable. My mouth actually gaped in astonishment!
There are also a surprisingly large number of loose ends you ponder after the film ends: why the “Snowman”‘s fixation with Harry?; what was with the “Vetlesen cleaner” subplot? How is Star Trek transportation possible in Norway? (But wait… “Telemark”… “Teleport”…. coincidence????? 🙂
On the plus side, there is some lovely Norwegian drone cinematography – (by Australian Dion Beebe (“Edge of Tomorrow“) – that immediately made me put “travel by winter train from Oslo to Bergen” on my life-map. The music by Marco Beltrami (“Logan“) is also effective and suitably Hitchcockian.
If you like your films gory, this one is definitely for you, with some pretty graphic content that (for those who like to cover their eyes) is cut to so quickly by editors Thelma Schoonmaker (“The Wolf of Wall Street“) and Claire Simpson (“Far From The Madding Crowd“) that your hands won’t have time to leave your lap! I remember this being a feature of a previous Nesbø adaptation (the much better “Headhunters” from 2011) but here it goes into overdrive.
snowman1
One of my favourite actresses – Rebecca Ferguson, curiously playing much “younger” in this film than she appears in her previous hits.
Overall this was a rather disappointing effort that was heading for a FFf rating. But just because of that ending I’m knocking a whole extra Fad off!
A story by bestselling Nordic writer Jo Nesbø;
Gorgeously photogenic snowy scenes of Oslo and Bergen;
A stellar cast (Michael Fassbender (“Alien: Covenant“); Rebecca Ferguson (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“); J.K. Simmons (“Whiplash“); Toby Jones (“Dad’s Army“); Chloe Sevigny (“Love and Friendship“); Charlotte Gainsbourg (“Independence Day: Resurgence“, very sexy as Fassbender’s ex-squeeze) and even Val Kilmer (“Top Gun”, whose mother – interesting fact – is actually Swedish).
snowman2
That sinking feeling when you realise you’ve been drinking all night and its too late for bed before work.
And while these elements congeal in the snow together quite well as vignettes, the whole film jerks from vignette to vignette in a most unsatisfactory way. I haven’t read the book (which might be much better) but the inclusion in the (terrible!) trailers of key scenes that never made the final cut (where was the fire for example?, the fish? the man trap?) implied to me that the director (Tomas Alfredson, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”) and screenwriting team – Peter Straughan (also “Tinker, Tailor”), Hossein Amini (“The Two Faces of January“) and Søren Sveistrup (TV’s “The Killing”) – either didn’t have (or didn’t agree on) the direction they wanted the film to go in.
Film Title: The Snowman
Arve Stop (J.K. Simmons) and Katrine (Rebecca Ferguson) having a “Weinstein moment” at the hotel.
Nesbø (and indeed most crime writers these days) litter their work with damaged cops…. you have to question whether the detective application form has a mandatory check-box with “alcoholic and borderline psycho” on it!. This film is no exception. Fassbender plays Nesbø’s master sleuth Harry Hole: an alcoholic insomniac well off the rails between homicide cases. “If only Oslo had a higher murder rate” bemoans his boss (Ronan Vibert). He joins forces with newby officer Katrine Bratt (Rebecca Ferguson), who has her fair share of mental demons to fight, in investigating a series of missing person/murder cases. The duo unearth a link between the cases – all happen when the snow starts to fall and to particular types of women, with the protagonist leaving a snowman at the scene.
snowman5
One of the cuter snowmen… they get worse… much worse.
The plot is highly formulaic – I guessed who the killer was within about 20 minutes. But what makes this movie stand out, for all the wrong reasons, is that it has one of the most stupid, vacuous, flaccid, inane, ridiculous … (add 50 other thesaurus entries)… endings imaginable. My mouth actually gaped in astonishment!
There are also a surprisingly large number of loose ends you ponder after the film ends: why the “Snowman”‘s fixation with Harry?; what was with the “Vetlesen cleaner” subplot? How is Star Trek transportation possible in Norway? (But wait… “Telemark”… “Teleport”…. coincidence????? 🙂
On the plus side, there is some lovely Norwegian drone cinematography – (by Australian Dion Beebe (“Edge of Tomorrow“) – that immediately made me put “travel by winter train from Oslo to Bergen” on my life-map. The music by Marco Beltrami (“Logan“) is also effective and suitably Hitchcockian.
If you like your films gory, this one is definitely for you, with some pretty graphic content that (for those who like to cover their eyes) is cut to so quickly by editors Thelma Schoonmaker (“The Wolf of Wall Street“) and Claire Simpson (“Far From The Madding Crowd“) that your hands won’t have time to leave your lap! I remember this being a feature of a previous Nesbø adaptation (the much better “Headhunters” from 2011) but here it goes into overdrive.
snowman1
One of my favourite actresses – Rebecca Ferguson, curiously playing much “younger” in this film than she appears in her previous hits.
Overall this was a rather disappointing effort that was heading for a FFf rating. But just because of that ending I’m knocking a whole extra Fad off!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Flatliners (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The undiscovered country… which they shouldn’t have returned to.
The movies have depicted the hereafter in varied ways over the years. From the bleached white warehouses of Powell and Pressburger’s “A Matter of Life and Death” in 1946 and Warren Beatty’s “Heaven Can Wait” in 1978 to – for me – the peak of the game: Vincent Ward’s mawkish but gorgeously rendered oil-paint version of heaven in 1998’s “What Dreams May Come”. Joel Schmacher’s 1990’s “Flatliners” saw a set of “brat pack” movie names of the day (including Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts, William Baldwin and Kiefer Sutherland) as experimenting trainee doctors, cheating death to experience the afterlife and getting more than they bargained for. The depictions of the afterlife were unmemorable: in that I don’t remember them much! (I think there was some sort of spooky tree involved, but that’s about it!)
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl on the Train (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You won’t uncork a bottle of Malbec again without thinking of this film…
“The Girl on a Train” is the film adaptation of the best-seller by Paula Hawkins, transported from the London suburbs to New York’s Hastings-on-Hudson.
It’s actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (“Sicario”, “Edge of Tomorrow”) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, “Zoolander 2”) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca “MI:5” Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, “The Hobbit”). A sixth party in this complex network is Megan’s psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez, “Joy”).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When ‘shit gets real’ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from “The West Wing”) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Blunt’s performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with “The Magnificent Seven” also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna – “there were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowded”
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy “man in the suit” and “Friends” star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So it’s a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachel’s lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (“The Help”) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last year’s “Gone Girl”: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
It’s by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But it’s not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.
It’s actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (“Sicario”, “Edge of Tomorrow”) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, “Zoolander 2”) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca “MI:5” Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, “The Hobbit”). A sixth party in this complex network is Megan’s psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez, “Joy”).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When ‘shit gets real’ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from “The West Wing”) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Blunt’s performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with “The Magnificent Seven” also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna – “there were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowded”
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy “man in the suit” and “Friends” star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So it’s a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachel’s lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (“The Help”) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last year’s “Gone Girl”: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
It’s by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But it’s not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lost Daughter (2021) in Movies
Feb 17, 2022
Strong Acting and Direction
The nice thing about being fanatical about catching all of the Oscar Nominated films in the “Major” categories is that it forces me to watch films that, normally, my interests would not gravitate towards - and, most of the time, I am rewarded and my mind and emotions are expanded because of this.
Such is the case with THE LOST DAUGHTER, Maggie Gyllenhaal’s film Directing debut (she is also Oscar nominated for Adapted Screenplay) that follows the emotional journey of a College Professor (the great Olivia Colman) on Holiday in Greece who is forced to confront her past decisions amidst the emotional toil that these decisions have created.
Normally, these introspective, “Art House” films are not my cup of tea and during the first half of this film, I did find myself wandering a bit. This is because Colman’s character of Leda arrives on-screen at the onset of this film heavy with emotional (almost crippling so) baggage and it is almost too much to bear…which is the point. The movie, then, peels the layers back slowly to reveal why.
It is, yet again, a tour-de-force performance by Colman - who just might win ANOTHER Oscar for this work - it is that strong without being show-offey (if that is a word). Colman becomes Leda and delves strongly into the introspection, guilt, hurt and confusion that this character has. She allows the character to breathe (sometimes in gulps of crying). It is the type of character (and performance) that film today rarely allows time for on screen.
Credit for this has to go to Directer/ScreenWriter Maggie Gyllenhaal who adapted Elana Ferrante’s novel into a quiet, retrospective film. The adaptation works well for someone who has no prior knowledge of the novel and the direction and camerawork of this film is unwavering in it’s look into a character that is flawed and at times unlikeable. It is a strong Directorial and Screenwriting debut for Gyllenhaal.
Jessie Buckley is also Oscar nominated (for Best Supporting Actress) for her role as the younger Leda - a character who’s actions strongly affect the older Leda. While this character is not as nuanced as Colman’s version of Leda, she still is strong and Buckley’s performance is just as confident, self-centered, and fierce showing the roots of the person that would become Colman’s character. This is only the 3rd time in Oscars history that 2 actresses have been nominated for Academy Awards for playing younger and older versions of the same person (Kate Winslet/Gloria Stewart playing Rose in TITANIC and Kate Winslet/Judi Dench playing Iris in IRIS).
Ed Harris shows up as the proprietor of the space that Leda is renting in Greece and is a welcome presence (as always). The surprises to me in this film were the performances of Dakota Johnson and Jack Farthing. Johnson is proving that she is more than just the “50 SHADES” girl and spars with Colman quite well, more than holding her own. Farthing, who played the cold and distant Prince Charles in SPENCER is the husband of the younger Leda and he is the polar opposite of Prince Charles - open, loving and emotional. It is fun to see 2 clearly differing performances by the same actor. Farthing is someone to keep an eye on.
As is Gyllenhaal, Colman and THE LOST DAUGHTER. It is a strong piece of film-making and not an easy watch. But, if you can click into the emotion of this flawed character - and stick with this film through the ugliness and mistakes that Leda selfishly makes, you will be rewarded with a character study, the likes of which is rare in film today.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with THE LOST DAUGHTER, Maggie Gyllenhaal’s film Directing debut (she is also Oscar nominated for Adapted Screenplay) that follows the emotional journey of a College Professor (the great Olivia Colman) on Holiday in Greece who is forced to confront her past decisions amidst the emotional toil that these decisions have created.
Normally, these introspective, “Art House” films are not my cup of tea and during the first half of this film, I did find myself wandering a bit. This is because Colman’s character of Leda arrives on-screen at the onset of this film heavy with emotional (almost crippling so) baggage and it is almost too much to bear…which is the point. The movie, then, peels the layers back slowly to reveal why.
It is, yet again, a tour-de-force performance by Colman - who just might win ANOTHER Oscar for this work - it is that strong without being show-offey (if that is a word). Colman becomes Leda and delves strongly into the introspection, guilt, hurt and confusion that this character has. She allows the character to breathe (sometimes in gulps of crying). It is the type of character (and performance) that film today rarely allows time for on screen.
Credit for this has to go to Directer/ScreenWriter Maggie Gyllenhaal who adapted Elana Ferrante’s novel into a quiet, retrospective film. The adaptation works well for someone who has no prior knowledge of the novel and the direction and camerawork of this film is unwavering in it’s look into a character that is flawed and at times unlikeable. It is a strong Directorial and Screenwriting debut for Gyllenhaal.
Jessie Buckley is also Oscar nominated (for Best Supporting Actress) for her role as the younger Leda - a character who’s actions strongly affect the older Leda. While this character is not as nuanced as Colman’s version of Leda, she still is strong and Buckley’s performance is just as confident, self-centered, and fierce showing the roots of the person that would become Colman’s character. This is only the 3rd time in Oscars history that 2 actresses have been nominated for Academy Awards for playing younger and older versions of the same person (Kate Winslet/Gloria Stewart playing Rose in TITANIC and Kate Winslet/Judi Dench playing Iris in IRIS).
Ed Harris shows up as the proprietor of the space that Leda is renting in Greece and is a welcome presence (as always). The surprises to me in this film were the performances of Dakota Johnson and Jack Farthing. Johnson is proving that she is more than just the “50 SHADES” girl and spars with Colman quite well, more than holding her own. Farthing, who played the cold and distant Prince Charles in SPENCER is the husband of the younger Leda and he is the polar opposite of Prince Charles - open, loving and emotional. It is fun to see 2 clearly differing performances by the same actor. Farthing is someone to keep an eye on.
As is Gyllenhaal, Colman and THE LOST DAUGHTER. It is a strong piece of film-making and not an easy watch. But, if you can click into the emotion of this flawed character - and stick with this film through the ugliness and mistakes that Leda selfishly makes, you will be rewarded with a character study, the likes of which is rare in film today.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Initially when a franchise reboots a series not five years from its last installment this can often be seen as a sign that they’ve run out of ideas. It was reportedly the inability to find a suitable script that drove director-producer Sam Raimi and the stars of the Spider-man series away from a possible fourth outing and forced Sony/Columbia start fresh.
Selecting the relatively new Marc Webb who, outside of “500 Days of Summer”, had worked on music videos and most recently directed episode of The Office and the pilot for Lone Star, seemed like a very odd choice to turn over the billion-dollar franchise. The selection of American-born English actor Andrew Garfield also seemed to be an interesting choice to don the tights of the wall crawler.
Thankfully this is exactly the fresh start that the series needed. Even though I went into the film with guarded and reserved expectations I must say that I’m absolutely delighted with how the final product came out as this is a very fresh and faithful adaptation of the beloved comic book character that, in my opinion is the best adaptation to date on film.
The screenplay by James Vanderbilt was based on a story credited to three other writers all of whom clearly understand the character and the source material and are focused first and foremost with being respectful to it rather than putting their own unique stamp and take on the franchise.
The film does take a little bit of liberty by showing Peter Parker’s parents as they place young Peter in the custody of Ben and May Parker (Martin Sheen and Sally Fields) as they flee into a rainy night from implied danger, never to be seen again.
The film continues with teenage Peter (Andrew Garfield), plodding his way through high school. As brilliant as Peter is academically, he is extremely awkward around girls especially the lovely Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), who never fails to catch his eye. When a clue from his father’s past arises, Peter finds himself at Oscorp where Gwen works as an intern. Peter also finds himself on the radar of his dad’s former partner Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who becomes intrigued by young Peter’s scientific theories and even more so in his abilities when he learns that he is the offspring of his former partner.
Dr. Connors is working on cross species genetics and hopes that not only will it someday replaces missing arm, but will also pave a bold new direction for humanity. During a visit to the lab Peter, is bitten by a radioactive spider, and as any fan of the series knows, begins to exhibit amazing strength, agility, and perception, as well as the ability to walk on walls and cling to ceilings. In a very refreshing return to form, Peter fashions his famous web slingers rather than have them be organic as the previous film series did.
When a twist of fate puts Peter on the path of vengeance, he becomes a masked vigilante who uses his newfound abilities to rid New York some of its less pleasant citizens. These activities do not sit well with Captain Stacy (Denis Leary), who also happens to be Gwen’s father. As Peter and Gwen become closer, the duality of hiding his new identity from Capt. Stacy and Aunt May becomes even more imperative.
Naturally, it would not be much of a superhero film without a super villain, and Dr. Connors is more than willing to step up to this. Faced with pressure from his bosses he decides to use an experimental serum on himself. At first he is delighted as he seems to regrow his lost limb, but then in a Jekyll & Hyde-like transformation he transforms into a gigantic lizard creature bent on revenge and destruction as he attempts to complete a plan that will devastate millions of New York citizens.
Since Peter helped provide the equation that led to the formula that transform Dr. Connors, he feels obligated to stop the raging creature and to save his mentor no matter the cost. What follows are some truly spectacular action sequences including sewer battles in an extremely memorable finale across the Manhattan skyline.
While the film did take its time getting started as it established its back story and introduced the characters, once it got rolling it was an extremely fun and exhilarating ride. Garfield and Stone have a very good chemistry with one another and the reports of them recently dating off screen further solidifies their on-screen bond. Garfield wonderfully captures the conflicted emotions of Peter Parker as well as the brilliantly awkward genius that he is.
He runs the gamut of emotions from showing his anger and frustration to the dopey awkwardness of his interactions with Gwen and very believable manner. When he becomes infused with his new abilities you can almost share the glee that he has as he swings and flips around the landscape. The sheltered, socially awkward young man disappears when he dons the mask. He’s free to let himself go and Garfield does this with a childlike delight as well as the trademark quips and wisecracks that made the character such a beloved icon.
Garfield handles the physical duties of the role quite well and shines both in and out of the costume. I thought Tobey Maguire did a fantastic job bringing the character to life previously, but in my opinion Garfield has captured the essence of Peter Parker/ Spider-man and made it his own with a truly wonderful performance all around.
Stone does a great job as the love interest in the film as she is more than just eye candy and the typical damsel in distress far too common with this type of film. She challenges Peter and you can see some gleeful delight in her eyes when Peter awkwardly stumbles around her in an attempt to ask her out. Because she clearly enjoys the situation Gwen is not about to make it any easier on Peter, even though she’s been waiting for him to muster the courage for ages. She’s a strong and determined woman who gives a good range of emotions in her scenes and complements Garfield exceptionally well.
The supporting cast was very good especially Leary and Fields and Ifans does a good job as the quietly restrained Connors. In what could’ve easily been a scenery chewing, over-the-top Machiavellian bad guy, Ifans portrays Connors as a very sympathetic and understandable figure. He is a scientist first and foremost who is trying to do what he believes is right. He is not suited for the political machinations of a large corporation and when he begins this transformation and the animal side takes over there is still a hint of humanity amongst all the CGI work for the re-imagined Lizard.
While it did take me a while to get used to the look of The Lizard having become accustomed to his portrayal in comics and cartoons, I have to say it was a good updating it still stayed faithful to the essence of the original character.
Webb wisely decided to shoot in 3-D and not do a post filming conversion. It is the visually captivating and at times stunning cinema photography that really sets the tone for the film. You can truly get an idea of what it is like to be Spider-man as he swings and flips through the city and the point of view shots of his web firing out to latch onto objects and take down opponents are a lot of fun. Webb clearly knows the subject matter and gets the most out of his very talented cast and tells a very entertaining yet human action story and lets the effects support the film rather than carry it.
The film was much better than “Spider-man 3”. I am so happy that the franchise is in good hands and is moving forward in the right direction. Although the movie did take a while to get up to speed once it got rolling I did not want it to end, and I commented to my wife that I don’t want to have to wait 2 to 3 years for the next installment of the film I’m ready for more now. As a lifelong fan of comic I can honestly say I am beyond delighted with the new film, cast, director, and direction for the series.
Selecting the relatively new Marc Webb who, outside of “500 Days of Summer”, had worked on music videos and most recently directed episode of The Office and the pilot for Lone Star, seemed like a very odd choice to turn over the billion-dollar franchise. The selection of American-born English actor Andrew Garfield also seemed to be an interesting choice to don the tights of the wall crawler.
Thankfully this is exactly the fresh start that the series needed. Even though I went into the film with guarded and reserved expectations I must say that I’m absolutely delighted with how the final product came out as this is a very fresh and faithful adaptation of the beloved comic book character that, in my opinion is the best adaptation to date on film.
The screenplay by James Vanderbilt was based on a story credited to three other writers all of whom clearly understand the character and the source material and are focused first and foremost with being respectful to it rather than putting their own unique stamp and take on the franchise.
The film does take a little bit of liberty by showing Peter Parker’s parents as they place young Peter in the custody of Ben and May Parker (Martin Sheen and Sally Fields) as they flee into a rainy night from implied danger, never to be seen again.
The film continues with teenage Peter (Andrew Garfield), plodding his way through high school. As brilliant as Peter is academically, he is extremely awkward around girls especially the lovely Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), who never fails to catch his eye. When a clue from his father’s past arises, Peter finds himself at Oscorp where Gwen works as an intern. Peter also finds himself on the radar of his dad’s former partner Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who becomes intrigued by young Peter’s scientific theories and even more so in his abilities when he learns that he is the offspring of his former partner.
Dr. Connors is working on cross species genetics and hopes that not only will it someday replaces missing arm, but will also pave a bold new direction for humanity. During a visit to the lab Peter, is bitten by a radioactive spider, and as any fan of the series knows, begins to exhibit amazing strength, agility, and perception, as well as the ability to walk on walls and cling to ceilings. In a very refreshing return to form, Peter fashions his famous web slingers rather than have them be organic as the previous film series did.
When a twist of fate puts Peter on the path of vengeance, he becomes a masked vigilante who uses his newfound abilities to rid New York some of its less pleasant citizens. These activities do not sit well with Captain Stacy (Denis Leary), who also happens to be Gwen’s father. As Peter and Gwen become closer, the duality of hiding his new identity from Capt. Stacy and Aunt May becomes even more imperative.
Naturally, it would not be much of a superhero film without a super villain, and Dr. Connors is more than willing to step up to this. Faced with pressure from his bosses he decides to use an experimental serum on himself. At first he is delighted as he seems to regrow his lost limb, but then in a Jekyll & Hyde-like transformation he transforms into a gigantic lizard creature bent on revenge and destruction as he attempts to complete a plan that will devastate millions of New York citizens.
Since Peter helped provide the equation that led to the formula that transform Dr. Connors, he feels obligated to stop the raging creature and to save his mentor no matter the cost. What follows are some truly spectacular action sequences including sewer battles in an extremely memorable finale across the Manhattan skyline.
While the film did take its time getting started as it established its back story and introduced the characters, once it got rolling it was an extremely fun and exhilarating ride. Garfield and Stone have a very good chemistry with one another and the reports of them recently dating off screen further solidifies their on-screen bond. Garfield wonderfully captures the conflicted emotions of Peter Parker as well as the brilliantly awkward genius that he is.
He runs the gamut of emotions from showing his anger and frustration to the dopey awkwardness of his interactions with Gwen and very believable manner. When he becomes infused with his new abilities you can almost share the glee that he has as he swings and flips around the landscape. The sheltered, socially awkward young man disappears when he dons the mask. He’s free to let himself go and Garfield does this with a childlike delight as well as the trademark quips and wisecracks that made the character such a beloved icon.
Garfield handles the physical duties of the role quite well and shines both in and out of the costume. I thought Tobey Maguire did a fantastic job bringing the character to life previously, but in my opinion Garfield has captured the essence of Peter Parker/ Spider-man and made it his own with a truly wonderful performance all around.
Stone does a great job as the love interest in the film as she is more than just eye candy and the typical damsel in distress far too common with this type of film. She challenges Peter and you can see some gleeful delight in her eyes when Peter awkwardly stumbles around her in an attempt to ask her out. Because she clearly enjoys the situation Gwen is not about to make it any easier on Peter, even though she’s been waiting for him to muster the courage for ages. She’s a strong and determined woman who gives a good range of emotions in her scenes and complements Garfield exceptionally well.
The supporting cast was very good especially Leary and Fields and Ifans does a good job as the quietly restrained Connors. In what could’ve easily been a scenery chewing, over-the-top Machiavellian bad guy, Ifans portrays Connors as a very sympathetic and understandable figure. He is a scientist first and foremost who is trying to do what he believes is right. He is not suited for the political machinations of a large corporation and when he begins this transformation and the animal side takes over there is still a hint of humanity amongst all the CGI work for the re-imagined Lizard.
While it did take me a while to get used to the look of The Lizard having become accustomed to his portrayal in comics and cartoons, I have to say it was a good updating it still stayed faithful to the essence of the original character.
Webb wisely decided to shoot in 3-D and not do a post filming conversion. It is the visually captivating and at times stunning cinema photography that really sets the tone for the film. You can truly get an idea of what it is like to be Spider-man as he swings and flips through the city and the point of view shots of his web firing out to latch onto objects and take down opponents are a lot of fun. Webb clearly knows the subject matter and gets the most out of his very talented cast and tells a very entertaining yet human action story and lets the effects support the film rather than carry it.
The film was much better than “Spider-man 3”. I am so happy that the franchise is in good hands and is moving forward in the right direction. Although the movie did take a while to get up to speed once it got rolling I did not want it to end, and I commented to my wife that I don’t want to have to wait 2 to 3 years for the next installment of the film I’m ready for more now. As a lifelong fan of comic I can honestly say I am beyond delighted with the new film, cast, director, and direction for the series.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Black Sails - Season 1 in TV
May 30, 2017
Great Cast (3 more)
Brilliant Action
Great Drama
Very Accurate (thought not 100%)
Game of Thrones with Pirates
I was unawares during my first initial viewing of this show that this was in fact a prequel of sorts to the famous classic novel by Robert Louis Stevenson, Treasure Island. Though I knew that I had heard the names Flint and John Silver among others. However, I must admit, I have never seen, nor read any adaptation of the classic (I know shameful) but I intend to as it is in my collection of books and has been for years. I collected the 'Golden Library' collection which contains nearly all of the most classic books that are must reads for any book worm, and though I do not claim to be a book worm nor a large reader of any kind, I take interest in anything to do with Pirates, Vikings, and most historical fiction.
This show is a great representation of the life and time of Piracy however, and I can review it from a point of view of someone who knows quite a bit about the golden age of piracy in actual historical facts. Unlike the previous pirate content I reviewed, Blackbeard, this show portrays pirates as scarred, dirty, bloody, and frightening in their own way. However, similar to the Blackbeard short series, the pirates and other characters all have near perfect teeth. It seems to be that only (in what I have seen anyways) the Pirate's of the Caribbean franchise has managed to nail the full historical accuracy of the look of a pirate from clothing, to makeup, to the teeth.
On the other hand, this does not cause much of a disturbance to the viewing of this show, because the drama is brilliant, if you can bare the somewhat slow plot lines unfold as there are many characters in this show, and each have a ship full of issues that all need resolving with very few of them actually being resolved. From love interests, to thievery, betrayal and all round general opposition between old allies and acquaintances. There is a lot of 'business' to deal with on the side of Eleanor Guthrie and her dealings with our main protagonists, among other important characters, some of which are based upon historical figures such as Captain Benjamin Hornigold, Charles Vane, Anne Bonny and Jack Rackham (known throughout history as Calico Jack). All portrayed as tough, cunning and sometimes (most times for Rackham) as humerous.
The production of this show is great, with beautiful sets, great looking props and special effects that make this a believable series to get lost in. It's one of the better pirate themed mediums that I have seen, and I personally really enjoy the drama and suspense of the episodes, as well as the twists and turns of certain scenario's which leave you wanting more.
The cast deliver great performances and make you believe that they are truly men or women to be feared, and not to be double crossed. From Charles Vane's tough exterior, to Eleanor Guthrie's power over trade in Nassau, and even Captain Flint's fear inducing presence, as we watch his secrets spill out into the hands of the wrong people.
This is a show I would recommend to anyone who enjoys the theme of pirates, with some fantasy and a lot of drama, but I should warn you, that it doesn't hold back with neither the nudity or the actions performed, during the state in which someone would be naked. Whether it's the whores in the brothel, or the few short term relationships between characters.
Minor Spoilers - nothing too important.
The first example you see of this extent of mature content, as well as some of the humour of this show, is when John Silver is taken into a whore house, and is told that 'Blackbeard' wishes to see him. When he enters, he finds a woman standing there, and as John Silver points out "You are not Blackbeard" only to discover that the beard, is revealed to be between her legs.
As I said, watch at your own risk but I would recommend it to anyone interested in the theme of Pirates during the Golden Age.
This show is a great representation of the life and time of Piracy however, and I can review it from a point of view of someone who knows quite a bit about the golden age of piracy in actual historical facts. Unlike the previous pirate content I reviewed, Blackbeard, this show portrays pirates as scarred, dirty, bloody, and frightening in their own way. However, similar to the Blackbeard short series, the pirates and other characters all have near perfect teeth. It seems to be that only (in what I have seen anyways) the Pirate's of the Caribbean franchise has managed to nail the full historical accuracy of the look of a pirate from clothing, to makeup, to the teeth.
On the other hand, this does not cause much of a disturbance to the viewing of this show, because the drama is brilliant, if you can bare the somewhat slow plot lines unfold as there are many characters in this show, and each have a ship full of issues that all need resolving with very few of them actually being resolved. From love interests, to thievery, betrayal and all round general opposition between old allies and acquaintances. There is a lot of 'business' to deal with on the side of Eleanor Guthrie and her dealings with our main protagonists, among other important characters, some of which are based upon historical figures such as Captain Benjamin Hornigold, Charles Vane, Anne Bonny and Jack Rackham (known throughout history as Calico Jack). All portrayed as tough, cunning and sometimes (most times for Rackham) as humerous.
The production of this show is great, with beautiful sets, great looking props and special effects that make this a believable series to get lost in. It's one of the better pirate themed mediums that I have seen, and I personally really enjoy the drama and suspense of the episodes, as well as the twists and turns of certain scenario's which leave you wanting more.
The cast deliver great performances and make you believe that they are truly men or women to be feared, and not to be double crossed. From Charles Vane's tough exterior, to Eleanor Guthrie's power over trade in Nassau, and even Captain Flint's fear inducing presence, as we watch his secrets spill out into the hands of the wrong people.
This is a show I would recommend to anyone who enjoys the theme of pirates, with some fantasy and a lot of drama, but I should warn you, that it doesn't hold back with neither the nudity or the actions performed, during the state in which someone would be naked. Whether it's the whores in the brothel, or the few short term relationships between characters.
Minor Spoilers - nothing too important.
The first example you see of this extent of mature content, as well as some of the humour of this show, is when John Silver is taken into a whore house, and is told that 'Blackbeard' wishes to see him. When he enters, he finds a woman standing there, and as John Silver points out "You are not Blackbeard" only to discover that the beard, is revealed to be between her legs.
As I said, watch at your own risk but I would recommend it to anyone interested in the theme of Pirates during the Golden Age.