Search
Search results
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Vox Lux (2018) in Movies
Sep 18, 2019
Black Swan 2: The Return of Durant
In 1999, a middle school teenager Celeste has survived a horrific school shooting which has left multiple students and teacher dead. Through tragedy, the wounded girl triumphs through the singing of a tribute song which goes viral and becomes an anthem for heartbreak throughout the world.
She achieves instant success with her song, so much so, she gets a recording contract and her and her sister are whisked away to Sweden to record it officially and make a music video. Her manager chaperones her time there, but does not have much success. The girls have a good time partying and choosing every excess including the consequences. The video is a success and she becomes a star.
Eighteen years later, the aging pop star is trying to make a comeback and show she can still keep up. Her relationships with her sister, teenage daughter and sister as she has lived the ego-driven life of a celebrity now for too long. One the eve of a concert performance, another massive multi-person shooting happens at a beachfront, the perpetrators donning masks used in one of her videos making her the target of paparazzi and media scrutiny at a pivotal time in her life.
She tries to salvage her relationship with her daughter who is going through her own teenage angst with mixed success. It seems she is her own worst enemy questioning her choices and continuing leading the lifestyle of a demanding celebrity.
The movie seems like a tale of two halves with the teenage Celeste and the "grown up" version even having screen captures saying so. For me the first half was way more interesting than the second. The teenage Celeste was more believable, maybe because you didn't know her, but the screenplay was more interesting for her as well.
One can only imagine the emotions of having to live through such a tragedy and having to rebuild your life afterwards. Then adding on top of it, her instantaneous global stardom could not have done well to heal her physical, but emotional scars as well.
I felt Natalie Portman seemed out of place and her acting felt very wooden and dry to me unlike most of her portfolio. She even was an executive producer on the film along with her costar Jude Law, so she may have been focused on that instead of her acting performance. She doesn't appear in the film until close to an hour in and filmed her scenes over 10 days. It is unfortunate, but I really didn't believe her and took me out of several scenes as a result.
It is hard to empathize with the celebrity lifestyle of excess and demands having never lived it myself. It has certainly been portrayed onscreen much better than it is here and it really felt like the two halves of the film were disconnected and not resolved.
I certainly don't mind, or even encourage, the vague open-ended type of film generally speaking if it is left you to think about the plight of the characters their decisions, and ultimate destinations; however, this film accomplishes this only through bad writing.
The concert footage was well done and Portman certainly delivered on transforming into a Madonna/Britney Spears type icon. I was just hoping for more of a payoff and felt disappointed in the end.
She achieves instant success with her song, so much so, she gets a recording contract and her and her sister are whisked away to Sweden to record it officially and make a music video. Her manager chaperones her time there, but does not have much success. The girls have a good time partying and choosing every excess including the consequences. The video is a success and she becomes a star.
Eighteen years later, the aging pop star is trying to make a comeback and show she can still keep up. Her relationships with her sister, teenage daughter and sister as she has lived the ego-driven life of a celebrity now for too long. One the eve of a concert performance, another massive multi-person shooting happens at a beachfront, the perpetrators donning masks used in one of her videos making her the target of paparazzi and media scrutiny at a pivotal time in her life.
She tries to salvage her relationship with her daughter who is going through her own teenage angst with mixed success. It seems she is her own worst enemy questioning her choices and continuing leading the lifestyle of a demanding celebrity.
The movie seems like a tale of two halves with the teenage Celeste and the "grown up" version even having screen captures saying so. For me the first half was way more interesting than the second. The teenage Celeste was more believable, maybe because you didn't know her, but the screenplay was more interesting for her as well.
One can only imagine the emotions of having to live through such a tragedy and having to rebuild your life afterwards. Then adding on top of it, her instantaneous global stardom could not have done well to heal her physical, but emotional scars as well.
I felt Natalie Portman seemed out of place and her acting felt very wooden and dry to me unlike most of her portfolio. She even was an executive producer on the film along with her costar Jude Law, so she may have been focused on that instead of her acting performance. She doesn't appear in the film until close to an hour in and filmed her scenes over 10 days. It is unfortunate, but I really didn't believe her and took me out of several scenes as a result.
It is hard to empathize with the celebrity lifestyle of excess and demands having never lived it myself. It has certainly been portrayed onscreen much better than it is here and it really felt like the two halves of the film were disconnected and not resolved.
I certainly don't mind, or even encourage, the vague open-ended type of film generally speaking if it is left you to think about the plight of the characters their decisions, and ultimate destinations; however, this film accomplishes this only through bad writing.
The concert footage was well done and Portman certainly delivered on transforming into a Madonna/Britney Spears type icon. I was just hoping for more of a payoff and felt disappointed in the end.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Battle of the Sexes (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tennis and sex, but without the grunting.
Here’s a good test of someone’s age…. ask the question “Billie-Jean?”. Millennials will probably come back with “Huh?”; those in their 30’s or 40’s might come back with “Michael Jackson!”; those older than that will probably reply “King!”.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Red Rising in Books
May 30, 2017
Mildly boring
This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Red Rising by debut author Pierce Brown is a very difficult book to review. It is clear that Brown is an excellent writer with amazing ideas, but at the same time it does not feel possible to rate the book any higher that two or three stars. This first book of three is somewhat alike The Hunger Games Trilogy by Suzanne Collins and has some very exciting themes. However at other times it provoked a range of emotions from disgust to almost verging on boredom.
Set thousands of years in the future, the world has become colour coded. Gold are the elite, the ruling colour, and at the bottom of the pile are the Reds. Darrow is a Red and lives below the surface of the planet Mars in the mines with the responsibility of helping to make the planet’s surface habitable for humans in the future. He soon discovers that the ruling societies have been lying to him all his life, and to the many generations before him. But there is an uprising brewing and Darrow has been chosen to play a vital role in it, even though that means pretending to be the enemy.
Although it was difficult to get into the novel it appeared to be clear what the plot would be about. Wrong! Once Darrow has been trained to behave like a Gold the storyline changes completely. It is almost as though it is a different book altogether. Red Rising suddenly becomes Hunger Games-esque and the situations with the Reds, while being referred to once or twice, was all but forgotten. Presumably those original themes will continue within the final books of the trilogy.
Living under the surface of Mars with no sunlight speeds up the aging process of the inhabitants. People in the thirties are considered old; therefore even though Darrow is a teenager in Earth years, he is portrayed as a man – an image that is difficult to shake off throughout the entire book. Once Darrow is living with the Golds and, supposedly, resembling his true age, it is still easy to forget that he is young. This may change the way the reader pictures the scenes compared with how the author intended them to be imagined. The characters are still only children but may be mistaken for adults due Darrow’s opening scenes.
It cannot be denied that Brown is a very knowledgeable writer. As well as writing in an exceptionally well-structured way, he incorporates a vast amount of high culture into his story. A lot of the novel is influenced by Greek and Roman mythology and he also quotes famous philosophers such as Cicero and Plato. So despite its science fiction genre it also has a slight educational nature.
Something interesting about Red Rising was the character development of Darrow. At the beginning he was rather naïve, believing everything he was told, following orders etc. But soon he becomes more confident, clever, Gold-like. However he then becomes like a wild beast, killing to survive, to win. Thankfully his cleverness takes control and he realises that he needs to become a leader and not a tyrant. Towards the end he even becomes messiah-like. As Darrow progresses through these changes he becomes a more likable character.
I am not sure whether I want to read the next installment of Red Rising. For the beginning storyline to continue and become the main focus, the book would need to be completely different. This could be a good thing because, as mentioned, there were times when it was a little boring, however there’s the risk that it will not feel like a follow on from the first book. I do not want to put anyone off from reading it, but I will honestly say that it was not really what I was expecting.
Red Rising by debut author Pierce Brown is a very difficult book to review. It is clear that Brown is an excellent writer with amazing ideas, but at the same time it does not feel possible to rate the book any higher that two or three stars. This first book of three is somewhat alike The Hunger Games Trilogy by Suzanne Collins and has some very exciting themes. However at other times it provoked a range of emotions from disgust to almost verging on boredom.
Set thousands of years in the future, the world has become colour coded. Gold are the elite, the ruling colour, and at the bottom of the pile are the Reds. Darrow is a Red and lives below the surface of the planet Mars in the mines with the responsibility of helping to make the planet’s surface habitable for humans in the future. He soon discovers that the ruling societies have been lying to him all his life, and to the many generations before him. But there is an uprising brewing and Darrow has been chosen to play a vital role in it, even though that means pretending to be the enemy.
Although it was difficult to get into the novel it appeared to be clear what the plot would be about. Wrong! Once Darrow has been trained to behave like a Gold the storyline changes completely. It is almost as though it is a different book altogether. Red Rising suddenly becomes Hunger Games-esque and the situations with the Reds, while being referred to once or twice, was all but forgotten. Presumably those original themes will continue within the final books of the trilogy.
Living under the surface of Mars with no sunlight speeds up the aging process of the inhabitants. People in the thirties are considered old; therefore even though Darrow is a teenager in Earth years, he is portrayed as a man – an image that is difficult to shake off throughout the entire book. Once Darrow is living with the Golds and, supposedly, resembling his true age, it is still easy to forget that he is young. This may change the way the reader pictures the scenes compared with how the author intended them to be imagined. The characters are still only children but may be mistaken for adults due Darrow’s opening scenes.
It cannot be denied that Brown is a very knowledgeable writer. As well as writing in an exceptionally well-structured way, he incorporates a vast amount of high culture into his story. A lot of the novel is influenced by Greek and Roman mythology and he also quotes famous philosophers such as Cicero and Plato. So despite its science fiction genre it also has a slight educational nature.
Something interesting about Red Rising was the character development of Darrow. At the beginning he was rather naïve, believing everything he was told, following orders etc. But soon he becomes more confident, clever, Gold-like. However he then becomes like a wild beast, killing to survive, to win. Thankfully his cleverness takes control and he realises that he needs to become a leader and not a tyrant. Towards the end he even becomes messiah-like. As Darrow progresses through these changes he becomes a more likable character.
I am not sure whether I want to read the next installment of Red Rising. For the beginning storyline to continue and become the main focus, the book would need to be completely different. This could be a good thing because, as mentioned, there were times when it was a little boring, however there’s the risk that it will not feel like a follow on from the first book. I do not want to put anyone off from reading it, but I will honestly say that it was not really what I was expecting.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Covenant in Books
May 16, 2018
I was disappointed, to say the least. The synopsis of the story is interesting enough: fairly young married couple move to small town and buy a house with a history. That history is dark and twisted, centering upon a previous owner that moonlighted as a serial killer. When the husband dies in a freak accident, all suspicion falls upon the surviving wife... and then all Hell breaks loose.
Many of the books I've read lately have had a fairly substantial cast of characters. Covenant does not; in fact, I can count the amount of characters in this book on my fingers. Normally one might expect that to be a good thing, as it opens up the opportunity for extremely developed characters. Because this is a short work of fiction, that depth does not exist. The characters are flat and their pasts are, with the exception of the Padgett brothers, a bit too perfect. The Coopers have been together since they were twenty and twenty-one, and their marriage has been perfect bliss. They are joined by a run-of-the-mill detective, an aging medium, and Lindie Cooper's boss, Debra Moynihan. Considering that the Padgett brothers play an extremely small role, - one of them is only mentioned, - I can't help but feel a bit put off by the fact that they appear to be more complete than the main characters are.
As for the story's plot, I truly feel that Leverone could have done a lot more with it than he did. Covenant was a quick read, which worked to its disadvantage. Rather than rise to the climax like most books, Covenant jumped - and it did it in a manner that didn't quite make sense: freak accident, to mild haunting, to sudden inferno - literally. There were also too many inconsistencies, most notably in the latter portion of the book where most of the action takes place. Lindie manages to knock herself out in a manner that simply is not possible, for example. I won't delve further into the specifics there, because then I'd be crossing into spoiler territory.
In regards to the style of Leverone's writing, it definitely isn't to my taste. Much of it felt too clunky and there were far too many sentence fragments. That's not to say sentence fragments are a bad thing, because they aren't. There's a method to the way they are applied though, and leaving off pronouns entirely is not the way to do it. Some of the writing felt a bit too forced at times, and others it read a bit too much like an over cliched, badly written comedy.
<spoiler>My final complaint has to do with something that occurs at the end of the book, and I feel that it isn't a spoiler for me to bring it up so I'm going to. After everything is said and done, Lindie compares herself to Hester Prynne. While she is referring to how others see her, I find myself extremely vexed that this comparison was made - largely because Lindie is nothing like Hester Prynne. For anyone that hasn't read The Scarlet Letter, which is still on the curriculum for most high schools, Hester Prynne was an adulteress that became pregnant with another man's child while her husband was away. As a result, she was forced to where a red "A" upon her breast and was shunned by her community. Hester Prynne's suffering at small town gossip should not be trivialized by a character's poorly conceived notion of how others view her.</spoiler>
I found Covenant to be a quick and easy read, but it definitely didn't hit the spot for me, so to speak. I'd like to thank NetGalley and the publisher, DarkFuse, for providing me with an advanced copy in exchange for an honest, unbiased review.
Many of the books I've read lately have had a fairly substantial cast of characters. Covenant does not; in fact, I can count the amount of characters in this book on my fingers. Normally one might expect that to be a good thing, as it opens up the opportunity for extremely developed characters. Because this is a short work of fiction, that depth does not exist. The characters are flat and their pasts are, with the exception of the Padgett brothers, a bit too perfect. The Coopers have been together since they were twenty and twenty-one, and their marriage has been perfect bliss. They are joined by a run-of-the-mill detective, an aging medium, and Lindie Cooper's boss, Debra Moynihan. Considering that the Padgett brothers play an extremely small role, - one of them is only mentioned, - I can't help but feel a bit put off by the fact that they appear to be more complete than the main characters are.
As for the story's plot, I truly feel that Leverone could have done a lot more with it than he did. Covenant was a quick read, which worked to its disadvantage. Rather than rise to the climax like most books, Covenant jumped - and it did it in a manner that didn't quite make sense: freak accident, to mild haunting, to sudden inferno - literally. There were also too many inconsistencies, most notably in the latter portion of the book where most of the action takes place. Lindie manages to knock herself out in a manner that simply is not possible, for example. I won't delve further into the specifics there, because then I'd be crossing into spoiler territory.
In regards to the style of Leverone's writing, it definitely isn't to my taste. Much of it felt too clunky and there were far too many sentence fragments. That's not to say sentence fragments are a bad thing, because they aren't. There's a method to the way they are applied though, and leaving off pronouns entirely is not the way to do it. Some of the writing felt a bit too forced at times, and others it read a bit too much like an over cliched, badly written comedy.
<spoiler>My final complaint has to do with something that occurs at the end of the book, and I feel that it isn't a spoiler for me to bring it up so I'm going to. After everything is said and done, Lindie compares herself to Hester Prynne. While she is referring to how others see her, I find myself extremely vexed that this comparison was made - largely because Lindie is nothing like Hester Prynne. For anyone that hasn't read The Scarlet Letter, which is still on the curriculum for most high schools, Hester Prynne was an adulteress that became pregnant with another man's child while her husband was away. As a result, she was forced to where a red "A" upon her breast and was shunned by her community. Hester Prynne's suffering at small town gossip should not be trivialized by a character's poorly conceived notion of how others view her.</spoiler>
I found Covenant to be a quick and easy read, but it definitely didn't hit the spot for me, so to speak. I'd like to thank NetGalley and the publisher, DarkFuse, for providing me with an advanced copy in exchange for an honest, unbiased review.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Hugh Jackman returns for his final performance of his iconic Wolverine character in “Logan” and if this is his last outing, he has picked the best of the series for his swan song.
The film takes place in the near future where an aging and broken down Logan makes a living driving a limo near El Paso.
The man who does not age and instantly heals has found his powers are rapidly fading and he has lost much of his will to live and only the fact that he is secretly watching over an aged and dementia riddled Professor X (Patrick Stewart), gives him any purpose in life.
Logan is a very angry and broken individual who wants nothing more than to purchase a boat and escape with the Professor, something that their Albino companion Caliban (Stephan Merchant) has an issue with due to his severe issues with the sun.
It is revealed that there have not been any new mutants born in over 20 years and as such, those that are left are very scarce, and considered a dying breed.
When a woman encounters Logan she insists that she take her and a young girl to a locale, but Logan wants no part of this. His suspicions are raised when a mysterious agent contacts him and tells him that he needs to let them have the girl and woman should they contact him again. Logan finds his fragile world upended when fate forces him, the Professor, and the mysterious girl to run after a deadly encounter with a large squad of troops and police.
It is revealed that the girl is part of a secret experiment that those behind it will stop at nothing to control and as such, Logan is brought into a conflict that he wants no part of.
In a bloody and violent series of confrontations, Logan must find the strength he no longer has to keep those in his care safe against overwhelming odds.
“Logan” is a darker and more violent look into the Marvel world. The film earns an R rating due to the graphic violence which underscores the intensity and danger of the world in which Logan now lives in. Jackman plays the character as a worn down individual who wants nothing more to do with his glory years and simply has grown tired of living in his former shadow.
Stewart is very good in a sympathetic role of seeing the powerful man he once was diminished due to age and mental illness as he and Logan have become pathetic shells of the once great people they were. Forced to live in seclusion and avoiding the very public they fought to save on multiple occasions.
Director James Mangold who also worked on the script clearly understands the characters and wanted to give fans a darker and more intense look into their world.
There are no grand super villains, legions of mutants, massive explosions, and abundances of FX shots to this story. Instead we get a raw and moving human story that is not afraid to let the characters drive the film. While there are plenty of action scenes in the film, they never overshadow the fact that the story is a tale of real people and not the typical comic film where viewers are deluged with constant eye candy. In fact the film actually keeps a very minimalistic approach to the visuals as much of it is set in the desert and other stark landscapes and towns.
The film does drag a bit as it nears the finale, but the payoff is highly satisfying and should delight fans.
The film is also moving in a way that one would not expect from a film in the X-men series and if this is truly the last outing for Jackman, he could not have picked a more perfect film as this is easily the best of the series.
http://sknr.net/2017/02/17/logan/
The film takes place in the near future where an aging and broken down Logan makes a living driving a limo near El Paso.
The man who does not age and instantly heals has found his powers are rapidly fading and he has lost much of his will to live and only the fact that he is secretly watching over an aged and dementia riddled Professor X (Patrick Stewart), gives him any purpose in life.
Logan is a very angry and broken individual who wants nothing more than to purchase a boat and escape with the Professor, something that their Albino companion Caliban (Stephan Merchant) has an issue with due to his severe issues with the sun.
It is revealed that there have not been any new mutants born in over 20 years and as such, those that are left are very scarce, and considered a dying breed.
When a woman encounters Logan she insists that she take her and a young girl to a locale, but Logan wants no part of this. His suspicions are raised when a mysterious agent contacts him and tells him that he needs to let them have the girl and woman should they contact him again. Logan finds his fragile world upended when fate forces him, the Professor, and the mysterious girl to run after a deadly encounter with a large squad of troops and police.
It is revealed that the girl is part of a secret experiment that those behind it will stop at nothing to control and as such, Logan is brought into a conflict that he wants no part of.
In a bloody and violent series of confrontations, Logan must find the strength he no longer has to keep those in his care safe against overwhelming odds.
“Logan” is a darker and more violent look into the Marvel world. The film earns an R rating due to the graphic violence which underscores the intensity and danger of the world in which Logan now lives in. Jackman plays the character as a worn down individual who wants nothing more to do with his glory years and simply has grown tired of living in his former shadow.
Stewart is very good in a sympathetic role of seeing the powerful man he once was diminished due to age and mental illness as he and Logan have become pathetic shells of the once great people they were. Forced to live in seclusion and avoiding the very public they fought to save on multiple occasions.
Director James Mangold who also worked on the script clearly understands the characters and wanted to give fans a darker and more intense look into their world.
There are no grand super villains, legions of mutants, massive explosions, and abundances of FX shots to this story. Instead we get a raw and moving human story that is not afraid to let the characters drive the film. While there are plenty of action scenes in the film, they never overshadow the fact that the story is a tale of real people and not the typical comic film where viewers are deluged with constant eye candy. In fact the film actually keeps a very minimalistic approach to the visuals as much of it is set in the desert and other stark landscapes and towns.
The film does drag a bit as it nears the finale, but the payoff is highly satisfying and should delight fans.
The film is also moving in a way that one would not expect from a film in the X-men series and if this is truly the last outing for Jackman, he could not have picked a more perfect film as this is easily the best of the series.
http://sknr.net/2017/02/17/logan/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Leatherheads (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The movie opens with John Krasinski’s character, “Carter Rutherford”, playing college-level football for Princeton at a bleacher-groaning, over-packed game chock full of screaming patrons and die-hard fans. The kid is a golden-child, a war hero, and the nation’s most promising young athlete in the good old year of 1925. Carter is dynamic, attractive, and exactly what the country needs at a time of World War I. It is little wonder his face plasters billboards across town, that his name is uttered with awe and adoration. In truth, how could you not? The kid had, after all, single-handedly forced a contingent of German soldiers to surrender without even shooting one bullet.
Cut to George Clooney’s character, the aging “Dodge Connelly”, playing pro-football in mire-like conditions; his audience a tangle of bored fans and uninspired locals. It is a far cry from the opulent circumstance of college-level football. Men, bedraggled and sweating under the promise of returning to work at the mines and fields if their football dreams go under, play with reckless abandon and forgotten morals in hopes of winning that next game. Yet, as fate will go, the Bulldogs lose their sponsorship and the team goes under, forcing men to return to their day-jobs and leaving Dodge without a future. The man has no marketable skills, no trade. He is a football player and is determined to see his team back in the game.
Of course, that isn’t the only bit of chaos. There has to be a girl; there is always a girl involved in stories like these. Enter Renée Zellweger’s character, the vivacious and equally tenacious “Lexie Littleton” – a news reporter for the Tribune. Lexie is on a mission to expose Carter Rutherford and get to the bottom of his infamous war story. It comes to no surprise that when Lexie and Dodge meet in a hotel lobby awaiting the arrival of Carter Rutherford and his manager, “CC Frazier” (played by Jonathan Pryce), that sparks immediately fly between them. Dodge has a proposal for CC and Carter: have Carter take a leave of absence from Princeton to play pro-football for the Bulldogs, thus saving pro-football and paying Carter for his efforts. Naturally, CC wants a cut from the profits and finds a way to do so to accommodate his own needs. Dodge, without any other alternative, agrees.
Meanwhile, Lexie is working her magic on Carter to try and weasel the true story out of him as best she can. Try as she might she cannot ignore Dodge, no matter how acid her tongue wags in his direction. In the end, Lexie gets her story yet realizes she must decide between exposing the truth or letting America bask in the glory of its self-proclaimed war-hero.
In review, there is a true chemistry between all of the main characters and both Zellweger and Clooney do a good job of conveying the vehement (and callous) emotion between Lexie and Dodge. However, no matter how funny the banter becomes between these three main characters or how well the scene plugs along, in the end the movie comes off as a passable but by no means memorable. Betimes it seems to stretch on and on and more then once I found myself looking at my clock. In truth, the movie didn’t need to be nearly two hours long. It felt two hours long which is never a good thing, especially when we’re talking about theatre seats.
That said, I thought the movie was a cute and enjoyable comedy. It won’t crack your funny bone but it will certainly tickle it more then once. All in all I give it 3.5 out of 5. It succeeded in making me laugh and did keep me entertained. Above all, I’m sure many will find it enjoyable to some extent.
Cut to George Clooney’s character, the aging “Dodge Connelly”, playing pro-football in mire-like conditions; his audience a tangle of bored fans and uninspired locals. It is a far cry from the opulent circumstance of college-level football. Men, bedraggled and sweating under the promise of returning to work at the mines and fields if their football dreams go under, play with reckless abandon and forgotten morals in hopes of winning that next game. Yet, as fate will go, the Bulldogs lose their sponsorship and the team goes under, forcing men to return to their day-jobs and leaving Dodge without a future. The man has no marketable skills, no trade. He is a football player and is determined to see his team back in the game.
Of course, that isn’t the only bit of chaos. There has to be a girl; there is always a girl involved in stories like these. Enter Renée Zellweger’s character, the vivacious and equally tenacious “Lexie Littleton” – a news reporter for the Tribune. Lexie is on a mission to expose Carter Rutherford and get to the bottom of his infamous war story. It comes to no surprise that when Lexie and Dodge meet in a hotel lobby awaiting the arrival of Carter Rutherford and his manager, “CC Frazier” (played by Jonathan Pryce), that sparks immediately fly between them. Dodge has a proposal for CC and Carter: have Carter take a leave of absence from Princeton to play pro-football for the Bulldogs, thus saving pro-football and paying Carter for his efforts. Naturally, CC wants a cut from the profits and finds a way to do so to accommodate his own needs. Dodge, without any other alternative, agrees.
Meanwhile, Lexie is working her magic on Carter to try and weasel the true story out of him as best she can. Try as she might she cannot ignore Dodge, no matter how acid her tongue wags in his direction. In the end, Lexie gets her story yet realizes she must decide between exposing the truth or letting America bask in the glory of its self-proclaimed war-hero.
In review, there is a true chemistry between all of the main characters and both Zellweger and Clooney do a good job of conveying the vehement (and callous) emotion between Lexie and Dodge. However, no matter how funny the banter becomes between these three main characters or how well the scene plugs along, in the end the movie comes off as a passable but by no means memorable. Betimes it seems to stretch on and on and more then once I found myself looking at my clock. In truth, the movie didn’t need to be nearly two hours long. It felt two hours long which is never a good thing, especially when we’re talking about theatre seats.
That said, I thought the movie was a cute and enjoyable comedy. It won’t crack your funny bone but it will certainly tickle it more then once. All in all I give it 3.5 out of 5. It succeeded in making me laugh and did keep me entertained. Above all, I’m sure many will find it enjoyable to some extent.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Johnny English Strikes Again (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
My very first experience with the incredibly talented Rowan Atkinson was when I saw a silly Mr. Bean short that was played before the Beauty and the Beast movie. This was way back in 1991 and yet you wouldn’t believe that he’s aged at all during that time. Johnny English Strikes Again is the third movie in the Johnny English franchise, and is another James Bond inspired spoof where our never aging super spy once again tries to outwit a maniacal super genius hell bent on taking over the world.
The movie starts with Johnny English as a geography teacher at a private school in the heart of England. What makes this a light-hearted and perfect entrance to the movie is that instead of teaching geography lessons, he’s teaching the kids how to become spies. Not only does this result in some very chuckle worthy scenes but it also shows us that Johnny still yearns to be back in the field even though he’s an exceptional teacher to the young spies-in-training. As fate would have it, a hacker has released the identities of all MI-7 agents around the world, so the only hope that England has is to call back retired agents. Reluctantly, Johnny is given the job and of course the hijinks start before he even heads out on his mission. In a very cute and refreshing twist on the usual high-tech spy movies, Johnny prefers his spy gear old school, so he turns down the smart phone and hybrid vehicle and instead requests a gun and picks out an old gas-guzzling Aston Martin V8. It was a very clever way to show that his mission wasn’t going to be anything like how Ethan Hunt would handle things.
This leads us to the plot of the movie. Johnny’s mission, with the help of his faithful sidekick Bough (Ben Miller), is to track down the signal where the hacker has been carrying out his attacks and thwart them before the G12 summit takes place. His first stop is to the south of France, where he encounters an alluring Russian spy named Ophelia (Olga Kurylenko) who is clearly working against him. What follows is a slapstick tale of numerous follies as the unlikely trio dance, drive, and crash their way to saving the world.
As you might expect Johnny English forgoes the crudeness and lewd jokes that are popular in comedic films these days and brings back a much more wholesome family friendly comedy. There is no cursing to speak of, no real violence, and except for the last scene it barely rates in the PG category at all. It harkens back to the late 80’s and early 90’s with similar spoof movies like The Naked Gun, where silly dialog and accident-prone heroes are what leads to the laughter. It’s a film that certainly does not take itself seriously and expects the same from the viewing audience. Some of the humor in the movie may elicit a groan from being that bad…but it’s usually so bad that it becomes funny. I found myself laughing a lot more than I expected to and I wasn’t the only one in the theater laughing.
To truly enjoy Johnny English, you have to know what to expect going into it. I can’t imagine there will be many (particularly those who have seen the previous films) that will have particularly high expectations, and that’s where it shines. It may not win any comedy film awards or be the best movie you’ve ever seen but you’ll go away happy. If you enjoyed the previous films, you will certainly enjoy this film as it’s not a huge diversion from the formula and provides the same sort of silly gags throughout. It certainly won’t appeal to everyone and that’s okay, but if you think you might enjoy it even a little, it’s definitely worth a look.
The movie starts with Johnny English as a geography teacher at a private school in the heart of England. What makes this a light-hearted and perfect entrance to the movie is that instead of teaching geography lessons, he’s teaching the kids how to become spies. Not only does this result in some very chuckle worthy scenes but it also shows us that Johnny still yearns to be back in the field even though he’s an exceptional teacher to the young spies-in-training. As fate would have it, a hacker has released the identities of all MI-7 agents around the world, so the only hope that England has is to call back retired agents. Reluctantly, Johnny is given the job and of course the hijinks start before he even heads out on his mission. In a very cute and refreshing twist on the usual high-tech spy movies, Johnny prefers his spy gear old school, so he turns down the smart phone and hybrid vehicle and instead requests a gun and picks out an old gas-guzzling Aston Martin V8. It was a very clever way to show that his mission wasn’t going to be anything like how Ethan Hunt would handle things.
This leads us to the plot of the movie. Johnny’s mission, with the help of his faithful sidekick Bough (Ben Miller), is to track down the signal where the hacker has been carrying out his attacks and thwart them before the G12 summit takes place. His first stop is to the south of France, where he encounters an alluring Russian spy named Ophelia (Olga Kurylenko) who is clearly working against him. What follows is a slapstick tale of numerous follies as the unlikely trio dance, drive, and crash their way to saving the world.
As you might expect Johnny English forgoes the crudeness and lewd jokes that are popular in comedic films these days and brings back a much more wholesome family friendly comedy. There is no cursing to speak of, no real violence, and except for the last scene it barely rates in the PG category at all. It harkens back to the late 80’s and early 90’s with similar spoof movies like The Naked Gun, where silly dialog and accident-prone heroes are what leads to the laughter. It’s a film that certainly does not take itself seriously and expects the same from the viewing audience. Some of the humor in the movie may elicit a groan from being that bad…but it’s usually so bad that it becomes funny. I found myself laughing a lot more than I expected to and I wasn’t the only one in the theater laughing.
To truly enjoy Johnny English, you have to know what to expect going into it. I can’t imagine there will be many (particularly those who have seen the previous films) that will have particularly high expectations, and that’s where it shines. It may not win any comedy film awards or be the best movie you’ve ever seen but you’ll go away happy. If you enjoyed the previous films, you will certainly enjoy this film as it’s not a huge diversion from the formula and provides the same sort of silly gags throughout. It certainly won’t appeal to everyone and that’s okay, but if you think you might enjoy it even a little, it’s definitely worth a look.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Midnight Sky (2020) in Movies
Dec 26, 2020
Moody and Atmospheric
Ever since his stint on ER, I have been a fan of George Clooney’s - and not just because he is charming and charismatic on film - but because I find that he brings an interesting facet to whatever character he inhabits
.
And with his latest effort THE MIDNIGHT SKY (Directed by Mr. Clooney, as well) he does not disappoint as his performance - and his Direction - are fascinating to watch.
Based upon the novel by Lily Brooks-Dalton, THE MIDNIGHT SKY tells the tale of a lone scientist (Clooney) in a remote, arctic research station, who is one of the few remaining people on an Earth that has become uninhabitable. He rushes to warn some returning astronauts to avoid their home planet.
A thoughtful, moody film. THE MIDNIGHT SKY will not be everyone’s cup of tea - and you have to be in the mood for something somewhat slow and contemplative - but if you are, you will be rewarded with a rich tapestry of visuals and performances that will be, ultimately, fulfilling.
Let’s start with what works - George Clooney. His direction and his performance as Augustine, the scientist, are both sparse and compact. Neither of these facets have an extraneous movement or tone and they work hand-in-hand to deliver the film that Clooney, obviously intends to give us.
Visually, this film is beautiful to look at - inter cutting the vast emptiness of space to the vast, snowy emptiness of the Arctic. The images that Clooney was able to create was well worth watching this film for.
Clooney was also fortunate enough to cast a variety of stellar performers in a film that has very few roles, so the ones that are there better deliver the goods - and they do. From Ethan Peck (Spock in Star Trek:Discovery) who plays the young Clooney in a flashback (I am very glad they chose to do this as opposed to “de-aging” Clooney) to the Astronauts: Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo (who I continue to like more and more every time I see him), Kyle Chandler and Tiffany Boone. All strike the right tone for the moodiness of this film.
Special notice should be made for Damien Bechir’s astronaut, Sanchez. He was terrific in the limited screen time he had and elevated every scene he was in. Bechir has become one of those performers who I get excited about when I see that he is going to be involved in a screen project.
What doesn’t work? Well…as I stated before…the pacing. It is slow (almost coming to a stop) at times. Since this is a film that will be streamed via Netflix, I can see many, many folks grabbing their phones at times, which is too bad, for the moodiness - and pace - worked for me (or at least the for the mood I was in while watching this).
My other issue with this film is the contrived circumstances that both Clooney and the Astronauts find themselves in. It isn’t enough that Clooney has to journey across rugged Arctic terrain to find a more powerful antennae to communicate with the Astronauts, we have to throw in cracking and melting ice to it. And, of course, just as the Astronauts connect with Clooney, a surprise meteor shower damages the communication array. These contrivances just wasn’t need for the type of movie this film was trying to be. It’s almost as if the Studio Heads said “it’s too slow and talky - put some action in this thing”.
But, if you are able to stay with this film, the ending pays off very well, indeed. I found that it earned it’s ending and I walked away moved and satisfied.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
.
And with his latest effort THE MIDNIGHT SKY (Directed by Mr. Clooney, as well) he does not disappoint as his performance - and his Direction - are fascinating to watch.
Based upon the novel by Lily Brooks-Dalton, THE MIDNIGHT SKY tells the tale of a lone scientist (Clooney) in a remote, arctic research station, who is one of the few remaining people on an Earth that has become uninhabitable. He rushes to warn some returning astronauts to avoid their home planet.
A thoughtful, moody film. THE MIDNIGHT SKY will not be everyone’s cup of tea - and you have to be in the mood for something somewhat slow and contemplative - but if you are, you will be rewarded with a rich tapestry of visuals and performances that will be, ultimately, fulfilling.
Let’s start with what works - George Clooney. His direction and his performance as Augustine, the scientist, are both sparse and compact. Neither of these facets have an extraneous movement or tone and they work hand-in-hand to deliver the film that Clooney, obviously intends to give us.
Visually, this film is beautiful to look at - inter cutting the vast emptiness of space to the vast, snowy emptiness of the Arctic. The images that Clooney was able to create was well worth watching this film for.
Clooney was also fortunate enough to cast a variety of stellar performers in a film that has very few roles, so the ones that are there better deliver the goods - and they do. From Ethan Peck (Spock in Star Trek:Discovery) who plays the young Clooney in a flashback (I am very glad they chose to do this as opposed to “de-aging” Clooney) to the Astronauts: Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo (who I continue to like more and more every time I see him), Kyle Chandler and Tiffany Boone. All strike the right tone for the moodiness of this film.
Special notice should be made for Damien Bechir’s astronaut, Sanchez. He was terrific in the limited screen time he had and elevated every scene he was in. Bechir has become one of those performers who I get excited about when I see that he is going to be involved in a screen project.
What doesn’t work? Well…as I stated before…the pacing. It is slow (almost coming to a stop) at times. Since this is a film that will be streamed via Netflix, I can see many, many folks grabbing their phones at times, which is too bad, for the moodiness - and pace - worked for me (or at least the for the mood I was in while watching this).
My other issue with this film is the contrived circumstances that both Clooney and the Astronauts find themselves in. It isn’t enough that Clooney has to journey across rugged Arctic terrain to find a more powerful antennae to communicate with the Astronauts, we have to throw in cracking and melting ice to it. And, of course, just as the Astronauts connect with Clooney, a surprise meteor shower damages the communication array. These contrivances just wasn’t need for the type of movie this film was trying to be. It’s almost as if the Studio Heads said “it’s too slow and talky - put some action in this thing”.
But, if you are able to stay with this film, the ending pays off very well, indeed. I found that it earned it’s ending and I walked away moved and satisfied.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Last Dance in TV
Aug 6, 2020 (Updated Aug 6, 2020)
Some people’s worst nightmare isn’t just being forced to watch sport, but being forced to listen to commentary or analysis on sport. My passion for a competitive event, and appreciation for an acheivement at the highest level in any sport, is still there, but is a little cooler than it was when I was a younger man with the energy to get carried away, whooping and cheering on an underdog or applauding the very best in a discipline.
Basketball for me has never really been a thing. To be honest, I barely understand the rules beyond the basics. It just wasn’t something that was on British TV that often as I grew up, the Olympics being an exception. The skill level (and height above Sea level) needed to be good enough for NBA glory does not escape me though, and neither has the exceptional career of Michael Jordon, who is a clear contender for greatest sportsman of all time, in any sport.
What I do enjoy though is the drama of over-coming hurdles and records against all the odds. The underdog story really appeals to me, as does the story of an older athlete doing it one last time, when no one thinks it’s possible. The Last Dance is exactly that. But not told by actors in a Hollywood way, like the wonderfully under-rated Miracle starring Kurt Russell. This is a documentary, in ten parts, with the real guys, and some of the most comprehensive archive material you’d ever want!
In theory, the tale is about the whole team, and their final fling at winning a title before knowing the aging gang would be disbanded, with the key figures forced into retirement. But, it is about Jordan, of course it is. And as a document of a rise to fame, and how the man responded to that fame and increased pressure, it is simply the best sports documentary yet to be made.
Told in parallel timelines of the final year juxtaposed with the backstory of the previous 20 years, it shows in exquisite detail how a franchise was built, maintained and taken to the heights of being the greatest ever to play the game. There are tantrums, fall outs, walk outs, no shows, injuries, and some mind-bending successes riding on single moments of genius.
The main voices of Jordan himself, as he sits in retirement with a cigar and a single malt, Scottie Pippin, and bad boy Dennis Rodman, are in parts fascinating, eloquent and revealing. Even after many years have passed, the emotion of big moments and issues is still fresh. We see the joy, the pride and the exhilaration, but also the regret, the grudges and the pain. It shows every angle of what being an athlete at the very top means, and exposes what kind of mentality you have to have to be that person. To be a champion.
As with me, it really helps with the cliffhanger drama of it if you don’t remember, or never knew at all, the result of that “last dance” season in ’98. It also helps if watching sport raises the pulse, but I wouldn’t say it is essential, as it all plays like an ten part series full of drama, betrayals and gasp out loud moments. Ten hour long episodes is a lot. But this incredible production never out stays its welcome. Some acheivement, and testament to what a charismatic figure Jordan was and is on the context of sport history.
Of course, not every hero is a hero every minute of his life. And that is my final reason to recommend it. See for yourself what kind of personality virtual gods like these invent for themselves. Utterly compelling TV.
Basketball for me has never really been a thing. To be honest, I barely understand the rules beyond the basics. It just wasn’t something that was on British TV that often as I grew up, the Olympics being an exception. The skill level (and height above Sea level) needed to be good enough for NBA glory does not escape me though, and neither has the exceptional career of Michael Jordon, who is a clear contender for greatest sportsman of all time, in any sport.
What I do enjoy though is the drama of over-coming hurdles and records against all the odds. The underdog story really appeals to me, as does the story of an older athlete doing it one last time, when no one thinks it’s possible. The Last Dance is exactly that. But not told by actors in a Hollywood way, like the wonderfully under-rated Miracle starring Kurt Russell. This is a documentary, in ten parts, with the real guys, and some of the most comprehensive archive material you’d ever want!
In theory, the tale is about the whole team, and their final fling at winning a title before knowing the aging gang would be disbanded, with the key figures forced into retirement. But, it is about Jordan, of course it is. And as a document of a rise to fame, and how the man responded to that fame and increased pressure, it is simply the best sports documentary yet to be made.
Told in parallel timelines of the final year juxtaposed with the backstory of the previous 20 years, it shows in exquisite detail how a franchise was built, maintained and taken to the heights of being the greatest ever to play the game. There are tantrums, fall outs, walk outs, no shows, injuries, and some mind-bending successes riding on single moments of genius.
The main voices of Jordan himself, as he sits in retirement with a cigar and a single malt, Scottie Pippin, and bad boy Dennis Rodman, are in parts fascinating, eloquent and revealing. Even after many years have passed, the emotion of big moments and issues is still fresh. We see the joy, the pride and the exhilaration, but also the regret, the grudges and the pain. It shows every angle of what being an athlete at the very top means, and exposes what kind of mentality you have to have to be that person. To be a champion.
As with me, it really helps with the cliffhanger drama of it if you don’t remember, or never knew at all, the result of that “last dance” season in ’98. It also helps if watching sport raises the pulse, but I wouldn’t say it is essential, as it all plays like an ten part series full of drama, betrayals and gasp out loud moments. Ten hour long episodes is a lot. But this incredible production never out stays its welcome. Some acheivement, and testament to what a charismatic figure Jordan was and is on the context of sport history.
Of course, not every hero is a hero every minute of his life. And that is my final reason to recommend it. See for yourself what kind of personality virtual gods like these invent for themselves. Utterly compelling TV.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).