Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Man Who Killed Hitler and Then the Bigfoot (2018) in Movies
Apr 1, 2019
Good, But Was Hoping For More
The plot is exactly what the title entails: A man who settles down in a small town after killing Hitler is called back into action years later one last time…to kill bigfoot. You may love it, you may hate it, but you won’t be able to knock its originality. Ten minutes in and it didn’t take me long to figure out I was watching something I had never seen before.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
From the beginning, you will be focused on this movie as it grabs your attention immediately. You find yourself wondering, What exactly is this man doing? I loved the intrigue to start, hooks you in right away. You also quickly learn that Calvin Barr (Sam Elliott) is nothing to be trifled with. You get to see his first taste of action and it’s fun to watch.
Characters: 10
Calvin isn’t that hard to figure out. He kicks ass and takes names and gives zero shits about it. He’s the kind of guy you can get behind. He’s hardened by the things he has seen, causing him to shell up into himself. Life experiences, man. They have a way of shaping people.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 8
Genre: 4
I can’t rate this any higher because I don’t think the movie ever really decided what it wanted to be. Sometimes action, sometimes drama there is a mix here that puts it in a weird place. I would be fine with it if it did one or the other exceptionally well, but I feel like it missed the boat in some spots, just shy of being a really solid movie.
Memorability: 9
Hate it or love it, this is a movie you won’t soon forget. I expected to get short-changed when it came to the bigfoot, but, no, you get to see the creature in all its glory. And what a creature! Definitely an interesting spin on the mythical beast. It’s imagery like this that really has a way of sticking out in my mind.
Pace: 9
Plot: 8
Resolution: 2
Overall: 79
I’m mad because I wanted this to be better than just a “Folding Clothes” movie. It’s good, but falls just short of great unfortunately. I think a little more tonal direction and a better ending could have put it in the range of a classic. Alas, The Man Who Killed Hitler and Then the Bigfoot is just ok.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
From the beginning, you will be focused on this movie as it grabs your attention immediately. You find yourself wondering, What exactly is this man doing? I loved the intrigue to start, hooks you in right away. You also quickly learn that Calvin Barr (Sam Elliott) is nothing to be trifled with. You get to see his first taste of action and it’s fun to watch.
Characters: 10
Calvin isn’t that hard to figure out. He kicks ass and takes names and gives zero shits about it. He’s the kind of guy you can get behind. He’s hardened by the things he has seen, causing him to shell up into himself. Life experiences, man. They have a way of shaping people.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 8
Genre: 4
I can’t rate this any higher because I don’t think the movie ever really decided what it wanted to be. Sometimes action, sometimes drama there is a mix here that puts it in a weird place. I would be fine with it if it did one or the other exceptionally well, but I feel like it missed the boat in some spots, just shy of being a really solid movie.
Memorability: 9
Hate it or love it, this is a movie you won’t soon forget. I expected to get short-changed when it came to the bigfoot, but, no, you get to see the creature in all its glory. And what a creature! Definitely an interesting spin on the mythical beast. It’s imagery like this that really has a way of sticking out in my mind.
Pace: 9
Plot: 8
Resolution: 2
Overall: 79
I’m mad because I wanted this to be better than just a “Folding Clothes” movie. It’s good, but falls just short of great unfortunately. I think a little more tonal direction and a better ending could have put it in the range of a classic. Alas, The Man Who Killed Hitler and Then the Bigfoot is just ok.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Deerskin (Le Daim) (2019) in Movies
Jul 15, 2021
Anarchic concept and lots of surprises (1 more)
Dujardin and Haenel act well
Killer style… but bloody bonkers.
This French movie (with subtitles) by Quentin Dupieux is a black comedy that veers towards the violently absurd. So it certainly won't be for everyone.
Positives:
- There's an anarchy to the black comedy on show in Deerskin that's mildly exhilarating. It really IS bloody bonkers. But the absurd story, of a man spiralling into a deerskin-lined black hole, is delivered in an extremely entertaining way.
- It's all delivered with a straight face by Dujardin (famous of course as the Oscar-winner from "The Artist"). And very good he is at it too.
- Adèle Haenel was one of the two lovers in "Portrait of a Lady on Fire" (actually completed after this movie, which has been on the Covid-shelf since 2019). Here she again shows star-power as the barmaid with dreams of hitting the movie-making big-time. Every absurd twist and turn seems to be believable in her hands, once you understand that she is "into it".
Negatives:
- The anarchic story and the extreme violence will not be for everyone. There were 2 walk-outs in my cinema (about 10% of the Cineworld Unlimited audience).
- A few of the lines irritate: Georges mistakenly saying "creditor" instead of "editor" was an example.
Summary Thoughts on "Deerskin": Based on the trailer, I really wasn't sure I was going to enjoy this one. But it has a style about it that is unmistakable. I had no idea where it was going, and the denouement was surprising and satisfying.
It'll be a "marmite" film for sure - some will love it; many will hate it. I doubt there will be much middle ground for this one.
BTW, there is a mid-credits scene, a few seconds into the end credits. Doesn't add much, to be honest.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/15/deerskin-killer-style-but-bloody-bonkers/ . There's also a new Tiktok channel at @onemannsmovies. Thanks).
Positives:
- There's an anarchy to the black comedy on show in Deerskin that's mildly exhilarating. It really IS bloody bonkers. But the absurd story, of a man spiralling into a deerskin-lined black hole, is delivered in an extremely entertaining way.
- It's all delivered with a straight face by Dujardin (famous of course as the Oscar-winner from "The Artist"). And very good he is at it too.
- Adèle Haenel was one of the two lovers in "Portrait of a Lady on Fire" (actually completed after this movie, which has been on the Covid-shelf since 2019). Here she again shows star-power as the barmaid with dreams of hitting the movie-making big-time. Every absurd twist and turn seems to be believable in her hands, once you understand that she is "into it".
Negatives:
- The anarchic story and the extreme violence will not be for everyone. There were 2 walk-outs in my cinema (about 10% of the Cineworld Unlimited audience).
- A few of the lines irritate: Georges mistakenly saying "creditor" instead of "editor" was an example.
Summary Thoughts on "Deerskin": Based on the trailer, I really wasn't sure I was going to enjoy this one. But it has a style about it that is unmistakable. I had no idea where it was going, and the denouement was surprising and satisfying.
It'll be a "marmite" film for sure - some will love it; many will hate it. I doubt there will be much middle ground for this one.
BTW, there is a mid-credits scene, a few seconds into the end credits. Doesn't add much, to be honest.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/15/deerskin-killer-style-but-bloody-bonkers/ . There's also a new Tiktok channel at @onemannsmovies. Thanks).
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Oct 2, 2019
Judy, is the biopic based on the stage play “End of the Rainbow” which chronicles Judy Garland’s five week run in 1968 London, at The Talk of the Town Nightclub. Ms. Garland, one of the victims of the old Hollywood studio treatments that contributed to her tragic upbringing.
The ever malleable Renee Zellweger embodies Judy Garland throughout this film. Ms. Garland’s physical affectations are translated to the screen so much that we are transported , convinced that she is Judy. Yet, there are a couple of moments where the mask slips and we see Ms. Zellweger instead .
The film begins with Judy working, doing a show at an event and being paid very much less than she has in the past. She is uninsurable, unreliable and absolutely inconsistent. Her lifelong habits have taken most of who she was and she keeps getting up every time to keep fighting.
She also has custody of her two kids, Lorna and Joe Luft. She does not have a place to call home to provide a stable environment for the children. Their father Sid Luft is challenging custody and Judy has provided enough fodder to have custody of her children revert to their father. Her intent is to be a good mother, as opposed to the parent she had growing up.
Flashbacks are cut in throughout the movie, showing her on the set of the Wizard of Oz with Louis B. Mayer, at a movie set where they film a choreographed birthday party for Judy.
We are shown how terribly manipulative and cruel the studio system was towards the actresses back then. The pills, starvation, demands, and gaslighting had created the person that was Judy.
The movie is about the tragedy that was Judy Garland’s life. However, there are many points of light in her life and we are shown that in the movie. Judy is definitely a film blanketed with the shadows of sadness from her life.
The transition of Zellweger to Judy who explained had a distracting flaw that I struggled with. Ms. Zellweger has a pleasant voice, but she is not Ms. Garland who’s lovely voice with rich timbre is beautifully unique.
Very dramatic film, such a transformative performance by Renee Zellweger.
The ever malleable Renee Zellweger embodies Judy Garland throughout this film. Ms. Garland’s physical affectations are translated to the screen so much that we are transported , convinced that she is Judy. Yet, there are a couple of moments where the mask slips and we see Ms. Zellweger instead .
The film begins with Judy working, doing a show at an event and being paid very much less than she has in the past. She is uninsurable, unreliable and absolutely inconsistent. Her lifelong habits have taken most of who she was and she keeps getting up every time to keep fighting.
She also has custody of her two kids, Lorna and Joe Luft. She does not have a place to call home to provide a stable environment for the children. Their father Sid Luft is challenging custody and Judy has provided enough fodder to have custody of her children revert to their father. Her intent is to be a good mother, as opposed to the parent she had growing up.
Flashbacks are cut in throughout the movie, showing her on the set of the Wizard of Oz with Louis B. Mayer, at a movie set where they film a choreographed birthday party for Judy.
We are shown how terribly manipulative and cruel the studio system was towards the actresses back then. The pills, starvation, demands, and gaslighting had created the person that was Judy.
The movie is about the tragedy that was Judy Garland’s life. However, there are many points of light in her life and we are shown that in the movie. Judy is definitely a film blanketed with the shadows of sadness from her life.
The transition of Zellweger to Judy who explained had a distracting flaw that I struggled with. Ms. Zellweger has a pleasant voice, but she is not Ms. Garland who’s lovely voice with rich timbre is beautifully unique.
Very dramatic film, such a transformative performance by Renee Zellweger.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Sorry to Bother You (2018) in Movies
Apr 1, 2019
Bananas
When a man gets a job at a call center, he finds that using his “white voice” not only gets him ahead faster, but it takes him down a road crazier than he ever could have imagined. “Crazier” is the operative word here as this movie pushes crazy to the absolute limit. Sorry to Bother You is not without its flaws, but it gets the job done in terms of quality.
Acting: 10
Beginning; 10
Characters: 10
Cassius’ (LaKeith Stanfield) character works on a number of levels. He’s your average guy trying to make it in the world having to rob Peter to pay Paul. He’s easily lovable and funny. More importantly, he’s relatable. There was a number of times watching the movie where I found myself thinking, “Definitely been there before.”
While his character shines, it pales in comparison to Detroit played by the phenomenal Tessa Thompson. She has such a smoothness about her that you can’t escape. In this role, she is a starving artist trying to pave her way and stay true to herself as she wants Cassius to do. She’s cool as shit, but also not the type of girl you ever want to doublecross. I can’t express enough how much Detroit impacted the movie as a whole.
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
The movie succeeds with a lot of jarring imagery, although I will admit that the shock value felt too strong at times. The visuals won’t change your life, but there were a few moments that raised an eyebrow or two. This is the lovechild of when artsy-fartsy meets comedy.
Conflict: 8
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 9
There were a couple of times where I found myself asking, “Ok, where is this going?” But it gets there eventually. It’s consistently funny and is meant to be one of those movies that you probably need to watch a couple of times to really grasp. Outside of one lull, expect to be consistently entertained throughout as this strange mystery unfolds.
Plot: 9
Resolution: 3
Overall: 86
Sorry to Bother You should be a classic, but a meh ending keeps that award just out of reach. I still really liked it and I think you will too. However, it fell just short of me loving it. If you’re looking for some strong social commentary, look no further.
Acting: 10
Beginning; 10
Characters: 10
Cassius’ (LaKeith Stanfield) character works on a number of levels. He’s your average guy trying to make it in the world having to rob Peter to pay Paul. He’s easily lovable and funny. More importantly, he’s relatable. There was a number of times watching the movie where I found myself thinking, “Definitely been there before.”
While his character shines, it pales in comparison to Detroit played by the phenomenal Tessa Thompson. She has such a smoothness about her that you can’t escape. In this role, she is a starving artist trying to pave her way and stay true to herself as she wants Cassius to do. She’s cool as shit, but also not the type of girl you ever want to doublecross. I can’t express enough how much Detroit impacted the movie as a whole.
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
The movie succeeds with a lot of jarring imagery, although I will admit that the shock value felt too strong at times. The visuals won’t change your life, but there were a few moments that raised an eyebrow or two. This is the lovechild of when artsy-fartsy meets comedy.
Conflict: 8
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 9
There were a couple of times where I found myself asking, “Ok, where is this going?” But it gets there eventually. It’s consistently funny and is meant to be one of those movies that you probably need to watch a couple of times to really grasp. Outside of one lull, expect to be consistently entertained throughout as this strange mystery unfolds.
Plot: 9
Resolution: 3
Overall: 86
Sorry to Bother You should be a classic, but a meh ending keeps that award just out of reach. I still really liked it and I think you will too. However, it fell just short of me loving it. If you’re looking for some strong social commentary, look no further.
Fred (860 KP) rated Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) in Movies
Mar 15, 2019
Spider-Ham (3 more)
Fantastic design
Good music
Good voice acting
The choppy animation is headache inducing (2 more)
Story is bland
Some of the characters are wasted
Good. Not great.
Here we go again. Another over-rated superhero movie. Yes, it's good, but it's not great. Basically, what we got here is Miles Morales' origin story. I do love the characters & they are all acted well. I love the new Doc Oc & all of the Spider-people. The design of the characters & settings are a sight to see. The main problem is the movement of them. Every other frame is cut out, so the characters have a jerky movement to them. Supposedly, this is meant to encapsulate a comic book. Since a comic book does not move, this is a stupid reason given for lack-luster animation. There are quite a few anime out there today that use CGI-drawn animation. It looks choppy, cheap & crappy. And that's what we got here. Instead of smooth, graceful, Spider-Man like movement, we got what looks like low bitrate video. I truly feel this is why the movie, although it did well, did not do stupendous numbers at the box office compared to other recent animated movies.
Anyway, tossing that aside & taking account the design of the movie, I also found that the story was lackluster. I didn't find it too interesting or original. It just didn't grab me. I felt myself many times saying to myself that nothing special was going on. When they introduced the others from the Spider-Verse, I felt that some of them were a waste of space. Spider-Man Noir, played by Nicholas Cage, was funny but didn't do anything special. The Japanese girl with the robot, was utterly useless. If she wasn't in the film, it would be no different, except maybe to sell some toys. Now, I will say, I loved Spider-Ham, but I've been a fan of his since the 80s & still have all the original comic books. So, I am biased towards him. I would love to see him get his own movie, but I doubt he will.
Anyway, here's my bottom line. The movie was good. The style was great. Music was great. Characters were great. Story was meh. Animation was bad. After I watched the movie, I said, well that was pretty much a waste of time, but I'm not mad I watched. I just probably would never watch it again.
Anyway, tossing that aside & taking account the design of the movie, I also found that the story was lackluster. I didn't find it too interesting or original. It just didn't grab me. I felt myself many times saying to myself that nothing special was going on. When they introduced the others from the Spider-Verse, I felt that some of them were a waste of space. Spider-Man Noir, played by Nicholas Cage, was funny but didn't do anything special. The Japanese girl with the robot, was utterly useless. If she wasn't in the film, it would be no different, except maybe to sell some toys. Now, I will say, I loved Spider-Ham, but I've been a fan of his since the 80s & still have all the original comic books. So, I am biased towards him. I would love to see him get his own movie, but I doubt he will.
Anyway, here's my bottom line. The movie was good. The style was great. Music was great. Characters were great. Story was meh. Animation was bad. After I watched the movie, I said, well that was pretty much a waste of time, but I'm not mad I watched. I just probably would never watch it again.
David McK (3576 KP) rated A Princess of Mars (Barsoom, #1) in Books
Jan 30, 2019
To most people, if you mention the name Edgar Rice Burroughs the first thing that they will think of, in all likelihood, is his creation of the character Tarzan. Alongside this, however, he also wrote the <i>Barsoom</i> series of books, of which this is the first (published in 1912).
Commonly regarded as classics of the Pulp Sci-Fi genre of books, and with the new Disney movie <i>John Carter of Mars</i> recently released (even if it is getting a panning from the critics), and finally with <i>The John Carter collection</i> (consisting of <i>A Princess of Mars</i>, <i>The Gods of Mars</i>, <i>The Warlord of Mars</i>, <i>Thuvia, Maid of Mars</i> and <i>The Chessmen of Mars</i>) available on Apple's ibooks stores for 99p, how could I resist picking them up?
Having now read the first book, it's easy to see the influence these particular novels had on later writings and popular culture. James Cameron is on record as stating this particular work as an influence on his movie <i>Avatar</i>, while it is also possible to trace elements of <i>Star Wars</i> (inspired by <i>Flash Gordon</i>, itself inspired by this) back to this work.
In short: this is pretty much a prime example of early pulp SF!
Commonly regarded as classics of the Pulp Sci-Fi genre of books, and with the new Disney movie <i>John Carter of Mars</i> recently released (even if it is getting a panning from the critics), and finally with <i>The John Carter collection</i> (consisting of <i>A Princess of Mars</i>, <i>The Gods of Mars</i>, <i>The Warlord of Mars</i>, <i>Thuvia, Maid of Mars</i> and <i>The Chessmen of Mars</i>) available on Apple's ibooks stores for 99p, how could I resist picking them up?
Having now read the first book, it's easy to see the influence these particular novels had on later writings and popular culture. James Cameron is on record as stating this particular work as an influence on his movie <i>Avatar</i>, while it is also possible to trace elements of <i>Star Wars</i> (inspired by <i>Flash Gordon</i>, itself inspired by this) back to this work.
In short: this is pretty much a prime example of early pulp SF!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Alien: Romulus (2024) in Movies
Sep 2, 2024
The latest film in the “Alien” franchise has arrived and “Alien: Romulus” is the most engaging and enjoyable entry in the series since “Aliens”.
The film is the first in the series since Disney purchased Twentieth Century Fox and they turned to Director and Co-writer Fede Alvarez to develop a story he had shared with Producer Ridley Scott years prior.
The movie was originally intended to debut on Hulu similar to how “Prey” was released but it was decided to go with a theatrical release early in production.
Cailee Spaeny stars as Rain; an orphan living on a dark planet with her Android “Brother” Andy (David Jonsson). The mining colony is filled with despair and disease from the mine and Rain is eager to immigrate to a colony that offers the sun and a better life having completed the terms of her service agreement with the Company.
Her request is denied and she is told that due to a labor shortage, she has to work five years in the mines before she is eligible to be considered again. Knowing the Mines are for many deaths waiting to happen, Rain is asked by a group of friends to join them for a mission.
Her friends pilot a hauler used to ferry cargo and say that they have found an object drifting through the system which will crash into their planetary rings in about 47 hours. They plot to go up and salvage some Cryopods which will enable them to head to the desired colony which is a nine-year journey.
Without options and knowing that Andy is the key to gaining access, the group enters the station and sets about their tasks.
Unfortunately, their actions rouse the dark and deadly secret of the station and they soon find themselves facing deadly Aliens in a tense and pitched fight for survival and escape.
The movie does a very good job at filling in areas of the overall mythos and delivering fan service which does not feel like pandering and also helps create a pathway for new stories that do not directly impact the film “Aliens” which is set 37 years after the events of this film.
The movie also connects to the Prequel films as well as the original “Alien” in some clever ways which helps the continuity but still leaves plenty of mystery and questions even when this one fills in a few of the gray areas slightly.
The movie takes its time to set up the premise and get to the action but it never drags and is engaging from start to finish. Alvarez has done a masterful job capturing not only the look of the earlier films but also creating an intense thriller that gives audiences what they want and more as use of physical effects was very effective.
The cast was strong and Spaeny and Jonsson have a great chemistry with one another which helps in the face of the growing danger and tensions in the film.
I found myself not only loving the nostalgic touches but also the way that elements of the Company are explained and how much they truly knew which adds new dimensions to the first two films in the series but raises all sorts of possibilities for future films in the series.
“Alien: Romulus” was a true joy from start to finish for me and as a fan who has enjoyed the franchise since I was a small child; it delivered what I wanted and for me was the most enjoyable and satisfying entry in the series since “Aliens” and Alvarez and the cast are to be commended for creating a film that invigorates the franchise and delivers.
The film is the first in the series since Disney purchased Twentieth Century Fox and they turned to Director and Co-writer Fede Alvarez to develop a story he had shared with Producer Ridley Scott years prior.
The movie was originally intended to debut on Hulu similar to how “Prey” was released but it was decided to go with a theatrical release early in production.
Cailee Spaeny stars as Rain; an orphan living on a dark planet with her Android “Brother” Andy (David Jonsson). The mining colony is filled with despair and disease from the mine and Rain is eager to immigrate to a colony that offers the sun and a better life having completed the terms of her service agreement with the Company.
Her request is denied and she is told that due to a labor shortage, she has to work five years in the mines before she is eligible to be considered again. Knowing the Mines are for many deaths waiting to happen, Rain is asked by a group of friends to join them for a mission.
Her friends pilot a hauler used to ferry cargo and say that they have found an object drifting through the system which will crash into their planetary rings in about 47 hours. They plot to go up and salvage some Cryopods which will enable them to head to the desired colony which is a nine-year journey.
Without options and knowing that Andy is the key to gaining access, the group enters the station and sets about their tasks.
Unfortunately, their actions rouse the dark and deadly secret of the station and they soon find themselves facing deadly Aliens in a tense and pitched fight for survival and escape.
The movie does a very good job at filling in areas of the overall mythos and delivering fan service which does not feel like pandering and also helps create a pathway for new stories that do not directly impact the film “Aliens” which is set 37 years after the events of this film.
The movie also connects to the Prequel films as well as the original “Alien” in some clever ways which helps the continuity but still leaves plenty of mystery and questions even when this one fills in a few of the gray areas slightly.
The movie takes its time to set up the premise and get to the action but it never drags and is engaging from start to finish. Alvarez has done a masterful job capturing not only the look of the earlier films but also creating an intense thriller that gives audiences what they want and more as use of physical effects was very effective.
The cast was strong and Spaeny and Jonsson have a great chemistry with one another which helps in the face of the growing danger and tensions in the film.
I found myself not only loving the nostalgic touches but also the way that elements of the Company are explained and how much they truly knew which adds new dimensions to the first two films in the series but raises all sorts of possibilities for future films in the series.
“Alien: Romulus” was a true joy from start to finish for me and as a fan who has enjoyed the franchise since I was a small child; it delivered what I wanted and for me was the most enjoyable and satisfying entry in the series since “Aliens” and Alvarez and the cast are to be commended for creating a film that invigorates the franchise and delivers.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
This is not your father’s Jack Ryan; but it should’ve been.
Chris Pine stars as the famed Jack Ryan in this reboot of the character. We open the movie with Ryan
attending school in London on the day many won’t soon forget: September 11, 2001. The events
this day push Ryan into enlisting in the Marines and we join him 3 years later where we see Ryan in
a helicopter with some brothers-in-arms. It doesn’t take long for the helo to be shot down, but not
without Ryan becoming a hero. After extensive rehab from a broken spine, Mr. Ryan is approached by
Thomas Harper (Kevin Costner) to join the CIA as an analyst.
This intro to the movie was short. But what lacks in length it makes up for in the eloquence in which
it delivers the back story for Jack Ryan, thus setting up a whole new franchise and getting new viewers
ready for the ride. After this intro, we flash forward 10 years later to find Ryan working on Wall Street,
but he’s undercover and is an analyst for the CIA. He is with his one-time physical therapist, Cathy
Muller (Keira Knightley), and he discovers the details of a planned economic attack against the USA.
It isn’t long before he is whisked away to Russia to do some wet work, and he bumbles into the life
of a field agent facing off against the mastermind of the villainy in the film, Viktor Cherevin (Kenneth
Branagh).
Some may find that the movie lacks the quick-paced, non-stop action that we have seen from spy
movies these days (including the famous 007), but it does keep a good pace and puts an intelligent story
line on the screen and actually entices the audience to think, all the while including some action for the
adrenaline-junkies.
Pine plays a very believable Jack Ryan. He portrays a character that is more closely linked to Tom
Clancy’s original stories and vision for the character than even Harrison Ford did in Patriot Games (which
I thought was an excellent movie). He nailed the bumbling analyst-turned-field-agent in such a way that
you’d believe it was really his personality. They explain his ability to handle himself with the military
background so expertly set up at the beginning of the movie. Adding Costner to the cast was a stroke
of genius as he plays the mentor/superior part extremely well, but he wasn’t in the film so much as
to distract from the focus of Ryan. Branagh (who also directed the film) played an excellent Russian
adversary to Ryan, who was nothing short of a genius in the way he delivered his character’s stoic
responses and reactions.
If I had to name one gripe with the movie, which believe me was no small feat, it was the Cathy
Muller character. Don’t get me wrong, the character was amazing and Knightley did an admirable job
portraying her. I just felt that she seemed to accept things that most people would question a little too
quickly, and without any reservation.
Other than that, the movie rocked. The action scenes were gripping and the actual story-line was
intelligent. The best thing is that story was plausible. It was not over the top or wildly impossible in the
real world. The scary part is just that. The plot of this movie could actually happen. I would definitely
recommend checking it out in theaters, and it most certainly made my “gotta buy it on bluray” list.
Chris Pine stars as the famed Jack Ryan in this reboot of the character. We open the movie with Ryan
attending school in London on the day many won’t soon forget: September 11, 2001. The events
this day push Ryan into enlisting in the Marines and we join him 3 years later where we see Ryan in
a helicopter with some brothers-in-arms. It doesn’t take long for the helo to be shot down, but not
without Ryan becoming a hero. After extensive rehab from a broken spine, Mr. Ryan is approached by
Thomas Harper (Kevin Costner) to join the CIA as an analyst.
This intro to the movie was short. But what lacks in length it makes up for in the eloquence in which
it delivers the back story for Jack Ryan, thus setting up a whole new franchise and getting new viewers
ready for the ride. After this intro, we flash forward 10 years later to find Ryan working on Wall Street,
but he’s undercover and is an analyst for the CIA. He is with his one-time physical therapist, Cathy
Muller (Keira Knightley), and he discovers the details of a planned economic attack against the USA.
It isn’t long before he is whisked away to Russia to do some wet work, and he bumbles into the life
of a field agent facing off against the mastermind of the villainy in the film, Viktor Cherevin (Kenneth
Branagh).
Some may find that the movie lacks the quick-paced, non-stop action that we have seen from spy
movies these days (including the famous 007), but it does keep a good pace and puts an intelligent story
line on the screen and actually entices the audience to think, all the while including some action for the
adrenaline-junkies.
Pine plays a very believable Jack Ryan. He portrays a character that is more closely linked to Tom
Clancy’s original stories and vision for the character than even Harrison Ford did in Patriot Games (which
I thought was an excellent movie). He nailed the bumbling analyst-turned-field-agent in such a way that
you’d believe it was really his personality. They explain his ability to handle himself with the military
background so expertly set up at the beginning of the movie. Adding Costner to the cast was a stroke
of genius as he plays the mentor/superior part extremely well, but he wasn’t in the film so much as
to distract from the focus of Ryan. Branagh (who also directed the film) played an excellent Russian
adversary to Ryan, who was nothing short of a genius in the way he delivered his character’s stoic
responses and reactions.
If I had to name one gripe with the movie, which believe me was no small feat, it was the Cathy
Muller character. Don’t get me wrong, the character was amazing and Knightley did an admirable job
portraying her. I just felt that she seemed to accept things that most people would question a little too
quickly, and without any reservation.
Other than that, the movie rocked. The action scenes were gripping and the actual story-line was
intelligent. The best thing is that story was plausible. It was not over the top or wildly impossible in the
real world. The scary part is just that. The plot of this movie could actually happen. I would definitely
recommend checking it out in theaters, and it most certainly made my “gotta buy it on bluray” list.
Edgar Wright recommended Knives Out (2019) in Movies (curated)
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated The Thing (2011) in Movies
Jan 10, 2021
This one is pretty straightforward - The Thing (2011) is an ok film that is completely dwarfed by The Thing (1982) - honestly, fuck knows why it doesn't have a different title.
This prequel to the iconic John Carpenter movie does have some decent aspects to it - it has a mostly agreeable cast and a good screenplay that's engaging, although a vast majority of the characters are hugely forgettable, and not a patch on the crew of protagonists from the 82 film. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a perfectly likable leading lady, but everyone else is just kind of there. Even Joel Edgerton blends in with the furniture.
I also think it has good pacing for the most part - the opening third builds things up nicely, and when things finally kick off, it feels earned.
The attention to detail is admirable as well, with various objects and hints of past chaos found by Kurt Russell and co in the 82 film being placed perfectly.
Unfortunately, the end project suffers from a couple of things. Most infamously, the CGI is ropey, and is an ill advised addition considering the 82 film boasts some of the best practical effects in cinema history. This is made even worse by the fact that practical effects and animatronics were initially used before being smothered in digital effects to the point where it actively makes the whole movie less enjoyable. The narrative also apes the Carpenter classic a little too often for my taste, and serves more of a reminder of that film, rather than feeling like a homage.
The final act is just silly as well. After a strong build up, the climax snowballs into uninteresting bad-Predator-sequel-esque nonsense, and even saves the most laughable digital effects for last, just for good measure.
I did like the very last scene though, which genuinely ties nicely into the start of the 82 film.
Messing with such an iconic horror heavyweight comes with huge risks, and ultimately, The Thing (still really hate that they didn't use a different title) isn't the car crash that it easily could have been, but it does fall flat on really important aspects, resulting in a film that is average to the casual movie goer, and is thoroughly underwhelming for fans of its far superior predecessor.
This prequel to the iconic John Carpenter movie does have some decent aspects to it - it has a mostly agreeable cast and a good screenplay that's engaging, although a vast majority of the characters are hugely forgettable, and not a patch on the crew of protagonists from the 82 film. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a perfectly likable leading lady, but everyone else is just kind of there. Even Joel Edgerton blends in with the furniture.
I also think it has good pacing for the most part - the opening third builds things up nicely, and when things finally kick off, it feels earned.
The attention to detail is admirable as well, with various objects and hints of past chaos found by Kurt Russell and co in the 82 film being placed perfectly.
Unfortunately, the end project suffers from a couple of things. Most infamously, the CGI is ropey, and is an ill advised addition considering the 82 film boasts some of the best practical effects in cinema history. This is made even worse by the fact that practical effects and animatronics were initially used before being smothered in digital effects to the point where it actively makes the whole movie less enjoyable. The narrative also apes the Carpenter classic a little too often for my taste, and serves more of a reminder of that film, rather than feeling like a homage.
The final act is just silly as well. After a strong build up, the climax snowballs into uninteresting bad-Predator-sequel-esque nonsense, and even saves the most laughable digital effects for last, just for good measure.
I did like the very last scene though, which genuinely ties nicely into the start of the 82 film.
Messing with such an iconic horror heavyweight comes with huge risks, and ultimately, The Thing (still really hate that they didn't use a different title) isn't the car crash that it easily could have been, but it does fall flat on really important aspects, resulting in a film that is average to the casual movie goer, and is thoroughly underwhelming for fans of its far superior predecessor.