Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated 30 Minutes or Less (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
You don’t have to be imaginative to envision the plot behind “30 Minutes or Less”, because this is a story that is wildly over told. Just listing the components make it clear that no inventive or unexpected plot devices were considered in the creation of this summer comedy. There is the pizza boy who finds himself in the wrong place at the wrong time, a set of bumbling idiots who are planning a bank heist and even a girl who is oblivious to the longstanding affection of her brother’s best friend. But somehow even with this wildly over told plot the movie manages to be sporadically very funny.
“ 30 Minutes or Less” is, like so many of the big comedy hits of the last few years, a film that centers around well crafted honest yet crass dialogue between experienced comedic actors. Timing is critical to the success of the film and thankfully the actors in “30 Minutes or Less” are funny people who repeatedly manage to execute good lines.
The cast is the shining aspect of the film; a hodgepodge crew of comedians you likely already know. The best friend Chet is portrayed by the ever funny Aziz Ansari of Televisions’ “Parks and Recreation”. The bomb clad pizza boy Nick is played by Jesse Einsenberg who also starred in “The Social Network” and “Zombieland”. And this role is not a far cry from Einsenberg’s role in “Zombieland” aside from the lack of character development and on screen chemistry leading lady Kate, played by former TV “Greek” bad girl Dilshad Vadsaria.
The film is backed by a fun soundtrack of grooves that significantly assist in maintaining a quickened pace, even when the story is less than laughably slow. There are also a number of diverse yet comedic fight scenes that spot the film, from a juvenile slap fight to the use of a blow torch.
But the smattering of creative lines, sure to be repeated in excess by the post-emo generation, did not manage to hold up this film that unfortunately ran out of steam within “30 Minutes or Less”.
“ 30 Minutes or Less” is, like so many of the big comedy hits of the last few years, a film that centers around well crafted honest yet crass dialogue between experienced comedic actors. Timing is critical to the success of the film and thankfully the actors in “30 Minutes or Less” are funny people who repeatedly manage to execute good lines.
The cast is the shining aspect of the film; a hodgepodge crew of comedians you likely already know. The best friend Chet is portrayed by the ever funny Aziz Ansari of Televisions’ “Parks and Recreation”. The bomb clad pizza boy Nick is played by Jesse Einsenberg who also starred in “The Social Network” and “Zombieland”. And this role is not a far cry from Einsenberg’s role in “Zombieland” aside from the lack of character development and on screen chemistry leading lady Kate, played by former TV “Greek” bad girl Dilshad Vadsaria.
The film is backed by a fun soundtrack of grooves that significantly assist in maintaining a quickened pace, even when the story is less than laughably slow. There are also a number of diverse yet comedic fight scenes that spot the film, from a juvenile slap fight to the use of a blow torch.
But the smattering of creative lines, sure to be repeated in excess by the post-emo generation, did not manage to hold up this film that unfortunately ran out of steam within “30 Minutes or Less”.
MP
Making Patton: A Classic War Film's Epic Journey to the Silver Screen
8.0
Rate It
Book
Forever known for its blazing cinematic image of General George S. Patton (portrayed by George C....
DaveySmithy (107 KP) rated Twisters (2024) in Movies
Dec 4, 2024
A Solid Sequel That Doesn’t Fully Capture the Storm
As a long-time fan of the original Twister (1996), I went into Twisters (2024) with a mix of excitement and trepidation. How could this sequel live up to the raw, chaotic energy of its predecessor, a film that turned storm chasing into an adrenaline-fueled spectacle? The answer, for better or worse, is that it doesn’t quite match it, but it does enough to stand on its own.
Let’s start with what works. The visual effects are undeniably stunning. The tornadoes in this film are some of the most terrifyingly realistic I’ve ever seen on screen. They’re bigger, meaner, and more chaotic than ever, and the sequences where characters are caught in their destructive path are genuinely breathtaking. If you go into Twisters just wanting jaw-dropping destruction, you won’t be disappointed.
The cast also delivers solid performances. Daisy Edgar-Jones brings a grounded vulnerability to her role as a young meteorologist trying to prove herself, while Glen Powell’s charismatic storm chaser injects some much-needed levity into the film. Their chemistry isn’t groundbreaking, but it’s believable enough to keep the human drama engaging.
However, where Twisters falters is in its attempt to replicate the heart of the original. The 1996 film had a quirky charm and a ragtag group of storm chasers you couldn’t help but root for. In contrast, the characters here feel a bit more polished and conventional, and the film takes itself too seriously at times. It’s missing some of the playful chaos and oddball humor that made the original so endearing.
The plot, while serviceable, is also a bit formulaic. The stakes are high, but the story doesn’t take many risks, and it occasionally leans too heavily on nostalgia. I couldn’t help but feel that some moments—especially the callbacks to the original—were more about fan service than moving the story forward.
That said, Twisters does succeed as a modern disaster movie. It’s thrilling, visually spectacular, and worth seeing on a big screen. While it doesn’t quite recapture the magic of its predecessor, it’s an enjoyable
Let’s start with what works. The visual effects are undeniably stunning. The tornadoes in this film are some of the most terrifyingly realistic I’ve ever seen on screen. They’re bigger, meaner, and more chaotic than ever, and the sequences where characters are caught in their destructive path are genuinely breathtaking. If you go into Twisters just wanting jaw-dropping destruction, you won’t be disappointed.
The cast also delivers solid performances. Daisy Edgar-Jones brings a grounded vulnerability to her role as a young meteorologist trying to prove herself, while Glen Powell’s charismatic storm chaser injects some much-needed levity into the film. Their chemistry isn’t groundbreaking, but it’s believable enough to keep the human drama engaging.
However, where Twisters falters is in its attempt to replicate the heart of the original. The 1996 film had a quirky charm and a ragtag group of storm chasers you couldn’t help but root for. In contrast, the characters here feel a bit more polished and conventional, and the film takes itself too seriously at times. It’s missing some of the playful chaos and oddball humor that made the original so endearing.
The plot, while serviceable, is also a bit formulaic. The stakes are high, but the story doesn’t take many risks, and it occasionally leans too heavily on nostalgia. I couldn’t help but feel that some moments—especially the callbacks to the original—were more about fan service than moving the story forward.
That said, Twisters does succeed as a modern disaster movie. It’s thrilling, visually spectacular, and worth seeing on a big screen. While it doesn’t quite recapture the magic of its predecessor, it’s an enjoyable
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Skyscraper (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
As sponsored by Duck Tape.
I have a fundamental problem with this film. And it’s not that it’s an irrevocably cheesy and derivative action movie, since you could automatically assume that by watching the ridiculously over-the-top trailer. But more on that later.
Dwayne Johnson plays Will Sawyer, a security expert left one-legged after a disastrous FBI operation 10 years previously. Now Will has moved with his wife Sarah (Neve Campbell, “Scream”, “House of Cards”) and two young kids into “The Pearl” in Hong Kong, the tallest building – by several Shards – in the world, designed and constructed by tech billionaire Zhao Long Ji (Chin Han, “Independence Day: Resurgence“). As the first residents, the family live in isolated splendour on a high floor. But in true “Die Hard” fashion, baddies, led by a the unconvincingly evil “Scandinavian” Kores Botha (Roland Møller, “The Commuter“), are intent on controlling and then destroying the high-rise. As fire races up towards his family, Will has to use all his physical capabilities to re-enter the building and save his family.
Now, there are implausible leaps in films and then there are IMPLAUSIBLE leaps!
As a story it’s well-crafted but completely bonkers. There are more ludicrous plot holes than muscles on Johnson’s well-crafted body. Why exactly does Botha needs to implement such a ridiculously convoluted plot to secure his goal? Why wasn’t the lift drop delayed by two minutes? Why don’t critical access controls have two-factor authentication? And – most perplexing of all – why don’t the “heaven cameras” show the building below?!!
Big, bigger, biggest!
Both “Die Hard” and “The Towering Inferno”, of which this is an unsubtle blend, could both be similarly accused of lacking credibility but were fun rides. This is not in the same league as either, but has its moments of vertiginous excitement. Johnson is suitably energetic in the muscular lead but lacks acting nuance. I was trying to analyse why this is, and I came down to his eyeballs! In conversation with Campbell, his eyes dart from left to right and back again, as if an army of ants are running over her face. He needs to take lessons on fixed stares from Michael Caine!
Duck tape! Anyone knows if you put two bits together you never get them apart again!
As the title of this review implies, Duck Tape also plays a key role: not for Johnson the fancy blue light/red light gloves of Tom Cruise! It also derives one of the best of a series of quotable lines from the film: “If it can’t be fixed with Duck Tape, you’re not using enough Duck Tape!”.
Neve Campbell is actually the best actor in the film, proving to be suitably kick-ass in her own right. It’s a shame she’s been rather tagged as ‘the screaming girl from “Scream”… no, not Barrymore, the other one’: she deserves more feature film opportunities like this one.
The best acting in the movie from Neve Campbell, here with a Noah Cottrell and a supremely confident performance by McKenna Roberts.
Rawson Marshall Thurber (“Central Intelligence“, “Dodgeball”) keeps the action to a tight 102 minutes, but needs to keep more control over his Hong Kong extras: there is far too much ‘twenty-second-pointing’ and over exuberant jumping up and down going on that draws the attention away from the principals. This is particularly the case in the Die-Hard rip-off of an ending (“HOOOLLLLLLYYYYYY!!!”).
As a popcorn piece of escapist nonsense, it’s serviceable and delivers as a B-grade movie… it’s not good enough to be a “Die Hard” classic, and not bad enough to be a “so bad it’s good” disaster like “Into the Storm“.
Taiwanese actress Hannah Quinlivan as Xia, the ruthless hit-girl.
You’ll note that I haven’t rubbished the film per se. So why then do I hold a negative view of the flick, and indeed somewhat regret going to see it?
One word – – Grenfell.
I knew the plot on going in, but didn’t equate just how damaging the mental effects of that dreadful night of 14th June 2017 were on my soul. Traumatic incendiary scenes together with some insensitive dialogue (“We’re going to turn that tower into a chimney”) broke through the wall of “entertainment” and left just a sick feeling in my stomach. And my wife had exactly the same feelings as we debriefed afterwards. This is a film that might have benefited from sitting on the shelf for a couple of years before release.
If you can separate in your mind the movie story from the shocking reality of one of life’s most unpleasant recent twists, then good for you: go and enjoy the movie. But I wasn’t so lucky so on a purely personal basis this is one occasion when I will give a film two ratings.
Dwayne Johnson plays Will Sawyer, a security expert left one-legged after a disastrous FBI operation 10 years previously. Now Will has moved with his wife Sarah (Neve Campbell, “Scream”, “House of Cards”) and two young kids into “The Pearl” in Hong Kong, the tallest building – by several Shards – in the world, designed and constructed by tech billionaire Zhao Long Ji (Chin Han, “Independence Day: Resurgence“). As the first residents, the family live in isolated splendour on a high floor. But in true “Die Hard” fashion, baddies, led by a the unconvincingly evil “Scandinavian” Kores Botha (Roland Møller, “The Commuter“), are intent on controlling and then destroying the high-rise. As fire races up towards his family, Will has to use all his physical capabilities to re-enter the building and save his family.
Now, there are implausible leaps in films and then there are IMPLAUSIBLE leaps!
As a story it’s well-crafted but completely bonkers. There are more ludicrous plot holes than muscles on Johnson’s well-crafted body. Why exactly does Botha needs to implement such a ridiculously convoluted plot to secure his goal? Why wasn’t the lift drop delayed by two minutes? Why don’t critical access controls have two-factor authentication? And – most perplexing of all – why don’t the “heaven cameras” show the building below?!!
Big, bigger, biggest!
Both “Die Hard” and “The Towering Inferno”, of which this is an unsubtle blend, could both be similarly accused of lacking credibility but were fun rides. This is not in the same league as either, but has its moments of vertiginous excitement. Johnson is suitably energetic in the muscular lead but lacks acting nuance. I was trying to analyse why this is, and I came down to his eyeballs! In conversation with Campbell, his eyes dart from left to right and back again, as if an army of ants are running over her face. He needs to take lessons on fixed stares from Michael Caine!
Duck tape! Anyone knows if you put two bits together you never get them apart again!
As the title of this review implies, Duck Tape also plays a key role: not for Johnson the fancy blue light/red light gloves of Tom Cruise! It also derives one of the best of a series of quotable lines from the film: “If it can’t be fixed with Duck Tape, you’re not using enough Duck Tape!”.
Neve Campbell is actually the best actor in the film, proving to be suitably kick-ass in her own right. It’s a shame she’s been rather tagged as ‘the screaming girl from “Scream”… no, not Barrymore, the other one’: she deserves more feature film opportunities like this one.
The best acting in the movie from Neve Campbell, here with a Noah Cottrell and a supremely confident performance by McKenna Roberts.
Rawson Marshall Thurber (“Central Intelligence“, “Dodgeball”) keeps the action to a tight 102 minutes, but needs to keep more control over his Hong Kong extras: there is far too much ‘twenty-second-pointing’ and over exuberant jumping up and down going on that draws the attention away from the principals. This is particularly the case in the Die-Hard rip-off of an ending (“HOOOLLLLLLYYYYYY!!!”).
As a popcorn piece of escapist nonsense, it’s serviceable and delivers as a B-grade movie… it’s not good enough to be a “Die Hard” classic, and not bad enough to be a “so bad it’s good” disaster like “Into the Storm“.
Taiwanese actress Hannah Quinlivan as Xia, the ruthless hit-girl.
You’ll note that I haven’t rubbished the film per se. So why then do I hold a negative view of the flick, and indeed somewhat regret going to see it?
One word – – Grenfell.
I knew the plot on going in, but didn’t equate just how damaging the mental effects of that dreadful night of 14th June 2017 were on my soul. Traumatic incendiary scenes together with some insensitive dialogue (“We’re going to turn that tower into a chimney”) broke through the wall of “entertainment” and left just a sick feeling in my stomach. And my wife had exactly the same feelings as we debriefed afterwards. This is a film that might have benefited from sitting on the shelf for a couple of years before release.
If you can separate in your mind the movie story from the shocking reality of one of life’s most unpleasant recent twists, then good for you: go and enjoy the movie. But I wasn’t so lucky so on a purely personal basis this is one occasion when I will give a film two ratings.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Batman: The Killing Joke (2016) in Movies
Dec 27, 2017
Visuals on par with the comic (2 more)
True to the source material
Superb voice talent
Using R rating incorrectly (1 more)
Batgirl
Missed opportunity
Contains spoilers, click to show
I remember reading the source graphic novel when it was first released in 1988 thinking "this would make a cool movie". This was even before the 1989 Michael Keaton-Tim Burton film in 1989.
In the modern world of the R rated Logan and Deadpool, it's now possible to push the envelope; however, not sure about an animated film. The character of Batman certainly is very dark and some of his emotional issues and those of the Joker could venture into those realms, but the tone of this film seem wrong.
The character of Batgirl seemed to be a victim rather than the strong character she is normally, and the "sex" scene between them seemed a little unusual. The brutality inflicted upon her at the hands of the Joker also was a bit much.
The highlight of the experience was listening to Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill reprise their now infamous Batman and Joker characters once again.
Overall, the film may have been better off to take "inspiration" from the novel rather than trying to reproduce it 100%.
In the modern world of the R rated Logan and Deadpool, it's now possible to push the envelope; however, not sure about an animated film. The character of Batman certainly is very dark and some of his emotional issues and those of the Joker could venture into those realms, but the tone of this film seem wrong.
The character of Batgirl seemed to be a victim rather than the strong character she is normally, and the "sex" scene between them seemed a little unusual. The brutality inflicted upon her at the hands of the Joker also was a bit much.
The highlight of the experience was listening to Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill reprise their now infamous Batman and Joker characters once again.
Overall, the film may have been better off to take "inspiration" from the novel rather than trying to reproduce it 100%.
Dean Connelly (17 KP) rated Batman: Return to Arkham in Video Games
Jan 10, 2018
You get to be Batman (3 more)
Voices of Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill
Both storylines are worthy of any comic book or movie
Just everything about it
I’ll get committed to this Asylum any day.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I was never a fan of these sort of games but it came out and I love it. You’ve got the best Batman and the best Joker in 2 of the best games I’ve ever played. Asylum you are stuck to Arkham Island and there isnt much you can do, City I feel is the best, more characters, more gadgets, more abilities, bigger environment, bigger bad guys to fight, loads more trophies. There also is side missions ranging from helping Bane to facing off against Deadshot. What I really love is that no character is the same from previous movies or TV series, I mean Poison Ivy is seriously fit, Freeze looks futuristic, Catwoman looks like a prostitute, you can play as Catwoman, challenges on both Games are good, city’s is tougher though. If you love a good game or a fan of the Dark Knight like me, you won’t be disappointed
Alli Lamb (4 KP) rated Five Feet Apart (2019) in Movies
Mar 20, 2019
Young adult film that makes you fall in love
Contains spoilers, click to show
What if you couldnt touch the one you loved? I havent read the book yet but I cant wait to read it, I thought the movie was great! Stella suffers from CF (cystic fibrosis) she likes to be in control. Will also has CF and he is very care free he knows life is short and wants to experience it outside hospital walls. Together they give each the thing they need to see life in a new light.
Since Will isnt eligible for new lungs cause of a bacteria, stella needs to stay at least 6 five apart so she doesnt get his bacteria. But with how this disease stole so much from them they want to take one foot back.
While on their date they are at a pool and it's such an intimate moment between them without any physical touching. I hope there is a similar moment in the book if not something that goes into more detail.
I highly enjoyed this film and I was engaged the whole time. Rooting for them so much hoping they would get their happily ever after.
Since Will isnt eligible for new lungs cause of a bacteria, stella needs to stay at least 6 five apart so she doesnt get his bacteria. But with how this disease stole so much from them they want to take one foot back.
While on their date they are at a pool and it's such an intimate moment between them without any physical touching. I hope there is a similar moment in the book if not something that goes into more detail.
I highly enjoyed this film and I was engaged the whole time. Rooting for them so much hoping they would get their happily ever after.
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2470 KP) rated Italian Iced in Books
Jul 3, 2018
The Star in the Freezer
The Terminal at the Tracks diner is featuring Italian food this month, and Laurel is thrilled with how popular the choice has been on the first night. However, she returns home to find that it has been trashed. Nothing appears to be taken, but someone was searching for something. Before she can figure out what they were looking for, she makes an even worse discovery, the body of mega movie star Meghan in the freezer down at the diner. Laurel has had no contact with Meghan for the past year since Meghan fired her. What was she doing in town? And how did she come to die in the freezer?
The mystery is great with a steady stream of clues, surprises, and red herrings to keep us guessing until the end. Laurel also gets a chance to reflect on her life then versus now, and the growth we see in her is wonderful. There are only a few series regulars, but it is fun to spend time with them again. The suspects are strong and do a great job of keeping us guessing until the end.
The mystery is great with a steady stream of clues, surprises, and red herrings to keep us guessing until the end. Laurel also gets a chance to reflect on her life then versus now, and the growth we see in her is wonderful. There are only a few series regulars, but it is fun to spend time with them again. The suspects are strong and do a great job of keeping us guessing until the end.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Honest Thief (2020) in Movies
Oct 24, 2020
Decent crime thriller. Liam Neeson plays the In-and-Out Bandit (snigger), who has nicked $9 million out of some obscure principle, and also because he enjoys it. When he wants to settle down with his new lady friend, he tries to negotiate his surrender, but comes up against corruption in the FBI and finds himself framed for murder...
Looks like another one of those movies where some bad guys really tick off Neeson, leading up to the moment where he gets on the phone to them and does his 'I'm coming for you!' speech. And this one is a bit like that, but the violence is employed sparingly and it has a rather neat plot, too. The characters have a bit more depth than you might expect, too - Neeson is giving the same performance as usual, but not an actual bad one, while everyone else manages to find something interesting to work with: Jai Courtney is actually really impressive as his character gradually loses it. It's still a fairly modest genre movie, but it's better than the usual Neeson vehicle and genuinely involving and enjoyable.
Looks like another one of those movies where some bad guys really tick off Neeson, leading up to the moment where he gets on the phone to them and does his 'I'm coming for you!' speech. And this one is a bit like that, but the violence is employed sparingly and it has a rather neat plot, too. The characters have a bit more depth than you might expect, too - Neeson is giving the same performance as usual, but not an actual bad one, while everyone else manages to find something interesting to work with: Jai Courtney is actually really impressive as his character gradually loses it. It's still a fairly modest genre movie, but it's better than the usual Neeson vehicle and genuinely involving and enjoyable.