Search
Search results
Steven Sklansky (231 KP) rated John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017) in Movies
Dec 27, 2017
Well wasn't this a fun and violent movie. John Wick always seems to bring the pain or the death, wherever he goes. Everyone just has to make him upset. First they kill his puppy, then they steal his car and now they want him death because he kill this guys sister. Which by the way he made him do.
I don't think anyone in this organization is very smart. Since they all know he is the best assassin out there. Also doing the smallest thing to him sets him off. This organization does seem like a rather large network across the world. It seems everyone is a hitman. But being part of this organization does have a lot of perks. Tailor on hand, weapons expert, library full of blueprints and desert. The only thing they don't have is fun gadgets and cars, but maybe that would be too James Bond.
I am really glad they decided to keep his dog alive this time. It would have been very sad to see another one go. Although a dog without a name would be hard to feel bad for. Hopefully in Chapter 3 he gives him a name.
Wow so much blood and bullets. I don't think though the entire movie there was 5 minutes where someone didn't get shot. Except when he killed 3 guys with a pencil (that was awesome). Violence has to be done just right to make it watchable for 2 hours and they did just that. I really liked the scenes done in the mirror maze. I am sure it took a lot of hard work to shoot that just right.
Well if you haven't seen Chapter 1, shame on you. Go see it now. Then see Chapter 2 immediately. If you have seen Chapter 1 good for you, you probably have seen Chapter 2. If not because you don't trust sequels, which I am sometimes in the same boat. This is not a bad one. Go see it and let me know what you think. And as always, enjoy the show.
I don't think anyone in this organization is very smart. Since they all know he is the best assassin out there. Also doing the smallest thing to him sets him off. This organization does seem like a rather large network across the world. It seems everyone is a hitman. But being part of this organization does have a lot of perks. Tailor on hand, weapons expert, library full of blueprints and desert. The only thing they don't have is fun gadgets and cars, but maybe that would be too James Bond.
I am really glad they decided to keep his dog alive this time. It would have been very sad to see another one go. Although a dog without a name would be hard to feel bad for. Hopefully in Chapter 3 he gives him a name.
Wow so much blood and bullets. I don't think though the entire movie there was 5 minutes where someone didn't get shot. Except when he killed 3 guys with a pencil (that was awesome). Violence has to be done just right to make it watchable for 2 hours and they did just that. I really liked the scenes done in the mirror maze. I am sure it took a lot of hard work to shoot that just right.
Well if you haven't seen Chapter 1, shame on you. Go see it now. Then see Chapter 2 immediately. If you have seen Chapter 1 good for you, you probably have seen Chapter 2. If not because you don't trust sequels, which I am sometimes in the same boat. This is not a bad one. Go see it and let me know what you think. And as always, enjoy the show.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Secret Santa (2018) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
As alternative Christmas films go this one is way out there and probably the most Christmassy of them all. We've got actual Christmas events which is more than some.
Christmases in the family are always an over the top affair, snowy location, enormous turkey, secret Santa gifts and competition. But where there should be fun and merriment there's always a little bit of resentment, bitterness and not so friendly jabs.
April has turned over a new leaf and this Christmas is meant to be a way to apologise for past wrongs and bring everyone back together for some much needed family bonding, what she doesn't know is that someone else has other ideas. The family doesn't need more pleasantries, it needs a bit of truth.
Secret Santa is just pure batshit crazy and takes dysfunctional family to another level, there's so much going on that you'll certainly never be bored watching it. We obviously have a lot of gratuitous violence and there's also some nudity and sex thanks to Jackson, his girlfriend, and a... well, I won't spoil that bit. These are all selling points, right!?
What kick starts the craziness is the punch being spiked with an experimental military-grade truth serum, the effects start with what appears just to be their normal family bitchiness but it soon progresses into something a lot more homicidal. I liked that they kept a bit of a mix, not everyone showed the same sort of rage and it really depended on their original demeanour. The most extreme was definitely Jackson, and Nathan Hedrick certainly gives a fantastic, if disturbing, performance in the role. But everyone really commits to their parts and that's the thing that stopped this film from sliding into a bad made-for-TV affair.
There are so many things I want to mention but I don't want to spoil the fun to be had from watching this, so I'll just say that something wacky and nuts happens approximately every two minutes.
The film is done in such a way that you really get pulled into the action of it all by being up close and personal, and throughout there's a real contrast between the good and the bad, even in the opening titles. We're also treated to some great musical choices throughout and the festive vibe shines through. Make sure you watch into the credits as there are some great little additions to the story in them.
If you've brought the DVD then you'll also have a "making of" featurette, you absolutely need to watch this. It's almost as long as the film but it was really interesting to watch. Finding out the background to some of these films really does help you have a different appreciation for them and listening to the story begin Secret Santa was a real bonus.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/secret-santa-movie-dvd-review.html
Christmases in the family are always an over the top affair, snowy location, enormous turkey, secret Santa gifts and competition. But where there should be fun and merriment there's always a little bit of resentment, bitterness and not so friendly jabs.
April has turned over a new leaf and this Christmas is meant to be a way to apologise for past wrongs and bring everyone back together for some much needed family bonding, what she doesn't know is that someone else has other ideas. The family doesn't need more pleasantries, it needs a bit of truth.
Secret Santa is just pure batshit crazy and takes dysfunctional family to another level, there's so much going on that you'll certainly never be bored watching it. We obviously have a lot of gratuitous violence and there's also some nudity and sex thanks to Jackson, his girlfriend, and a... well, I won't spoil that bit. These are all selling points, right!?
What kick starts the craziness is the punch being spiked with an experimental military-grade truth serum, the effects start with what appears just to be their normal family bitchiness but it soon progresses into something a lot more homicidal. I liked that they kept a bit of a mix, not everyone showed the same sort of rage and it really depended on their original demeanour. The most extreme was definitely Jackson, and Nathan Hedrick certainly gives a fantastic, if disturbing, performance in the role. But everyone really commits to their parts and that's the thing that stopped this film from sliding into a bad made-for-TV affair.
There are so many things I want to mention but I don't want to spoil the fun to be had from watching this, so I'll just say that something wacky and nuts happens approximately every two minutes.
The film is done in such a way that you really get pulled into the action of it all by being up close and personal, and throughout there's a real contrast between the good and the bad, even in the opening titles. We're also treated to some great musical choices throughout and the festive vibe shines through. Make sure you watch into the credits as there are some great little additions to the story in them.
If you've brought the DVD then you'll also have a "making of" featurette, you absolutely need to watch this. It's almost as long as the film but it was really interesting to watch. Finding out the background to some of these films really does help you have a different appreciation for them and listening to the story begin Secret Santa was a real bonus.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/secret-santa-movie-dvd-review.html
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Insatiable (Insatiable, #1) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I normally try to avoid Meg Cabot, simply because I've found some of her writing too teeny-bopper for me, but this book was written for adults and features an all-adult cast list. Now this is a book that could be made into a movie.
The book starts out as an anti-vampire book, and makes fun of the over-saturation in pop culture through Meena Harper's character. I love Meena's character right away, with her writing skills and passion for a decades-old soap opera, she is someone I can relate to. Her ability to predict others' deaths only makes her more intriguing. I also find it fittingly ironic when more and more of the people around Meena turn out to be vampires, as she eventually acknowledges herself.
Even though the book is written for adults, Meg Cabot still keeps the writing clean, skipping through the intimate bedroom scenes with only the smallest of hints at the sordid details. She also leaves many of the gruesome aspects of the plot up to the imagination of the readers, which I prefer.
Because this book is all about tongue-in-cheek irony, it is only fitting that the state of Meena's mind -- the jumbled mess of a writer -- attracts the prince of all vampires, Lucien, who happens to be a Romanian history professor when he isn't attending to his princely duties. I get the feeling that there is more to Lucien and Meena's attraction to each other than what Meg Cabot is telling the reader, but by the end of the book, this is still a mystery. Plus, a good-looking vampire slayer suffering from too much micromanagement and even less communication skills causes some interesting conflicts and obstacles for Meena and Lucien. His attraction to Meena is like water to a sponge, but Meena is less drawn to Alaric.
I wasn't crazy by how the book ended, but it made sense for Meena's independence. Still, I'm hoping Meena's choices will change in the next book, Overbite.
The book starts out as an anti-vampire book, and makes fun of the over-saturation in pop culture through Meena Harper's character. I love Meena's character right away, with her writing skills and passion for a decades-old soap opera, she is someone I can relate to. Her ability to predict others' deaths only makes her more intriguing. I also find it fittingly ironic when more and more of the people around Meena turn out to be vampires, as she eventually acknowledges herself.
Even though the book is written for adults, Meg Cabot still keeps the writing clean, skipping through the intimate bedroom scenes with only the smallest of hints at the sordid details. She also leaves many of the gruesome aspects of the plot up to the imagination of the readers, which I prefer.
Because this book is all about tongue-in-cheek irony, it is only fitting that the state of Meena's mind -- the jumbled mess of a writer -- attracts the prince of all vampires, Lucien, who happens to be a Romanian history professor when he isn't attending to his princely duties. I get the feeling that there is more to Lucien and Meena's attraction to each other than what Meg Cabot is telling the reader, but by the end of the book, this is still a mystery. Plus, a good-looking vampire slayer suffering from too much micromanagement and even less communication skills causes some interesting conflicts and obstacles for Meena and Lucien. His attraction to Meena is like water to a sponge, but Meena is less drawn to Alaric.
I wasn't crazy by how the book ended, but it made sense for Meena's independence. Still, I'm hoping Meena's choices will change in the next book, Overbite.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Adrift (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Hurricane Raymond has been upgraded to a category 5”
“Should we be worried” says Tami. Well, yes dear, you really should.
In the glorious surroundings of Tahiti, the American footloose traveller Tami Oldham (Shailene Woodley, “Divergent trilogy“, “The Descendents) meets British footloose traveller Richard Sharp (Sam Claflin, “Journey’s End“, “Me Before You“) and a nautical-based love beckons. Richard is hired by his friends Peter (Jeffrey Thomas) and Christine (Elizabeth Hawthorne) to sail their luxury 44 foot yacht Hazana from Tahiti to Tami’s home city of San Diego. But they hadn’t reckoned on the decidedly un-romantic attentions of Raymond and severely battered and bruised it’s a battle for survival on the vast expanse of the Pacific.
I was intrigued by this film as it seems to have divided the professional critics’ opinions: Kevin Maher in The Times gave it five stars… five! Conversely Edward Porter in The Sunday Times gave it two stars. After seeing the film, I’m with Mr Maher on this one (breaking convention as I haven’t exactly been in tune with this reviewer recently!).
As a story with romantic undertones, the film will live or die on your belief in this aspect. And fortunately the romance works. There is real chemistry between the pair despite them striking you as an odd couple. This is in no small part to the quality of the acting: Claflin proves again that he is a safe pair of hands as a male lead, but it’s Shailene Woodley, who has to carry large portions of the film single-handedly, who again demonstrates just how excellent an actress she is. The camera of Tarentino favourite Robert Richardson (“The Hateful Eight“, “Django Unchained”) stays tightly on Woodley’s features dramatically capturing her tiniest of grimaces.
Woodley is also deliciously un-Hollywood, getting to where she has through acting talent as much as her looks. Yes, she has a great body (liberally, perhaps a tad lasciviously, featured here both above and under the water) but her face is gloriously assymettical with little wrinkles appearing unexpectedly when she grins. She’s a good role model for young girls that perfection is not a pre–requisite for success. (What’s perhaps less good, role-model-wise, is that Woodley allegedly ate only 350 calories a day to get to the emaciated state seen at the end of the film! But to compensate, it’s notable that she looks so much better/sexier at the start of the film than at the end).
It’s also interesting to note that the 27-year old Woodley is also a co-producer on the film, a sign perhaps that as well as being the ‘Meryl Streep of the future'(TM), she is also likely to become a significant mover and shaker in Hollywood when getting there.
A bit like “The Shallows“, it’s unapologetically a B movie, but it’s delivered with such style and chutzpah that it drives its way through the apallingly cheesy dialogue just as the poor Hazana bashes its way throught the mountainous seas. It’s even self-mocking, with Tami rolling her eyes at the corniness of Richard’s, very English, attempts at romantic dialogue. The script is more successful in establishing back-stories for Tami and Richard, demonstrating a degree of parallelism that perhaps better explains their mutual attraction. The irony of fate taking Tami back to her damaged past is exquisite.
A controversial and brave decision by Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur is to constantly flashback between the survival scenes and Tami and Richard’s courtship that leads up to the cataclismic event. This can be a little distracting, but given the gut-wrenching twist in the third act a linear storytelling would simply have not worked. It’s very well done too, with matched cross-cuts that really work well. Kormákur’s previous film “Everest” was his biggest hit to date, and I noted the cheeky addition of the book “Everest” on the bookshelf on Richard’s boat! (As an aside, “Everest” is for some reason the film review on One Mann’s Movies that has been viewed more often than any other… no idea why… must be down to search engine results!)
Extraordinarily, it’s a true story with the closing frames of the film being genuinely moving.
With many similarities to the excellent Robert Redford thriller “All Is Lost”, this is a robust and enthralling thriller-cum-romance that unusually delivers on both counts. The romance is believable and the thrills suitably thrilling, especially when a panic-ridden Tami is separated from her one patch of dry land. Although slightly let down by some dodgy dialogue, sitting amongst all the big-hitter summer blockbusters this is a movie you should definitely seek out.
In the glorious surroundings of Tahiti, the American footloose traveller Tami Oldham (Shailene Woodley, “Divergent trilogy“, “The Descendents) meets British footloose traveller Richard Sharp (Sam Claflin, “Journey’s End“, “Me Before You“) and a nautical-based love beckons. Richard is hired by his friends Peter (Jeffrey Thomas) and Christine (Elizabeth Hawthorne) to sail their luxury 44 foot yacht Hazana from Tahiti to Tami’s home city of San Diego. But they hadn’t reckoned on the decidedly un-romantic attentions of Raymond and severely battered and bruised it’s a battle for survival on the vast expanse of the Pacific.
I was intrigued by this film as it seems to have divided the professional critics’ opinions: Kevin Maher in The Times gave it five stars… five! Conversely Edward Porter in The Sunday Times gave it two stars. After seeing the film, I’m with Mr Maher on this one (breaking convention as I haven’t exactly been in tune with this reviewer recently!).
As a story with romantic undertones, the film will live or die on your belief in this aspect. And fortunately the romance works. There is real chemistry between the pair despite them striking you as an odd couple. This is in no small part to the quality of the acting: Claflin proves again that he is a safe pair of hands as a male lead, but it’s Shailene Woodley, who has to carry large portions of the film single-handedly, who again demonstrates just how excellent an actress she is. The camera of Tarentino favourite Robert Richardson (“The Hateful Eight“, “Django Unchained”) stays tightly on Woodley’s features dramatically capturing her tiniest of grimaces.
Woodley is also deliciously un-Hollywood, getting to where she has through acting talent as much as her looks. Yes, she has a great body (liberally, perhaps a tad lasciviously, featured here both above and under the water) but her face is gloriously assymettical with little wrinkles appearing unexpectedly when she grins. She’s a good role model for young girls that perfection is not a pre–requisite for success. (What’s perhaps less good, role-model-wise, is that Woodley allegedly ate only 350 calories a day to get to the emaciated state seen at the end of the film! But to compensate, it’s notable that she looks so much better/sexier at the start of the film than at the end).
It’s also interesting to note that the 27-year old Woodley is also a co-producer on the film, a sign perhaps that as well as being the ‘Meryl Streep of the future'(TM), she is also likely to become a significant mover and shaker in Hollywood when getting there.
A bit like “The Shallows“, it’s unapologetically a B movie, but it’s delivered with such style and chutzpah that it drives its way through the apallingly cheesy dialogue just as the poor Hazana bashes its way throught the mountainous seas. It’s even self-mocking, with Tami rolling her eyes at the corniness of Richard’s, very English, attempts at romantic dialogue. The script is more successful in establishing back-stories for Tami and Richard, demonstrating a degree of parallelism that perhaps better explains their mutual attraction. The irony of fate taking Tami back to her damaged past is exquisite.
A controversial and brave decision by Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur is to constantly flashback between the survival scenes and Tami and Richard’s courtship that leads up to the cataclismic event. This can be a little distracting, but given the gut-wrenching twist in the third act a linear storytelling would simply have not worked. It’s very well done too, with matched cross-cuts that really work well. Kormákur’s previous film “Everest” was his biggest hit to date, and I noted the cheeky addition of the book “Everest” on the bookshelf on Richard’s boat! (As an aside, “Everest” is for some reason the film review on One Mann’s Movies that has been viewed more often than any other… no idea why… must be down to search engine results!)
Extraordinarily, it’s a true story with the closing frames of the film being genuinely moving.
With many similarities to the excellent Robert Redford thriller “All Is Lost”, this is a robust and enthralling thriller-cum-romance that unusually delivers on both counts. The romance is believable and the thrills suitably thrilling, especially when a panic-ridden Tami is separated from her one patch of dry land. Although slightly let down by some dodgy dialogue, sitting amongst all the big-hitter summer blockbusters this is a movie you should definitely seek out.
Dana (24 KP) rated Blood and Salt (Blood and Salt, #1) in Books
Mar 23, 2018
Once again, I am giving the old spoiler alert right at the beginning, so you have been warned.
I am actually giving this book a 3.5 stars instead of a three star review.
Okay, so now onto the actual review. I found this book very interesting. Though I was expecting something more like a thriller and/or horror novel, this was more like a non-scary cult novel. But it was not as creepy as I had hoped. I wanted to be terrified, but instead I was left without much of an emotional response at all.
This book reminded me, in a lot of ways, of that movie Children of the Corn. I don't really know why because the plot is not the same, but I think because it was set in the middle of a corn field that ate people with a cult in the middle of it. (Side note: I am not a fan of that movie, but my friends made me watch it with them. I found the movie quite boring, to be honest.)
Ash was an okay main character. I mean, she was strong, in a way, but she wasn't particularly striking in many ways. She, like many other young adult heroines, falls in love with the wrong guy, then gets betrayed by him, but unlike some of those other heroines, she doesn't really do much about it. Yes, she gets angry, but it almost feels like she is about to forgive him immediately. That didn't particularly make sense to me because if she was really pissed at him, I doubt she would forgive him that quickly.
Rhys was kinda annoying, to me. Yes, he is the twin brother so he is going to feel protective of his sister, but he refused to listen to anyone but himself. There is also the fact that, even though he sees all this magic stuff around him, he doesn't believe in it. Plus, to top it all off, he thinks his sister and his mother are crazy just because he thinks differently. I was not a fan of any of this. He is discounting the women in his family because he does not know how to deal with what he cannot see.
I wasn't a fan of Dane either, to be honest. He didn't help Ash as much as he said he was and when she would come to him for help, he would brush it off as if it didn't matter. He was kind of an ass.
The whole Katia plot was a bit weak. I saw it coming from a mile away, but I did enjoy the bits with Marie (her daughter). Whenever Marie was in a scene, even though she hardly talked, the scene, to me, got a whole lot more interesting. I loved seeing Ash try to figure out what the hell was going on with her.
I am not sure where I stand with the whole "light and dark" blood with Ash and Rhys. It seems a bit strange, but I think I can be okay with it if it is explained more in the next book.
Also, the magic as a whole has not been fully fleshed out and I hope to see more of it in the next book. I feel like there was a lot briefly touched on, but not fully explained.
All in all, I am looking forward to the next book, if only to see what the hell is going to happen next. The characters, while not my favorite, have the potential to grow into who they are and be developed more. I did not hate this book, but going with that, it wasn't my favorite book either. I am giving it the extra half-star because it has the potential to become something really cool in the next book.
Speaking of: The Last Harvest comes out 7 February 2017.
I am actually giving this book a 3.5 stars instead of a three star review.
Okay, so now onto the actual review. I found this book very interesting. Though I was expecting something more like a thriller and/or horror novel, this was more like a non-scary cult novel. But it was not as creepy as I had hoped. I wanted to be terrified, but instead I was left without much of an emotional response at all.
This book reminded me, in a lot of ways, of that movie Children of the Corn. I don't really know why because the plot is not the same, but I think because it was set in the middle of a corn field that ate people with a cult in the middle of it. (Side note: I am not a fan of that movie, but my friends made me watch it with them. I found the movie quite boring, to be honest.)
Ash was an okay main character. I mean, she was strong, in a way, but she wasn't particularly striking in many ways. She, like many other young adult heroines, falls in love with the wrong guy, then gets betrayed by him, but unlike some of those other heroines, she doesn't really do much about it. Yes, she gets angry, but it almost feels like she is about to forgive him immediately. That didn't particularly make sense to me because if she was really pissed at him, I doubt she would forgive him that quickly.
Rhys was kinda annoying, to me. Yes, he is the twin brother so he is going to feel protective of his sister, but he refused to listen to anyone but himself. There is also the fact that, even though he sees all this magic stuff around him, he doesn't believe in it. Plus, to top it all off, he thinks his sister and his mother are crazy just because he thinks differently. I was not a fan of any of this. He is discounting the women in his family because he does not know how to deal with what he cannot see.
I wasn't a fan of Dane either, to be honest. He didn't help Ash as much as he said he was and when she would come to him for help, he would brush it off as if it didn't matter. He was kind of an ass.
The whole Katia plot was a bit weak. I saw it coming from a mile away, but I did enjoy the bits with Marie (her daughter). Whenever Marie was in a scene, even though she hardly talked, the scene, to me, got a whole lot more interesting. I loved seeing Ash try to figure out what the hell was going on with her.
I am not sure where I stand with the whole "light and dark" blood with Ash and Rhys. It seems a bit strange, but I think I can be okay with it if it is explained more in the next book.
Also, the magic as a whole has not been fully fleshed out and I hope to see more of it in the next book. I feel like there was a lot briefly touched on, but not fully explained.
All in all, I am looking forward to the next book, if only to see what the hell is going to happen next. The characters, while not my favorite, have the potential to grow into who they are and be developed more. I did not hate this book, but going with that, it wasn't my favorite book either. I am giving it the extra half-star because it has the potential to become something really cool in the next book.
Speaking of: The Last Harvest comes out 7 February 2017.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Wolf (2019) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
A lot of the acting in Wolf feels like it was from TV, and several of the parts wouldn't have been far off comedic roles in things made for network shows. The acting isn't the only thing that smacked of TV. The music is also not something you'd expect in this sort of thing, it would be much more suited to a crime drama. Occasionally I felt like it might have been perfect for this sort of historic piece but then it would quickly slip back to crime drama and I was almost completely distracted from the film.
As an idea it's an intriguing one. The outline of the story would make a good movie, it's simple and has lots of opportunities to be really effective on screen, unfortunately I don't think this delivered on that potential.
There's quite a spread of characters but some do get overlooked. Ima has a backstory that you can glean through context and Liviana has an implied story but both are only hinted at and nothing is used. Sometimes this is forgivable but with what happens with them both at the end of the film I think it's appalling that we don't get more from them.
This was yet another film that suffers from a black hole of time. There are a couple of points where they play fast and loose ad in one particular place it looks like they filmed at different times of day not accounting for the scenes timeline.
The location itself is stunning and you can see that repeatedly in the panning shots of forest... lots of forest, oh, and a mountain range. The first time it was nice, the second time it was a little cliche, and after that I started writing abuse in my notes.
The other thing that seems to be popular in Wolf is the blurry camera work. For the most part it looks intentional as it's part of the reveal but it's not isolated to that. Some of the fight scenes look like they might have been put together quite well but in one of the biggest of those you can't tell because the action is accompanied by camerawork that looks like it was done by someone hiccuping on a pogo stick.
My other major quibble is the ending. It seems very late in the game to be adding information to the story. There was even an opportunity to introduce the point earlier in the film but that was where we ignored Ima's backstory, looks like a lot of things could have been solved by changing that scene, it seems like a huge misstep.
It's not the worst film, but it's also not the best. There were some big opportunities for improvements but none of them were taken and ultimately this feels like a waste of a good story.
Check out my full review here: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/09/wolf-movie-review.html
As an idea it's an intriguing one. The outline of the story would make a good movie, it's simple and has lots of opportunities to be really effective on screen, unfortunately I don't think this delivered on that potential.
There's quite a spread of characters but some do get overlooked. Ima has a backstory that you can glean through context and Liviana has an implied story but both are only hinted at and nothing is used. Sometimes this is forgivable but with what happens with them both at the end of the film I think it's appalling that we don't get more from them.
This was yet another film that suffers from a black hole of time. There are a couple of points where they play fast and loose ad in one particular place it looks like they filmed at different times of day not accounting for the scenes timeline.
The location itself is stunning and you can see that repeatedly in the panning shots of forest... lots of forest, oh, and a mountain range. The first time it was nice, the second time it was a little cliche, and after that I started writing abuse in my notes.
The other thing that seems to be popular in Wolf is the blurry camera work. For the most part it looks intentional as it's part of the reveal but it's not isolated to that. Some of the fight scenes look like they might have been put together quite well but in one of the biggest of those you can't tell because the action is accompanied by camerawork that looks like it was done by someone hiccuping on a pogo stick.
My other major quibble is the ending. It seems very late in the game to be adding information to the story. There was even an opportunity to introduce the point earlier in the film but that was where we ignored Ima's backstory, looks like a lot of things could have been solved by changing that scene, it seems like a huge misstep.
It's not the worst film, but it's also not the best. There were some big opportunities for improvements but none of them were taken and ultimately this feels like a waste of a good story.
Check out my full review here: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/09/wolf-movie-review.html
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pixels (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Where's the off switch
When was the last time you went to the cinema to see something original? It’s probably a question a lot of film fans ask themselves and in the last few years, perhaps proved rather difficult to answer.
However, with 2015 being the year of the reboot and the sequel, it’s nice to see a film like Pixels showcasing something completely different. But is it worth a go?
Directed by Chris Columbus of Mrs. Doubtfire and Harry Potter fame, Pixels stars Adam Sandler, Josh Gad, Peter Dinklage and a woefully miscast Kevin James in a film that doesn’t do enough with its fascinating premise, descending into painfully unfunny slapstick instead.
Sandler stars as Sam Brenner, a video game lover who, after a brief scene showing his history, is tasked with saving the world as aliens infiltrate Earth and begin to attack using some of our most-loved classic arcade games.
Alongside him for the ride are fellow video-game champs Josh Gad (Frozen), Peter Dinklage (X:Men – Days of Future Past) and Kevin James (Paul Blart: Mall Cop). The latter also happens to play the US President.
Unfortunately, none of the cast are particularly likeable with the usually on-point James playing one of the worst Presidential roles ever put to film. He is simply unbelievable as the leader of the United States and provides Pixels with some of its more cringe-worthy moments.
Once the film gets going, there are a few standout moments including a Pac-Man rampage through New York City but this has been so heavily marketed in the trailers that there is practically no suspense or joy in watching it unfold.
The finale is also very good, with a Donkey Kong showdown rendered in some stunning CGI and ridiculously clever set building and it’s great fun seeing so many classic arcade games being brought to life on the big screen.
Pac-Man, Q*Bert , Centipede and Donkey Kong are just a few to appear and look glorious with their 21st Century upgrades. Q*Bert in particular is a little cutie and is a major character throughout the last third of the film.
It’s unfortunate then that Chris Columbus’ usually reliable direction takes such a knock here. There’s none of the clever generation-bending humour of Mrs. Doubtfire or the laugh-out-loud slapstick of Home Alone, and the visual style he brought to Harry Potter is nowhere to be seen. In the end, Pixels just comes across as a brilliant concept that seems wasted.
Perhaps this can be blamed somewhat on poor casting choices. Adam Sandler hasn’t been hot property for a while after numerous box-office bombs and Peter Dinklage is still establishing himself as a major movie star. With Kevin James also proving a disappointment, it’s only Josh Gad who comes out on top – just.
Ultimately, Pixels is fun while it lasts and has some absolutely brilliant set pieces but once the credits roll, it’s apparent that it won’t be memorable like the wonderful arcade games it parodies.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/16/wheres-the-start-button-pixels-review/
However, with 2015 being the year of the reboot and the sequel, it’s nice to see a film like Pixels showcasing something completely different. But is it worth a go?
Directed by Chris Columbus of Mrs. Doubtfire and Harry Potter fame, Pixels stars Adam Sandler, Josh Gad, Peter Dinklage and a woefully miscast Kevin James in a film that doesn’t do enough with its fascinating premise, descending into painfully unfunny slapstick instead.
Sandler stars as Sam Brenner, a video game lover who, after a brief scene showing his history, is tasked with saving the world as aliens infiltrate Earth and begin to attack using some of our most-loved classic arcade games.
Alongside him for the ride are fellow video-game champs Josh Gad (Frozen), Peter Dinklage (X:Men – Days of Future Past) and Kevin James (Paul Blart: Mall Cop). The latter also happens to play the US President.
Unfortunately, none of the cast are particularly likeable with the usually on-point James playing one of the worst Presidential roles ever put to film. He is simply unbelievable as the leader of the United States and provides Pixels with some of its more cringe-worthy moments.
Once the film gets going, there are a few standout moments including a Pac-Man rampage through New York City but this has been so heavily marketed in the trailers that there is practically no suspense or joy in watching it unfold.
The finale is also very good, with a Donkey Kong showdown rendered in some stunning CGI and ridiculously clever set building and it’s great fun seeing so many classic arcade games being brought to life on the big screen.
Pac-Man, Q*Bert , Centipede and Donkey Kong are just a few to appear and look glorious with their 21st Century upgrades. Q*Bert in particular is a little cutie and is a major character throughout the last third of the film.
It’s unfortunate then that Chris Columbus’ usually reliable direction takes such a knock here. There’s none of the clever generation-bending humour of Mrs. Doubtfire or the laugh-out-loud slapstick of Home Alone, and the visual style he brought to Harry Potter is nowhere to be seen. In the end, Pixels just comes across as a brilliant concept that seems wasted.
Perhaps this can be blamed somewhat on poor casting choices. Adam Sandler hasn’t been hot property for a while after numerous box-office bombs and Peter Dinklage is still establishing himself as a major movie star. With Kevin James also proving a disappointment, it’s only Josh Gad who comes out on top – just.
Ultimately, Pixels is fun while it lasts and has some absolutely brilliant set pieces but once the credits roll, it’s apparent that it won’t be memorable like the wonderful arcade games it parodies.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/16/wheres-the-start-button-pixels-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Oct 17, 2019
The Effects Just Aren't Good Enough
Ang Lee is a visionary Director that loves to push the envelope of advances in movie-making technology, so the plot contrivance of GEMINI MAN (a Government Assassin is being chased by his much younger clone) was right up his alley - and he makes good (enough) work of the technology that "de-ages" Will Smith and puts the older and younger version of himself on screen at the same time. This was also his 2nd film (after BILLY FLYNN'S LONG HALFTIME WALK) that Lee shot in 4K 3D at 120 frames per second (the "normal" shooting speed is 24 FPS).
He should have spent more of his time on the script..
Based on a long gestating screenplay written in the 1990's by David Lemke (and re-written in the 2010's by Billy Ray - THE HUNGER GAMES - and Mr. GAME OF THRONES himself, David Benioff), GEMINI MAN follows a Government Contract Killer, Henry Brogan (Will Smtih) who does "one last job" and is looking forward to retirement. His agency (under the leadership of Clive Owen) decides to "take him out" and sends "Gemini" after him. Brogan tries to escape but his every move is anticipated by the Gemini - a younger clone of himself (this is not a spoiler, it's in the trailer and ON THE POSTER). He is joined by a pair of "buddies" (Mary Elizabeth Winsted and Benedict Wong) in plotting how to outsmart himself.
This film had all the markings of a bad "B" film, but under the watchful eye of Lee and the charismatic performances of Winsted, Wong - and most especially - Smith, this film is actually quite watchable.
What doesn't work - the plot. To say it is contrived is to do a disservice to the word "contrived". It really doesn't give us anything new, it just gives us a bridge from action scene to action. Also, the reasoning of the Government to get rid of Brogan doesn't really work and Clive Owen - as the head of the Gemini program - and the main "suit" that is chasing Smith looks like he is sleepwalking his way through this film.
What works - the interplay and "fun" of Smith, Winsted and Wong as the 3 "professionals" on the run - and outsmarting - "the Agency". These 3 work really well off each other and I would love to have seen a "Mission Impossible" style film of these 3 doing some sort of impossible mission. Special note needs to be made of Smith's performance - as the older Brogan. He is world weary and heavy, but still has the twinkle in his eye and the physical acumen to be a top assassin. This is the type of role that Smith - especially at his age and experience - is ideal for. His charisma shines and he holds his own in the physical/fight scenes. Also, Ang Lee knows how to shoot an action sequence. True, there is nothing "new", revolutionary or evolutionary in any of the fight/chase scenes, but they are put together in a competent, professional manner and did a good enough job.
And then there is the younger Brogan - "Junior" - played by a CGI "de-aged" Will Smith.
We've seen the CGI "de-aging" effect before - most notably in some Marvel Movies like CAPTAIN MARVEL - and while it works well enough, I just don't think it is quite there yet. You can tell that something is just a little off - not enough for it to really bother you, but enough to know that something isn't quite right - especially when Junior spends most of this film on screen with his older self. You see the "real" Will Smith up against the "copy" and the "copy" looks like...a copy. Also, the "de-aging" of the voice didn't really work for me. It sounded "off" and at times it sounded like bad ADR.
I was able to shrug off these slight technical anomalies and enjoy this film for what it is - a breezy action-er that certainly entertains for 2 hours. But it is no masterpiece and no "major" technological breakthrough. That will have to wait for another movie.
Letter Grade: B (mostly for the fun interplay between older Smith, Winsted and Wong)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
He should have spent more of his time on the script..
Based on a long gestating screenplay written in the 1990's by David Lemke (and re-written in the 2010's by Billy Ray - THE HUNGER GAMES - and Mr. GAME OF THRONES himself, David Benioff), GEMINI MAN follows a Government Contract Killer, Henry Brogan (Will Smtih) who does "one last job" and is looking forward to retirement. His agency (under the leadership of Clive Owen) decides to "take him out" and sends "Gemini" after him. Brogan tries to escape but his every move is anticipated by the Gemini - a younger clone of himself (this is not a spoiler, it's in the trailer and ON THE POSTER). He is joined by a pair of "buddies" (Mary Elizabeth Winsted and Benedict Wong) in plotting how to outsmart himself.
This film had all the markings of a bad "B" film, but under the watchful eye of Lee and the charismatic performances of Winsted, Wong - and most especially - Smith, this film is actually quite watchable.
What doesn't work - the plot. To say it is contrived is to do a disservice to the word "contrived". It really doesn't give us anything new, it just gives us a bridge from action scene to action. Also, the reasoning of the Government to get rid of Brogan doesn't really work and Clive Owen - as the head of the Gemini program - and the main "suit" that is chasing Smith looks like he is sleepwalking his way through this film.
What works - the interplay and "fun" of Smith, Winsted and Wong as the 3 "professionals" on the run - and outsmarting - "the Agency". These 3 work really well off each other and I would love to have seen a "Mission Impossible" style film of these 3 doing some sort of impossible mission. Special note needs to be made of Smith's performance - as the older Brogan. He is world weary and heavy, but still has the twinkle in his eye and the physical acumen to be a top assassin. This is the type of role that Smith - especially at his age and experience - is ideal for. His charisma shines and he holds his own in the physical/fight scenes. Also, Ang Lee knows how to shoot an action sequence. True, there is nothing "new", revolutionary or evolutionary in any of the fight/chase scenes, but they are put together in a competent, professional manner and did a good enough job.
And then there is the younger Brogan - "Junior" - played by a CGI "de-aged" Will Smith.
We've seen the CGI "de-aging" effect before - most notably in some Marvel Movies like CAPTAIN MARVEL - and while it works well enough, I just don't think it is quite there yet. You can tell that something is just a little off - not enough for it to really bother you, but enough to know that something isn't quite right - especially when Junior spends most of this film on screen with his older self. You see the "real" Will Smith up against the "copy" and the "copy" looks like...a copy. Also, the "de-aging" of the voice didn't really work for me. It sounded "off" and at times it sounded like bad ADR.
I was able to shrug off these slight technical anomalies and enjoy this film for what it is - a breezy action-er that certainly entertains for 2 hours. But it is no masterpiece and no "major" technological breakthrough. That will have to wait for another movie.
Letter Grade: B (mostly for the fun interplay between older Smith, Winsted and Wong)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Lethal Weapon 3 (1992) in Movies
Jul 10, 2020 (Updated Jul 10, 2020)
The Perfect Trio : Mel, Danny and Joe
Lethal Weapon 3- i love the chemistry between Mel, Danny and Joe. Its the perfect trio, their bounce off of each other. The comedy is excellent. The one liners are good. The action is good, the plot is good.
The plot: Veteran police detective Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover) is only days away from retiring when he and his tough partner, Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson), are roped into an important internal affairs case. Working with the beautiful, no-nonsense Sergeant Lorna Cole (Rene Russo) and aided by the shifty informant Leo Getz (Joe Pesci), Murtaugh and Riggs begin to close in on a black-market weapons operation involving corrupt cop and arms dealer Jack Travis (Stuart Wilson).
Director Richard Donner is an animal-rights and pro-choice activist, and placed many posters and stickers for these causes in the film. Of note are the T-shirt worn by one of Murtaugh's daughters (the actress's idea), an 18-wheeler with an anti-fur slogan on the side, and a sticker on a locker in the police station.
Director Richard Donner demanded some big changes on the script which included changing the original character of Lorna (who had a different name in earlier drafts) into a woman and turning her into Riggs's girlfriend. He also re-worked the script to be less story-oriented and not focus on the main villains but instead on the relationship between Riggs and Murtaugh. He also toned down action scenes from the script and brought back Leo Getz into the story. All of his scenes were written in afterwards. In the original script Leo had left L.A. for New York. Boam had some disagreements with changes that Donner made but he was not against them. Boam was fired after he wrote his first two drafts of the script. One of the reasons for this was because Donner wasn't interested in the script and he disagreed with some parts of Boam's original draft.
Carrie Fisher was an uncredited script doctor on the film.
Several versions of a Lethal Weapon video game were released in conjunction with this sequel's release, appearing on the NES, SNES, Game Boy, Amiga, Atari ST, and Commodore 64 platforms. Also released was a Lethal Weapon 3 pinball game.
Its a funny entertaining movie, on to the last one in the franchise. I've loved the franchise so far and hopefully the 4th one is good.
The plot: Veteran police detective Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover) is only days away from retiring when he and his tough partner, Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson), are roped into an important internal affairs case. Working with the beautiful, no-nonsense Sergeant Lorna Cole (Rene Russo) and aided by the shifty informant Leo Getz (Joe Pesci), Murtaugh and Riggs begin to close in on a black-market weapons operation involving corrupt cop and arms dealer Jack Travis (Stuart Wilson).
Director Richard Donner is an animal-rights and pro-choice activist, and placed many posters and stickers for these causes in the film. Of note are the T-shirt worn by one of Murtaugh's daughters (the actress's idea), an 18-wheeler with an anti-fur slogan on the side, and a sticker on a locker in the police station.
Director Richard Donner demanded some big changes on the script which included changing the original character of Lorna (who had a different name in earlier drafts) into a woman and turning her into Riggs's girlfriend. He also re-worked the script to be less story-oriented and not focus on the main villains but instead on the relationship between Riggs and Murtaugh. He also toned down action scenes from the script and brought back Leo Getz into the story. All of his scenes were written in afterwards. In the original script Leo had left L.A. for New York. Boam had some disagreements with changes that Donner made but he was not against them. Boam was fired after he wrote his first two drafts of the script. One of the reasons for this was because Donner wasn't interested in the script and he disagreed with some parts of Boam's original draft.
Carrie Fisher was an uncredited script doctor on the film.
Several versions of a Lethal Weapon video game were released in conjunction with this sequel's release, appearing on the NES, SNES, Game Boy, Amiga, Atari ST, and Commodore 64 platforms. Also released was a Lethal Weapon 3 pinball game.
Its a funny entertaining movie, on to the last one in the franchise. I've loved the franchise so far and hopefully the 4th one is good.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) in Movies
Oct 28, 2020 (Updated Oct 28, 2020)
The Vampire Among Them
Nosferatu The Vampyre- is a very slow movie. Very slow, for 90% of the time nothing happens and when some does happens its only for three minutes max. I always wanted to watch the oringal, never got a chance to, hopefully soon i will. As for this remake its so-so.
The plot: Jonathan Harker is sent away to Count Dracula's castle to sell him a house in Virna, where he lives. But Count Dracula is a vampire, an undead ghoul living off men's blood. Inspired by a photograph of Lucy Harker, Jonathan's wife, Dracula moves to Virna, bringing with him death and plague... An unusually contemplative version of Dracula, in which the vampire bears the cross of not being able to get old and die.
There are two different versions of the film, one in which the actors speak English, and one in which they speak German.
Herzog's production of Nosferatu was very well received by critics and enjoyed a comfortable degree of commercial success.
The film also marks the second of five collaborations between director Herzog and actor Kinski.
While the basic story is derived from Bram Stoker's novel Dracula, director Herzog made the 1979 film primarily as an homage remake of F. W. Murnau's silent film Nosferatu (1922), which differs somewhat from Stoker's original work. The makers of the earlier film could not obtain the rights for a film adaptation of Dracula, so they changed a number of minor details and character names in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid copyright infringement on the intellectual property owned (at the time) by Stoker's widow Florence. A lawsuit was filed, resulting in an order for the destruction of all prints of the film. Some prints survived, and were restored after Florence Stoker had died and the copyright had expired.
By the 1960s and early 1970s the original silent returned to circulation, and was enjoyed by a new generation of moviegoers.
In 1979, by the very day the copyright for Dracula had entered the public domain, Herzog proceeded with his updated version of the classic German film, which could now include the original character names.
Herzog saw his film as a parable about the fragility of order in a staid, bourgeois town. "It is more than a horror film", he says. "Nosferatu is not a monster, but an ambivalent, masterful force of change. When the plague threatens, people throw their property into the streets, they discard their bourgeois trappings. A re‐evaluation
of life and its meaning takes place."
Like i said its a decent movie.
The plot: Jonathan Harker is sent away to Count Dracula's castle to sell him a house in Virna, where he lives. But Count Dracula is a vampire, an undead ghoul living off men's blood. Inspired by a photograph of Lucy Harker, Jonathan's wife, Dracula moves to Virna, bringing with him death and plague... An unusually contemplative version of Dracula, in which the vampire bears the cross of not being able to get old and die.
There are two different versions of the film, one in which the actors speak English, and one in which they speak German.
Herzog's production of Nosferatu was very well received by critics and enjoyed a comfortable degree of commercial success.
The film also marks the second of five collaborations between director Herzog and actor Kinski.
While the basic story is derived from Bram Stoker's novel Dracula, director Herzog made the 1979 film primarily as an homage remake of F. W. Murnau's silent film Nosferatu (1922), which differs somewhat from Stoker's original work. The makers of the earlier film could not obtain the rights for a film adaptation of Dracula, so they changed a number of minor details and character names in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid copyright infringement on the intellectual property owned (at the time) by Stoker's widow Florence. A lawsuit was filed, resulting in an order for the destruction of all prints of the film. Some prints survived, and were restored after Florence Stoker had died and the copyright had expired.
By the 1960s and early 1970s the original silent returned to circulation, and was enjoyed by a new generation of moviegoers.
In 1979, by the very day the copyright for Dracula had entered the public domain, Herzog proceeded with his updated version of the classic German film, which could now include the original character names.
Herzog saw his film as a parable about the fragility of order in a staid, bourgeois town. "It is more than a horror film", he says. "Nosferatu is not a monster, but an ambivalent, masterful force of change. When the plague threatens, people throw their property into the streets, they discard their bourgeois trappings. A re‐evaluation
of life and its meaning takes place."
Like i said its a decent movie.