Search
Search results
Fred (860 KP) rated The Haunting of Bly Manor in TV
Oct 11, 2020
Yet another re-telling of The Turn of the Screw
This is a re-telling of The Turn of the Screw by Henry James, written in 1898. The last re-telling was 2020s The Turning, which was terrible. So how is this version?
In the last episode of this series, a character says, "This wasn't a ghost story, it was a love story." which is true. Sort of. It's a ghost story in the fact that it has ghosts in it. It's a love story in that two people fall in love. But it's really all about the characters. They are very good characters & acted out very well. I'll even give Henry Thomas credit for trying a British accent, even if his face contorted like someone was running a current through his face every time he talked. Entire episodes are sometimes devoted to a character. And this is the main problem. It's fine to give some character development, but this series is so stretched out. It's 9 episodes that could have been 3 or 4 episodes and worked out much better. Each person's story also jumps back in time, then forward, then back, then back again, then forward, then back. It's pacing can be real bad & quite frankly can be real boring at times.
Sometimes I think how can this story be remade 35 times now & still there's no great film version. It's a good story. It's an interesting idea. But, it's also weird & sometimes confusing & sometimes all over the place. It's got to be tight, but it's also got to be fleshed out enough that we care about the characters. Which as I said, is what it's all about.
Now, is it a ghost story? I already said yes. Is it a horror series? Well, I would say no. It's not scary. It's not creepy. It doesn't even have jump scares, which is normally good, but I would have enjoyed one or two to be honest. What it does have, as I've stated, is characters. But it also has atmosphere & great settings. The manor itself is almost it's own character. But as much as it is dark & there are things hiding in the corners or even in plain sight, it's just doesn't have that creep factor. Even the little girl shushes a ghost when it won't shut up. There's no sense of real evil or malevolence going on.
Now it sounds like I hated this series, but I didn't. I liked it. It was not what I expected, being the second season of the anthology "The Haunting" series, which started with the phenomenal "The Haunting of Hill House". But, if it had been just like Hill House, I probably would have been bored & just re-watched the first season again. So, I'm glad it was different. But like I said, it was stretched out far longer than it should have been.
Now, after we watched the entire series, my wife said that she liked it & would re-watch it maybe in 5 years. and gives it a 6 out of 10 as well. I'm sure a re-watch would be good for seeing things you did not catch the first time, but feel it'd be better to move on to something different. If you're looking for something scary to watch this Halloween series, then you can skip this. Unless you're in the mood to watch some good actors, playing good characters, with an interesting movie & have lots of free time. However, if you didn't see the first season "Hill House", then watch that instead.
In the last episode of this series, a character says, "This wasn't a ghost story, it was a love story." which is true. Sort of. It's a ghost story in the fact that it has ghosts in it. It's a love story in that two people fall in love. But it's really all about the characters. They are very good characters & acted out very well. I'll even give Henry Thomas credit for trying a British accent, even if his face contorted like someone was running a current through his face every time he talked. Entire episodes are sometimes devoted to a character. And this is the main problem. It's fine to give some character development, but this series is so stretched out. It's 9 episodes that could have been 3 or 4 episodes and worked out much better. Each person's story also jumps back in time, then forward, then back, then back again, then forward, then back. It's pacing can be real bad & quite frankly can be real boring at times.
Sometimes I think how can this story be remade 35 times now & still there's no great film version. It's a good story. It's an interesting idea. But, it's also weird & sometimes confusing & sometimes all over the place. It's got to be tight, but it's also got to be fleshed out enough that we care about the characters. Which as I said, is what it's all about.
Now, is it a ghost story? I already said yes. Is it a horror series? Well, I would say no. It's not scary. It's not creepy. It doesn't even have jump scares, which is normally good, but I would have enjoyed one or two to be honest. What it does have, as I've stated, is characters. But it also has atmosphere & great settings. The manor itself is almost it's own character. But as much as it is dark & there are things hiding in the corners or even in plain sight, it's just doesn't have that creep factor. Even the little girl shushes a ghost when it won't shut up. There's no sense of real evil or malevolence going on.
Now it sounds like I hated this series, but I didn't. I liked it. It was not what I expected, being the second season of the anthology "The Haunting" series, which started with the phenomenal "The Haunting of Hill House". But, if it had been just like Hill House, I probably would have been bored & just re-watched the first season again. So, I'm glad it was different. But like I said, it was stretched out far longer than it should have been.
Now, after we watched the entire series, my wife said that she liked it & would re-watch it maybe in 5 years. and gives it a 6 out of 10 as well. I'm sure a re-watch would be good for seeing things you did not catch the first time, but feel it'd be better to move on to something different. If you're looking for something scary to watch this Halloween series, then you can skip this. Unless you're in the mood to watch some good actors, playing good characters, with an interesting movie & have lots of free time. However, if you didn't see the first season "Hill House", then watch that instead.
Bong Mines Entertainment (15 KP) rated Nothing to Lose - Single by Kerri Medders in Music
Jun 25, 2019
Kerri Medders is a 19-year-old LA-based singer-songwriter and actress from the Lone Star State of Texas. Not too long ago, she released a dreamy alternative tune, entitled, “Nothing to Lose”.
“Walking over Melrose, stumbling out Aroma, I’d go anywhere as long as it’s with you. Talking about the bands we love, Rock ‘n’ Roll, Sex, and Drugs, everything about you is new. Baby you redesigned, you redefined love. Changing all the colors I use. We’re just people with nothing to lose.” – lyrics
‘Nothing to Lose’ tells an adorable tale of a young woman who shares a budding new relationship with her significant other.
Apparently, she’s optimistic about her and her blue-eyed lover’s future. Later, she suggests that they should write down their memorable moments and script it like a movie written for the screen.
‘Nothing to Lose’ contains a relatable storyline and ear-welcoming vocals. Also, the likable tune possesses vibrant instrumentation flavored with indie-rock, alternative, and commercial pop elements.
“The inspiration behind ‘Nothing to Lose’ is the development of a new relationship and the stages of starting a new adventure with another person. You want every hour, every minute, and every second to be spent with that person. Even though those new and strong feelings are scary, it still gives you that feeling that there’s absolutely nothing to lose in loving someone.” – Kerri Medders
‘Nothing to Lose” pays homage to the end of an era in Kerri Medders’ life. That era began in 2014 and includes EP’s Etched (2015) and Lot 17 (2017).
Also, it launched her on a nationwide tour for High School Nation, where she opened for the Plain White T’s and Drake Bell in front of more than 90,000 people.
Since then, Kerri has performed over 70 shows in venues and festivals around the U.S., capturing the hearts of thousands of fans with her energetic stage presence.
“When you come to my show, I want you to be transported to my world. Just leave your worries at the door and take this moment to be with me.” – Kerri Medders
As an up-and-coming actress, Kerri Medders has recurring roles on the Emmy nominated CBS drama, SEAL Team, and the Emmy-nominated Netflix comedy, Alexa & Katie.
Also, she has guest-starred on Gamers Guide to Pretty Much Everything on Disney XD, Mystery Girls on Freeform, and Speechless on ABC.
Not too long ago, she wrapped her first feature film as a lead opposite Jackson Rathbone in Do Not Reply, which will be released later this year.
“Walking over Melrose, stumbling out Aroma, I’d go anywhere as long as it’s with you. Talking about the bands we love, Rock ‘n’ Roll, Sex, and Drugs, everything about you is new. Baby you redesigned, you redefined love. Changing all the colors I use. We’re just people with nothing to lose.” – lyrics
‘Nothing to Lose’ tells an adorable tale of a young woman who shares a budding new relationship with her significant other.
Apparently, she’s optimistic about her and her blue-eyed lover’s future. Later, she suggests that they should write down their memorable moments and script it like a movie written for the screen.
‘Nothing to Lose’ contains a relatable storyline and ear-welcoming vocals. Also, the likable tune possesses vibrant instrumentation flavored with indie-rock, alternative, and commercial pop elements.
“The inspiration behind ‘Nothing to Lose’ is the development of a new relationship and the stages of starting a new adventure with another person. You want every hour, every minute, and every second to be spent with that person. Even though those new and strong feelings are scary, it still gives you that feeling that there’s absolutely nothing to lose in loving someone.” – Kerri Medders
‘Nothing to Lose” pays homage to the end of an era in Kerri Medders’ life. That era began in 2014 and includes EP’s Etched (2015) and Lot 17 (2017).
Also, it launched her on a nationwide tour for High School Nation, where she opened for the Plain White T’s and Drake Bell in front of more than 90,000 people.
Since then, Kerri has performed over 70 shows in venues and festivals around the U.S., capturing the hearts of thousands of fans with her energetic stage presence.
“When you come to my show, I want you to be transported to my world. Just leave your worries at the door and take this moment to be with me.” – Kerri Medders
As an up-and-coming actress, Kerri Medders has recurring roles on the Emmy nominated CBS drama, SEAL Team, and the Emmy-nominated Netflix comedy, Alexa & Katie.
Also, she has guest-starred on Gamers Guide to Pretty Much Everything on Disney XD, Mystery Girls on Freeform, and Speechless on ABC.
Not too long ago, she wrapped her first feature film as a lead opposite Jackson Rathbone in Do Not Reply, which will be released later this year.
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated The Giver in Books
Sep 7, 2017
A strange book.
So, I know The Giver has been out for a long time, and I know they made a movie, but somehow I’d never read or watched it. But on the recommendation of a friend, I finally have. What a strange little book! It definitely belongs in the same realm as Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, 1984, and The Handmaid’s Tale – which are among my favorite books – but the ending was tremendously unsatisfying. It’s the first book in a quartet, though, so I’m hoping the other three, which I have requested from the library, will tie up the loose ends. It definitely feels like it’s only the first installment of a story.
The dystopian society in this book has effectively banished most feelings. But to get rid of hate and war and prejudice, they also had to banish the memories and feelings of individuality and difference. With everyone and everything the same, they’re mostly incapable of feeling true love or happiness. So they all live in peace – but it’s a complacent, uncaring peace. It’s not peace because of love, it’s peace because of the absence of passionate feelings. Whether this is good or not, well, that’s up to the reader to decide for themselves. The actions of the main character, who aims to disrupt that peace, could be seen as good or bad.
I’m not actually entirely sure how I feel about this book. After reading the next three – Gathering Blue (2000), Messenger (2004), and Son (2012), I'm still at a bit of a loss. These were just...odd.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
The dystopian society in this book has effectively banished most feelings. But to get rid of hate and war and prejudice, they also had to banish the memories and feelings of individuality and difference. With everyone and everything the same, they’re mostly incapable of feeling true love or happiness. So they all live in peace – but it’s a complacent, uncaring peace. It’s not peace because of love, it’s peace because of the absence of passionate feelings. Whether this is good or not, well, that’s up to the reader to decide for themselves. The actions of the main character, who aims to disrupt that peace, could be seen as good or bad.
I’m not actually entirely sure how I feel about this book. After reading the next three – Gathering Blue (2000), Messenger (2004), and Son (2012), I'm still at a bit of a loss. These were just...odd.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Awix (3310 KP) rated Mothra (1961) in Movies
Feb 11, 2018 (Updated Feb 11, 2018)
You're going to need some bigger mothballs
The film that sets the standard for rampaging-giant-mystic-butterfly pictures is one of the best Toho monster movies, clearly owing a debt to King Kong but adding a lovely veneer of charming Japanese weirdness to the recipe. Evil Rosilicans (i.e., Americans) gatecrash a Japanese expedition to a mysterious island and end up kidnapping the twin fairies in charge of the place and forcing them to appear in a stage musical (this film has some banging tunes, by the way). Disgruntled natives wake up Mothra, butterfly-god protector of the island, who promptly heads for Japan to express displeasure as only a 180 metre long larva can.
Much more of a fantasy movie than the rest of the Godzilla series (with which it is in continuity; Mothra and Godzilla have been fighting together and against each other for over fifty years), and also with an unambiguously sympathetic monster, this is probably a more technically adept and simply enjoyable film than any of its immediate predecessors from Toho. The story is vaultingly peculiar in some ways, but at least it has originality on its side. The attempt to disguise where Rosilica is really supposed to be falls flat as soon as we learn one of its major cities is called New Kirk, but you can't fault one of these movies for being just a little bit odd. Perhaps the lack of another monster for Mothra to fight at the end is a weakness in the story, but if so it is less obvious than is usually the case in this sort of film. An endearing and engaging piece of entertainment.
Much more of a fantasy movie than the rest of the Godzilla series (with which it is in continuity; Mothra and Godzilla have been fighting together and against each other for over fifty years), and also with an unambiguously sympathetic monster, this is probably a more technically adept and simply enjoyable film than any of its immediate predecessors from Toho. The story is vaultingly peculiar in some ways, but at least it has originality on its side. The attempt to disguise where Rosilica is really supposed to be falls flat as soon as we learn one of its major cities is called New Kirk, but you can't fault one of these movies for being just a little bit odd. Perhaps the lack of another monster for Mothra to fight at the end is a weakness in the story, but if so it is less obvious than is usually the case in this sort of film. An endearing and engaging piece of entertainment.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Sharknado 2: The Second One (2014) in Movies
Jan 13, 2020 (Updated May 7, 2020)
Shitenado
One (sort of) positive thing that I will say about Sharknado 2 is that it's delightfully absurd. You will ask yourself frequently why on Earth you're still watching but will perhaps find that you can't look away.
The first Sharknado thought that it was so bad it was good, when in reality l, it is 100% shit. Sharknado 2 on the other hand, is only 99% shit. During the opening scene set on a plane, I found myself thinking 'I wonder what this would be like with a full Hollywood budget'... This was around the point that Tara Reid was hanging out of said plane, and attempted to gun down a shark flying though the air with a small handgun, before having her hand bitten off, and exclaiming that the shark knew who she was, and was purposefully targeting her. That's pretty much what were dealing with here.
The special effects are offensively awful. The 'money-shot' of the main character sawing a shark in half with a chainsaw whilst stood on top of a car is the only relatively decent use if CGI in the whole movie, and it's clear that most of the effects budget was spent on it. Pretty sure all the rest of effects are just cut and pasted from the first one.
There's also a weird rain filter applied to a lot of the film, to give the effect of stormy weather... But the characters are bone dry for the whole thing....
For what it's worth, Sharknado 2 partially achieves it's desire to be really really silly, which is a slight improvement on the tediousness of the first one - still rubbish though.
The first Sharknado thought that it was so bad it was good, when in reality l, it is 100% shit. Sharknado 2 on the other hand, is only 99% shit. During the opening scene set on a plane, I found myself thinking 'I wonder what this would be like with a full Hollywood budget'... This was around the point that Tara Reid was hanging out of said plane, and attempted to gun down a shark flying though the air with a small handgun, before having her hand bitten off, and exclaiming that the shark knew who she was, and was purposefully targeting her. That's pretty much what were dealing with here.
The special effects are offensively awful. The 'money-shot' of the main character sawing a shark in half with a chainsaw whilst stood on top of a car is the only relatively decent use if CGI in the whole movie, and it's clear that most of the effects budget was spent on it. Pretty sure all the rest of effects are just cut and pasted from the first one.
There's also a weird rain filter applied to a lot of the film, to give the effect of stormy weather... But the characters are bone dry for the whole thing....
For what it's worth, Sharknado 2 partially achieves it's desire to be really really silly, which is a slight improvement on the tediousness of the first one - still rubbish though.
HT
Hugo: The Shooting Script
Book
Director Martin Scorsese, the legendary storyteller, decided to make his first-ever 3D film based on...
George Lucas
Book
George Lucas by Brian Jay Jones is the first comprehensive telling of the story of the iconic...
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Spree (2020) in Movies
Jan 5, 2021
I honestly can't figure out if I thought this was good or not...
Starting with the positives then. I thought the premise was decent. An amateur streamer who has spent the best part of a decade failing to gain numbers via his social media accounts, embarks on a killing spree during his day job as a taxi driver, whilst simultaneously live streaming the whole thing. Stranger Things' Joe Keery plays the killer in question, and does a pretty decent job at portraying an unhinged, isolated young adult who is just obsessed with fame.
I also enjoyed both Sasheer Zamata and David Arquette in supporting roles.
It's a very styalised movie - the whole runtime is shown through streaming mediums, essentially being a semi found footage horror, and it works for the most part.
However, I've never been the biggest fan of this particular sub genre, and I found myself losing interest now and again. It's trying very hard to be modern and relevant, which it sort of is, but I'm not sure how far it will go in resonating with a younger generation. A lot of the script is cringey in it attempts to throw current slang terms in at every given moment. I've even heard Spree described as "Taxi Driver for the Instagram generation", a bold claim that falls way short in reality, even if that was Eugene Kotlyarenko's intention.
All in all, Spree manages to remain entertaining enough to warrant sitting through it, and that's mainly thanks to Joe Keery's weirdly uncomfortable performance. Maybe knock back a beer or two at the same time for good measure.
Starting with the positives then. I thought the premise was decent. An amateur streamer who has spent the best part of a decade failing to gain numbers via his social media accounts, embarks on a killing spree during his day job as a taxi driver, whilst simultaneously live streaming the whole thing. Stranger Things' Joe Keery plays the killer in question, and does a pretty decent job at portraying an unhinged, isolated young adult who is just obsessed with fame.
I also enjoyed both Sasheer Zamata and David Arquette in supporting roles.
It's a very styalised movie - the whole runtime is shown through streaming mediums, essentially being a semi found footage horror, and it works for the most part.
However, I've never been the biggest fan of this particular sub genre, and I found myself losing interest now and again. It's trying very hard to be modern and relevant, which it sort of is, but I'm not sure how far it will go in resonating with a younger generation. A lot of the script is cringey in it attempts to throw current slang terms in at every given moment. I've even heard Spree described as "Taxi Driver for the Instagram generation", a bold claim that falls way short in reality, even if that was Eugene Kotlyarenko's intention.
All in all, Spree manages to remain entertaining enough to warrant sitting through it, and that's mainly thanks to Joe Keery's weirdly uncomfortable performance. Maybe knock back a beer or two at the same time for good measure.
Merissa (14030 KP) rated This is Not a Horror Movie in Books
Jun 4, 2021 (Updated Jul 18, 2023)
THIS IS NOT A HORROR MOVIE is a gorgeous story of first love and scary happenings.
Emory is a late bloomer and happy to hide behind horror movies and books so he doesn't have to socialise. He has been in the snarky shadow of his twin sister for a long time and doesn't understand the looks he's now getting. Liz helps to put him on the right track, much to his disgust at the thought of girls wanting to make out with him! Enter Connor, the crush Emory had and shows no signs of dissipating.
This was a great story, full of sibling snark, and romance with the boy of his dreams. Luckily for Emory, Connor feels the same way, and seeing these two grow and develop their feelings was a warm and fuzzy moment for me. Connor is very protective, and with good reason, as Emory doesn't appear to realise just when he's in danger. I loved the supernatural element to the story, although the realtor wasn't much of a surprise! I'm also happy about Leland!!! I was worried about him.
I enjoyed the pacing of this story, the sweet times with Connor and Emory, the promise of the future, and the amazing supporting cast that helped them. A great addition to the Sara Dobie Bauer collection, and absolutely recommended by me.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Jun 4, 2021
Emory is a late bloomer and happy to hide behind horror movies and books so he doesn't have to socialise. He has been in the snarky shadow of his twin sister for a long time and doesn't understand the looks he's now getting. Liz helps to put him on the right track, much to his disgust at the thought of girls wanting to make out with him! Enter Connor, the crush Emory had and shows no signs of dissipating.
This was a great story, full of sibling snark, and romance with the boy of his dreams. Luckily for Emory, Connor feels the same way, and seeing these two grow and develop their feelings was a warm and fuzzy moment for me. Connor is very protective, and with good reason, as Emory doesn't appear to realise just when he's in danger. I loved the supernatural element to the story, although the realtor wasn't much of a surprise! I'm also happy about Leland!!! I was worried about him.
I enjoyed the pacing of this story, the sweet times with Connor and Emory, the promise of the future, and the amazing supporting cast that helped them. A great addition to the Sara Dobie Bauer collection, and absolutely recommended by me.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Jun 4, 2021
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Will Smith plays top US hit-man Henry Brogan who is making the world "safer" one bullet at a time! With the mirror telling him his age, Henry hands in his firearm (not withstanding the arsenal under his stairs) to spend more time going fishing and doing the crossword.
But all is not well when Henry's 'one for the road' hit turns out to not be quite what it seems.
Teaming up with marina manager Danny (Danny??) Zakarweski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the pair go on the run from operatives of a government-funded black-ops organization called Gemini. Gemini is a private semi-military organization (didn't we just go here with "Angel Has Fallen"?!). These 'baddie goodies' would rather see Henry - and all who know him - fed to the fishes rather than have him catching them.
But one of these guys, under the direct command of Gemini-boss Clay Verris (Clive Owen), looks kinda familiar...
Let's focus on the positives for a minute. This is a spy movie that has all of the polish that the recent "Angel has Fallen" didn't have. Some nice photogenic locations fly in and out again (Georgia, Budapest and Colombia: the latter for no obvious reason I can remember!). It occasionally reminded me of a glossy Bond film, but without Bond.
There are also some high-class special effects (the special effects coordinator is Mark Hawker). A moonlit CGI Gulfstream with a zoom into the cockpit is particularly impressive.
Some of the action set pieces also entertain. A Will-on-Will bike chase is well done, and I've not seen a bike used as a hand-to-hand weapon in this way before!
And Will Smith is no doubt a class act, with his 'youngification' (I'm not sure what the official word is) also being effectively done. I also enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who was great in "10 Cloverfield Lane". The lady has real screen presence.
But man oh man, that script. Let's name the guilty parties in this film: the scriptwriters David Benioff (Game of Thrones), Darren Lemke and Billy Ray. (I'll put Ray last in the list, since the story was by Benioff and Lemke and this has the smell to me of Ray - who has a history of some great scripts like Captain Phillips under his name - being drafted in to steady a listing ship).
Some of the dialogue in this film is not just a bit dodgy. It's head in the hands groan-worthy (and I actually did at times: fortunately the cinema was barely half full and I was on my own in the whole row). And some of it is just plain offensive. Henry meets his old pal Jack Willis (Douglas Hodge) on his yacht where he explains his wife is on a trip to Paris as a scantily clad dolly-bird wanders past. Henry comically rolls his eyes at this adulterous behaviour, with some sort of "Jack, what are you loike!" comment. Cringe-worthy.
Will Smith, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Benedict Wong (their ally, adding some comic relief) are clearly good actors. But the script often makes them look utterly vacuous and stupid. And Lee seems to have a "good enough, move on" approach to the filming. One jaw-dropping moment has Will Smith telling the others that they are going to Budapest. "Budapest?" Winstead and Wong are supposed to say in union, but mistime it. "Can we do that again?". Nope. It's on the screen.
As for Clive Owen... sorry, he's really not in the same acting league, and the script does him even fewer favours. As he says at one point "It's like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic". I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Uncanny Valley". You know this phrase. The Princess Leia and Moff Tarkin scenes in "Rogue One" is the classic example. Effects that don't quite work on the big screen. "But" - you say to yourself - "Dr Bob just said that the 'youngification' of Will Smith was done really well?". And I'll repeat again that it was. It's on a par with Samuel L. Jackson's 'youngification' in "Captain Marvel". Where something strange happens is in the film's overall projection. Ang Lee has tried again with his experiment of filming at a massive 120 frames per second..... five times the normal movie frame rate of 24 fps. And the quality of the picture - particularly during high-speed action scenes - becomes outstandingly good! But equally it just doesn't 'look right'.
When the human eye presumably works at an equivalent "fps" of thousands of 'frames per second' you'd think that it should all be fine. But for some reason I just found it distracting. Presumably the audiences for "The Jazz Singer" thought the same about sound; and those for "Gone with the Wind" and the "Wizard of Oz" about colour. Maybe we've seen the future, and its the new norm that we just need to get used to. We'll see.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" was extraordinary. His "Hulk" was one of the poorest of the Marvel canon. Unfortunately, this movie is at the "Hulk" end of the spectrum. Which is a real shame. The duo of the 51 year old Smith and the 35 year old Winstead work really well together. They have great chemistry, but, you'll be relieved to hear, avoid any icky love interest.
What a shame. With a different script, and some good production values, this could have been a very different story.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/10/18/one-manns-movies-film-review-gemini-man-2019/ )
But all is not well when Henry's 'one for the road' hit turns out to not be quite what it seems.
Teaming up with marina manager Danny (Danny??) Zakarweski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the pair go on the run from operatives of a government-funded black-ops organization called Gemini. Gemini is a private semi-military organization (didn't we just go here with "Angel Has Fallen"?!). These 'baddie goodies' would rather see Henry - and all who know him - fed to the fishes rather than have him catching them.
But one of these guys, under the direct command of Gemini-boss Clay Verris (Clive Owen), looks kinda familiar...
Let's focus on the positives for a minute. This is a spy movie that has all of the polish that the recent "Angel has Fallen" didn't have. Some nice photogenic locations fly in and out again (Georgia, Budapest and Colombia: the latter for no obvious reason I can remember!). It occasionally reminded me of a glossy Bond film, but without Bond.
There are also some high-class special effects (the special effects coordinator is Mark Hawker). A moonlit CGI Gulfstream with a zoom into the cockpit is particularly impressive.
Some of the action set pieces also entertain. A Will-on-Will bike chase is well done, and I've not seen a bike used as a hand-to-hand weapon in this way before!
And Will Smith is no doubt a class act, with his 'youngification' (I'm not sure what the official word is) also being effectively done. I also enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who was great in "10 Cloverfield Lane". The lady has real screen presence.
But man oh man, that script. Let's name the guilty parties in this film: the scriptwriters David Benioff (Game of Thrones), Darren Lemke and Billy Ray. (I'll put Ray last in the list, since the story was by Benioff and Lemke and this has the smell to me of Ray - who has a history of some great scripts like Captain Phillips under his name - being drafted in to steady a listing ship).
Some of the dialogue in this film is not just a bit dodgy. It's head in the hands groan-worthy (and I actually did at times: fortunately the cinema was barely half full and I was on my own in the whole row). And some of it is just plain offensive. Henry meets his old pal Jack Willis (Douglas Hodge) on his yacht where he explains his wife is on a trip to Paris as a scantily clad dolly-bird wanders past. Henry comically rolls his eyes at this adulterous behaviour, with some sort of "Jack, what are you loike!" comment. Cringe-worthy.
Will Smith, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Benedict Wong (their ally, adding some comic relief) are clearly good actors. But the script often makes them look utterly vacuous and stupid. And Lee seems to have a "good enough, move on" approach to the filming. One jaw-dropping moment has Will Smith telling the others that they are going to Budapest. "Budapest?" Winstead and Wong are supposed to say in union, but mistime it. "Can we do that again?". Nope. It's on the screen.
As for Clive Owen... sorry, he's really not in the same acting league, and the script does him even fewer favours. As he says at one point "It's like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic". I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Uncanny Valley". You know this phrase. The Princess Leia and Moff Tarkin scenes in "Rogue One" is the classic example. Effects that don't quite work on the big screen. "But" - you say to yourself - "Dr Bob just said that the 'youngification' of Will Smith was done really well?". And I'll repeat again that it was. It's on a par with Samuel L. Jackson's 'youngification' in "Captain Marvel". Where something strange happens is in the film's overall projection. Ang Lee has tried again with his experiment of filming at a massive 120 frames per second..... five times the normal movie frame rate of 24 fps. And the quality of the picture - particularly during high-speed action scenes - becomes outstandingly good! But equally it just doesn't 'look right'.
When the human eye presumably works at an equivalent "fps" of thousands of 'frames per second' you'd think that it should all be fine. But for some reason I just found it distracting. Presumably the audiences for "The Jazz Singer" thought the same about sound; and those for "Gone with the Wind" and the "Wizard of Oz" about colour. Maybe we've seen the future, and its the new norm that we just need to get used to. We'll see.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" was extraordinary. His "Hulk" was one of the poorest of the Marvel canon. Unfortunately, this movie is at the "Hulk" end of the spectrum. Which is a real shame. The duo of the 51 year old Smith and the 35 year old Winstead work really well together. They have great chemistry, but, you'll be relieved to hear, avoid any icky love interest.
What a shame. With a different script, and some good production values, this could have been a very different story.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/10/18/one-manns-movies-film-review-gemini-man-2019/ )
