Search
Search results
Becca Major (96 KP) rated Black in TV
May 26, 2018
Premise (3 more)
Story
Mystery
Interesting world-building
THAT TERRIBLE ENDING (1 more)
Manipulative asshat hero
"Black" is just weird, okay?
"Black" is a very weird show because it is a steaming pile of questions. What Black is actually about is a detective who kinda befriends a psychic woman right before getting shot, and the Grim Reaper that possesses his dead body for his own purposes. Oh, and the psychic and the reaper develop feelings for each other, because of course they do.
The Characters
The main female character is Kang Ha-ram, an unfortunate woman who is able to see black smokey clouds on the backs of people who are about to die. Then, if she touches them, she can see exactly how they die. She lives alone, has trouble keeping a job, and has a terrible relationship with her family. Out of all the characters in this show, she is the most relatable. It’s also nice to see a headstrong female character who is also compassionate and damaged.
The main male character, however, is the Grim Reaper. His designated number is 444, but he chooses to call himself Black pretty early on (as an homage to "Meet Joe Black" though I can't say anything about it because I haven't actually seen the movie). He's... interesting. On one hand, I hate him. I hate that he manipulates Ha-ram. I hate that he lies to her about everything, and still has the audacity to jerk her around. I hate that he is prejudiced and egotistical. On the other hand, after he's been on Earth for a little while, he starts to pick up on the nuances of human interaction, so I can't hate him too much.
The Story
The story caught my attention early on. It is first and foremost a mystery and a cold-case mystery at that. Shortly after Black takes over the life of detective Han Mu-gang, he is roped into a case of teenage prostitution, murder, and political cover-ups. It's very good and keeps you guessing. Plus there's the romance between Ha-ram and Black to worry about. Unfortunately, the entire final episode is terrible. It literally feels like they threw darts at a board to figure out how to finish the show.
Final Thoughts
It's a good show that could use a much better finale. It has strong characters and a hella good story. The effects are good, and the acting is great. If you like mysteries or need a change of pace, then give it a shot.
[I wrote a little bit more about this on my personal blog, and I plan to do a few more posts about Black on it. Check it out if you are interested. https://rebecca-major.com/2018/05/24/black-a-spoiler-free-k-drama-review/]
The Characters
The main female character is Kang Ha-ram, an unfortunate woman who is able to see black smokey clouds on the backs of people who are about to die. Then, if she touches them, she can see exactly how they die. She lives alone, has trouble keeping a job, and has a terrible relationship with her family. Out of all the characters in this show, she is the most relatable. It’s also nice to see a headstrong female character who is also compassionate and damaged.
The main male character, however, is the Grim Reaper. His designated number is 444, but he chooses to call himself Black pretty early on (as an homage to "Meet Joe Black" though I can't say anything about it because I haven't actually seen the movie). He's... interesting. On one hand, I hate him. I hate that he manipulates Ha-ram. I hate that he lies to her about everything, and still has the audacity to jerk her around. I hate that he is prejudiced and egotistical. On the other hand, after he's been on Earth for a little while, he starts to pick up on the nuances of human interaction, so I can't hate him too much.
The Story
The story caught my attention early on. It is first and foremost a mystery and a cold-case mystery at that. Shortly after Black takes over the life of detective Han Mu-gang, he is roped into a case of teenage prostitution, murder, and political cover-ups. It's very good and keeps you guessing. Plus there's the romance between Ha-ram and Black to worry about. Unfortunately, the entire final episode is terrible. It literally feels like they threw darts at a board to figure out how to finish the show.
Final Thoughts
It's a good show that could use a much better finale. It has strong characters and a hella good story. The effects are good, and the acting is great. If you like mysteries or need a change of pace, then give it a shot.
[I wrote a little bit more about this on my personal blog, and I plan to do a few more posts about Black on it. Check it out if you are interested. https://rebecca-major.com/2018/05/24/black-a-spoiler-free-k-drama-review/]
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Zombieland: Double Tap (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Ten years is a long time in Hollywood. Ten years ago, to this day Avatar was yet to be released to the unsuspecting masses, with Titanic still reigning supreme over the global box-office and debutant director Ruben Fleischer surprised the cinema-going public with Zombieland.
Made on a tiny budget of just over $20million, it went on to gross over $100million globally and received unanimous praise. A sequel was widely expected in the years that followed but never materialised. That’s probably down to a few things; one being Emma Stone’s meteoric rise to fame, Jesse Eisenberg starring in some of the biggest and most celebrated films of the decade that followed and Woody Harrelson, well, being Woody Harrelson (that’s not a dig, we love you Woody).
Fleischer meanwhile went on to direct 30 Minutes or Less, Gangster Squad and Venom among a couple of other projects. The time for a Zombieland sequel came and went with the film’s core fanbase hoping that one day they’d get what they desired.
That day is now here with the release of Zombieland: Double Tap. With a cast of returning characters and the original director at the helm, things certainly look promising from a technical point of view, but has the ship sailed on getting this franchise off the ground?
Zombie slayers Tallahassee (Harrelson), Columbus (Eisenberg), Wichita (Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) square off against a newly evolved strain of the undead as well as combatting their own personal demons in an effort to survive the ongoing zombie apocalypse.
Despite the popularity of the film’s actors since its predecessor, it’s nice to see all of the lead cast slot back into their roles seamlessly. Granted they’re a little older than we last remember them, and a little wiser too, but these characters still retain the charm and humour that made the last movie such a success.
Harrelson remains the standout and that’s mainly down to a nicely written script, penned by Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick and Dave Callaham. Between them they’ve worked on films like Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla, Ant-Man, Deadpool and its sequel and Life. That’s a pretty impressive roster of films it has to be said.
Eisenberg and Stone are also nicely written with a good character arc that means we get to see opposing sides to their roles. Unfortunately, Breslin is underused throughout, reduced to a part that feels much more like a support role. Of the new characters introduced, Rosario Dawson and Zoey Deutch are thinly written but reasonably entertaining.
The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them
Thankfully, the script remains a real highlight over the brisk 99-minute run-time with some genuine hilarity. The screenplay’s attempts at emotion work reasonably well but fall flat on a couple of occasions – the basis of the previous film was its humour and no surprises, this is where the sequel excels.
It’s a nice film to look at too. While some of the landscapes look a little too artificial, the sweeping shots of desolate buildings and roads add a sense of scale that was sometimes lacking last time around. The opening sequence inside the White House is great to watch and sets up the rest of the film well.
Zombieland: Double Tap works best when our band of characters is bouncing off each other and it’s a good job as the zombie action is fleeting. Some action pieces are well choregraphed but for a film about the world being overrun by the undead, there’s a distinct lack of them. The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them until the final act and that’s a bit of a shame.
Nevertheless, Zombieland: Double Tap remains easy-to-watch and likeable throughout with a cracking cast of characters. Unfortunately, the world has moved on from 2009 and zombie films, TV shows and books are ten-a-penny nowadays (something nicely referenced at the beginning of the film) and while Zombieland 2 does an awful lot right, in the end it’s a decent sequel to a great film, and nothing more than that.
Stick around for a post-credits sequence that follows on from the predecessors “greatest cameo ever”.
Made on a tiny budget of just over $20million, it went on to gross over $100million globally and received unanimous praise. A sequel was widely expected in the years that followed but never materialised. That’s probably down to a few things; one being Emma Stone’s meteoric rise to fame, Jesse Eisenberg starring in some of the biggest and most celebrated films of the decade that followed and Woody Harrelson, well, being Woody Harrelson (that’s not a dig, we love you Woody).
Fleischer meanwhile went on to direct 30 Minutes or Less, Gangster Squad and Venom among a couple of other projects. The time for a Zombieland sequel came and went with the film’s core fanbase hoping that one day they’d get what they desired.
That day is now here with the release of Zombieland: Double Tap. With a cast of returning characters and the original director at the helm, things certainly look promising from a technical point of view, but has the ship sailed on getting this franchise off the ground?
Zombie slayers Tallahassee (Harrelson), Columbus (Eisenberg), Wichita (Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) square off against a newly evolved strain of the undead as well as combatting their own personal demons in an effort to survive the ongoing zombie apocalypse.
Despite the popularity of the film’s actors since its predecessor, it’s nice to see all of the lead cast slot back into their roles seamlessly. Granted they’re a little older than we last remember them, and a little wiser too, but these characters still retain the charm and humour that made the last movie such a success.
Harrelson remains the standout and that’s mainly down to a nicely written script, penned by Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick and Dave Callaham. Between them they’ve worked on films like Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla, Ant-Man, Deadpool and its sequel and Life. That’s a pretty impressive roster of films it has to be said.
Eisenberg and Stone are also nicely written with a good character arc that means we get to see opposing sides to their roles. Unfortunately, Breslin is underused throughout, reduced to a part that feels much more like a support role. Of the new characters introduced, Rosario Dawson and Zoey Deutch are thinly written but reasonably entertaining.
The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them
Thankfully, the script remains a real highlight over the brisk 99-minute run-time with some genuine hilarity. The screenplay’s attempts at emotion work reasonably well but fall flat on a couple of occasions – the basis of the previous film was its humour and no surprises, this is where the sequel excels.
It’s a nice film to look at too. While some of the landscapes look a little too artificial, the sweeping shots of desolate buildings and roads add a sense of scale that was sometimes lacking last time around. The opening sequence inside the White House is great to watch and sets up the rest of the film well.
Zombieland: Double Tap works best when our band of characters is bouncing off each other and it’s a good job as the zombie action is fleeting. Some action pieces are well choregraphed but for a film about the world being overrun by the undead, there’s a distinct lack of them. The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them until the final act and that’s a bit of a shame.
Nevertheless, Zombieland: Double Tap remains easy-to-watch and likeable throughout with a cracking cast of characters. Unfortunately, the world has moved on from 2009 and zombie films, TV shows and books are ten-a-penny nowadays (something nicely referenced at the beginning of the film) and while Zombieland 2 does an awful lot right, in the end it’s a decent sequel to a great film, and nothing more than that.
Stick around for a post-credits sequence that follows on from the predecessors “greatest cameo ever”.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Deadpool (2016) in Movies
Aug 15, 2019
An X-Men spin off, of a poorly received character from an earlier X-Men spin off... FOX must have had some major trust in Ryan Reynolds to give Deadpool the green light after the mess of X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
I've been a huge fan of Deadpool comics since as long as I can remember. When I was younger, the 4th wall breaking, the hyper violence, comedy, and self awareness that he is a comic book character, was always something that appealed to me.
So I, like many other Marvel fans, really hated what they did with the character in Origins, and it seems Ryan Reynolds did as well, pitching a rough sequence to FOX which convinced them to give this beloved characters another shot. God bless Ryan Reynolds.
And it paid off in spades. And it's easy to see why - Deadpool is a great movie.
The character himself is near perfect. He looks the part, he sounds the part, and it's great that the studio didn't shy away from an R rating.
The violence in Deadpool is frequent and messy, as is the cursing and crudeness, and the result is hilarious.
The story is told mostly in flashbacks before the big last showdown, and is nicely mapped out, and we're given a hugely likable cast.
Ryan Reynolds is of course , as is T.J. Miller and Morena Baccarin.
I even liked Ed Skrein's villain, Ajax.
Deadpool even manages to sneak in a couple of X-Men with a completely CGI Colossus joining the party, as well as Negasonic Teenage Warhead - the best superhero name ever, and coincidentally the films shining star after Ryan Reynolds - Brianna Hildebrand is a welcome addition to the film, and I genuinely hope that she makes in over to the MCU in the recent Disney Fox merge.
Deadpool is important for a number of reasons - it finally does the character justice. It's also shows that spin off films away from the main X-Men cast can be really decent, and it also shows that R rated superhero films can do the business at the box office.
It's certainly in the top tier of the FOX X-Men series.
I've been a huge fan of Deadpool comics since as long as I can remember. When I was younger, the 4th wall breaking, the hyper violence, comedy, and self awareness that he is a comic book character, was always something that appealed to me.
So I, like many other Marvel fans, really hated what they did with the character in Origins, and it seems Ryan Reynolds did as well, pitching a rough sequence to FOX which convinced them to give this beloved characters another shot. God bless Ryan Reynolds.
And it paid off in spades. And it's easy to see why - Deadpool is a great movie.
The character himself is near perfect. He looks the part, he sounds the part, and it's great that the studio didn't shy away from an R rating.
The violence in Deadpool is frequent and messy, as is the cursing and crudeness, and the result is hilarious.
The story is told mostly in flashbacks before the big last showdown, and is nicely mapped out, and we're given a hugely likable cast.
Ryan Reynolds is of course , as is T.J. Miller and Morena Baccarin.
I even liked Ed Skrein's villain, Ajax.
Deadpool even manages to sneak in a couple of X-Men with a completely CGI Colossus joining the party, as well as Negasonic Teenage Warhead - the best superhero name ever, and coincidentally the films shining star after Ryan Reynolds - Brianna Hildebrand is a welcome addition to the film, and I genuinely hope that she makes in over to the MCU in the recent Disney Fox merge.
Deadpool is important for a number of reasons - it finally does the character justice. It's also shows that spin off films away from the main X-Men cast can be really decent, and it also shows that R rated superhero films can do the business at the box office.
It's certainly in the top tier of the FOX X-Men series.
Weirdwood Manor
Book and Education
App
A mighty darkness is unleashed on the Library, a force that tests the limits of even Arthur’s...
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Predator (2018) in Movies
Sep 27, 2018 (Updated Oct 5, 2018)
The Ultimate Hunter Becomes Hunted Trope
After letting my girlfriend drag me to see A Simple Favor at the weekend, it was my turn to drag her to see something and to be honest, I think that she enjoyed this thing more than I did. This is a film that you can look at a couple of ways. You can either look at it and take none of it seriously, in which case this is a fairly fun, if extremely dumb action sci-fi romp, or you can take a bit more seriously, which I think the moviemakers want you to, in which case it is messy and unbearably cringey at times.
The main problem here is that I am not sure how the director wants us to take this film because the tone is all over the place, with some characters playing it totally straight and some just having a laugh with the ridiculously cheesy material they have been given to work with. The cast are okay, but it is as if they are all working on different movies. Boyd Holbrook, Alfie Allen and Olivia Munn are taking the whole thing pretty seriously and playing it straight while everyone else around them plays it comically and the clash of tones never really sits well throughout the movie. I am a long time Predator fan, I love the original and I think that Predators is a solid sequel too, (let's not mention Predator 2,) I am also a fan of Shane Black. I love the Lethal Weapon movies, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and The Nice Guys, so I should have loved this movie, yet it just didn't work as well as it sounds on paper.
The VFX in the film was okay at times, but at others the CGI, especially on The Predator himself, felt light and floaty and weightless, which is kinda the opposite of how the Predator is supposed to look as he moves about onscreen.
The whole 'hunter becomes the hunted,' trope actually serves as an appropriate metaphor for what this series has become. The once king of action sci fi (Predator) is now on the back foot and being outdone by a bigger, stronger competitor, (Avengers,) and by comparison, the OG hunter can't stand up to it's superior successor.
Overall, it's not the best Predator movie by a long shot, but it's definitely not the worst either. There are some laughs and some cool kills sprinkled through the film, but there are better action films that have dropped this year and there are better sci fi movies out there too that are more worthy of your time.
The main problem here is that I am not sure how the director wants us to take this film because the tone is all over the place, with some characters playing it totally straight and some just having a laugh with the ridiculously cheesy material they have been given to work with. The cast are okay, but it is as if they are all working on different movies. Boyd Holbrook, Alfie Allen and Olivia Munn are taking the whole thing pretty seriously and playing it straight while everyone else around them plays it comically and the clash of tones never really sits well throughout the movie. I am a long time Predator fan, I love the original and I think that Predators is a solid sequel too, (let's not mention Predator 2,) I am also a fan of Shane Black. I love the Lethal Weapon movies, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and The Nice Guys, so I should have loved this movie, yet it just didn't work as well as it sounds on paper.
The VFX in the film was okay at times, but at others the CGI, especially on The Predator himself, felt light and floaty and weightless, which is kinda the opposite of how the Predator is supposed to look as he moves about onscreen.
The whole 'hunter becomes the hunted,' trope actually serves as an appropriate metaphor for what this series has become. The once king of action sci fi (Predator) is now on the back foot and being outdone by a bigger, stronger competitor, (Avengers,) and by comparison, the OG hunter can't stand up to it's superior successor.
Overall, it's not the best Predator movie by a long shot, but it's definitely not the worst either. There are some laughs and some cool kills sprinkled through the film, but there are better action films that have dropped this year and there are better sci fi movies out there too that are more worthy of your time.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Tower Heist (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In the movie Tower Heist, the employees of The Tower, a ritzy high-rise condominium in New York City, fall victim to a Ponzi scheme and lose their 401(k). Now normally there wouldn’t be anything they could do about it but Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda), the one behind the Ponzi scheme, is one of the residents at The Tower.
Josh Kovacs (Ben Stiller), former general anager of The Tower, has an idea to steal the defrauded employees’ money back, but he needs help with his grand scheme. Josh brings in his brother-in-law Cole Howard (Casey Affleck) and Rick Malloy (Michael Pena). Both are former employees and as such have a score to settle. Josh also enlists the help of Odessa Montero (Gabourey Sidibe) who is currently a maid at the Tower and Chase Fitzhugh (Matthew Broderick), a former resident.
While eager to do what they believe is right, the group does not have a background in crime, so Josh brings in Slide (Eddie Murphy), a thief from his neighborhood that he has known since childhood. Will this band of merry men and woman be successful and save the day Robin Hood-style or will they run afoul of FBI Agent Claire Denham (Tea Leoni)?
The film has a very entertaining story that unfolds beautifully and a better cast would be impossible to find. Now with that said, there were some parts in the movie that were distracting to me because I could not suspend my disbelief that far, however, I can’t say what they are due to the fact that I do not want to spoil any scenes for you.
Eddie Murphy did an amazing job of keeping his character realistic and at the same time unbelievably funny. Without a doubt every scene Murphy is in is golden. Not only did Alan Alda’s character get arrested for stealing people’s money but he almost stole the show. And even though every fiber of my being wanted to dislike his character, who is an arrogant, self-righteous, demeaning jerk; Alda portrayed him in such a way that I was actually sort of hoping that the character would get away with it. Now I know all you Benheads out there are asking “What about Ben Stiller?” You all will be happy to know that he was great, he was definitely the humorous glue that held the movie together. Matthew Broderick, Michael Pena and Casey Affleck were all very entertaining though at times Casey gets drowned out by the others. Last but certainly not least Gabourey Sidibe and Tea Leoni were both great and incredibly funny however they did not get anywhere near as much screen time as I would have liked.
Josh Kovacs (Ben Stiller), former general anager of The Tower, has an idea to steal the defrauded employees’ money back, but he needs help with his grand scheme. Josh brings in his brother-in-law Cole Howard (Casey Affleck) and Rick Malloy (Michael Pena). Both are former employees and as such have a score to settle. Josh also enlists the help of Odessa Montero (Gabourey Sidibe) who is currently a maid at the Tower and Chase Fitzhugh (Matthew Broderick), a former resident.
While eager to do what they believe is right, the group does not have a background in crime, so Josh brings in Slide (Eddie Murphy), a thief from his neighborhood that he has known since childhood. Will this band of merry men and woman be successful and save the day Robin Hood-style or will they run afoul of FBI Agent Claire Denham (Tea Leoni)?
The film has a very entertaining story that unfolds beautifully and a better cast would be impossible to find. Now with that said, there were some parts in the movie that were distracting to me because I could not suspend my disbelief that far, however, I can’t say what they are due to the fact that I do not want to spoil any scenes for you.
Eddie Murphy did an amazing job of keeping his character realistic and at the same time unbelievably funny. Without a doubt every scene Murphy is in is golden. Not only did Alan Alda’s character get arrested for stealing people’s money but he almost stole the show. And even though every fiber of my being wanted to dislike his character, who is an arrogant, self-righteous, demeaning jerk; Alda portrayed him in such a way that I was actually sort of hoping that the character would get away with it. Now I know all you Benheads out there are asking “What about Ben Stiller?” You all will be happy to know that he was great, he was definitely the humorous glue that held the movie together. Matthew Broderick, Michael Pena and Casey Affleck were all very entertaining though at times Casey gets drowned out by the others. Last but certainly not least Gabourey Sidibe and Tea Leoni were both great and incredibly funny however they did not get anywhere near as much screen time as I would have liked.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Eight Hundred Grapes in Books
Feb 13, 2018
I feel torn about the rating for this book, which probably truly clocks in at 3.5 stars. For a decent part of this novel, I felt slightly annoyed with its protagonist, Georgia. Georgia returns to her parents' home in disgrace a few days before her wedding, after finding out her fiance has been keeping a crazy secret from her.
Her parents' home is a vineyard in California, where Georgia grew up with her older twin brothers, Finn and Bobby. She expects to find the comfort she always experienced as a kid (but also ran away from - she's very clear that she left the vineyard for a life as a more glamorous lawyer). But upon arriving home, she finds that no one is really happy -- not her parents, not Bobby and his wife, and not Finn.Yet, she finds herself longing for life at the vineyard more and more, even as everything is falling apart around her. Hmm.
There are several plotlines in this novel that, when combined, all seem a little ludicrous. Georgia's fiance Ben's secret involves a movie star. The crazy issues between the brothers. The problems and arrangement between her parents. What happens with the vineyard. Even the ending. One or two of the storylines, perhaps, I would have found more believable. All together, it is a bit much. Add in Georgia's constant vacillating (I'm getting married! I'm not! I am!), and it gets to be a bit old.
However, I have to cut Georgia some slack, as I realize, despite the lawyerly job and upcoming wedding, she's young, and she has had quite a shock. She eventually grew on me a bit as the storyline progressed and she herself grew up a bit. And, as silly and as "neat" (as in, neatly tied up) the ending was, it warmed my heart a bit and made me end the book on a good note.
Still, I think I may pick up a Michael Jordan biography next. I'm a little tired of flighty thirty-somethings! Time for a clever, genius, and sometimes angry athlete for a change of pace.
Her parents' home is a vineyard in California, where Georgia grew up with her older twin brothers, Finn and Bobby. She expects to find the comfort she always experienced as a kid (but also ran away from - she's very clear that she left the vineyard for a life as a more glamorous lawyer). But upon arriving home, she finds that no one is really happy -- not her parents, not Bobby and his wife, and not Finn.Yet, she finds herself longing for life at the vineyard more and more, even as everything is falling apart around her. Hmm.
There are several plotlines in this novel that, when combined, all seem a little ludicrous. Georgia's fiance Ben's secret involves a movie star. The crazy issues between the brothers. The problems and arrangement between her parents. What happens with the vineyard. Even the ending. One or two of the storylines, perhaps, I would have found more believable. All together, it is a bit much. Add in Georgia's constant vacillating (I'm getting married! I'm not! I am!), and it gets to be a bit old.
However, I have to cut Georgia some slack, as I realize, despite the lawyerly job and upcoming wedding, she's young, and she has had quite a shock. She eventually grew on me a bit as the storyline progressed and she herself grew up a bit. And, as silly and as "neat" (as in, neatly tied up) the ending was, it warmed my heart a bit and made me end the book on a good note.
Still, I think I may pick up a Michael Jordan biography next. I'm a little tired of flighty thirty-somethings! Time for a clever, genius, and sometimes angry athlete for a change of pace.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Joachim Phoenix - Oscar winning performance? (1 more)
Look and feel of the film - technically brilliant
A loser's tale.
“Joker” has managed to stir up a whirlwind of controversy, centring partly around the level of violence included but also on the use of “that song” on the soundtrack. But putting aside that flurry of commentary, what of the film itself?
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) in Movies
Feb 6, 2019
Check Into the El Royale, You'll Be Glad You Did
BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE is a bloody movie about bloody people doing bloody things at a bloody hotel.
It's also bloody good.
Showing the same original style and panache that I have come to expect from Director/Writer Drew Goddard (THE CABIN IN THE WOODS), BAD TIMES...follows the storytelling device of a Quentin Tarantino flick like PULP FICTION or THE HATEFUL EIGHT in that it follows a seemingly disparate group of people - each with their own story - who's lives intersect.
Goddard's reputation has, obviously, preceded him as on the surface this film looks like a "B" flick filled with gore and violence, but in Goddard's hands - and with some strong acting talent and VERY strong production qualities (the sets, costumes and music help tell the story), this film is elevated to something much more than a "B" flick.
Jeff Bridges (HELL AND HIGH WATER) stars (at least in one storyline) as a mysterious Priest who shows up at the El Royale for some reason - and it's not to change the Bibles in the rooms. He is joined in the lobby at check-in by a lounge singer played by Cynthia Ervino (WIDOWS), vacuum cleaner salesman portrayed by John Hamm (BABY DRIVER) and by a mystery women played by Dakota Johnson (50 SHADES...) - all have secrets to hide and through flashbacks and chance encounters, their stories erupt on each other. And erupt they do when into the mix comes charismatic, mostly shirtless Cult Leader Billy Lee (Chris Hemsworth) and his cult followers.
Goddard orchestrates this group of strong actors well, giving each character/actor moments to shine and play off each other. The dialogue, while not at a Tarantino level, was interesting and intriguing as much as what was NOT said then what WAS said.
But, make no mistake about it, this is an action movie - and action there is. Bodies, bullets and blood start flying as soon as these characters collide at the El Royale and bad times happen, for sure.
But, for me, this was a GOOD TIME AT THE EL ROYALE. If you like Pulp Fiction, Baby Driver, Hell and High Water or John Wick, then you'll like this flick. Check in to the El Royale, you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
It's also bloody good.
Showing the same original style and panache that I have come to expect from Director/Writer Drew Goddard (THE CABIN IN THE WOODS), BAD TIMES...follows the storytelling device of a Quentin Tarantino flick like PULP FICTION or THE HATEFUL EIGHT in that it follows a seemingly disparate group of people - each with their own story - who's lives intersect.
Goddard's reputation has, obviously, preceded him as on the surface this film looks like a "B" flick filled with gore and violence, but in Goddard's hands - and with some strong acting talent and VERY strong production qualities (the sets, costumes and music help tell the story), this film is elevated to something much more than a "B" flick.
Jeff Bridges (HELL AND HIGH WATER) stars (at least in one storyline) as a mysterious Priest who shows up at the El Royale for some reason - and it's not to change the Bibles in the rooms. He is joined in the lobby at check-in by a lounge singer played by Cynthia Ervino (WIDOWS), vacuum cleaner salesman portrayed by John Hamm (BABY DRIVER) and by a mystery women played by Dakota Johnson (50 SHADES...) - all have secrets to hide and through flashbacks and chance encounters, their stories erupt on each other. And erupt they do when into the mix comes charismatic, mostly shirtless Cult Leader Billy Lee (Chris Hemsworth) and his cult followers.
Goddard orchestrates this group of strong actors well, giving each character/actor moments to shine and play off each other. The dialogue, while not at a Tarantino level, was interesting and intriguing as much as what was NOT said then what WAS said.
But, make no mistake about it, this is an action movie - and action there is. Bodies, bullets and blood start flying as soon as these characters collide at the El Royale and bad times happen, for sure.
But, for me, this was a GOOD TIME AT THE EL ROYALE. If you like Pulp Fiction, Baby Driver, Hell and High Water or John Wick, then you'll like this flick. Check in to the El Royale, you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
Donut Hole
Knives out is a classic old fashioned murder mystery given a breath of fresh modern day life to make it one of this years biggest delights. Knives out from the get go clearly and proudly wears a history of films/tv shows that it ows its existence to on both of its arms from Murder she wrote to Hetty Wainthropp a dash of Clue and many other murder mystery stories/tales too. Sets are fascinating with every nook and crany intricately stuffed full of the very things that inspired it almost as if its proud to display and pay great tribute to this sadly almost forgotton genre. As a film its comparable mostly to murder on the orient express mixed but its quirkiness, intelligence and charm help it soar way above that movie. Daniel Craig plays an almost Poirot character and its fascinating to watch his mind tick over and piece the puzzle together gradly along side the viewer. Its a slow burner but not a second of it drags as we follow the gradual and methodical webb spun infront of us. Pieces of clues are scattered everywhere tucked away in subtle background objects, woven into dialog and even hinted at in character names keeping your brain constantly engaged/stimulated and your eyes and ears paying attention. Its all so intricate, gradually layered, unpredictable and intelligent not even once using cheap methoods or reasoning to come to a conclusion. Subbtle themes underline the entire film too pulling the film into the present and making it higly relevant to today's goings on. Characters are deceitful, betray each other/lie constantly and the film depicts how these traits can be just as bad as murder but almost never face the same consequences. Symbolisum and metaphors are also everywhere along with great use of shadow showing inocence and and sinister intent (echoing back to classic film noir movies). Knives out certainly indeed left me smiling and challenged as well as thought provoked and rewarded. A clever, intriguing and facinating movie with a message that in a world plagued with racism, polotical lies, selfishness, deceit, distrust and the internent being used instead of knowledge nothing is more powerful than the wisdom of the old and the kind heart and inocence of a good heart.