Search
Search results
Merissa (12854 KP) created a post
Feb 1, 2021
Kevin Phillipson (10072 KP) rated Chaos Walking (2021) in Movies
Jun 2, 2021
Tom Holland (2 more)
Daisy ridley
Mads mikkslen
Watched on amazon prime its okay movie with an interesting plot and good leads and any movie that has mads Mickelson in it can't be bad found the noise around the male characters to be a bit distracting some times but still a decent movie
Chris Dye (6 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Jul 17, 2021
Kristina (502 KP) rated Reason to Breathe in Books
Dec 7, 2020
The writing seemed hard to read and concentrate on. The storyline wasn't all that bad, which is what kept pushing me to continue reading. Also, it was easy to like Evan, which definitely helped persuade me to finish the book. Unfortunately, I found myself skipping most of it and reading the dialogue.
Kevin Phillipson (10072 KP) rated Blinded by the Light (2019) in Movies
Sep 5, 2019
The boss (1 more)
80s soundtrack
I quite like it not bad not perfect but fantastic soundtrack I was teenager myself back in 80s and remembering alot of the music and the trends of the decade including that weather report of the hurricane of 87 would o watch probably just to listen to Springsteens music
Leanne Crabtree (480 KP) rated So Many Reasons Why (So Many Reasons, #1) in Books
Sep 6, 2019
This story just didn't do it for me; that's not to say its bad because it's not.
It was different plot-wise to everything else I've read which is a good thing but the romance between the characters felt a little unrealistic with how quickly and easily they fell for each other.
It was different plot-wise to everything else I've read which is a good thing but the romance between the characters felt a little unrealistic with how quickly and easily they fell for each other.
The Best Thing
10.0
Rate It
Book
Some things are easily forgiven. Other things… not so much. Lenny DeMaio made herself a...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Hurricane Heist (2018) in Movies
Mar 10, 2018
Doesn't Go Far Enough
There are times when all I want to do is to sit in a darkened movie theater, turn off my brain, and let a movie with a silly, over-the-top premise wash all over me. THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS films are an example of an "A" in this category. Last year's GEOSTORM was a "B" (it was so over-the-top that it was fun, especially when the meteorologist declared - as if he was reciting Shakespeare - "Oh my God, it's a GEOSTORM!"). Unfortunately, a "C" example of this is THE HURRICANE HEIST.
Directed by Rob Cohen - who brought us the original FAST AND FURIOUS film lo' those many years ago - THE HURRICANE HEIST tells the tale of a HEIST set during a...anyone?...HURRICANE. That's pretty much all you need to know of the plot. The rest is action, escapes, weather gone bad, bad guys being bad guys and good guys being good guys.
The good guys are Toby Kebbel (so good as the motion capture bad-guy ape in DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES), perennial "B"-movie actress Maggie Grace (TAKEN, LOST and the immortal HOT GIRL, FAST CAR, EATING A BANANA) and Ryan Kwanten (I guess he was in TRUE BLOOD). What do these good guys have in common? They are not hard to look at on the screen. The two men also have really bad Southern accents.
The bad guys are led by Ralph Ineson ( a perennial "that guy" in such films as STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI, GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY and KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE) and a host of "red shirts". The problem is that Ineson plays his bad guy role as a "that guy" and the "red shirts" have no personality at all. One guy tries to be the "loose cannon" but he doesn't go far enough, nor does Ineson or ANY of the bad guys.
Oh...did I mention Ben Cross (Sarek in the new STAR TREK films)? Cross leaped off the screen in the Oscar winning film CHARIOTS OF FIRE way back in 1981 and was going to be "the next big thing". How has that worked out for him? I'm sure he's making a nice living, but...
But...you don't come to this kind of films for the acting. You come to it for the insane premise, the over-the-top acting, the out-of-this-world stunts and special effects. Unfortunately, THE HURRICANE HEIST plays each one of these "safely". The premise is insane, just not insane enough. The acting is melodramatic - just not over-the-top. The script doesn't really have any "oh-my-gosh, did he just say that" lines and the action, stunts and special effects are pretty good, (maybe even good), but not great.
A pretty mediocre time at the movies. It did serve it's purpose, I turned my brain off for two hours. I just wish it didn't power down as well.
Letter Grade: C (thanks for trying)
5 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by Rob Cohen - who brought us the original FAST AND FURIOUS film lo' those many years ago - THE HURRICANE HEIST tells the tale of a HEIST set during a...anyone?...HURRICANE. That's pretty much all you need to know of the plot. The rest is action, escapes, weather gone bad, bad guys being bad guys and good guys being good guys.
The good guys are Toby Kebbel (so good as the motion capture bad-guy ape in DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES), perennial "B"-movie actress Maggie Grace (TAKEN, LOST and the immortal HOT GIRL, FAST CAR, EATING A BANANA) and Ryan Kwanten (I guess he was in TRUE BLOOD). What do these good guys have in common? They are not hard to look at on the screen. The two men also have really bad Southern accents.
The bad guys are led by Ralph Ineson ( a perennial "that guy" in such films as STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI, GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY and KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE) and a host of "red shirts". The problem is that Ineson plays his bad guy role as a "that guy" and the "red shirts" have no personality at all. One guy tries to be the "loose cannon" but he doesn't go far enough, nor does Ineson or ANY of the bad guys.
Oh...did I mention Ben Cross (Sarek in the new STAR TREK films)? Cross leaped off the screen in the Oscar winning film CHARIOTS OF FIRE way back in 1981 and was going to be "the next big thing". How has that worked out for him? I'm sure he's making a nice living, but...
But...you don't come to this kind of films for the acting. You come to it for the insane premise, the over-the-top acting, the out-of-this-world stunts and special effects. Unfortunately, THE HURRICANE HEIST plays each one of these "safely". The premise is insane, just not insane enough. The acting is melodramatic - just not over-the-top. The script doesn't really have any "oh-my-gosh, did he just say that" lines and the action, stunts and special effects are pretty good, (maybe even good), but not great.
A pretty mediocre time at the movies. It did serve it's purpose, I turned my brain off for two hours. I just wish it didn't power down as well.
Letter Grade: C (thanks for trying)
5 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Casino Royale (1967) in Movies
Jul 24, 2020
It Gets Real Bad
Here’s what Rotten Tomatoes has to say because I couldn’t begin to tell you what this shit-show is about: “This James Bond spoof features the hero coming out of retirement to attempt to fix some problems for SMERSH, while a multitude of other subplots unwind about the central figure.” Yeah, even RT was having trouble trying to figure out what the hell was going on with the 1967 Casino Royale. How bad is it? Well, let’s just say I just finished reading a list of the Top 100 Worst Movies of All Time and I was very surprised to not see this movie on there.
Acting: 10
The movie was bad, but I honestly can’t say that the acting was. These professionals had a job to do and they did it…more or less. While there’s no one performance that really stood out for me, I can definitely remember thinking that no one shit the bed at least.
Beginning: 6
This movie is weird through and through and the beginning is no exception. I will say there was some mild interest after the first ten minutes. I knew it was going to be different than the previous Bond movies, but I wasn’t sure if that was a good thing or not.
Characters: 8
In addition to solid acting, the characters weren’t all that bad either. Sure James Bond was way more lame than the usual guy we had come to know and love over the previous few movies. But throw in characters like the aloof Evelyn Tremble (Peter Sellers) and you’ve got a fun cast of characters that at least try to keep things interesting.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Casino Royale is shot like they were given the lowest budget imaginable. Everything feels extremely cheap and done with little to no effort. It is a far cry from the previous Bond movies that give you groundbreaking shots and decent special effects. This movie’s visuals are mediocre at best.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 3
It’s never a good sign when I have to stop watching a movie at night and continue on in the morning. When it’s good enough, I will stay up no matter how tired I am. This movie was bad enough to put me right to sleep. I scored it a 3 because it reached a point where my interest was piqued in just how bad things were going to get.
Memorability: 8
It’s bad sure…but boy is it unforgettable bad. With all the craziness that ensued, they made sure you would remember it a long time after watching it. And you know what? There’s a fun respectability that comes with that.
Pace: 1
Plot: 2
Resolution: 6
The best part about the end? It was the end.
Overall: 55
I wanted to watch all the Bond movies, including the stinkers. Casino Royale is easily one of the stinkers. But, with movies as it is with everything, you can’t know where you’re going unless you see where you’ve been.
Acting: 10
The movie was bad, but I honestly can’t say that the acting was. These professionals had a job to do and they did it…more or less. While there’s no one performance that really stood out for me, I can definitely remember thinking that no one shit the bed at least.
Beginning: 6
This movie is weird through and through and the beginning is no exception. I will say there was some mild interest after the first ten minutes. I knew it was going to be different than the previous Bond movies, but I wasn’t sure if that was a good thing or not.
Characters: 8
In addition to solid acting, the characters weren’t all that bad either. Sure James Bond was way more lame than the usual guy we had come to know and love over the previous few movies. But throw in characters like the aloof Evelyn Tremble (Peter Sellers) and you’ve got a fun cast of characters that at least try to keep things interesting.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Casino Royale is shot like they were given the lowest budget imaginable. Everything feels extremely cheap and done with little to no effort. It is a far cry from the previous Bond movies that give you groundbreaking shots and decent special effects. This movie’s visuals are mediocre at best.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 3
It’s never a good sign when I have to stop watching a movie at night and continue on in the morning. When it’s good enough, I will stay up no matter how tired I am. This movie was bad enough to put me right to sleep. I scored it a 3 because it reached a point where my interest was piqued in just how bad things were going to get.
Memorability: 8
It’s bad sure…but boy is it unforgettable bad. With all the craziness that ensued, they made sure you would remember it a long time after watching it. And you know what? There’s a fun respectability that comes with that.
Pace: 1
Plot: 2
Resolution: 6
The best part about the end? It was the end.
Overall: 55
I wanted to watch all the Bond movies, including the stinkers. Casino Royale is easily one of the stinkers. But, with movies as it is with everything, you can’t know where you’re going unless you see where you’ve been.