Search
Combo Crew
Games and Entertainment
App
In a world where a fist to the face is a perfectly viable solution, Mr. Boss has it all. Now he...
Door Kickers
Games and Entertainment
App
Door Kickers is the unforgiving, award winning SWAT-command quick tactics game from the PC. Includes...
Worth The |Risk (Infinity #1)
5.3
Rate It
Book
Some risks are scarier than others because they’re the most important ones we’ll ever...
male/male four stars romance fan yourself its a hot one
The Afghanistan Papers
Book
The groundbreaking investigative story of how three successive presidents and their military...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Spencer (2021) in Movies
Feb 10, 2022
Stewart's Performance Elevates a Mediocre Film
Pablo Loraine’s SPENCER is not a subtle film, it shows the confinement and suffocation of Lady Diana Spencer under the watchful eye of the British monarchy and is not shy about who the bad guys are.
This sort of one-sided-ness of storytelling does not a compelling film make, but what does make this film compelling is the outstanding performance that is at the center of this film, Kristen Stewart as Lady Diana Spencer.
Telling the tale of the last Christmas that Diana spent as a member of the Royal family, SPENCER shows a a person in mental distress, living an ordered life that leaves little room for spontaneity or originality - things that Diana had in spades.
The only thing that makes this film work is the Oscar Nominated performance of Kristen Stewart as Diana. The way this movie was filmed, it would have been very easy for Stewart to portray Diana as a one-note victim, by she embodies this character with joy, sorrow, love, anger, depression and acceptance - sometimes at the same time. It is a tour-de-force performance that is well deserved of the Oscar nom.
What doesn’t work is the perspective of the film by Director Pablo Larrain (who also Directed Natalie Portman to an Oscar nom in JACKIE). He, clearly, had a vision and the look of the film is strong. What isn’t strong is the characters apart from Diana. The Royal family (especially Jack Farthings’ Prince Charles and Stella Gonet’s Queen Elizabeth) are mustache-twirling villians, Diana’s sons William and Harry look like they came out of the “Weasley Family” casting agency, while terrific character actors like Sally Hawkins, Timothy Spall and Sean Harris have almost (but not quite) interesting characters that don’t quite gel with what is going on.
But that is besides the point, for this is a story about Diana and Stewart is front and center in almost every scene - and is fascinating to watch - especially as she embodies Lady Diana in the marvelous costumes by Jacqueline Durran.
Come for the look at the Royals, stay for the performance by Stewart - one that I would not be suprised is honored come Oscar night.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This sort of one-sided-ness of storytelling does not a compelling film make, but what does make this film compelling is the outstanding performance that is at the center of this film, Kristen Stewart as Lady Diana Spencer.
Telling the tale of the last Christmas that Diana spent as a member of the Royal family, SPENCER shows a a person in mental distress, living an ordered life that leaves little room for spontaneity or originality - things that Diana had in spades.
The only thing that makes this film work is the Oscar Nominated performance of Kristen Stewart as Diana. The way this movie was filmed, it would have been very easy for Stewart to portray Diana as a one-note victim, by she embodies this character with joy, sorrow, love, anger, depression and acceptance - sometimes at the same time. It is a tour-de-force performance that is well deserved of the Oscar nom.
What doesn’t work is the perspective of the film by Director Pablo Larrain (who also Directed Natalie Portman to an Oscar nom in JACKIE). He, clearly, had a vision and the look of the film is strong. What isn’t strong is the characters apart from Diana. The Royal family (especially Jack Farthings’ Prince Charles and Stella Gonet’s Queen Elizabeth) are mustache-twirling villians, Diana’s sons William and Harry look like they came out of the “Weasley Family” casting agency, while terrific character actors like Sally Hawkins, Timothy Spall and Sean Harris have almost (but not quite) interesting characters that don’t quite gel with what is going on.
But that is besides the point, for this is a story about Diana and Stewart is front and center in almost every scene - and is fascinating to watch - especially as she embodies Lady Diana in the marvelous costumes by Jacqueline Durran.
Come for the look at the Royals, stay for the performance by Stewart - one that I would not be suprised is honored come Oscar night.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Toll (Arc of a Scythe, #3) in Books
Feb 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2656699288">Scythe</a>; - ★★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2998629500">Thunderhead</a>; - ★★★★★
#3 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3080800725">The Toll</a> - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Book-Review-Banner-20.png"/>;
And here is my review of The Toll. We have reached the end of the series, guys.
It’s been three years since Rowan and Citra disappeared; since Scythe Goddard came into power; since the Thunderhead closed itself off to everyone but Grayson Tolliver.
In this pulse-pounding conclusion to New York Times bestselling author Neal Shusterman’s Arc of a Scythe trilogy, constitutions are tested and old friends are brought back from the dead.
I don’t know how to even start this review, because I have so many emotions still! I am so in love with this series. With this finale. I am also so sad that the journey ends here and I have to part ways, re-visiting these books but never reading new ones.
A wonderful world, where death is no more, and two scythe apprentices, with the willpower to be great - they stuck to me, and they grew on me, and they did capture my heart.
<b><i>Rowan - a hero never understood.</i></b>
Fighting for the good in a bad way. Himself against the world, not afraid to give his life for the people he cares about. I salute you, Scythe Lucifer!
<b><i>Citra - a woman born to be a leader.</i></b>
A powerful force that moves the Earth she walks upon. A compassion and kindness mixed with the force of unfairness. Ready to stand up when no one else does and not afraid to do things differently. I salute you, Scythe Anastasia.
And to all the rest of the characters, and believe me, there are so many that are just as important, I also bow to you. For fighting for what you believe in, for being better humans than most and for helping a person in need. You will never be forgotten.
<b><i>Neal Shusterman, the hero of this book.</i></b>
The creator of wonderful worlds. I bow to you and I thank you for giving me a world worth remembering. For creating the Thunderhead to lead us into the future, and for giving us a glimpse of possibilities and opportunities of the “what might be”. I have endless love for your writing and will continue to be excited and read every new book you write.
I have noticed, when I really love a book and want to shout about it to everyone I know, it is quite hard to do so without spilling any spoilers. How do you write a review of mentioning all the things you loved, without ruining the story for someone else?
<b><i>Let’s try it this way:</i></b>
Guys, have a look at my review of Scythe, the first book in the series. Then read the book. Then read my review of Thunderhead. Read that book as well. And then come here, read this blurb, finish the series and find me either here, or on Instagram and Twitter, so I can tell you all the spoilers! :)
No, honestly, if you love science-fiction with a twist of fantasy and dystopia, this will be a book you will cherish forever.
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2656699288">Scythe</a>; - ★★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2998629500">Thunderhead</a>; - ★★★★★
#3 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3080800725">The Toll</a> - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Book-Review-Banner-20.png"/>;
And here is my review of The Toll. We have reached the end of the series, guys.
It’s been three years since Rowan and Citra disappeared; since Scythe Goddard came into power; since the Thunderhead closed itself off to everyone but Grayson Tolliver.
In this pulse-pounding conclusion to New York Times bestselling author Neal Shusterman’s Arc of a Scythe trilogy, constitutions are tested and old friends are brought back from the dead.
I don’t know how to even start this review, because I have so many emotions still! I am so in love with this series. With this finale. I am also so sad that the journey ends here and I have to part ways, re-visiting these books but never reading new ones.
A wonderful world, where death is no more, and two scythe apprentices, with the willpower to be great - they stuck to me, and they grew on me, and they did capture my heart.
<b><i>Rowan - a hero never understood.</i></b>
Fighting for the good in a bad way. Himself against the world, not afraid to give his life for the people he cares about. I salute you, Scythe Lucifer!
<b><i>Citra - a woman born to be a leader.</i></b>
A powerful force that moves the Earth she walks upon. A compassion and kindness mixed with the force of unfairness. Ready to stand up when no one else does and not afraid to do things differently. I salute you, Scythe Anastasia.
And to all the rest of the characters, and believe me, there are so many that are just as important, I also bow to you. For fighting for what you believe in, for being better humans than most and for helping a person in need. You will never be forgotten.
<b><i>Neal Shusterman, the hero of this book.</i></b>
The creator of wonderful worlds. I bow to you and I thank you for giving me a world worth remembering. For creating the Thunderhead to lead us into the future, and for giving us a glimpse of possibilities and opportunities of the “what might be”. I have endless love for your writing and will continue to be excited and read every new book you write.
I have noticed, when I really love a book and want to shout about it to everyone I know, it is quite hard to do so without spilling any spoilers. How do you write a review of mentioning all the things you loved, without ruining the story for someone else?
<b><i>Let’s try it this way:</i></b>
Guys, have a look at my review of Scythe, the first book in the series. Then read the book. Then read my review of Thunderhead. Read that book as well. And then come here, read this blurb, finish the series and find me either here, or on Instagram and Twitter, so I can tell you all the spoilers! :)
No, honestly, if you love science-fiction with a twist of fantasy and dystopia, this will be a book you will cherish forever.
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Becs (244 KP) rated Of Mice and Men in Books
Oct 2, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, a (somewhat) great historical fiction novel. I was just appalled by how slow the middle of the book was. I was so excited to read this book, as I’ve heard such great things about it. When I started, it was a little bumpy but as I kept reading, the road just kept becoming almost unbearable to continue. The ending though, spot on and definitely kicked my attention back into place. In all aspects, Of Mice and Men deserves a solid four gold stars. Reasons why below.
Genre: Literary classic, historical fiction
Audience: I definitely recommend at least a high schooler or up to read it. As it’s a little controversial and a bit harder of a read for a younger crowd.
Difficulty Reading: I almost put this down to never pick up and read again. I was about a millimeter away from doing it. But I have a thing against never finishing a book or DNF. If I’m going to pick something up and start reading it, I HAVE TO finish it, something about having an unfinished book doesn’t sit right with me. So, the answer is yes. This was a bit more of a difficult read. Now that it’s finished, I’m glad I stuck through and read the rest of the novel.
Insights: John Steinbeck is a great author and writer. I’ve read a few of his other novels and have loved them. Of Mice and Men just does not compare to the others. Maybe it’s the way that the characters speak. Maybe it’s the topic. Maybe it’s just Steinbeck lost touch with his writing when creating Of Mice and Men. Who knows, apparently some think that this novel is a piece of art. I mean, it’s still being sold nationwide. That must mean it’s somewhat good, right?
Ah-Ha Moment: When I found out that Lennie has a bit of a mental handicap issue. (This honestly sounds so bad in writing but I’m not trying to be rude about people who are mentally handicapped. I use to work as a caretaker for them and I loved it.) To continue on. You typically don’t see this style of character in this novels era. It was refreshing and different from other literary classic novels.
***SPOILERS AHEAD***
Favorite Quotes: “Trouble with mice is you always kill ’em. ” – Honestly, this is a perfect short, one sentence summary of the novel. If you don’t want to read Of Mice and Men, what happens is: you have George and Lennie, always traveling together. Lennie is mentally handicapped and likes to pet soft things. He gets in trouble in Weed by touching a female’s dress and not letting go when she screams. They run and come to find work bucking barley. Here, Lennie kills a newborn pup then kills Curley’s wife. George shoots Lennie in the back of the head and the novel ends.
***END OF SPOILERS***
“Guys like us, that work on ranches, are the loneliest guys in the world. They got no family. They don’t belong no place. They come to a ranch an’ work up a stake, and the first thing you know they’re poundin’ their tail on some other ranch. They ain’t got nothing to look ahead to.” – I mean, you’re not wrong George. Ranchhands are typically pretty lonely, especially in those olden days.
What will you gain: A love-hate relationship for this novel. Seriously. I love it so much I gave it four gold stars. But I hate it so much because man, it was a bit of a bore.
“Maybe ever’body in the whole damn world is scared of each other.”
Genre: Literary classic, historical fiction
Audience: I definitely recommend at least a high schooler or up to read it. As it’s a little controversial and a bit harder of a read for a younger crowd.
Difficulty Reading: I almost put this down to never pick up and read again. I was about a millimeter away from doing it. But I have a thing against never finishing a book or DNF. If I’m going to pick something up and start reading it, I HAVE TO finish it, something about having an unfinished book doesn’t sit right with me. So, the answer is yes. This was a bit more of a difficult read. Now that it’s finished, I’m glad I stuck through and read the rest of the novel.
Insights: John Steinbeck is a great author and writer. I’ve read a few of his other novels and have loved them. Of Mice and Men just does not compare to the others. Maybe it’s the way that the characters speak. Maybe it’s the topic. Maybe it’s just Steinbeck lost touch with his writing when creating Of Mice and Men. Who knows, apparently some think that this novel is a piece of art. I mean, it’s still being sold nationwide. That must mean it’s somewhat good, right?
Ah-Ha Moment: When I found out that Lennie has a bit of a mental handicap issue. (This honestly sounds so bad in writing but I’m not trying to be rude about people who are mentally handicapped. I use to work as a caretaker for them and I loved it.) To continue on. You typically don’t see this style of character in this novels era. It was refreshing and different from other literary classic novels.
***SPOILERS AHEAD***
Favorite Quotes: “Trouble with mice is you always kill ’em. ” – Honestly, this is a perfect short, one sentence summary of the novel. If you don’t want to read Of Mice and Men, what happens is: you have George and Lennie, always traveling together. Lennie is mentally handicapped and likes to pet soft things. He gets in trouble in Weed by touching a female’s dress and not letting go when she screams. They run and come to find work bucking barley. Here, Lennie kills a newborn pup then kills Curley’s wife. George shoots Lennie in the back of the head and the novel ends.
***END OF SPOILERS***
“Guys like us, that work on ranches, are the loneliest guys in the world. They got no family. They don’t belong no place. They come to a ranch an’ work up a stake, and the first thing you know they’re poundin’ their tail on some other ranch. They ain’t got nothing to look ahead to.” – I mean, you’re not wrong George. Ranchhands are typically pretty lonely, especially in those olden days.
What will you gain: A love-hate relationship for this novel. Seriously. I love it so much I gave it four gold stars. But I hate it so much because man, it was a bit of a bore.
“Maybe ever’body in the whole damn world is scared of each other.”
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Hitman's Bodyguard (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A plethora of clichés.
2017’s summer blockbusters fizzle to a halt with this formulaic action comedy. Ryan Reynolds (“Deadpool“) plays Michael Bryce: a cocksure “Triple A rated” bodyguard, always planning three steps ahead so that he can protect his clients without killing anyone in the process. With such arrogance, a fall is inevitable. On the other side of the legal scales is Darius Kincaid (Samuel L Jackson, “The Hateful Eight“), a contract killer who always gets his man. But the incarcerated Kincaid is offered a deal to release his equally incarcerated wife Sonia (Selma Hayek) in return for testifying against the fearsome Belarus president Vladislav Dukhovich (Gary Oldman, “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes”), on trial for war crimes at The Hague. An Interpol team led by Bryce’s’s ex-squeeze Amelia Roussel (the striking Elodie Yung) now have to get Kincaid to Belgium unscathed with Dukhovich’s well-trained and well-armed thugs stopping at nothing to ensure he won’t be there to testify. Fate transpires that Bryce and Kincaid become an unlikely team in trying to bring Dukhovich to justice.
After losing your no claims bonus, hysterical laughter is the only way forwards. Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L Jackson.
This is a movie whose script seems to have been glued together from a patchwork of other movie scenes:
– the bad guy / bad guy partner relationship of “The Nice Guys“. Check.
– the street ambush of “Clear and Present Danger”. Check.
– the Amsterdam boat chase of “Puppet on a Chain”. Check.
– the comedic bar-room brawl from “Airplane”. Check.
Many of the action scenes are done with panache and some great stunt work. But it’s all stuff we’ve seen countless times before, so what is needed for differentiation is the relationships between Bryce and Kincaid: this needs to be the cornerstone of the film. But it just doesn’t quite work. Jackson’s contribution is never in doubt, even though we’ve seen this motherf-ing shtick countless times before: he’s still magnetic, charismatic and a joy to watch. But unfortunately Reynolds just doesn’t deliver the acting goods to make the banter believable: there is a reason “Deadpool” is his best film – he wears a mask for most of it! His ‘puppy-dog look’ gets rolled out multiple times, but it’s unconvincing in the extreme. Together they are no match for Gosling/Crowe in “The Nice Guys“.
Nun but the brave. Jackson (if not Reynolds) get happy clappy.
On firmer ground is the quirky relationship between Mr and Mrs Kincaid. Although sharing limited screen time together, Hayek and Jackson spark off each other wonderfully. Seeing Selma Hayek in uncharacteristically sweary and belligerent mode was highly entertaining (although it’s worth commenting that my wife took great offence to the ‘comic’ bullying of an overweight cellmate).
“I had to ask the guy next to me to pinch me to make sure I wasn’t dreaming” – the future Mr and Mrs Kincaid meet in a rough place… the seediest dive on the wharf.
Elsewhere in the acting roll call, Elodie Yung delivers just the right measure of cuteness, toughness and passion as Roussel, but Oldman delivers a full-on retread of his Ivan “Get off my plane” Korshunov from “Air Force One”. There is also a change to Oldman’s character’s face at the end of the film in the form of a rampant skin complaint which is ‘explained’ by a clumsily inserted news item about an “attempted poisoning”: it’s such a clunky and bizarre addition to the script that it made me wonder whether the actor has some unexpected ailment (like shingles) during filming…. but I can see nothing related to this online.
The striking Elodie Yung as the Interpol agent Roussel.
The screenplay by relative newcomer Tom O’Connor bumps along from implausible action scene to implausible action scene, with more that its fair share of ‘WTF’ moments. For example, after a random chase through multiple Amsterdam alleys and shops, Jackson pulls up outside the very DIY shop Reynolds ends up in to pick him up! The script is also tonally uneven throughout: given this is supposed to be an “action comedy” the action is often brutal and unpleasant and the comedy – in the main – just not funny enough. (About the funniest thing in the film are the most ineffective sub machine guns known to man, most notably in the mildly ludicrous, if well staged, boat chase scene!)
An entertaining cameo from Richard E Grant as a businessman in danger.
The film also manages to offend, in more ways than the 15-rated violence and language used: I’m not sure WHEN this movie was actually filmed, but the use of an articulated lorry as a terrorist weapon towards the end of the film is certainly in very poor taste after the events of Nice, London and Barcelona. Not appreciated.
Directed by Patrick Hughes (“The Expendables 3″…. say no more) this hodge-podge of a flick is sporadically entertaining, but is one I will struggle to remember in a couple of months time.
After losing your no claims bonus, hysterical laughter is the only way forwards. Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L Jackson.
This is a movie whose script seems to have been glued together from a patchwork of other movie scenes:
– the bad guy / bad guy partner relationship of “The Nice Guys“. Check.
– the street ambush of “Clear and Present Danger”. Check.
– the Amsterdam boat chase of “Puppet on a Chain”. Check.
– the comedic bar-room brawl from “Airplane”. Check.
Many of the action scenes are done with panache and some great stunt work. But it’s all stuff we’ve seen countless times before, so what is needed for differentiation is the relationships between Bryce and Kincaid: this needs to be the cornerstone of the film. But it just doesn’t quite work. Jackson’s contribution is never in doubt, even though we’ve seen this motherf-ing shtick countless times before: he’s still magnetic, charismatic and a joy to watch. But unfortunately Reynolds just doesn’t deliver the acting goods to make the banter believable: there is a reason “Deadpool” is his best film – he wears a mask for most of it! His ‘puppy-dog look’ gets rolled out multiple times, but it’s unconvincing in the extreme. Together they are no match for Gosling/Crowe in “The Nice Guys“.
Nun but the brave. Jackson (if not Reynolds) get happy clappy.
On firmer ground is the quirky relationship between Mr and Mrs Kincaid. Although sharing limited screen time together, Hayek and Jackson spark off each other wonderfully. Seeing Selma Hayek in uncharacteristically sweary and belligerent mode was highly entertaining (although it’s worth commenting that my wife took great offence to the ‘comic’ bullying of an overweight cellmate).
“I had to ask the guy next to me to pinch me to make sure I wasn’t dreaming” – the future Mr and Mrs Kincaid meet in a rough place… the seediest dive on the wharf.
Elsewhere in the acting roll call, Elodie Yung delivers just the right measure of cuteness, toughness and passion as Roussel, but Oldman delivers a full-on retread of his Ivan “Get off my plane” Korshunov from “Air Force One”. There is also a change to Oldman’s character’s face at the end of the film in the form of a rampant skin complaint which is ‘explained’ by a clumsily inserted news item about an “attempted poisoning”: it’s such a clunky and bizarre addition to the script that it made me wonder whether the actor has some unexpected ailment (like shingles) during filming…. but I can see nothing related to this online.
The striking Elodie Yung as the Interpol agent Roussel.
The screenplay by relative newcomer Tom O’Connor bumps along from implausible action scene to implausible action scene, with more that its fair share of ‘WTF’ moments. For example, after a random chase through multiple Amsterdam alleys and shops, Jackson pulls up outside the very DIY shop Reynolds ends up in to pick him up! The script is also tonally uneven throughout: given this is supposed to be an “action comedy” the action is often brutal and unpleasant and the comedy – in the main – just not funny enough. (About the funniest thing in the film are the most ineffective sub machine guns known to man, most notably in the mildly ludicrous, if well staged, boat chase scene!)
An entertaining cameo from Richard E Grant as a businessman in danger.
The film also manages to offend, in more ways than the 15-rated violence and language used: I’m not sure WHEN this movie was actually filmed, but the use of an articulated lorry as a terrorist weapon towards the end of the film is certainly in very poor taste after the events of Nice, London and Barcelona. Not appreciated.
Directed by Patrick Hughes (“The Expendables 3″…. say no more) this hodge-podge of a flick is sporadically entertaining, but is one I will struggle to remember in a couple of months time.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Bad Boys II (2003) in Movies
Apr 2, 2020
Decent but Definitely the Worst of the Trilogy
Narcotics detectives Mike Lowrey (Will Smith) and Marcus Burnett (Martin Lawrence) are back getting into a heap of shit as they try and take down an ecstasy ring.
Acting: 9
You have to love the performances of Lawrence and Smith as they know how to carry a movie between the two of them. Their chemistry is amazing and they do a wonderful job of balancing each other out, particularly in this film were Smith is more of a shoot-first type while Lawrence’s role is about finding peace and zen. Joe Pantoliano makes a return as Captain Howard, making me crack up everytime he opens his mouth to yell at Lowrey and Burnett for screwing up yet again.
The one role I just couldn’t let sneak past was Jordi Molla playing Johnny Tapia. Terrible doesn’t even begin to describe his performance. It feels too cliche and way overdone, detracting from important scenes at times. Wasn’t a fan in the slightest.
Beginning: 7
While I did appreciate the action at the beginning of the movie, there was just too much going on for me to really settle in and get into it. It’s hard to really understand up from down in the first ten minutes which carries on as the movie progresses as well. Less can be more sometimes, but it feels like in this instance, director Michael Bay called for more of everything.
Characters: 9
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
Bad Boys II has its moments cinematically. The mortuary scene and the scene in the abandoned house are two that really stand out for me. They were shot in such a way that they are hard to forget. From an overall standpoint, I am not a fan of the overdose of slowmo that Bay loves to do. It becomes tedious to the brain and drags the movie out longer than it needs to be. And this movie already has enough time constraints as it is.
Conflict: 10
Action abounds in this second installment from shootouts to car chases to explosions on top of explosions. If you are an action junky, this movie will not disappoint. As much as I rag on Bay (and, no he’s not my favorite director), he knows how to make a scene pop and make traditional action sets feel extremely original. Even as I’m typing this, I can’t forget the highway scene where the bad guys have hijacked a car-carrying truck and they start to release the cars as they speed down the highway. It’s absolute calamity.
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Bay does his best to keep things fresh, but it’s hard to hide from the fact that this is all about action then dialogue then right back to action. It gets a bit repetitive at times, but I will also admit that it may have something to do with the fact that I’ve watched a shit ton of movies recently (what else is new?). When Cuba gets mentioned and you realize the movie is only two thirds of the way over when it should be finished, that’s when things really slowed down for me even more. You can absolutely cut thirty minutes from this movie and it would be phenomenal, possibly a classic.
Plot: 6
Decent enough story, but nothing that’s going to win an Oscar. I felt corners were cut in spots as there were times where I was trying to figure out, “Why the hell is this happening now?” I also didn’t appreciate some of the cheats, which is a term I use to refer to spots in the movie that conveniently happen for the sake of it being a good scene. Again, cut a half hour of this movie and I might be feeling differently overall.
Resolution: 4
The end was not only mad corny, but it didn’t feel like a real resolution. Not sure what they were going for here, but it didn’t work. The end didn’t really justify the length of what it took to get there.
Overall: 73
I know I know. You read through this review and it almost sounds like I hated Bad Boys II. Truth is, it wasn’t terrible. Would it be the first action movie I recommend? Absolutely not. On the flipside, I can definitely think of many that were worse. At the risk of losing all credibility (as if I had any to begin with), I actually enjoyed this movie more than I did The French Connection. Fight me.
Acting: 9
You have to love the performances of Lawrence and Smith as they know how to carry a movie between the two of them. Their chemistry is amazing and they do a wonderful job of balancing each other out, particularly in this film were Smith is more of a shoot-first type while Lawrence’s role is about finding peace and zen. Joe Pantoliano makes a return as Captain Howard, making me crack up everytime he opens his mouth to yell at Lowrey and Burnett for screwing up yet again.
The one role I just couldn’t let sneak past was Jordi Molla playing Johnny Tapia. Terrible doesn’t even begin to describe his performance. It feels too cliche and way overdone, detracting from important scenes at times. Wasn’t a fan in the slightest.
Beginning: 7
While I did appreciate the action at the beginning of the movie, there was just too much going on for me to really settle in and get into it. It’s hard to really understand up from down in the first ten minutes which carries on as the movie progresses as well. Less can be more sometimes, but it feels like in this instance, director Michael Bay called for more of everything.
Characters: 9
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
Bad Boys II has its moments cinematically. The mortuary scene and the scene in the abandoned house are two that really stand out for me. They were shot in such a way that they are hard to forget. From an overall standpoint, I am not a fan of the overdose of slowmo that Bay loves to do. It becomes tedious to the brain and drags the movie out longer than it needs to be. And this movie already has enough time constraints as it is.
Conflict: 10
Action abounds in this second installment from shootouts to car chases to explosions on top of explosions. If you are an action junky, this movie will not disappoint. As much as I rag on Bay (and, no he’s not my favorite director), he knows how to make a scene pop and make traditional action sets feel extremely original. Even as I’m typing this, I can’t forget the highway scene where the bad guys have hijacked a car-carrying truck and they start to release the cars as they speed down the highway. It’s absolute calamity.
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Bay does his best to keep things fresh, but it’s hard to hide from the fact that this is all about action then dialogue then right back to action. It gets a bit repetitive at times, but I will also admit that it may have something to do with the fact that I’ve watched a shit ton of movies recently (what else is new?). When Cuba gets mentioned and you realize the movie is only two thirds of the way over when it should be finished, that’s when things really slowed down for me even more. You can absolutely cut thirty minutes from this movie and it would be phenomenal, possibly a classic.
Plot: 6
Decent enough story, but nothing that’s going to win an Oscar. I felt corners were cut in spots as there were times where I was trying to figure out, “Why the hell is this happening now?” I also didn’t appreciate some of the cheats, which is a term I use to refer to spots in the movie that conveniently happen for the sake of it being a good scene. Again, cut a half hour of this movie and I might be feeling differently overall.
Resolution: 4
The end was not only mad corny, but it didn’t feel like a real resolution. Not sure what they were going for here, but it didn’t work. The end didn’t really justify the length of what it took to get there.
Overall: 73
I know I know. You read through this review and it almost sounds like I hated Bad Boys II. Truth is, it wasn’t terrible. Would it be the first action movie I recommend? Absolutely not. On the flipside, I can definitely think of many that were worse. At the risk of losing all credibility (as if I had any to begin with), I actually enjoyed this movie more than I did The French Connection. Fight me.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Aug 1, 2019
A surprisingly pleasant thrill-ride!
The Fast & The Furious franchise paused to allow two of it's most memorable, larger-than-life characters to branch out on their own with this action-packed offering of explosions and humour.
I have to admit, I had my reservations about this one. Firstly, it's basically a F&F movie... we all know what they are and what to expect, which is why we love them. Except it's not a proper F&F movie, and I was worried labelling it as part of that story universe would burden it with unrealistic expectations. Secondly, I've spent the last few months trying to avoid trailers for it, when I realised they were basically showing the entire film in them. After the first three or four, I was left genuinely concerned they had nothing left to show me. I thought there was no way they could have any eye candy that I hadn't at least seen a snapshot of.
So, I entered the cinema expecting very little. Which is probably why I left the cinema feeling very happy and satisfied.
Saying this is a F&F movie is like saying Captain America and Guardians of the Galaxy are Marvel movies. Yes, they technically are, but they are two hugely different types of movie. The similarities are obviously more prevalent here, along with the formulaic and predictable buddy-cop routine, but this film manages to confidently and successfully stand on its own two feet, and not in the shadow of Vin Diesel as I first feared.
And yes, the trailers showed snippets of pretty much every major action sequence, but weirdly, they didn't give away as much you would think. There are also some nice surprises in there. I won't spoil them, but let's just say I'm very impressed at how they managed to keep the cameos under wraps!
Okay, let's get into it. The plot (such as it is) revolves around a mysterious tech firm trying to get a hold of a deadly virus, using Idris Elba's enjoyable villain, Brixton to track it down. It takes all of five minutes for things to go sideways, leaving Hattie Shaw on the run from the bad guys. The Powers That Be (the CIA and MI6) decide they need the best bad guy trackers in the business to hunt down Brixton and retrieve this virus, and the girl... thus saving the world. The former recruits Mr. Johnson; the latter, Mr. Statham. As we know from the trailers, Vanessa Kirby portrays Shaw's sister - it becomes a family affair and we're off to the races.
The on-screen chemistry between Statham and Johnson is clear to see. The comedic dialogue they have lands a lot more than it misses. There's perhaps a bit too much gung-ho stereotyping and fan-service catchphrases, but again, you have to expect that kind of thing from a film like this.
What I liked about it was that whilst they didn't re-invent the wheel, it didn't feel like a carbon-copy of every other action film, like so many others do. It had heart. It had character. Yes, some of the stunts were silly. Yes, the bad guy being genetically-enhanced was a bit weird - blending sci-fi with real-world action whilst never actually acknowledging it took some getting used to. But the film just kinda worked. It was very good without being great. It was predictable but still managed to be enjoyable. It's a good two-hour investment of your time for an afternoon/evening out with the family.
Hobbs and Shaw is proof that whatever your criticisms, whatever your reservations, anything Dwayne Johnson touches turns to gold right now. It's also what a potential future Expendables reboot will probably look like.
Meanwhile F&F9 is now filming (sans Statham and Johnson, apparently) and with an inevitable H&S sequel surely not too far away, you can't help but wonder if they're gearing this all up to be a super-charged, car-based competitor to the MCU. The ending, two mid-credits and one post-credits scene in this film clearly set up another outing and tease a sinister, overarching enemy with ties to the character's pasts... could this be a way to link it all back to Vin Diesel and Co? Could a crossover Summer blockbuster be the only way to tell this story? If early box office figures are anything to go by here, the smart money would say yes.
Go, enjoy, eat popcorn and leave your brain and the real world in the car.
I have to admit, I had my reservations about this one. Firstly, it's basically a F&F movie... we all know what they are and what to expect, which is why we love them. Except it's not a proper F&F movie, and I was worried labelling it as part of that story universe would burden it with unrealistic expectations. Secondly, I've spent the last few months trying to avoid trailers for it, when I realised they were basically showing the entire film in them. After the first three or four, I was left genuinely concerned they had nothing left to show me. I thought there was no way they could have any eye candy that I hadn't at least seen a snapshot of.
So, I entered the cinema expecting very little. Which is probably why I left the cinema feeling very happy and satisfied.
Saying this is a F&F movie is like saying Captain America and Guardians of the Galaxy are Marvel movies. Yes, they technically are, but they are two hugely different types of movie. The similarities are obviously more prevalent here, along with the formulaic and predictable buddy-cop routine, but this film manages to confidently and successfully stand on its own two feet, and not in the shadow of Vin Diesel as I first feared.
And yes, the trailers showed snippets of pretty much every major action sequence, but weirdly, they didn't give away as much you would think. There are also some nice surprises in there. I won't spoil them, but let's just say I'm very impressed at how they managed to keep the cameos under wraps!
Okay, let's get into it. The plot (such as it is) revolves around a mysterious tech firm trying to get a hold of a deadly virus, using Idris Elba's enjoyable villain, Brixton to track it down. It takes all of five minutes for things to go sideways, leaving Hattie Shaw on the run from the bad guys. The Powers That Be (the CIA and MI6) decide they need the best bad guy trackers in the business to hunt down Brixton and retrieve this virus, and the girl... thus saving the world. The former recruits Mr. Johnson; the latter, Mr. Statham. As we know from the trailers, Vanessa Kirby portrays Shaw's sister - it becomes a family affair and we're off to the races.
The on-screen chemistry between Statham and Johnson is clear to see. The comedic dialogue they have lands a lot more than it misses. There's perhaps a bit too much gung-ho stereotyping and fan-service catchphrases, but again, you have to expect that kind of thing from a film like this.
What I liked about it was that whilst they didn't re-invent the wheel, it didn't feel like a carbon-copy of every other action film, like so many others do. It had heart. It had character. Yes, some of the stunts were silly. Yes, the bad guy being genetically-enhanced was a bit weird - blending sci-fi with real-world action whilst never actually acknowledging it took some getting used to. But the film just kinda worked. It was very good without being great. It was predictable but still managed to be enjoyable. It's a good two-hour investment of your time for an afternoon/evening out with the family.
Hobbs and Shaw is proof that whatever your criticisms, whatever your reservations, anything Dwayne Johnson touches turns to gold right now. It's also what a potential future Expendables reboot will probably look like.
Meanwhile F&F9 is now filming (sans Statham and Johnson, apparently) and with an inevitable H&S sequel surely not too far away, you can't help but wonder if they're gearing this all up to be a super-charged, car-based competitor to the MCU. The ending, two mid-credits and one post-credits scene in this film clearly set up another outing and tease a sinister, overarching enemy with ties to the character's pasts... could this be a way to link it all back to Vin Diesel and Co? Could a crossover Summer blockbuster be the only way to tell this story? If early box office figures are anything to go by here, the smart money would say yes.
Go, enjoy, eat popcorn and leave your brain and the real world in the car.