Search
Search results
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Rhythm Section (2019) in Movies
Nov 29, 2020
An average thriller
The Rhythm Section is a 2020 action thriller based on a book of the same name written by Mark Burnell. Directed by Reed Moreno, it stars Blake Lively as Stephanie Patrick, a young woman bent on revenge against the terrorists who orchestrated a plane crash that killed her entire family.
From the very beginning, you can see the influences and similarities in this to other films and stories.
This has obviously taken inspiration from the likes of John Le Carre and is a rather dark and gritty take on the action thriller genre, with a decent amount of physical (and well choreographed) violence. However in all honesty, the originality here is severely lacking. I’ve seen countless revenge films and this is no different. There is little in this to make it stand out above all those that have come before it and it isn’t helped by a limited number of action scenes either to help ramp up the interest.
It doesn’t start off very well, as we find out about Stephanie’s life and how the death of her family turned her into a drug addict and a prostitute. It’s so clichéd that even Jude Law’s character Boyd mocks her for this later in the film, which whilst fun, doesn’t change the fact that they actually used this idea in the plot. There’s also the sketchy almost nonexistent reason for journalist Proctor (Raza Jeffrey) to reach out to Stephanie to tell her that the plane crash was caused by terrorists rather than an accident. It just doesn’t make any sense as to why he’d get Stephanie involved and the film doesn’t even try to explain this rationally. Same goes when Boyd takes in Stephanie and starts to train her as an assassin. Whilst a reason is eventually revealed, it isn’t entirely plausible and again doesn’t make any sense as to why he does this with a woman who has no background or knowledge in espionage or assassination.
Aside from the sketchy plot, there are some plus points. Blake Lively performs well (despite the often hideous wigs), and you can see that she’s really giving it her all and could really make it as an action star. The scenes featuring her and Jude Law are also entertaining to watch and give the film a more relaxed feeling, especially the earlier training scenes. One of the most likeable things about this thought for me was the score. It’s tense and dramatic and full of excitement, with pieces featuring strings, piano and percussion to the point where you begin to wonder if the title ‘The Rhythm Section’ isn’t more appropriate for the music rather than the explanation given during the film.
Sadly The Rhythm Section is a fairly average thriller that whilst boosted slightly by a good performance and score, is unfortunately not particularly memorable, especially with such a lacklustre ending.
From the very beginning, you can see the influences and similarities in this to other films and stories.
This has obviously taken inspiration from the likes of John Le Carre and is a rather dark and gritty take on the action thriller genre, with a decent amount of physical (and well choreographed) violence. However in all honesty, the originality here is severely lacking. I’ve seen countless revenge films and this is no different. There is little in this to make it stand out above all those that have come before it and it isn’t helped by a limited number of action scenes either to help ramp up the interest.
It doesn’t start off very well, as we find out about Stephanie’s life and how the death of her family turned her into a drug addict and a prostitute. It’s so clichéd that even Jude Law’s character Boyd mocks her for this later in the film, which whilst fun, doesn’t change the fact that they actually used this idea in the plot. There’s also the sketchy almost nonexistent reason for journalist Proctor (Raza Jeffrey) to reach out to Stephanie to tell her that the plane crash was caused by terrorists rather than an accident. It just doesn’t make any sense as to why he’d get Stephanie involved and the film doesn’t even try to explain this rationally. Same goes when Boyd takes in Stephanie and starts to train her as an assassin. Whilst a reason is eventually revealed, it isn’t entirely plausible and again doesn’t make any sense as to why he does this with a woman who has no background or knowledge in espionage or assassination.
Aside from the sketchy plot, there are some plus points. Blake Lively performs well (despite the often hideous wigs), and you can see that she’s really giving it her all and could really make it as an action star. The scenes featuring her and Jude Law are also entertaining to watch and give the film a more relaxed feeling, especially the earlier training scenes. One of the most likeable things about this thought for me was the score. It’s tense and dramatic and full of excitement, with pieces featuring strings, piano and percussion to the point where you begin to wonder if the title ‘The Rhythm Section’ isn’t more appropriate for the music rather than the explanation given during the film.
Sadly The Rhythm Section is a fairly average thriller that whilst boosted slightly by a good performance and score, is unfortunately not particularly memorable, especially with such a lacklustre ending.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Evolution in Tabletop Games
Sep 12, 2019
I very much have a science-based mind. I like facts, figures, data, charts, timelines, etc. Yes, I can be a dreamer, too, but at the end of the day, I need verification to really believe in something. That’s why I’ve always been on Team Evolution vs. Team Creationism. It fascinates me how these huge beings like dinosaurs (oh yeah, I love dinosaurs a lot, too) could be preserved in time well past their deaths. But it leads to questions like, “What happened to them? Why couldn’t they make it in the end?” And the game Evolution by North Star Games attempts to answer those.
Disclaimer: There are several expansions to this game, but we are not reviewing them at this time. Should we review them in the future we will either update this review or post a link to the new material here. Furthermore, I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. – B
You start the game in control of one species of animal. One non-descript, traitless species that you will slowly (or maybe quickly) build up to be something bigger and better. You evolve it. (Huh.) You’ll start each round by contributing plant food to the watering hole. Each card in your hand is worth a certain amount of plant food. Once that food is in the watering hole, it’s fair game for anyone to eat. Depending on your strategy, you may want a lot of food in that watering hole, or you may want to starve your opponents out (some cards are even worth negative food!). Once all the food is in the watering hole, it’s time to evolve your critters. The cards in your hand have unique traits on them. To imbue your species with that trait, simply place the card next to your species’ gameboard and voila! You now have horns, or intelligence, or the ability to forage, or many other possibilities. You may also take this opportunity to evolve your creature into a carnivore (more on that later). At this point in the game, you may also discard cards in order to increase the population of your species, or to increase the body size of your cute little guys. This will be important later. You can also discard a card to create a whole new species. There’s no limit to how many species you can have, but there is a limit to the available food, so be wise with the number of species you create.
After everyone has evolved, it’s time to feed! You’ll take turns taking plant food from the watering hole. Yummy! You want to eat enough food to sustain your whole population size (1 piece of food per population). If not, your population size will decrease, meaning your species is dying. If you are unable to sustain the last remaining member of your species, that species will become extinct for eternity. Sad face. But don’t worry. You’ll get a new species for free at the beginning of your next turn. Once everyone is fed and happy, the round is over and you start a new round. The winner of the game goes to whoever has eaten the most food because, just like in real life, the success of your population is based on its ability to sustain itself, which, in this case, means eating the proper amount of food.
It SOUNDS simple, but I haven’t told you about all the curveballs yet. As stated before, you may choose to make your species a carnivore, which means that you will no longer take plant food from the watering hole. In order to eat, you have to attack another species! You can only attack other species who have smaller body sizes than you (I told you body size would be important. It’s your first means of defense against predators!). But some of those smaller species might have evolved some defensive traits, like a hard shell or the ability to burrow underground or to climb trees and taunt their predators from on high. This is the beauty of the game. How well can you evolve your herbivore creature in order to keep it well-fed and also free from predators? If you’re a carnivore, how well can you adapt to your surroundings and your ever-evolving prey before you can no longer feed on them? (I should also mention that you may find yourself in the truly depressing situation where all of your opponents have out-evolved your carnivores and the only other option left to feed them is to attack one of YOUR other species. The rules clearly state that every species MUST feed if able to, so you may have to sacrifice your other friends. VERY sad face.)
Components: Evolution comes in a standard cardboard box containing lots of high-quality trait cards, plant and meat food tokens and a large watering hole token (on which you put the plant food tokens). It also comes with cardboard food screens so you can conceal how much food your little (or maybe not so little) critters have eaten. You’ll get a stack of thick, double-sided species boards for you to keep track of your body size and population. I love that they’re double-sided because it gives you the flexibility to change their orientation (portrait or landscape) to save on table space. Body size and population are tracked using little brown and green cubes, which fit nicely in little holes on your species board. And to top it all off, the first player token is a a very large dinosaur-shaped meeple. Adorbs. The cards do tell you how to use them, but the rulebook has extra clarification for each card in case you need it. The cards are even color-coded so you’ll know if the trait is used for defense or eating, or maybe only usable by carnivores. Everything is very top-notch quality and the artwork is quite beautiful, creating new creatures and using bright, vivid colors. The artwork alone drew me to the box in the first place.
I really love this game. The theme is very on-brand for me, but I also really like that it’ll take a bit of luck (by hopefully drawing usable cards) and a ton of strategy to try to outwit your opponents. It’ll never be played the same way twice. Evolution is so spot-on, in fact, that it’s actually been used in the evolutionary biology department of the University of Oxford, so come on. It’s fun AND educational. I’ve also downloaded and quickly become obsessed with the mobile version, which is available on Google Play, in the App Store and on Steam. As of this writing, there are two expansions available: Flight and Climate, but there’s also a Climate stand-alone game, and an Evolution: The Beginning game, which is suitable for our younger friends. I own the Flight expansion but have yet to play it and I can’t wait to change that! Give this game a go. You’ll be happy you did. In the words of esteemed Dr. Ian Malcolm, “Life, uh, finds a way.” Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a (r)evolutionary 13 / 18.
Disclaimer: There are several expansions to this game, but we are not reviewing them at this time. Should we review them in the future we will either update this review or post a link to the new material here. Furthermore, I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. – B
You start the game in control of one species of animal. One non-descript, traitless species that you will slowly (or maybe quickly) build up to be something bigger and better. You evolve it. (Huh.) You’ll start each round by contributing plant food to the watering hole. Each card in your hand is worth a certain amount of plant food. Once that food is in the watering hole, it’s fair game for anyone to eat. Depending on your strategy, you may want a lot of food in that watering hole, or you may want to starve your opponents out (some cards are even worth negative food!). Once all the food is in the watering hole, it’s time to evolve your critters. The cards in your hand have unique traits on them. To imbue your species with that trait, simply place the card next to your species’ gameboard and voila! You now have horns, or intelligence, or the ability to forage, or many other possibilities. You may also take this opportunity to evolve your creature into a carnivore (more on that later). At this point in the game, you may also discard cards in order to increase the population of your species, or to increase the body size of your cute little guys. This will be important later. You can also discard a card to create a whole new species. There’s no limit to how many species you can have, but there is a limit to the available food, so be wise with the number of species you create.
After everyone has evolved, it’s time to feed! You’ll take turns taking plant food from the watering hole. Yummy! You want to eat enough food to sustain your whole population size (1 piece of food per population). If not, your population size will decrease, meaning your species is dying. If you are unable to sustain the last remaining member of your species, that species will become extinct for eternity. Sad face. But don’t worry. You’ll get a new species for free at the beginning of your next turn. Once everyone is fed and happy, the round is over and you start a new round. The winner of the game goes to whoever has eaten the most food because, just like in real life, the success of your population is based on its ability to sustain itself, which, in this case, means eating the proper amount of food.
It SOUNDS simple, but I haven’t told you about all the curveballs yet. As stated before, you may choose to make your species a carnivore, which means that you will no longer take plant food from the watering hole. In order to eat, you have to attack another species! You can only attack other species who have smaller body sizes than you (I told you body size would be important. It’s your first means of defense against predators!). But some of those smaller species might have evolved some defensive traits, like a hard shell or the ability to burrow underground or to climb trees and taunt their predators from on high. This is the beauty of the game. How well can you evolve your herbivore creature in order to keep it well-fed and also free from predators? If you’re a carnivore, how well can you adapt to your surroundings and your ever-evolving prey before you can no longer feed on them? (I should also mention that you may find yourself in the truly depressing situation where all of your opponents have out-evolved your carnivores and the only other option left to feed them is to attack one of YOUR other species. The rules clearly state that every species MUST feed if able to, so you may have to sacrifice your other friends. VERY sad face.)
Components: Evolution comes in a standard cardboard box containing lots of high-quality trait cards, plant and meat food tokens and a large watering hole token (on which you put the plant food tokens). It also comes with cardboard food screens so you can conceal how much food your little (or maybe not so little) critters have eaten. You’ll get a stack of thick, double-sided species boards for you to keep track of your body size and population. I love that they’re double-sided because it gives you the flexibility to change their orientation (portrait or landscape) to save on table space. Body size and population are tracked using little brown and green cubes, which fit nicely in little holes on your species board. And to top it all off, the first player token is a a very large dinosaur-shaped meeple. Adorbs. The cards do tell you how to use them, but the rulebook has extra clarification for each card in case you need it. The cards are even color-coded so you’ll know if the trait is used for defense or eating, or maybe only usable by carnivores. Everything is very top-notch quality and the artwork is quite beautiful, creating new creatures and using bright, vivid colors. The artwork alone drew me to the box in the first place.
I really love this game. The theme is very on-brand for me, but I also really like that it’ll take a bit of luck (by hopefully drawing usable cards) and a ton of strategy to try to outwit your opponents. It’ll never be played the same way twice. Evolution is so spot-on, in fact, that it’s actually been used in the evolutionary biology department of the University of Oxford, so come on. It’s fun AND educational. I’ve also downloaded and quickly become obsessed with the mobile version, which is available on Google Play, in the App Store and on Steam. As of this writing, there are two expansions available: Flight and Climate, but there’s also a Climate stand-alone game, and an Evolution: The Beginning game, which is suitable for our younger friends. I own the Flight expansion but have yet to play it and I can’t wait to change that! Give this game a go. You’ll be happy you did. In the words of esteemed Dr. Ian Malcolm, “Life, uh, finds a way.” Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a (r)evolutionary 13 / 18.
HerCrazyReviews (247 KP) rated Rent: The Complete Book and Lyrics of the Broadway Musical in Books
Aug 24, 2019
AIDs Representation (1 more)
LGBTQIA+ Representation
Great Representation, Horrible Characters
I have never seen the musical Rent nor have I ever seen the movie (though I heard it is not as good and different from the musical). Therefore, my rating is based solely on this book and because of that, I may not be able to understand or enjoy it as much as I would have if I had watched the movie or musical first.
First off, I loved that the book (or rather, musical) was set during the AIDS crisis and showed LGBTQIA+ representation. I think that is fantastic because (a.) we are lacking in our current day representation of LGBTQIA+ characters (though, we are slowly beginning to have this become the norm.) and (b.) the AIDS crisis was not a good time in history. The American government was not doing much to help with this crisis and seemed to sort of sweep it aside. Now, I was not alive during the beginning of this crisis and therefore have learned from sources and not with my own experiences, but not much was being done and this was mostly because this was originally considered a “gay disease” and, sadly, people in the past have not treated the LGBTQIA+ community with the respect they deserve. Instead, because this was considered a “gay disease” it was considered unimportant and therefore the AIDS epidemic was ignored. Luckily, today we have better people who are trying their best to find a cure.
Second, while I extremely enjoyed the representation and awareness this book (or musical) brought I did not enjoy most of the characters. While I do believe that characters should have flaws (after all no one is perfect and that is part of what make us human) I did not appreciate the way the characters in the book seemed to make excuses. Especially the fact that they used others difficulties to try and better themselves. Not to mention, most of the characters seemed to accentuate their poorness and use it as a way to better themselves. One scene that really got to me was when Mark was starting to film a homeless person. He did save them from the police but even they said “My life’s not for you to make a name for yourself on” and “Hey artist you gotta dollar? I thought not,” (Pg.38). It literally stated that these people who claim themselves to be “artists” use this as an excuse to exploit others.
Another huge part of what I did not appreciate about this book would be the harmful relationship that most of the characters seem to be in. Most of these relationships seemed too toxic and seemed to revolve around awful and sometimes disgusting circumstances.
Maureen (Cheater) + Joanne = 💔
Maureen and Joanne were repeatedly arguing, breaking it off, then getting back together. Now, that alone already seems like it’s not a healthy foundation for any relationship but then we find out that Maureen is a HUGE cheater. Mark himself told Joanne that she used to cheat on him when they were together and even had a bit of evidence that she was doing it again.
Roger (Past Drug Addict) + Mimi (Drug User) = 💔
Now, Roger is one of the many characters in this musical to have AIDS and because he is a past drug user we can infer that he got AIDS from drugs, or from his ex-girlfriend. Anyway, his goal before he dies from AIDS is to write one last song so that his life could mean something. To make sure that his life was worth it (to have glory), and I actually admire him for that. Lots of people would give up and I think it’s amazing that he wants to continue to try to make his life worth living. However, Mimi comes in and started to spark a flame (or light a candle) with Roger. There’s just one problem. Mimi is a drug user. Plus, it seems like she is trying to get Roger to get back on drugs. Definitely not something a healthy and loving relationship would have.
Benny (At least 30yrs.) + Mimi (Younger than 19) = 💔
Now, this has to be the most disgusting relationship in the book. While I don’t mind couples having age differences I am one-hundred percent NOT behind underage people dating men who are at least thirty, if not forty, years old. This was revealed when we got told that Mimi use to date Benny before she met Roger. Mimi was nineteen when she met Roger and if she had a prior relationship with Benny she was most likely eighteen or under.
Finally, I wasn’t very happy with the ending of the book. Mimi’s sort-of “death” scene just wasn’t my thing. It seemed to be that the situation as a whole seemed too excessive. She was dead, then she was back, then she was dead again, and she managed to come back because Angel told her too. While Mimi is a main character and main character deaths are extremely sad this story was supposed to make people more aware of AIDS and it just seemed to be too fanciful for me. This is an extremely deadly disease and just because someone told you that it was not your time to die yet does not mean that you are not going to yet pass. However, this is fiction and this does happen.
Would I Recommend? No. I really enjoyed the representation this showed within the LGBTQIA+ community and the awareness it would bring to people about the AIDS crisis, but I thought the story itself was bad. The characters, in my opinion, were not written well and I especially did not enjoy their actions or choices.
First off, I loved that the book (or rather, musical) was set during the AIDS crisis and showed LGBTQIA+ representation. I think that is fantastic because (a.) we are lacking in our current day representation of LGBTQIA+ characters (though, we are slowly beginning to have this become the norm.) and (b.) the AIDS crisis was not a good time in history. The American government was not doing much to help with this crisis and seemed to sort of sweep it aside. Now, I was not alive during the beginning of this crisis and therefore have learned from sources and not with my own experiences, but not much was being done and this was mostly because this was originally considered a “gay disease” and, sadly, people in the past have not treated the LGBTQIA+ community with the respect they deserve. Instead, because this was considered a “gay disease” it was considered unimportant and therefore the AIDS epidemic was ignored. Luckily, today we have better people who are trying their best to find a cure.
Second, while I extremely enjoyed the representation and awareness this book (or musical) brought I did not enjoy most of the characters. While I do believe that characters should have flaws (after all no one is perfect and that is part of what make us human) I did not appreciate the way the characters in the book seemed to make excuses. Especially the fact that they used others difficulties to try and better themselves. Not to mention, most of the characters seemed to accentuate their poorness and use it as a way to better themselves. One scene that really got to me was when Mark was starting to film a homeless person. He did save them from the police but even they said “My life’s not for you to make a name for yourself on” and “Hey artist you gotta dollar? I thought not,” (Pg.38). It literally stated that these people who claim themselves to be “artists” use this as an excuse to exploit others.
Another huge part of what I did not appreciate about this book would be the harmful relationship that most of the characters seem to be in. Most of these relationships seemed too toxic and seemed to revolve around awful and sometimes disgusting circumstances.
Maureen (Cheater) + Joanne = 💔
Maureen and Joanne were repeatedly arguing, breaking it off, then getting back together. Now, that alone already seems like it’s not a healthy foundation for any relationship but then we find out that Maureen is a HUGE cheater. Mark himself told Joanne that she used to cheat on him when they were together and even had a bit of evidence that she was doing it again.
Roger (Past Drug Addict) + Mimi (Drug User) = 💔
Now, Roger is one of the many characters in this musical to have AIDS and because he is a past drug user we can infer that he got AIDS from drugs, or from his ex-girlfriend. Anyway, his goal before he dies from AIDS is to write one last song so that his life could mean something. To make sure that his life was worth it (to have glory), and I actually admire him for that. Lots of people would give up and I think it’s amazing that he wants to continue to try to make his life worth living. However, Mimi comes in and started to spark a flame (or light a candle) with Roger. There’s just one problem. Mimi is a drug user. Plus, it seems like she is trying to get Roger to get back on drugs. Definitely not something a healthy and loving relationship would have.
Benny (At least 30yrs.) + Mimi (Younger than 19) = 💔
Now, this has to be the most disgusting relationship in the book. While I don’t mind couples having age differences I am one-hundred percent NOT behind underage people dating men who are at least thirty, if not forty, years old. This was revealed when we got told that Mimi use to date Benny before she met Roger. Mimi was nineteen when she met Roger and if she had a prior relationship with Benny she was most likely eighteen or under.
Finally, I wasn’t very happy with the ending of the book. Mimi’s sort-of “death” scene just wasn’t my thing. It seemed to be that the situation as a whole seemed too excessive. She was dead, then she was back, then she was dead again, and she managed to come back because Angel told her too. While Mimi is a main character and main character deaths are extremely sad this story was supposed to make people more aware of AIDS and it just seemed to be too fanciful for me. This is an extremely deadly disease and just because someone told you that it was not your time to die yet does not mean that you are not going to yet pass. However, this is fiction and this does happen.
Would I Recommend? No. I really enjoyed the representation this showed within the LGBTQIA+ community and the awareness it would bring to people about the AIDS crisis, but I thought the story itself was bad. The characters, in my opinion, were not written well and I especially did not enjoy their actions or choices.
Astro Cat’s Solar System
Education and Games
App
Apple TV Best of 2016 \\\ 2016 Webby Award Winner - Best App, Family & Kids /// *** Pay once &...
SkyDroid - Golf GPS
Sports and Utilities
App
SkyDroid - Golf GPS gives you your distance to every green on the course and more. Golf GPS that is...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Max Payne (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Against the gritty, snow covered, and crime ridden streets of New York, one man is waging a battle for redemption and revenge. The man in Detective Max Payne (Mark Wahlberg), and following the murder of his wife and infant son, Payne has seen his life and career spin down an ever deepening black hole to the point where he is relegated to a basement office working on cold cases.
Max has become a creature of the night, and spends his off hours patrolling the grimy sections of the city looking for clues about the death of his wife and taking on all manner of the cities criminal elements to get to the truth which has so long eluded him.
While attempting to gain information from a former snitch, Max is introduced to the Natasha Sax (Olga Kurylenko), and her sister Mona (Mila Kunis). The fact that Mona is suspicious of Max from the start is of little concern to Natasha who follows Max back to his apartment and attempts to seduce him. Max quickly spurns her advances which causes Natasha to leave his apartment angry and unbeknownst to Max, steals his wallet in the process. Shortly after leaving Max’s apartment, Natasha is brutally murdered and when Max’s wallet is found at the scene, he becomes the lead suspect in the murder.
Soon after learning from his former partner that Natasha’s dead may be linked to the death of Max’s wife, Max becomes the subject of a city wide manhunt when his partner turns up dead which is attributed to Max going over the edge.
In a race against time, Max must get to the bottom of the deaths as well as solve his family’s murder and clear his good name. This will not be easy as Max must face the resources of a gigantic corporation as well as a crazed drug lord, and his colleagues on the police force.
Based on the popular video games series from Remedy Entertainment and 3D Realms, Max Payne takes some of the games more prominent characters and themes and creates a new storyline. The bullet time ability that Max had in the game has been omitted and replaced with a few gun battles that are shot at times in slow motion, such as a well staged battle in an office building.
While the storyline and character development may be lacking, the film does a decent job of capturing the look and tone of the games, and Wahlberg is solid as the tormented lead character.
Backed by a solid supporting cast which includes Beau Bridges, Chris O’Donnell, and Ludacris, “Max Payne” is an enjoyable if flawed movie experience that makes up for its shortcomings with solid visuals and some great gun battles that come late in the film.
The picture and sound quality of the movie are very crisp and if you have the chance to enjoy the film in surround sound and HDTV I would highly suggest it.
The bonus features are very good and there is a great graphic book feature that delves more into the character of Max Payne’s wife and the events leading up to her murder.
Max has become a creature of the night, and spends his off hours patrolling the grimy sections of the city looking for clues about the death of his wife and taking on all manner of the cities criminal elements to get to the truth which has so long eluded him.
While attempting to gain information from a former snitch, Max is introduced to the Natasha Sax (Olga Kurylenko), and her sister Mona (Mila Kunis). The fact that Mona is suspicious of Max from the start is of little concern to Natasha who follows Max back to his apartment and attempts to seduce him. Max quickly spurns her advances which causes Natasha to leave his apartment angry and unbeknownst to Max, steals his wallet in the process. Shortly after leaving Max’s apartment, Natasha is brutally murdered and when Max’s wallet is found at the scene, he becomes the lead suspect in the murder.
Soon after learning from his former partner that Natasha’s dead may be linked to the death of Max’s wife, Max becomes the subject of a city wide manhunt when his partner turns up dead which is attributed to Max going over the edge.
In a race against time, Max must get to the bottom of the deaths as well as solve his family’s murder and clear his good name. This will not be easy as Max must face the resources of a gigantic corporation as well as a crazed drug lord, and his colleagues on the police force.
Based on the popular video games series from Remedy Entertainment and 3D Realms, Max Payne takes some of the games more prominent characters and themes and creates a new storyline. The bullet time ability that Max had in the game has been omitted and replaced with a few gun battles that are shot at times in slow motion, such as a well staged battle in an office building.
While the storyline and character development may be lacking, the film does a decent job of capturing the look and tone of the games, and Wahlberg is solid as the tormented lead character.
Backed by a solid supporting cast which includes Beau Bridges, Chris O’Donnell, and Ludacris, “Max Payne” is an enjoyable if flawed movie experience that makes up for its shortcomings with solid visuals and some great gun battles that come late in the film.
The picture and sound quality of the movie are very crisp and if you have the chance to enjoy the film in surround sound and HDTV I would highly suggest it.
The bonus features are very good and there is a great graphic book feature that delves more into the character of Max Payne’s wife and the events leading up to her murder.
JT (287 KP) rated Killer Elite (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Just another mindless Statham master-class of ass kicking? Think again people, this one is a whole different ball game, and one that sets this easily one of the Stath’s best to date. Paired alongside Robert De Niro would be an honour in itself for any actor and the rapport between the two was like they had been lifelong friends.
Despite De Niro’s relatively smallish part he still gets his moment in the limelight, and makes the most of the opportunity, with a few witty pieces of dialogue thrown in, we all know he can handle an automatic weapon.
It’s more than just an action film though, it’s part drama part spy thriller
This is all about Danny (Jason Statham) and his group of deadly assassins, Davies, played by Prison Break’s Dominic Purcell and Meier (Aden Young) who set out to take down three former SAS soldiers who are alleged to have killed a dying Sheik’s three sons. All this in return for the release of Hunter, simply put “You do this job, or Hunter’s a dead man.”
Set in the 80s it gives the film a real retro feel to it, and the action is balls and all, there is no CGI here. From an opening sequence centred on a assassination attempt to close hand to hand combat, director McKendry goes a little Bourne-esque with his sharp direction and tight camera shots.
Clive Owen sporting the film’s dodgiest tash is ultra slick and uber cool as the dogsbody of a secret society called The Feather Men which is actually a book by Ranulph Fiennes to which the film is based. Why The Feather Men? Because they have the lightest touch, apt really when Owen goes about his business heavy handed.
It’s more than just an action film though, its part drama part spy thriller. The script is extremely well written with intricate characters that you can care about, rather than go to watch kick the shit out of each other.
The film does jump from a variety of locations, from the Middle East to London to Paris to the outback bush of Australia, it can be hard to follow and keep up with just where they are. But a close eye will leave no confusion whatsoever.
It’s a great debut feature from McKendry and will do his stock no harm at all, and for Statham fans this one has got a bit more meat on it to chew through.
Despite De Niro’s relatively smallish part he still gets his moment in the limelight, and makes the most of the opportunity, with a few witty pieces of dialogue thrown in, we all know he can handle an automatic weapon.
It’s more than just an action film though, it’s part drama part spy thriller
This is all about Danny (Jason Statham) and his group of deadly assassins, Davies, played by Prison Break’s Dominic Purcell and Meier (Aden Young) who set out to take down three former SAS soldiers who are alleged to have killed a dying Sheik’s three sons. All this in return for the release of Hunter, simply put “You do this job, or Hunter’s a dead man.”
Set in the 80s it gives the film a real retro feel to it, and the action is balls and all, there is no CGI here. From an opening sequence centred on a assassination attempt to close hand to hand combat, director McKendry goes a little Bourne-esque with his sharp direction and tight camera shots.
Clive Owen sporting the film’s dodgiest tash is ultra slick and uber cool as the dogsbody of a secret society called The Feather Men which is actually a book by Ranulph Fiennes to which the film is based. Why The Feather Men? Because they have the lightest touch, apt really when Owen goes about his business heavy handed.
It’s more than just an action film though, its part drama part spy thriller. The script is extremely well written with intricate characters that you can care about, rather than go to watch kick the shit out of each other.
The film does jump from a variety of locations, from the Middle East to London to Paris to the outback bush of Australia, it can be hard to follow and keep up with just where they are. But a close eye will leave no confusion whatsoever.
It’s a great debut feature from McKendry and will do his stock no harm at all, and for Statham fans this one has got a bit more meat on it to chew through.
Organizational Change
Barbara Senior and Stephen Swailes
Book
This very successful textbook explores change and how it relates to the complexities of...
MarginNote Pro
Productivity and Education
App
*** Reading & Studying will NEVER be the same! *** Welcome to MarginNote. This is a highly powerful...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania (2023) in Movies
Mar 18, 2023
Middle of the Road Marvel
The good news for long-time, hard core Marvel Cinematic Universe fans is that the next “big bad” in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been unleashed and we will now get to see “Kang The Conqueror” (in his permutations) battling our heroes for the foreseeable future.
The bad news is that for casual fans – and folks that are just plain tired of the MCU – things are going to get more complex and convoluted as the MCU heads deeper into the “Comic Bookiness” of their source material.
Such is the case with ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA, the 3rd standalone Ant Man film starring Paul Ruud, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Douglas. It is a very “Comic Bookie” film in that it takes the audience to the “Quantum Realm” and all the quirky characters and locations therein.
Director Peyton Reed (who helmed the previous 2 Ant-Man films) leans into this “Comic Bookieness” in that he accents the weird and bizarre and creates comic-book-like panels on the images on the screen. Consequently, this makes the film interesting to look at, but for the most part, there is not much substance under the surface.
For their part, Ruud, Lilly, Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer (returning from the 2nd Ant-Man film) and newcomer Kathryn Newton (taking over the role of Ruud’s daughter, Cassie) are game in what they are asked to work with and react to (mostly to a green screen with CGI filled in later) and they all are winning (enough) presences on screen to spend a very enjoyable time with.
Jonathan Majors is on-board as Kang the Conqueror (a version of him was seen at the end of the first season of the Disney+ series LOKI) and he brings his considerable acting chops, gravitas and weight to the proceedings. He is a force to be reckoned with which was apparent from almost the first time he commanded the screen in this film. It will be interesting to see where he takes things from here.
The problem with this film is that it is (mostly) style with very little substance. Necessarily, the plot drives a more dramatic, darker theme to this Ant-Man film than in previous outings and the film suffers because of it. One of the charms of the Ant-Man films is that Director Reed was able to lean into the inherent goofiness of Paul Ruud and the absurd idea of him being able to shrink. That quirkiness and sense of fun is gone – as are regular characters played in the past 2 films by the likes of Bobby Canavale, Judy Greer, Randall Park (who has a blink or you’ll miss him cameo) and (most egregiously) Michael Pena.
What they are replaced by are some quirky “Quantum Realm” characters – most of whom are CGI and are voiced by some very good voice performers – it just doesn’t hit the same, since the overall theme is darker. Katy M. O’Brian and William Jackson Harper (who is rounding into a very intriguing performer) bring gusto to their roles as a few members of the Quantum realm, which helps pick up the sagginess of this film, but not enough. Not even a Bill Murray appearance can elevate this film to something funner than it is.
All in all a “fine” entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – and one that will remind you very much that you are watching a film based on Comic Book characters – but it falls squarely in the middle of the MCU entries...a catalogue of which is becoming very deep (maybe too deep), indeed.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The bad news is that for casual fans – and folks that are just plain tired of the MCU – things are going to get more complex and convoluted as the MCU heads deeper into the “Comic Bookiness” of their source material.
Such is the case with ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA, the 3rd standalone Ant Man film starring Paul Ruud, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Douglas. It is a very “Comic Bookie” film in that it takes the audience to the “Quantum Realm” and all the quirky characters and locations therein.
Director Peyton Reed (who helmed the previous 2 Ant-Man films) leans into this “Comic Bookieness” in that he accents the weird and bizarre and creates comic-book-like panels on the images on the screen. Consequently, this makes the film interesting to look at, but for the most part, there is not much substance under the surface.
For their part, Ruud, Lilly, Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer (returning from the 2nd Ant-Man film) and newcomer Kathryn Newton (taking over the role of Ruud’s daughter, Cassie) are game in what they are asked to work with and react to (mostly to a green screen with CGI filled in later) and they all are winning (enough) presences on screen to spend a very enjoyable time with.
Jonathan Majors is on-board as Kang the Conqueror (a version of him was seen at the end of the first season of the Disney+ series LOKI) and he brings his considerable acting chops, gravitas and weight to the proceedings. He is a force to be reckoned with which was apparent from almost the first time he commanded the screen in this film. It will be interesting to see where he takes things from here.
The problem with this film is that it is (mostly) style with very little substance. Necessarily, the plot drives a more dramatic, darker theme to this Ant-Man film than in previous outings and the film suffers because of it. One of the charms of the Ant-Man films is that Director Reed was able to lean into the inherent goofiness of Paul Ruud and the absurd idea of him being able to shrink. That quirkiness and sense of fun is gone – as are regular characters played in the past 2 films by the likes of Bobby Canavale, Judy Greer, Randall Park (who has a blink or you’ll miss him cameo) and (most egregiously) Michael Pena.
What they are replaced by are some quirky “Quantum Realm” characters – most of whom are CGI and are voiced by some very good voice performers – it just doesn’t hit the same, since the overall theme is darker. Katy M. O’Brian and William Jackson Harper (who is rounding into a very intriguing performer) bring gusto to their roles as a few members of the Quantum realm, which helps pick up the sagginess of this film, but not enough. Not even a Bill Murray appearance can elevate this film to something funner than it is.
All in all a “fine” entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – and one that will remind you very much that you are watching a film based on Comic Book characters – but it falls squarely in the middle of the MCU entries...a catalogue of which is becoming very deep (maybe too deep), indeed.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)