Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated 6 Below: Miracle on the Mountain (2017) in Movies
Oct 2, 2019
Characters – Eric LeMarque had a future as one of the top ice hockey players, he threw this away with hiss reckless behaviour which has seen his career all but gone. With his addiction taking over his life, he finds himself hitting rock bottom and needing to find some hope. Heading for a snowboard away from the world he ends up lost in the harsh wilderness doing everything he can to survive in the conditions which will test his desire to get over his addictions and rebuild his life. Susan is his mother, she has always supported her son and will do anything to help him put his life back on track and is the first to notice he hasn’t been heard from for days. Sarah is one of the rescue team on the mountain, she leads the search once they learn that Eric is missing.
Performances – Josh Hartnett in the leading role does a good job, even if it feels slightly mis-cast because you get the feeling Eric was a lot younger than Hartnett. Mira Sorvino and Sarah Dumont are both solid in the supporting roles as we see them both needing to make difficult decisions.
Story – The story here follows the incredible survival story of Eric LeMarque as he faces days lost in the snow-covered mountain range without anyone searching for him for days, while also battling his own demons of addiction. The story itself is based on the real events that happened to the man who needed to rebuild his life. This does show us just how hard the survival was, though it just doesn’t become the truly engrossing story it could have been, because anything that happens is something we have seen before, be it wolves or injuries. Eric isn’t the most likely guy either because anyone that throws away a sporting career for drugs frustrates the audience. The rescue side of the film either needed to be a bigger involvement or not involved at all, we simply don’t get enough focus on what is happening on this side of the film.
Adventure/Biopic – The adventure side of the film shows us just what could go wrong for an ambitious rush can turn into a battle to survive. The biopic side of the film shows us the days which Eric is lost in the harsh snowy mountain conditions as he battles to survive and his own demons.
Settings – The film puts us in the mountain range covered in snow, showing us how easy it could be to become lost and how hard it would be to survive.
Scene of the Movie – The climb.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Hartnett feels too old for this role.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the book survival story, it does show an incredible fight to survive and does give us a form of redemption for a young man who was throwing his life away.
Overall: By the books survival film.
Rating
Performances – Josh Hartnett in the leading role does a good job, even if it feels slightly mis-cast because you get the feeling Eric was a lot younger than Hartnett. Mira Sorvino and Sarah Dumont are both solid in the supporting roles as we see them both needing to make difficult decisions.
Story – The story here follows the incredible survival story of Eric LeMarque as he faces days lost in the snow-covered mountain range without anyone searching for him for days, while also battling his own demons of addiction. The story itself is based on the real events that happened to the man who needed to rebuild his life. This does show us just how hard the survival was, though it just doesn’t become the truly engrossing story it could have been, because anything that happens is something we have seen before, be it wolves or injuries. Eric isn’t the most likely guy either because anyone that throws away a sporting career for drugs frustrates the audience. The rescue side of the film either needed to be a bigger involvement or not involved at all, we simply don’t get enough focus on what is happening on this side of the film.
Adventure/Biopic – The adventure side of the film shows us just what could go wrong for an ambitious rush can turn into a battle to survive. The biopic side of the film shows us the days which Eric is lost in the harsh snowy mountain conditions as he battles to survive and his own demons.
Settings – The film puts us in the mountain range covered in snow, showing us how easy it could be to become lost and how hard it would be to survive.
Scene of the Movie – The climb.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Hartnett feels too old for this role.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the book survival story, it does show an incredible fight to survive and does give us a form of redemption for a young man who was throwing his life away.
Overall: By the books survival film.
Rating
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Annihilation (2018) in Movies
Feb 24, 2018
Just didn't work for me
I like "Intelligent Science Fiction". You know, like Alex Garland's other Directorial effort 2014's EX MACHINA or Jeff Nichols’ involving 2016 film MIDNIGHT SPECIAL. These are the types of films that uses the backdrop of Science Fiction to delve deeper into character, concepts or ideas, leaving time for the audience to take it all in and to really think about what is being shown on the screen and to wrestle with the concepts brought forth. So, I was really excited when I found out the Garland would be helming a film of the first book in Jeff VanderMeer's SOUTHERN REACH trilogy, ANNIHILATION - a trippy sci-fi book series about an alien presence that starts tearing away at the very fabric of human existence. I was convinced that this marriage of source material and filmmaker would create another cinematic gem.
Boy, was I wrong.
ANNIHILATION fails in all the ways that these types of films could fail. It is self-indulgent, favors style over substance, mood over momentum and has long, long, loooong scenes of dialogue (or non-dialogue) that is supposed to convey a sense of dread and, for me, just made me want to yell at the screen "get on with it!"
ANNIHILATION tells the story of a group of women who comprise the 12th group of explorers entering "the shimmer" - an unknown phenomenon in a remote part of the US that is growing and will soon start engulfing populated areas. None of the other groups have returned (save for 1 soldier). This 12th group, led by the mysterious Dr. Ventres, tries to get at the heart of what the shimmer is and succeed where others failed. Once inside "the shimmer" the group must fight with their own nightmares and what makes them human.
Sounds like a really good premise for an intelligent Sci-Fi film doesn't it? Unfortunately, Director and Writer Garland is more interested in the sights, sounds and moods of "the shimmer" and fails to create any interesting characters - or circumstances - for the audience to follow.
Natalie Portman stars as Lena - a biologist (and former military) who's husband (the great Oscar Isaac) is the lone returning solider (though not all of him, mentally, has returned). The pairing of these two strong, interesting actors should have been enough to propel this film forward, but all they do is stare at each other and "not say" anything. They look at each other like something is wrong, but the never say or do anything. Compounding things is the weird portrayal of the weird Dr. Ventres by Jennifer Jason Leigh - an actress not known from shying away from weird. Her portrayal would have worked, I think, if she had some "normal" folks to play against - or if her character had some sort of climax, but she doesn't, she just sort of peters out. Joining these two are Tessa Thompson (losing the goodwill she earned in THOR:RAGNAROK) as a physicist that "has secrets" and Gina Rodriguez (channelling her inner Michelle Rodriguez) as a gung-ho "kick-ass" paramedic (you can guess how that is going to turn out). Only Tuva Novotny as scientist Cass Sheppard has anything approaching an interesting character, but she is on all too briefly.
Also wasted in this film is Benedict Wong (DOCTOR STRANGE) as the "Basil Exposition" of this film (explaining things to the audience) and David Gyasi (INTERSTELLAR) as a pseudo-love interest for Lena.
Maybe I'm just not "artsy" enough to enjoy this. If you are and you enjoy this, let me know what I missed. As it is, I have an early, leading contender for "Worst Film of 2018".
In the meantime, I'm going to rewatch EX MACHINA or MIDNIGHT SPECIAL, two intelligent Science Fiction films that work.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Boy, was I wrong.
ANNIHILATION fails in all the ways that these types of films could fail. It is self-indulgent, favors style over substance, mood over momentum and has long, long, loooong scenes of dialogue (or non-dialogue) that is supposed to convey a sense of dread and, for me, just made me want to yell at the screen "get on with it!"
ANNIHILATION tells the story of a group of women who comprise the 12th group of explorers entering "the shimmer" - an unknown phenomenon in a remote part of the US that is growing and will soon start engulfing populated areas. None of the other groups have returned (save for 1 soldier). This 12th group, led by the mysterious Dr. Ventres, tries to get at the heart of what the shimmer is and succeed where others failed. Once inside "the shimmer" the group must fight with their own nightmares and what makes them human.
Sounds like a really good premise for an intelligent Sci-Fi film doesn't it? Unfortunately, Director and Writer Garland is more interested in the sights, sounds and moods of "the shimmer" and fails to create any interesting characters - or circumstances - for the audience to follow.
Natalie Portman stars as Lena - a biologist (and former military) who's husband (the great Oscar Isaac) is the lone returning solider (though not all of him, mentally, has returned). The pairing of these two strong, interesting actors should have been enough to propel this film forward, but all they do is stare at each other and "not say" anything. They look at each other like something is wrong, but the never say or do anything. Compounding things is the weird portrayal of the weird Dr. Ventres by Jennifer Jason Leigh - an actress not known from shying away from weird. Her portrayal would have worked, I think, if she had some "normal" folks to play against - or if her character had some sort of climax, but she doesn't, she just sort of peters out. Joining these two are Tessa Thompson (losing the goodwill she earned in THOR:RAGNAROK) as a physicist that "has secrets" and Gina Rodriguez (channelling her inner Michelle Rodriguez) as a gung-ho "kick-ass" paramedic (you can guess how that is going to turn out). Only Tuva Novotny as scientist Cass Sheppard has anything approaching an interesting character, but she is on all too briefly.
Also wasted in this film is Benedict Wong (DOCTOR STRANGE) as the "Basil Exposition" of this film (explaining things to the audience) and David Gyasi (INTERSTELLAR) as a pseudo-love interest for Lena.
Maybe I'm just not "artsy" enough to enjoy this. If you are and you enjoy this, let me know what I missed. As it is, I have an early, leading contender for "Worst Film of 2018".
In the meantime, I'm going to rewatch EX MACHINA or MIDNIGHT SPECIAL, two intelligent Science Fiction films that work.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
James Bond: The Secret History
Sean Egan and Jeremy Duns
Book
James Bond entered the world in 1953 with the novel Casino Royale by Ian Fleming. Since then, the...
Suswatibasu (1703 KP) rated Deadly Outbreaks in Books
Aug 21, 2017
Important, interesting, freaky and even a little terrifying
A fascinating look into the Centre for Disease Control and their role in dealing with some serious but highly interesting, insane real life outbreaks. Each chapter discusses fatal cases which in itself can be turned into a film. From deadly ice cream, to an epidemic of newborns dying at a hospital - these are important cases that need addressing and for further public awareness. As vital as this book is, it's filled with scientific jargon and requires concentration. A great read.
Adrian Denton (4 KP) created a post
May 12, 2018
Historical Dictionary of the Russian Civil Wars, 1916-1926
Book
The Historical Dictionary of the Russian Civil Wars, 1916-1926 covers the history of this period...
Suzanne Vega recommended Charlie Chaplin's Own Story in Books (curated)
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Happy Death Day 2U (2019) in Movies
Jun 27, 2019
It carries on from the first film and links in nicely! You must see the first to appreciate sone of the humour in this dark, but hilarious time- travelling comedy! (1 more)
Quite sad in places too- there’s a real story behind the humour. A dilemma the main protagonist must face when she realises she can get exactly what she wants when she is in control of her destiny!
A time travelling theme with a moral dilemma!
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Three Complete Novels (Psycho, Psycho II, and Psycho House) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
<b>Psycho</b>
How can I read and review the book Psycho without comparing it to its movie adaptation? Yeah, not possible. For starters, the biggest difference has to be Norman Bates' physical description, which is balding and dumpy in the book. A far cry from Anthony Perkins. For most of the book I admit to not being able to visualize Norman in a different light than Perkins, who I feel was genius casting. I mean, who in that day and age would ever see that next-door-boy-look as a threat? Other than that, I have to say that the movie is pretty darned true to the book; some minor things but nothing necessary was kept out. I enjoyed Bloch's writing, it's just smooth and easy to read, keeping to a nice clip. The next to last chapter has a bit of an infodump explaining Norman's behavior, but it's short and really didn't bother me. Probably one of the best handled infodumps I've come across. So, I'd definitely recommend reading the book if you enjoy the movie, it adds a little here and there to the film.
<i>4 stars</i>
<b>Psycho II</b>
How do I put this succinctly...? What a total piece of crap.
I thought it started out pretty well, for say about the first 25 or 30 pages, minus Norman's rape of a nun's corpse (which didn't seem in his character IMHO), but then it started going downhill and ended up in a deep, deep well. Bloch's characters and plot are cliche, boring, obnoxious, two-dimensional or a combination of all of the above. The denouement is ridiculous, although not totally unforseen, and it just seemed like Bloch wasn't even interested in writing a proper sequel with Norman Bates and was more interested in showing Hollywood as amoral and vapid. Whatever. I'm glad this is over. I have better things to do with my time, like clean the litter boxes.
<i>1.5 stars</i>
I will eventually get to <b>Psycho House</b> but I need a recovery period so this is going back to the library. I highly doubt that it'll be worse than P2.
How can I read and review the book Psycho without comparing it to its movie adaptation? Yeah, not possible. For starters, the biggest difference has to be Norman Bates' physical description, which is balding and dumpy in the book. A far cry from Anthony Perkins. For most of the book I admit to not being able to visualize Norman in a different light than Perkins, who I feel was genius casting. I mean, who in that day and age would ever see that next-door-boy-look as a threat? Other than that, I have to say that the movie is pretty darned true to the book; some minor things but nothing necessary was kept out. I enjoyed Bloch's writing, it's just smooth and easy to read, keeping to a nice clip. The next to last chapter has a bit of an infodump explaining Norman's behavior, but it's short and really didn't bother me. Probably one of the best handled infodumps I've come across. So, I'd definitely recommend reading the book if you enjoy the movie, it adds a little here and there to the film.
<i>4 stars</i>
<b>Psycho II</b>
How do I put this succinctly...? What a total piece of crap.
I thought it started out pretty well, for say about the first 25 or 30 pages, minus Norman's rape of a nun's corpse (which didn't seem in his character IMHO), but then it started going downhill and ended up in a deep, deep well. Bloch's characters and plot are cliche, boring, obnoxious, two-dimensional or a combination of all of the above. The denouement is ridiculous, although not totally unforseen, and it just seemed like Bloch wasn't even interested in writing a proper sequel with Norman Bates and was more interested in showing Hollywood as amoral and vapid. Whatever. I'm glad this is over. I have better things to do with my time, like clean the litter boxes.
<i>1.5 stars</i>
I will eventually get to <b>Psycho House</b> but I need a recovery period so this is going back to the library. I highly doubt that it'll be worse than P2.