Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mission impossible dead reckoning part one (2023) in Movies
Jul 14, 2023
What A Summer Blockbuster Movie Should Be
Boy, that Tom Cruise sure knows how to make a crowd-pleasing, summer blockbuster movie.
Fresh off his cinema-saving success with TOP GUN: MAVERICK, Cruise (and Director Christopher McQuarrie) comes back with another giant summer tentpole film - MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD RECKONING, PART ONE - and they hit it out of the park again.
The 7th film in the Mission Impossible franchise (which debuted, incredibly, 27 years ago), DEAD RECKONING, PART ONE reunites Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) with his band of hero/outlaws to stop yet another world-wide crisis. It’s familiar ground but it is the journey not the destination that makes these types of films work and the journey (which, to be honest, is just an excuse to jump from action set piece to action set piece) is a fun one filled with comfortable characters/actors both old and new.
Besides Cruise (who’s got the Ethan Hunt character down), DR1 is filled with Hunt’s “regular” crew, Luther (Vingh Rhames - the only other actor besides Cruise to be in every MI film), Benji (SImon Pegg - around since MI 3) and Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson - on board since film 5). These are all familiar, comfortable characters and when the band gets back together about 1/2 way through the film, it felt liking sinking into your couch after a long, hard (but good) day of work to watch your favorite comfort show.
McQuarrie, wisely, populates the rest of the film with new, but comfortably familiar, faces such as Haley Atwell (Agent Carter in the MCU), Shea Wigham (ironically, he played Atwell’s boss in the Agent Carter TV Series), Pom Klementieff as Paris (the name of the character Leonard Nimoy played in the TV Series). Klementieff is also a veteran of the MCU having played Mantis in the Guardians of the Galaxy films, Esai Morales (one of the bosses in NYPD BLUE) and Cary Elwes (the Princess Bride). All bring their “A” game to the adventure and all of them acquit themselves just fine.
Oh…and Henry Czerny reprises his role as Kittridge from the first Mission Impossible film - and it was good to see him, too as was Vanessa Kirby’s re-appearance as Hunt’s “frenemie”, The White Widow (in a role that is a bit more expanded).
But, of course, all of these actors/performances takes a back seat to the action sequences and McQuarrie and Cruise are at the top of their game here. The big action set pieces are a marvel to watch - very enjoyable, exciting, nerve-wracking and easy to follow with some sense of humor rolled in. Unlike another big action flick (that leaned more towards the over-the-top comic-book type action), this Mission Impossible film relies on tension to make these action scenes pop off the screen - and McQuarrie succeeds.
Since this film is labeled as “Part One” you would expect to this film to end on a cliff-hanger and McQuarrie/Cruise were smart about that, too. It is more of “the mission isn’t finished” than a cliff-hanger, which helps this film hold together on it’s own and not just “Part One of a two-parter”.
Very smart, indeed.
A fun romp at the cinema - head out to the biggest screen possible to immerse yourself into this mission, you’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
A fun, escapist, action film that is satisfying (and not dumb), MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD
Fresh off his cinema-saving success with TOP GUN: MAVERICK, Cruise (and Director Christopher McQuarrie) comes back with another giant summer tentpole film - MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD RECKONING, PART ONE - and they hit it out of the park again.
The 7th film in the Mission Impossible franchise (which debuted, incredibly, 27 years ago), DEAD RECKONING, PART ONE reunites Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) with his band of hero/outlaws to stop yet another world-wide crisis. It’s familiar ground but it is the journey not the destination that makes these types of films work and the journey (which, to be honest, is just an excuse to jump from action set piece to action set piece) is a fun one filled with comfortable characters/actors both old and new.
Besides Cruise (who’s got the Ethan Hunt character down), DR1 is filled with Hunt’s “regular” crew, Luther (Vingh Rhames - the only other actor besides Cruise to be in every MI film), Benji (SImon Pegg - around since MI 3) and Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson - on board since film 5). These are all familiar, comfortable characters and when the band gets back together about 1/2 way through the film, it felt liking sinking into your couch after a long, hard (but good) day of work to watch your favorite comfort show.
McQuarrie, wisely, populates the rest of the film with new, but comfortably familiar, faces such as Haley Atwell (Agent Carter in the MCU), Shea Wigham (ironically, he played Atwell’s boss in the Agent Carter TV Series), Pom Klementieff as Paris (the name of the character Leonard Nimoy played in the TV Series). Klementieff is also a veteran of the MCU having played Mantis in the Guardians of the Galaxy films, Esai Morales (one of the bosses in NYPD BLUE) and Cary Elwes (the Princess Bride). All bring their “A” game to the adventure and all of them acquit themselves just fine.
Oh…and Henry Czerny reprises his role as Kittridge from the first Mission Impossible film - and it was good to see him, too as was Vanessa Kirby’s re-appearance as Hunt’s “frenemie”, The White Widow (in a role that is a bit more expanded).
But, of course, all of these actors/performances takes a back seat to the action sequences and McQuarrie and Cruise are at the top of their game here. The big action set pieces are a marvel to watch - very enjoyable, exciting, nerve-wracking and easy to follow with some sense of humor rolled in. Unlike another big action flick (that leaned more towards the over-the-top comic-book type action), this Mission Impossible film relies on tension to make these action scenes pop off the screen - and McQuarrie succeeds.
Since this film is labeled as “Part One” you would expect to this film to end on a cliff-hanger and McQuarrie/Cruise were smart about that, too. It is more of “the mission isn’t finished” than a cliff-hanger, which helps this film hold together on it’s own and not just “Part One of a two-parter”.
Very smart, indeed.
A fun romp at the cinema - head out to the biggest screen possible to immerse yourself into this mission, you’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
A fun, escapist, action film that is satisfying (and not dumb), MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated A Wrinkle in Time (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
After the disappearance of her scientist father, three peculiar beings send Meg, her brother, and her friend to space in order to find him.
There aren't enough good words to describe how much I love this film. I've sat staring at this screen for twenty minutes trying to work out how to sum it up, and it's really difficult. It will sound ridiculous, but I was left with such a feeling of well being. It sounds daft doesn't it? But it really gave me a sense of perspective that is so easily forgotten. I'm kind of paraphrasing the film but just think about how many decisions the universe had to make to make you... and if you think about that for a while, it's kind of a wow moment.
There are two moments in the film that I love. The first being the moment where they see the universe as it is, and all the things we can't perceive about someone's life. It's poignant and quite emotional. The second is when Charles Wallace goes to the dark side... that kid is amazing and truly demonic, and I loved every second of it.
The only reason that this didn't get five stars is because of the casting. I found Reid and Miller very frustrating to watch, and a little awkward.
It feels spiritual, and I understand that the book has a significant Christian leaning. There are still elements in the film that come across in that way. The Mrs all have a very angel-like, but there's no specific moments that would make you think "bible". There are plenty though that make you think about self and your own place in the universe.
Quite frankly this film made me think more beyond the film than anything else has. My stance is that I always go into a film to not think, the idea is that you're breaking from reality, to unwind, to enjoy yourself. So it usually isn't until a second watching that I might look beyond what's presented, but this one really didn't give me that option, and I liked it.
There aren't enough good words to describe how much I love this film. I've sat staring at this screen for twenty minutes trying to work out how to sum it up, and it's really difficult. It will sound ridiculous, but I was left with such a feeling of well being. It sounds daft doesn't it? But it really gave me a sense of perspective that is so easily forgotten. I'm kind of paraphrasing the film but just think about how many decisions the universe had to make to make you... and if you think about that for a while, it's kind of a wow moment.
There are two moments in the film that I love. The first being the moment where they see the universe as it is, and all the things we can't perceive about someone's life. It's poignant and quite emotional. The second is when Charles Wallace goes to the dark side... that kid is amazing and truly demonic, and I loved every second of it.
The only reason that this didn't get five stars is because of the casting. I found Reid and Miller very frustrating to watch, and a little awkward.
It feels spiritual, and I understand that the book has a significant Christian leaning. There are still elements in the film that come across in that way. The Mrs all have a very angel-like, but there's no specific moments that would make you think "bible". There are plenty though that make you think about self and your own place in the universe.
Quite frankly this film made me think more beyond the film than anything else has. My stance is that I always go into a film to not think, the idea is that you're breaking from reality, to unwind, to enjoy yourself. So it usually isn't until a second watching that I might look beyond what's presented, but this one really didn't give me that option, and I liked it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Da Vinci Code (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
No film since “The Last Temptation of Christ” has invoked as much controversy as The Da Vinci Code based on the book of the same name by Dan Brown. Prior to the film even being screened for the press, cries ran out to ban the film and its message that some find blasphemous. Fortunately calmer heads have prevailed and the film by Director Ron Howard has arrived in a wash of media frenzy not seen since Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ.
If you are seeing a pattern forming, you would be correct as it seems that few topics can raise ire and wrath more than the topic of religion, especially if the film proposes a viewpoint that differs from the traditional beliefs that are given by the church, bible, and history.
In the film, a monk appears to murder an elderly man who with his last ounces of strength, manages to leave a cryptic riddle on his body. The bizarre nature of the crime prompts French police inspector Fache (Jean Reno) to travel to the Louvre to investigate the crime. A clue at the crime scene causes the police to summer Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) from a lecture hall where he is signing his latest book on symbols. Since the deceased was supposed to meet Langdon earlier in the day Langdon has fallen under suspicion for the crime.
As he attempts to decipher the message at the crime scene, Langdon encounters a police cryptologists named Sophie (Audrey Tautou), who informs Robert that he is in danger and soon the duo are fleeing from the police after deciphering some hidden clues at the crime scene.
Before either Robert or Audrey knows what is happening, they are being accused of multiple murders and on the run. As the clues begin to mount, the mystery takes an even stranger turn by the discovery of an artifact that when unlocked, should contain a map.
Seeking refuge and help, the duo arrive at the estate of Sir Leigh Teabing (Sir Ian Mc Kellen), who proceeds to tell Robert and Sophie that the clues they have uncovered are part of a cover-up that segments of the church will stop at nothing to keep secret. The nature of this secret is such that should it become public knowledge, then they very foundations of history, faith, and the church could be shaken to their core.
As the mystery becomes clearer, the group are attacked by a Monk named Silas (Paul Bettany), who has been doing the violent work of someone know as The Teacher in an effort to discover the location of artifacts and those attempting to uncover the mystery.
What follows is a frantic race that travels from Paris to London in an effort to get to the bottom of the mystery and unravel the true nature of the mystery and the secret that people are willing to kill for in order to protect.
While some may find the mystery, the players, and their motivations confusing, the film does grab hold and moves along at a solid pace. Ron Howard once again shows his skill by directing a film that is different from his other works, yet rich in its visuals and complexity. The scenic locales of the film enhance the mystery (For those who have not read the book), as they attempt to decipher the clues along with the characters.
The work from the cast was solid as Hanks gives a very good if restrained performance in his portrayal. Mc Kellen is a very nice blend of elegance and old world charm that lifts up every scene in which he is in.
While there are those who will lambaste the film for the message it provides, I chose to look at it as a film that does what movies should, entertain and make you think. The film is not saying its assertions are hard and cold facts, what it is doing is providing a vehicle for debate.
In college I was told that through debate comes knowledge and growth for a society. This was common in ancient Greek and Roman society where issues of the day would be debated in open forums. It seems that we as a society have become too insistent to take things at face value and have forgotten that the very nature of the human experience is to question, grow, and seek our own answers. As such the film is a great example of how Hollywood at times gets it right and provides solid entertainment that will stimulate as well as entertain.
If you are seeing a pattern forming, you would be correct as it seems that few topics can raise ire and wrath more than the topic of religion, especially if the film proposes a viewpoint that differs from the traditional beliefs that are given by the church, bible, and history.
In the film, a monk appears to murder an elderly man who with his last ounces of strength, manages to leave a cryptic riddle on his body. The bizarre nature of the crime prompts French police inspector Fache (Jean Reno) to travel to the Louvre to investigate the crime. A clue at the crime scene causes the police to summer Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) from a lecture hall where he is signing his latest book on symbols. Since the deceased was supposed to meet Langdon earlier in the day Langdon has fallen under suspicion for the crime.
As he attempts to decipher the message at the crime scene, Langdon encounters a police cryptologists named Sophie (Audrey Tautou), who informs Robert that he is in danger and soon the duo are fleeing from the police after deciphering some hidden clues at the crime scene.
Before either Robert or Audrey knows what is happening, they are being accused of multiple murders and on the run. As the clues begin to mount, the mystery takes an even stranger turn by the discovery of an artifact that when unlocked, should contain a map.
Seeking refuge and help, the duo arrive at the estate of Sir Leigh Teabing (Sir Ian Mc Kellen), who proceeds to tell Robert and Sophie that the clues they have uncovered are part of a cover-up that segments of the church will stop at nothing to keep secret. The nature of this secret is such that should it become public knowledge, then they very foundations of history, faith, and the church could be shaken to their core.
As the mystery becomes clearer, the group are attacked by a Monk named Silas (Paul Bettany), who has been doing the violent work of someone know as The Teacher in an effort to discover the location of artifacts and those attempting to uncover the mystery.
What follows is a frantic race that travels from Paris to London in an effort to get to the bottom of the mystery and unravel the true nature of the mystery and the secret that people are willing to kill for in order to protect.
While some may find the mystery, the players, and their motivations confusing, the film does grab hold and moves along at a solid pace. Ron Howard once again shows his skill by directing a film that is different from his other works, yet rich in its visuals and complexity. The scenic locales of the film enhance the mystery (For those who have not read the book), as they attempt to decipher the clues along with the characters.
The work from the cast was solid as Hanks gives a very good if restrained performance in his portrayal. Mc Kellen is a very nice blend of elegance and old world charm that lifts up every scene in which he is in.
While there are those who will lambaste the film for the message it provides, I chose to look at it as a film that does what movies should, entertain and make you think. The film is not saying its assertions are hard and cold facts, what it is doing is providing a vehicle for debate.
In college I was told that through debate comes knowledge and growth for a society. This was common in ancient Greek and Roman society where issues of the day would be debated in open forums. It seems that we as a society have become too insistent to take things at face value and have forgotten that the very nature of the human experience is to question, grow, and seek our own answers. As such the film is a great example of how Hollywood at times gets it right and provides solid entertainment that will stimulate as well as entertain.
A great review website
I was recommended Smashbomb by a friend who knows I like talking about books and films. I had a book blog, but I was sick of doing endless weekly scheduled posts and wanted to be able to review what I wanted, when I wanted.
Smashbomb gives me that freedom. I love that you can review anything you want and have enjoyed posting on Smashbomb so far. I also enjoy interacting with other members through the different orbs the site has.
I also like the limit on 'likes' you can give everyday. Instead of just liking something so that people go and read your reviews, the limit makes you really consider which information is worth reading or liking.
I haven't really got to grips with the giveaways yet, but that's something I would like to participate in the future.
When I'm looking for reviews about a certain book or film, I enjoy reading the varied opinions of others.
If there are no reviews of a book I have read or film I've watched, it's also really easy to create my own page.
I really enjoy this website and I look forward to seeing how this website will grow in the future.
Smashbomb gives me that freedom. I love that you can review anything you want and have enjoyed posting on Smashbomb so far. I also enjoy interacting with other members through the different orbs the site has.
I also like the limit on 'likes' you can give everyday. Instead of just liking something so that people go and read your reviews, the limit makes you really consider which information is worth reading or liking.
I haven't really got to grips with the giveaways yet, but that's something I would like to participate in the future.
When I'm looking for reviews about a certain book or film, I enjoy reading the varied opinions of others.
If there are no reviews of a book I have read or film I've watched, it's also really easy to create my own page.
I really enjoy this website and I look forward to seeing how this website will grow in the future.
theVman (16 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Apr 6, 2018
Visual effects (1 more)
action scenes
Script (2 more)
Exposition
Casting
Ready Player Bomb!
I understand certain decisions and changes have to be made when adapting a book for the screen but with this one i just didnt understand or agree with 90% of them. For the most part the changes underminds the actual story the book was telling.
However, trying to be objective the best i can and looking at it just as a movie - i still didnt like it. For me it felt like the structure of the whole move was fractured. Everyone was totally miscast for my liking, leaving all the characters un-charismatic and un-endearing, leaving the story without a heart or a soul. I felt like the exposition was clunky at best, leading to the relationships between characters to either feel forced or not given them enough time to grow naturally, especially the "love interest" story. Also I felt it glossed over some key elements of the plot at the beginning, mainly due to the aforementioned clunky exposition, but also with its eagerness to go straight for throat with high octane action, which although brilliantly staged and choreographed through the camera, left me feeling like it was pointless, due to lack of context or feeling of any real threat. I never really felt like it got any of this right until the final battle in the climax of the film, but by then id given up the films ability to win me back.
Add to that the changes/difference from the book that failed to make any sense to me, or understand why they choose that direction to take - my frustration only grows and grows. The only real big change that i liked was the car race at the beginning which does not feature at all in the book...because it would be visually more exciting than what was actually written in the book. Some of the changes i felt like they were taking the safe option and lacked the balls of the book, such as the film choosing to let some character(s) not die, and pretty much totally ignoring the social commentary the book was making about big corporations, media influences, economic status of the world etc..... all things that i felt made the book as popular as it is in the first place. Popular enough that Spielberg wanted to turn it into a major motion picture.
However, trying to be objective the best i can and looking at it just as a movie - i still didnt like it. For me it felt like the structure of the whole move was fractured. Everyone was totally miscast for my liking, leaving all the characters un-charismatic and un-endearing, leaving the story without a heart or a soul. I felt like the exposition was clunky at best, leading to the relationships between characters to either feel forced or not given them enough time to grow naturally, especially the "love interest" story. Also I felt it glossed over some key elements of the plot at the beginning, mainly due to the aforementioned clunky exposition, but also with its eagerness to go straight for throat with high octane action, which although brilliantly staged and choreographed through the camera, left me feeling like it was pointless, due to lack of context or feeling of any real threat. I never really felt like it got any of this right until the final battle in the climax of the film, but by then id given up the films ability to win me back.
Add to that the changes/difference from the book that failed to make any sense to me, or understand why they choose that direction to take - my frustration only grows and grows. The only real big change that i liked was the car race at the beginning which does not feature at all in the book...because it would be visually more exciting than what was actually written in the book. Some of the changes i felt like they were taking the safe option and lacked the balls of the book, such as the film choosing to let some character(s) not die, and pretty much totally ignoring the social commentary the book was making about big corporations, media influences, economic status of the world etc..... all things that i felt made the book as popular as it is in the first place. Popular enough that Spielberg wanted to turn it into a major motion picture.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) in Movies
Jul 5, 2018
Does what a good sequel needs to do
I have to admit that I really liked, but did not LOVE the first Guardians of the Galaxy film, so when I entered the local cineplex to check out Volume 2, I had lowered my expectations, figuring I'd find a film that was filled with "sequel-itis" and be just a step down from the previous film.
Boy...was I wrong.
I LOVED GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, VOLUME 2. This sequel succeeded in doing what a good sequel needs to do - take the premise, feel, characters and style of the first film and build on it.
And build on it, it does. Director James Gunn states that the first Guardians was about "a family coming together", and the 2nd movie is about "a family staying together" - and this is a family I want around and staying together.
Starting with the "core 5" - StarLord (Chris Pratt), Gamora (Zoe Saldona), Drax (Dave Bautista), Rocket Racoon (voiced by Bradley Cooper) and Baby Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel). These are all welcome characters that grow from the first movie to the 2nd, each with a purpose in this film and with something important to do. I enjoyed seeing them all again. Special notice should be paid to Bautista, who's Drax left me somewhat cold in the first film. Here he is a delight. Add to this returning characters Yondu (Michael Rooker) and Nebula (Karen Gillan) as well as newcomers Mantis (Pom Klementieff), Ayesha (Elizabeth Debicki) and Ego (Kurt Russell) and you have an ensemble that is easy and fun to watch.
At some point in the film, I thought to myself "now, THIS is a comic book film!" and I think it is because of the action and the visuals. The action moves fast and furious all the while populating a Universe (literally) that is eye-popping and interesting to watch. Director Gunn keeps things moving along, never staying too long in one place whilst avoiding the shaky-cam action. I always knew where I was in an action scene, what the characters are working on or for and what the outcomes might be. It is a refreshing change from the disorienting "shaky-cam" that the Bourne movies have wrought.
And, of course, nothing can top the soundtrack. The first film's "Awesome Mix" was a strong, joyous part of that movie. "Awesome Mix, Vol. 2" picks right up where the first one left off. The songs picked for this film did not disappoint.
Nor did much of this film. I enjoyed myself - and the antics of this gang - from start to finish, including the 5(!) extra scenes in the credits.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Boy...was I wrong.
I LOVED GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, VOLUME 2. This sequel succeeded in doing what a good sequel needs to do - take the premise, feel, characters and style of the first film and build on it.
And build on it, it does. Director James Gunn states that the first Guardians was about "a family coming together", and the 2nd movie is about "a family staying together" - and this is a family I want around and staying together.
Starting with the "core 5" - StarLord (Chris Pratt), Gamora (Zoe Saldona), Drax (Dave Bautista), Rocket Racoon (voiced by Bradley Cooper) and Baby Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel). These are all welcome characters that grow from the first movie to the 2nd, each with a purpose in this film and with something important to do. I enjoyed seeing them all again. Special notice should be paid to Bautista, who's Drax left me somewhat cold in the first film. Here he is a delight. Add to this returning characters Yondu (Michael Rooker) and Nebula (Karen Gillan) as well as newcomers Mantis (Pom Klementieff), Ayesha (Elizabeth Debicki) and Ego (Kurt Russell) and you have an ensemble that is easy and fun to watch.
At some point in the film, I thought to myself "now, THIS is a comic book film!" and I think it is because of the action and the visuals. The action moves fast and furious all the while populating a Universe (literally) that is eye-popping and interesting to watch. Director Gunn keeps things moving along, never staying too long in one place whilst avoiding the shaky-cam action. I always knew where I was in an action scene, what the characters are working on or for and what the outcomes might be. It is a refreshing change from the disorienting "shaky-cam" that the Bourne movies have wrought.
And, of course, nothing can top the soundtrack. The first film's "Awesome Mix" was a strong, joyous part of that movie. "Awesome Mix, Vol. 2" picks right up where the first one left off. The songs picked for this film did not disappoint.
Nor did much of this film. I enjoyed myself - and the antics of this gang - from start to finish, including the 5(!) extra scenes in the credits.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated World War Z (2013) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Zombie Outbreak
With all of this news about the coronavirus, i thought i reviewing this movie. That shot in the trailer where all the zombies are trying to climb that wall looked epic, scary, horrorfying and terrorfying. And Brad Pitt was great in this film. If you havent read the book that this movie is based on, than go and read it or listen to it. Anyways the plot:
When former U.N. investigator Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) and his family get stuck in urban gridlock, he senses that it's no ordinary traffic jam. His suspicions are confirmed when, suddenly, the city erupts into chaos. A lethal virus, spread through a single bite, is turning healthy people into something vicious, unthinking and feral. As the pandemic threatens to consume humanity, Gerry leads a worldwide search to find the source of the infection and, with luck, a way to halt its spread.
Also Marc Foster directed this film, he also directed "Monster's Ball", "Finding Neverland", "Stay", "Quantum of Solace" and "Christopher Robin". So if you like this film, go watch his other films.
When former U.N. investigator Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) and his family get stuck in urban gridlock, he senses that it's no ordinary traffic jam. His suspicions are confirmed when, suddenly, the city erupts into chaos. A lethal virus, spread through a single bite, is turning healthy people into something vicious, unthinking and feral. As the pandemic threatens to consume humanity, Gerry leads a worldwide search to find the source of the infection and, with luck, a way to halt its spread.
Also Marc Foster directed this film, he also directed "Monster's Ball", "Finding Neverland", "Stay", "Quantum of Solace" and "Christopher Robin". So if you like this film, go watch his other films.
MO
Myth of the Western: New Perspectives on Hollywood's Frontier Narrative
Book
Offers significant re readings of key classic and contemporary Westerns. Myth of the Western re...
Hatchet Job: Love Movies, Hate Critics
Book
'The finest film critic in Britain at the absolute top of his form' Stephen Fry 'Entertainingly...
Naked Cinema: Working with Actors
Book
Sally Potter has been renowned for her rapport with actors, and for the luminous performances she...