Search
JT (287 KP) rated Blood Out (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
I'm not quite sure what my thinking was behind watching this, I mean did I for one second think it was going to be any good with a cast list that included Luke Goss and Vinnie Jones.
I should have turned off within the first few minutes, but stuck it out till the bitter end. It was painful all the way through, Goss who has had some mainstream success with his turns in Blade II and Hell Boy II, looked like he hadn’t bothered to read the script.
Tamar Hassan will always be cast as the hard man, and this time it was Vinnie Jones playing the supporting nutter role. As for Val Kilmer and 50 Cent, they hardly make an appearance in the film, popping up on a few occasions and offering next to nothing.
So to the plot then, in short, Goss plays Michael Savion a hard nosed cop whose gang banging brother is brutally murdered. In an attempt to find the culprit and bring them to justice he goes deep undercover to get close to the killers.
Along the way Goss discovers that his brother’s pregnant fiancée is also involved and looks to try and get her out before its too late, while at the same time trying not to step on the toes of the FEDs who have their own mole in deep cover.
Did I for one second think it was going to be any good with a cast list that included Luke Goss and Vinnie Jones?
Goss is always going to be cast as an action B-movie star, and in no way is he going to be offered too many bigger roles. Why? Well he just isn’t good enough, simple as that.
The action set pieces are poor, the ending car chase and spectacular crash which sees just about everyone walk away without a scratch is hardly surprising of a film that has no believability whatsoever.
If Blood Out is supposed to depict a narrative of the street gang culture it does it poorly, the acting is shocking and the script seems like it was written by a two-year old.
This is Jason Hewitt’s début feature, and he is going to have to work very hard to redeem himself.
I should have turned off within the first few minutes, but stuck it out till the bitter end. It was painful all the way through, Goss who has had some mainstream success with his turns in Blade II and Hell Boy II, looked like he hadn’t bothered to read the script.
Tamar Hassan will always be cast as the hard man, and this time it was Vinnie Jones playing the supporting nutter role. As for Val Kilmer and 50 Cent, they hardly make an appearance in the film, popping up on a few occasions and offering next to nothing.
So to the plot then, in short, Goss plays Michael Savion a hard nosed cop whose gang banging brother is brutally murdered. In an attempt to find the culprit and bring them to justice he goes deep undercover to get close to the killers.
Along the way Goss discovers that his brother’s pregnant fiancée is also involved and looks to try and get her out before its too late, while at the same time trying not to step on the toes of the FEDs who have their own mole in deep cover.
Did I for one second think it was going to be any good with a cast list that included Luke Goss and Vinnie Jones?
Goss is always going to be cast as an action B-movie star, and in no way is he going to be offered too many bigger roles. Why? Well he just isn’t good enough, simple as that.
The action set pieces are poor, the ending car chase and spectacular crash which sees just about everyone walk away without a scratch is hardly surprising of a film that has no believability whatsoever.
If Blood Out is supposed to depict a narrative of the street gang culture it does it poorly, the acting is shocking and the script seems like it was written by a two-year old.
This is Jason Hewitt’s début feature, and he is going to have to work very hard to redeem himself.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Queen & Slim (2019) in Movies
Oct 29, 2020
Extremely Entertaining
In the first ten minutes, you have a good idea of how Queen & Slim is going to end. Two black people on a first date end up killing a cop during a traffic stop. In spite the dread of knowing where things are heading, the movie is so powerfully done that it gave me a bit of a chill as the credits were rolling.
Acting: 10
Daniel Kaluuya puts on yet another powerful performance, this time playing the role of the male love interest Slim. I love the way he chose to play this role as a man that doesn’t have it all together trying to figure things out on the fly. His counterpart Jodi Turner-Smith playing Queen is so on point as well carrying the strong emotional defensiveness of the lawyer that she is. Their chemistry drives this movie to heights I wasn’t expecting.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The movie is beautifully shot with a number of strong sequences and setpieces that keep things interesting. Director Melina Matsoukas is a master of capturing emotional moments with well-timed closeups and long pauses. She pushes the emotions out of the viewers with tender scenes and scenes that get your blood boiling.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 9
This movie sticks, it sticks with you. It’s hard to walk away from it and not feel some way or the other. It will challenge you emotionally and mentally. It’s not perfect as it does stick to a pretty linear script, but it’s extremely memorable nonethless.
Pace: 10
Because of the constant danger the two main characters are under, the movie moves quick even when they’re just sitting around awaiting their next piece of the plan. It’s heartpounding like knowing a car crash is coming, but you’re forced to watch it anyway. There is no standing still. They’re always on the run so the pace remains uptempo.
Plot: 8
Resolution: 10
Overall: 97
Yes Queen & Slim is pretty linear, but it works for the building of the relationship within the story. And yes you see the ending coming but there’s a true power that comes from it that makes it worth it. The conflict is great, but the dialogue solidifies it for me as a classic. See this movie.
Acting: 10
Daniel Kaluuya puts on yet another powerful performance, this time playing the role of the male love interest Slim. I love the way he chose to play this role as a man that doesn’t have it all together trying to figure things out on the fly. His counterpart Jodi Turner-Smith playing Queen is so on point as well carrying the strong emotional defensiveness of the lawyer that she is. Their chemistry drives this movie to heights I wasn’t expecting.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The movie is beautifully shot with a number of strong sequences and setpieces that keep things interesting. Director Melina Matsoukas is a master of capturing emotional moments with well-timed closeups and long pauses. She pushes the emotions out of the viewers with tender scenes and scenes that get your blood boiling.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 9
This movie sticks, it sticks with you. It’s hard to walk away from it and not feel some way or the other. It will challenge you emotionally and mentally. It’s not perfect as it does stick to a pretty linear script, but it’s extremely memorable nonethless.
Pace: 10
Because of the constant danger the two main characters are under, the movie moves quick even when they’re just sitting around awaiting their next piece of the plan. It’s heartpounding like knowing a car crash is coming, but you’re forced to watch it anyway. There is no standing still. They’re always on the run so the pace remains uptempo.
Plot: 8
Resolution: 10
Overall: 97
Yes Queen & Slim is pretty linear, but it works for the building of the relationship within the story. And yes you see the ending coming but there’s a true power that comes from it that makes it worth it. The conflict is great, but the dialogue solidifies it for me as a classic. See this movie.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Thing (2011) in Movies
Jan 10, 2021
This one is pretty straightforward - The Thing (2011) is an ok film that is completely dwarfed by The Thing (1982) - honestly, fuck knows why it doesn't have a different title.
This prequel to the iconic John Carpenter movie does have some decent aspects to it - it has a mostly agreeable cast and a good screenplay that's engaging, although a vast majority of the characters are hugely forgettable, and not a patch on the crew of protagonists from the 82 film. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a perfectly likable leading lady, but everyone else is just kind of there. Even Joel Edgerton blends in with the furniture.
I also think it has good pacing for the most part - the opening third builds things up nicely, and when things finally kick off, it feels earned.
The attention to detail is admirable as well, with various objects and hints of past chaos found by Kurt Russell and co in the 82 film being placed perfectly.
Unfortunately, the end project suffers from a couple of things. Most infamously, the CGI is ropey, and is an ill advised addition considering the 82 film boasts some of the best practical effects in cinema history. This is made even worse by the fact that practical effects and animatronics were initially used before being smothered in digital effects to the point where it actively makes the whole movie less enjoyable. The narrative also apes the Carpenter classic a little too often for my taste, and serves more of a reminder of that film, rather than feeling like a homage.
The final act is just silly as well. After a strong build up, the climax snowballs into uninteresting bad-Predator-sequel-esque nonsense, and even saves the most laughable digital effects for last, just for good measure.
I did like the very last scene though, which genuinely ties nicely into the start of the 82 film.
Messing with such an iconic horror heavyweight comes with huge risks, and ultimately, The Thing (still really hate that they didn't use a different title) isn't the car crash that it easily could have been, but it does fall flat on really important aspects, resulting in a film that is average to the casual movie goer, and is thoroughly underwhelming for fans of its far superior predecessor.
This prequel to the iconic John Carpenter movie does have some decent aspects to it - it has a mostly agreeable cast and a good screenplay that's engaging, although a vast majority of the characters are hugely forgettable, and not a patch on the crew of protagonists from the 82 film. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a perfectly likable leading lady, but everyone else is just kind of there. Even Joel Edgerton blends in with the furniture.
I also think it has good pacing for the most part - the opening third builds things up nicely, and when things finally kick off, it feels earned.
The attention to detail is admirable as well, with various objects and hints of past chaos found by Kurt Russell and co in the 82 film being placed perfectly.
Unfortunately, the end project suffers from a couple of things. Most infamously, the CGI is ropey, and is an ill advised addition considering the 82 film boasts some of the best practical effects in cinema history. This is made even worse by the fact that practical effects and animatronics were initially used before being smothered in digital effects to the point where it actively makes the whole movie less enjoyable. The narrative also apes the Carpenter classic a little too often for my taste, and serves more of a reminder of that film, rather than feeling like a homage.
The final act is just silly as well. After a strong build up, the climax snowballs into uninteresting bad-Predator-sequel-esque nonsense, and even saves the most laughable digital effects for last, just for good measure.
I did like the very last scene though, which genuinely ties nicely into the start of the 82 film.
Messing with such an iconic horror heavyweight comes with huge risks, and ultimately, The Thing (still really hate that they didn't use a different title) isn't the car crash that it easily could have been, but it does fall flat on really important aspects, resulting in a film that is average to the casual movie goer, and is thoroughly underwhelming for fans of its far superior predecessor.
Gangstar: West Coast Hustle
Games
App
OPTIMIZED FOR iPHONE 4! High-definition graphics that fully utilize the iPhone 4 Retina display. ...
Kati Kati (2016)
Movie Watch
Without any recollection of what happened before, young Kaleche finds herself in the middle of the...
international drama
Evvie Drake Starts Over
10.0
Rate It
Book
NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER - #ReadWithJenna Book Club Pick as Featured on Today - "Everything a...
Explosive Demolition Truck
Games and Education
App
A fun, cute and exciting interactive app for Kids! Ride along on the Explosive Demolition Truck as...
Lee (2222 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Oct 5, 2018 (Updated Oct 16, 2018)
A bit rough around the edges, but pretty enjoyable overall
Contains spoilers, click to show
The run up to seeing Venom has followed what seems to be a bit of a growing trend for me recently - tickets go on sale for a movie that I'm very excited to see and despite the slightly average trailers, I grab a ticket and hope for the best. Then in the days beforehand, a load of negative reviews appear online and I really hope that they're all wrong, like they all were with Hereditary. Recently we've had The Nun, then The Predator, and now Venom. I was really hoping this wasn't going to be three in a row!
A space probe is returning to Earth. We hear the astronauts communicating with a team back home. They're talking about some 'specimens' that they're bringing back, and then something goes wrong onboard and the rocket crashes to Earth, landing somewhere in Malaysia. The probe belongs to bio-engineering company Life Foundation, and the specimens they're carrying are symbiotic lifeforms. Life Foundation are all over the crash site, with only one of the astronauts surviving, barely. Meanwhile, CEO Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed) is very excited by the symbiotes and returns them to the lab, becoming obsessed with assimilating them into animals. Obviously he has plans to eventually (as quickly as possible) try this out on humans. Apparently, it's all for the good of the planet or some guff like that.
Meanwhile, we're introduced to investigative journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) and his girlfriend Anne (Michelle Williams). He's basically the most unconvincing journalist I've ever seen in a movie, but the montage of clips seems determined to tell us otherwise. He has his own TV show! It's great! He's helped to uncover injustice, righted wrongs, and is apparently a nice down to earth guy. When he secures an interview with Carlton Drake from Life Foundation, he's ready to uncover some dirt, but his boss warns him not to overstep the mark. Of course, he doesn't listen, stepping over the line and getting himself fired. He also manages to lose girlfriend Anne in the process.
The next chunk of the movie is just Tom Hardy moping around, and it's not that great. I don't know if it's the script, the acting, or both. It's interspersed occasionally with scenes involving Carlton Drake looking to expose the symbiotes to human subjects - the homeless, the poor or the just plain stupid - and you start wishing they'd just hurry up and bring Venom and Eddie together, in the hopes that things will pick up a bit. Luckily, once that does happen things do pick up considerably and Tom Hardy is so much better suited as the crazy man who's feeling a little bit unwell than the sad, boring journalist. There's a good level of humour from that point on too, along with some fairly decent action.
Unfortunately though, Venom suffers from some of the same dreadful editing that The Predator did. Scenes that seem to just prematurely end suddenly and successions of rapid cuts during some of the action, making it difficult to see just what the hell is going on. Overall it's a bit rough around the edges, and definitely not as slick as your standard Marvel movie (this one is just 'in association with Marvel'). That being said, this was in no way the car crash movie that many of the reviews had lead me to believe, and on the whole I actually really enjoyed it.
A decent mid credits scene sets up some exciting potential for a further movie, but I feel they really need to tighten things up a bit in order to make another one worth seeing.
A space probe is returning to Earth. We hear the astronauts communicating with a team back home. They're talking about some 'specimens' that they're bringing back, and then something goes wrong onboard and the rocket crashes to Earth, landing somewhere in Malaysia. The probe belongs to bio-engineering company Life Foundation, and the specimens they're carrying are symbiotic lifeforms. Life Foundation are all over the crash site, with only one of the astronauts surviving, barely. Meanwhile, CEO Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed) is very excited by the symbiotes and returns them to the lab, becoming obsessed with assimilating them into animals. Obviously he has plans to eventually (as quickly as possible) try this out on humans. Apparently, it's all for the good of the planet or some guff like that.
Meanwhile, we're introduced to investigative journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) and his girlfriend Anne (Michelle Williams). He's basically the most unconvincing journalist I've ever seen in a movie, but the montage of clips seems determined to tell us otherwise. He has his own TV show! It's great! He's helped to uncover injustice, righted wrongs, and is apparently a nice down to earth guy. When he secures an interview with Carlton Drake from Life Foundation, he's ready to uncover some dirt, but his boss warns him not to overstep the mark. Of course, he doesn't listen, stepping over the line and getting himself fired. He also manages to lose girlfriend Anne in the process.
The next chunk of the movie is just Tom Hardy moping around, and it's not that great. I don't know if it's the script, the acting, or both. It's interspersed occasionally with scenes involving Carlton Drake looking to expose the symbiotes to human subjects - the homeless, the poor or the just plain stupid - and you start wishing they'd just hurry up and bring Venom and Eddie together, in the hopes that things will pick up a bit. Luckily, once that does happen things do pick up considerably and Tom Hardy is so much better suited as the crazy man who's feeling a little bit unwell than the sad, boring journalist. There's a good level of humour from that point on too, along with some fairly decent action.
Unfortunately though, Venom suffers from some of the same dreadful editing that The Predator did. Scenes that seem to just prematurely end suddenly and successions of rapid cuts during some of the action, making it difficult to see just what the hell is going on. Overall it's a bit rough around the edges, and definitely not as slick as your standard Marvel movie (this one is just 'in association with Marvel'). That being said, this was in no way the car crash movie that many of the reviews had lead me to believe, and on the whole I actually really enjoyed it.
A decent mid credits scene sets up some exciting potential for a further movie, but I feel they really need to tighten things up a bit in order to make another one worth seeing.
Ross (3284 KP) rated The Liar's Key in Books
Mar 30, 2018
Reading Mark Lawrence books, while seeing the outpouring of adoration for his works on facebook and goodreads, is quite a complicated situation to find yourself in.
I love Mark Lawrence's writing style - that is, his flowing prose and sense of humour. I love the world of the Broken Empire - a post-apocalyptic version of the world after the use of nuclear weapons (all very much implied) and where the sea level has risen, changing the geography of Europe. I like most of the characters (in that I like all aspects of some of them and some aspects of the rest of them if that makes sense).
The tricky thing is, I have mixed feelings about the way Lawrence lays his books out - to my understanding he has a high level idea of the plot but then just ... writes. He just lets it happen. Now, this isn't a car crash like it might sound, there are enough hints and pointers strewn throughout the book (or trilogy) to make it all hang together, but at times things happen that just don't quite feel right. I'm not sure if its a deus ex machine type thing or just his characters being spontaneous, but at times I found that the right thing happens despite no suggestions this should be so. Characters making illogical decisions etc.
This has been the case throughout all 5 of his books I have read now and it is starting to become an irritant. The thing is, I tend to enjoy the overall story and am glad I have read them, it's just that at times I don't enjoy the journey.
That was very much the case here - the book is considerably longer than its predecessor but without any tangible benefit from that extra word count. The first half of the book is quite a slow boring journey and except for meeting two new characters/companions and some minor plot points, there is very little purpose to it. Snorri, my favourite character from the Prince of Fools, is almost absent here - just a massive, injured, sulking lump. This puts the focus on Jalan, our thoroughly detestable narrator.
The second half sees Jalan separate from the group and head home, only to run off once again, almost without reason. There then follows a very dull section of the book where he seems to be getting ahead at last, making money on the derivatives exchange (makes Phantom Menace trade quota discussions seem positively riveting).
The conclusion of the book is excellent and points to an exciting third book.
I love Mark Lawrence's writing style - that is, his flowing prose and sense of humour. I love the world of the Broken Empire - a post-apocalyptic version of the world after the use of nuclear weapons (all very much implied) and where the sea level has risen, changing the geography of Europe. I like most of the characters (in that I like all aspects of some of them and some aspects of the rest of them if that makes sense).
The tricky thing is, I have mixed feelings about the way Lawrence lays his books out - to my understanding he has a high level idea of the plot but then just ... writes. He just lets it happen. Now, this isn't a car crash like it might sound, there are enough hints and pointers strewn throughout the book (or trilogy) to make it all hang together, but at times things happen that just don't quite feel right. I'm not sure if its a deus ex machine type thing or just his characters being spontaneous, but at times I found that the right thing happens despite no suggestions this should be so. Characters making illogical decisions etc.
This has been the case throughout all 5 of his books I have read now and it is starting to become an irritant. The thing is, I tend to enjoy the overall story and am glad I have read them, it's just that at times I don't enjoy the journey.
That was very much the case here - the book is considerably longer than its predecessor but without any tangible benefit from that extra word count. The first half of the book is quite a slow boring journey and except for meeting two new characters/companions and some minor plot points, there is very little purpose to it. Snorri, my favourite character from the Prince of Fools, is almost absent here - just a massive, injured, sulking lump. This puts the focus on Jalan, our thoroughly detestable narrator.
The second half sees Jalan separate from the group and head home, only to run off once again, almost without reason. There then follows a very dull section of the book where he seems to be getting ahead at last, making money on the derivatives exchange (makes Phantom Menace trade quota discussions seem positively riveting).
The conclusion of the book is excellent and points to an exciting third book.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is a woman with many complications as we meet her just as she is leaving her engagement ring and fiancé behind to head off to a new future. We do not know what promoted this move other than an argument, but Michelle is unmoved by his plea-laden phone calls and opts to ignore them and move ahead with her life.
Things take an unexpected turn when Michelle is involved in a car crash and awakens chained to the wall in a concrete room. Her savior Howard (John Goodman) explains that he saved her life and that they are safe 40 feet below the surface following an unexpected attack which has made the world outside the bunker deadly.
This is the premise of “10 Cloverfield Lane” which teams Producer J.J. Abrams and Director Dan Trachternberg as they craft a film that is unsettling and at times hard to define.
Michelle believes that Howard is not telling her the entire truth and his flashes of anger over trivial things causes her and fellow guest Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), to fear that things are not what they seem and that they are in serious danger.
This is where the film really becomes unsettling as Howard is shown as sympathetic and sensitive yet at times terrifyingly volatile and unstable. There are numerous things that can be inferred or deduced from what they discover, but many aspects of Howard are left for the viewers to figure out for themselves as there is much truth in what he says, but there are also several omissions and misdirection.
As the tensions mount, the film plays out as taught characters piece filled with tension that keeps you guessing what is coming next.
The film does take a Hollywood style turn towards where FX and some unexpected and to some, impractical outcomes and plotlines are introduced, but it is always compelling and does keep you asking what is coming next.
The film has some interesting loose threads that do hint that a sequel could be an option should they elect to do so down the road.
Goodman and the cast are very strong and they are able to hold your attention without having to rely on fancy visuals and other tricks.
For now, the film is a tense and compelling film that aside from taking the Hollywood way out at the end is one of the more pleasant and entertaining surprises of 2016.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/11/10-cloverfield-lane/
Things take an unexpected turn when Michelle is involved in a car crash and awakens chained to the wall in a concrete room. Her savior Howard (John Goodman) explains that he saved her life and that they are safe 40 feet below the surface following an unexpected attack which has made the world outside the bunker deadly.
This is the premise of “10 Cloverfield Lane” which teams Producer J.J. Abrams and Director Dan Trachternberg as they craft a film that is unsettling and at times hard to define.
Michelle believes that Howard is not telling her the entire truth and his flashes of anger over trivial things causes her and fellow guest Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), to fear that things are not what they seem and that they are in serious danger.
This is where the film really becomes unsettling as Howard is shown as sympathetic and sensitive yet at times terrifyingly volatile and unstable. There are numerous things that can be inferred or deduced from what they discover, but many aspects of Howard are left for the viewers to figure out for themselves as there is much truth in what he says, but there are also several omissions and misdirection.
As the tensions mount, the film plays out as taught characters piece filled with tension that keeps you guessing what is coming next.
The film does take a Hollywood style turn towards where FX and some unexpected and to some, impractical outcomes and plotlines are introduced, but it is always compelling and does keep you asking what is coming next.
The film has some interesting loose threads that do hint that a sequel could be an option should they elect to do so down the road.
Goodman and the cast are very strong and they are able to hold your attention without having to rely on fancy visuals and other tricks.
For now, the film is a tense and compelling film that aside from taking the Hollywood way out at the end is one of the more pleasant and entertaining surprises of 2016.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/11/10-cloverfield-lane/