Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Dec 4, 2019
If they were to give it a go, this movie should justifiably be Rian's redemption from the harshest of his previous critics. For this is a really entertaining film. I found myself smiling with glee through a sizable proportion of the running time.
Multi-millionaire crime-fiction author Harlan Thrombey (the wonderful Christopher Plummer) is celebrating his 85th birthday with three generations of his family in his "Cludo-like" mansion. But all is not well with the family harmonic and the next morning Harlan is found dead in his room by his nurse Marta (Ana de Armas). Apparently, it's a suicide, but when private detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) arrives on the scene he starts turning over stones "oin seearch ov tha troooth" (sic) and dark secrets begin to emerge.
Key to success of this Agatha Christie-style movie is a dense portmanteau cast and a well-plotted script. Both are here present.
In terms of the cast, this is another candidate for the SAG Ensemble Cast award. For the cast is suitably stellar with Chris "Cap" Evans, Toni Collette, Michael Shannon, Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson vying for the top billing with Craig and Plummer. They bounce off each other joyously, with Collette taking my prize for top acting kudos. She's just deliciously over the top as the scheming hippy chick with the rasping voice and the cutting one-liners.
With a starring role is Cuban bombshell Ana de Armas, here notching down the glamour to play the plainly dressed nurse. But she has a magnetic screen presence and is perfectly cast as the girl at the heart of all the action. She has the doe-eyed innocence that Alfred Hitchcock was always looking for in his leading ladies. Interestingly, she is soon to appear with Craig again as Bond-girl Paloma in "No Time to Die".
Elsewhere in the cast are some interesting cameos: the family's lawyer is none other than Frank "Yoda" Oz; and the ancient security guard is M. Emmet Walsh, who has an amazing filmography going back to the late 60's.
Writer/director is clearly his 'thing'. But Rian Johnson here pulls off a neat trick with the script which is brilliantly twisty and turny and 100% entertaining. Although it's presented as cuts between the 'present time' and versions of the night in question, the whole doughnut is never entirely in view until the final reel. It's a satisfying story, and some of the dialogue is laugh-out-loud funny.
A nice plot point is the inability for young Marta to tell a lie without vomiting. Wouldn't the UK General Elections be Sooooo much more colourful if that was a general trait!!
I've only the one real criticism of the movie, and that's Daniel Craig's appalling Southern drawl. It's really quite distracting. Aside from some witty lines of dialogue ("What is this? CSI KFC?") nothing would have been lost to cast him as an urbane English detective instead. They could have slipped in some Brexit jokes instead! I appreciate Craig wants to distance himself from Bond somewhat. He did the same thing as Joe Bang in "Logan Lucky". But - sorry - it didn't really work for me then and it doesn't work now either.
In summary, this is a really fun movie that a whole family with older children (the rating is 12+) can go and enjoy together. There's limited violence; limited swearing and sexual innuendo; and no sex (save for the Hitler youth in the bathroom!). But there is a whole lot of sleuthing fun to be had. Bravo Mr Johnson, bravo! For that reason it comes with a bob-the-movie-man "Highly recommended" tag.
(For the full graphical review please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/04/one-manns-movies-film-review-knives-out-2019/).
Multi-millionaire crime-fiction author Harlan Thrombey (the wonderful Christopher Plummer) is celebrating his 85th birthday with three generations of his family in his "Cludo-like" mansion. But all is not well with the family harmonic and the next morning Harlan is found dead in his room by his nurse Marta (Ana de Armas). Apparently, it's a suicide, but when private detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) arrives on the scene he starts turning over stones "oin seearch ov tha troooth" (sic) and dark secrets begin to emerge.
Key to success of this Agatha Christie-style movie is a dense portmanteau cast and a well-plotted script. Both are here present.
In terms of the cast, this is another candidate for the SAG Ensemble Cast award. For the cast is suitably stellar with Chris "Cap" Evans, Toni Collette, Michael Shannon, Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson vying for the top billing with Craig and Plummer. They bounce off each other joyously, with Collette taking my prize for top acting kudos. She's just deliciously over the top as the scheming hippy chick with the rasping voice and the cutting one-liners.
With a starring role is Cuban bombshell Ana de Armas, here notching down the glamour to play the plainly dressed nurse. But she has a magnetic screen presence and is perfectly cast as the girl at the heart of all the action. She has the doe-eyed innocence that Alfred Hitchcock was always looking for in his leading ladies. Interestingly, she is soon to appear with Craig again as Bond-girl Paloma in "No Time to Die".
Elsewhere in the cast are some interesting cameos: the family's lawyer is none other than Frank "Yoda" Oz; and the ancient security guard is M. Emmet Walsh, who has an amazing filmography going back to the late 60's.
Writer/director is clearly his 'thing'. But Rian Johnson here pulls off a neat trick with the script which is brilliantly twisty and turny and 100% entertaining. Although it's presented as cuts between the 'present time' and versions of the night in question, the whole doughnut is never entirely in view until the final reel. It's a satisfying story, and some of the dialogue is laugh-out-loud funny.
A nice plot point is the inability for young Marta to tell a lie without vomiting. Wouldn't the UK General Elections be Sooooo much more colourful if that was a general trait!!
I've only the one real criticism of the movie, and that's Daniel Craig's appalling Southern drawl. It's really quite distracting. Aside from some witty lines of dialogue ("What is this? CSI KFC?") nothing would have been lost to cast him as an urbane English detective instead. They could have slipped in some Brexit jokes instead! I appreciate Craig wants to distance himself from Bond somewhat. He did the same thing as Joe Bang in "Logan Lucky". But - sorry - it didn't really work for me then and it doesn't work now either.
In summary, this is a really fun movie that a whole family with older children (the rating is 12+) can go and enjoy together. There's limited violence; limited swearing and sexual innuendo; and no sex (save for the Hitler youth in the bathroom!). But there is a whole lot of sleuthing fun to be had. Bravo Mr Johnson, bravo! For that reason it comes with a bob-the-movie-man "Highly recommended" tag.
(For the full graphical review please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/04/one-manns-movies-film-review-knives-out-2019/).
Considering the fact all of the nominees for the 2015-2016 Gateway Award aren't exactly very appealing and I've had quite the bad luck with them... I pretty much decided to take a stab with Ashley Elston's <i>The Rules for Disappearing</i> as my next victim.
In elaboration of that bad luck, <a title="In the Shadow of Blackbirds" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-in-the-shadow-of-blackbirds-by-cat-winters/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">my first one was insanity</a>. I'm scared of reading another book by Cat Winters. <a href="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-review-the-5th-wave-by-rick-yancey"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">My second one had a highly annoying character named after a constellation</a>.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2015/05/dean-what-have-i-done.gif"; border="0" /></div>
And now, my third book has a very materialistic character (completely opposite spectrum from me) whose family is in Witness Protection for the last year and has quite literally changed their names far more times than Zach/Jack in <i>Zach's Lie</i> and <i>Jack's Run</i>. With their eighth move, "Meg," is extremely tired of constantly having to move places, leaving her life behind, and changing her identities – the moves were beginning to tear apart their family. Meg vows to find what landed her and her family in Witness Protection in the first place throughout the book.
I personally liked how the book was formatted. The beginning of each chapter has a "rule for disappearing," possibly concocted by Meg over the year her family has been in Witness Protection, and what happens in the chapter is sort of a reason "why" Meg established the rule in the first place.
For almost half the book there isn't really too much that happens – Meg makes a plan to not settle down with her new life like she did in her past placements, her "diary" gets stolen, and she tries to avoid a boy named Ethan Landry who's a lot smarter than he seems. After accidentally hearing a few conversations her dad has over the phone in the middle of the night, things start to pick up – Meg starts to remember more of what happened in her original life and becomes more determined to get her family out of Witness protection.
Meg is like a clamshell at the very beginning – she's very closed off and she wants to isolate herself from her peers because who cares about making friends when you might be plucked from your current life any moment? It's not until she meets Ethan that she "gives up" on trying to isolate herself and becomes more open with other people. In all honesty, if Ethan didn't make a constant attempt to open up her shell, Meg probably wouldn't have told her story – how her old life was like, why she's really in Witness Protection, and what each of her moves were like compared to her original life.
Elston does drop a hint or two of a sequel near the end of the book, which I'm not exactly too excited for. <i>The Rules for Disappearing</i> felt like a stand-alone rather than a duology, but maybe the sequel will be equally or more interesting.
<blockquote>We force you to sit through the chick flicks so maybe you'll get some idea of how you're supposed to act.</blockquote>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-rules-for-disappearing-by-ashley-elston/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
In elaboration of that bad luck, <a title="In the Shadow of Blackbirds" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-in-the-shadow-of-blackbirds-by-cat-winters/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">my first one was insanity</a>. I'm scared of reading another book by Cat Winters. <a href="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-review-the-5th-wave-by-rick-yancey"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">My second one had a highly annoying character named after a constellation</a>.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2015/05/dean-what-have-i-done.gif"; border="0" /></div>
And now, my third book has a very materialistic character (completely opposite spectrum from me) whose family is in Witness Protection for the last year and has quite literally changed their names far more times than Zach/Jack in <i>Zach's Lie</i> and <i>Jack's Run</i>. With their eighth move, "Meg," is extremely tired of constantly having to move places, leaving her life behind, and changing her identities – the moves were beginning to tear apart their family. Meg vows to find what landed her and her family in Witness Protection in the first place throughout the book.
I personally liked how the book was formatted. The beginning of each chapter has a "rule for disappearing," possibly concocted by Meg over the year her family has been in Witness Protection, and what happens in the chapter is sort of a reason "why" Meg established the rule in the first place.
For almost half the book there isn't really too much that happens – Meg makes a plan to not settle down with her new life like she did in her past placements, her "diary" gets stolen, and she tries to avoid a boy named Ethan Landry who's a lot smarter than he seems. After accidentally hearing a few conversations her dad has over the phone in the middle of the night, things start to pick up – Meg starts to remember more of what happened in her original life and becomes more determined to get her family out of Witness protection.
Meg is like a clamshell at the very beginning – she's very closed off and she wants to isolate herself from her peers because who cares about making friends when you might be plucked from your current life any moment? It's not until she meets Ethan that she "gives up" on trying to isolate herself and becomes more open with other people. In all honesty, if Ethan didn't make a constant attempt to open up her shell, Meg probably wouldn't have told her story – how her old life was like, why she's really in Witness Protection, and what each of her moves were like compared to her original life.
Elston does drop a hint or two of a sequel near the end of the book, which I'm not exactly too excited for. <i>The Rules for Disappearing</i> felt like a stand-alone rather than a duology, but maybe the sequel will be equally or more interesting.
<blockquote>We force you to sit through the chick flicks so maybe you'll get some idea of how you're supposed to act.</blockquote>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-rules-for-disappearing-by-ashley-elston/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Oath of Servitude (The Punishment Sequence, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Author in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
First off, I would like to thank the author for giving me a copy of the book! (That doesn't bias my review by all means.) I really enjoyed it. I also loved the cover. Hopefully, she appears in future covers. :)
I've always admired authors who are able to bounce from one character's POV to another one. I find that hard to do myself and I guess I myself fail at that in a way when I was on MissLiterati writing Supernaturals and other stories of randomisimo, which I now stopped writing about. :p
I wonder what my life would be like if I were only a foot tall (or less). Tiny notebooks and tiny pens... tiny everything! Actually, that reminds me of a crafting book I was so immersed in when I was in elementary school. The tiny cupcakes were adorable. Too bad I fail to be a cook (I broke the stove and was never trusted to cook again. Major oops). It was also disappointing that I never had enough materials to make them. It was fun reading/browsing through that crafting book. Connection being made (Old habits haunt later apparently), I'm going back to the right trail (kinda).
The book reminds me of a series I enjoy reading: The Iron Fey. Cailin reminds me of a certain ice dude of which I shall keep anonymous that is distant and doesn't give off much info until later. Or is that a bit of Teague as well? Anyhoo, Teague reminds me of a certain prankster and summer chick with personalities mixed together. Minus being blind and an alcoholic (and possibly MANY others). It also reminded me of The Iron Fey because of the unnatural relationship between 2 different types of fey species, or in this case, a pixi and a human. (Curiosity spikes up the question: What will happen if the Portune finds out about their relationship?)
I especially loved Cailin's and Teague's wits when they're around each other. Their conversations had a mix of humor and seriousness rolled with awesomous. I also enjoyed the drama within the pixi clans outside of Cailin's bubble of punishment. The Portune reminds me of another book with a faction, in this case clan, that are "greedy" for power, although I would like them better if you compare the two. Though they're a bit greedy for power and have a zillion threats if you break a rule, all they want is to keep the pixi's in line and not expose their existence to humans. It's all about safety for the pixi's. ^_^ It does makes sense though. I wouldn't want to be exposed to giant-like beings if I were them.
What really kept me from giving it full a perfect score were the grammatical and spelling errors, but there were none that really distracted me from the smooth and steady flow of the words throughout the story. I also felt there was a bit of a rush in the romance between Teague and Cailin. :/ Though not your typical YA Paranormal Romance story, I recommend the book to those who enjoy reading about faeries and looking for something that's not typical.
And as I may sometimes say about the endings of stories....
Ohhhh, the AGONY of the Cliff-Hanger(s)!
(I'm not kidding. I wonder how cliffs I'm really hanging on to now in total of all books. No doubt: MANY)
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-oath-of-servitude-by-ce-wilson/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
First off, I would like to thank the author for giving me a copy of the book! (That doesn't bias my review by all means.) I really enjoyed it. I also loved the cover. Hopefully, she appears in future covers. :)
I've always admired authors who are able to bounce from one character's POV to another one. I find that hard to do myself and I guess I myself fail at that in a way when I was on MissLiterati writing Supernaturals and other stories of randomisimo, which I now stopped writing about. :p
I wonder what my life would be like if I were only a foot tall (or less). Tiny notebooks and tiny pens... tiny everything! Actually, that reminds me of a crafting book I was so immersed in when I was in elementary school. The tiny cupcakes were adorable. Too bad I fail to be a cook (I broke the stove and was never trusted to cook again. Major oops). It was also disappointing that I never had enough materials to make them. It was fun reading/browsing through that crafting book. Connection being made (Old habits haunt later apparently), I'm going back to the right trail (kinda).
The book reminds me of a series I enjoy reading: The Iron Fey. Cailin reminds me of a certain ice dude of which I shall keep anonymous that is distant and doesn't give off much info until later. Or is that a bit of Teague as well? Anyhoo, Teague reminds me of a certain prankster and summer chick with personalities mixed together. Minus being blind and an alcoholic (and possibly MANY others). It also reminded me of The Iron Fey because of the unnatural relationship between 2 different types of fey species, or in this case, a pixi and a human. (Curiosity spikes up the question: What will happen if the Portune finds out about their relationship?)
I especially loved Cailin's and Teague's wits when they're around each other. Their conversations had a mix of humor and seriousness rolled with awesomous. I also enjoyed the drama within the pixi clans outside of Cailin's bubble of punishment. The Portune reminds me of another book with a faction, in this case clan, that are "greedy" for power, although I would like them better if you compare the two. Though they're a bit greedy for power and have a zillion threats if you break a rule, all they want is to keep the pixi's in line and not expose their existence to humans. It's all about safety for the pixi's. ^_^ It does makes sense though. I wouldn't want to be exposed to giant-like beings if I were them.
What really kept me from giving it full a perfect score were the grammatical and spelling errors, but there were none that really distracted me from the smooth and steady flow of the words throughout the story. I also felt there was a bit of a rush in the romance between Teague and Cailin. :/ Though not your typical YA Paranormal Romance story, I recommend the book to those who enjoy reading about faeries and looking for something that's not typical.
And as I may sometimes say about the endings of stories....
Ohhhh, the AGONY of the Cliff-Hanger(s)!
(I'm not kidding. I wonder how cliffs I'm really hanging on to now in total of all books. No doubt: MANY)
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-oath-of-servitude-by-ce-wilson/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Tabula Rasa (Tabula Rasa, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I was extremely curious about Tabula Rasa when I found out what it meant (Latin: Scraped Tablet. AKA, a newborn basically.) I also thought it would be a really interesting read I mean, girl has a tragic past, and is basically a lab rat in a procedure to erase those memories. Oh, and what's even more intriguing? Most of the "rats" are delinquents. I suppose from a delinquent's view, one would want to erase memories. Better than sitting in juvie, right? :p
It's certainly a cause for curiosity. I mean, we're reading the story from a possible criminal! I know I shouldn't be excited, but can you blame me? I've never actually read a story from a delinquent! ^o^
Not to burst any exciting bubbles bubbling up, but truth is, Sarah, our main character, isn't. That was highly disappointing when I found out. Instead, I found out she was some idol of sorts in New York, famous for uncovering a scam. Um... not too exciting. Plus, she seems much too fearless. I could have sworn she wasn't afraid of death even throughout the entire book. If there's one question I want to ask Sarah, it's "Are you even afraid of anything?"
<img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uGUfnIbJtyY/U5yh6n3z6iI/AAAAAAAADe4/BU4P9O2rlTg/s1600/giphy+(12).gif"; border="0">
During the earlier parts of the book though, I sort of wanted to just toss Tabula Rasa aside and mark it as DNF. It felt a little too creepy, and confusing. The creepy part probably worked to an advantage, seeing how the surgery was quite detailed. *shudders*
<blockquote>Improvising seems familiar. Like it's my style.</blockquote>
Now the confusing part, that was just randomly thrown in. And I mean the quote. Not me randomly throwing the word confusing around and about. Sarah's going to a tool closet and putting things in her pocket. I'm not sure that's improvising. She's not making anything from what I read, aside from noticing a door. Does noticing a door count as improvising?
The romance between Thomas and Sarah. Really odd. Just... really odd. I felt like Thomas was trying a bit too hard on being funny at the beginning. Later he tends to be more "relaxed" and the humor felt more natural. But for a hacker with a father formerly in the Russian Intelligence Agency do they call it RIA? Thomas just seems too carefree. It was as though hacking just isn't... him. I suppose a new career is on the horizons for said character.
I did learn some new things though. I'm done with truth serums. What's with authors after Veronica Roth throwing serums around? They're popping up in so many places. O_o Oh, and apparently it actually snows in Hawaii. In the mountains. Wait, there are mountains in Hawaii? MIND = BLOWN.
<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_L4F_cUFsRc/U5yiXj5ftDI/AAAAAAAADfA/n9f9CgNd_H4/s1600/giphy+(13).gif"; border="0" height="179" width="320">
The Bourne Identity? I haven't read it myself, even though that sounds really familiar. Divergent? I'm not too sure. Even the folks of Dauntless are afraid of something. I guess the former's more of a bull's eye with Tabula Rasa than the latter. Tabula Rasa reminded me more of Nikita, Au Revoir Crazy European Chick, and apparently something else I can't remember with all the action and secret plots/schemes (it has something to do with operations).
------------------------
Advanced review copy provided by EgmontUSA for review
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/arc-review-tabula-rasa-by-kristen-lippert-martin.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
It's certainly a cause for curiosity. I mean, we're reading the story from a possible criminal! I know I shouldn't be excited, but can you blame me? I've never actually read a story from a delinquent! ^o^
Not to burst any exciting bubbles bubbling up, but truth is, Sarah, our main character, isn't. That was highly disappointing when I found out. Instead, I found out she was some idol of sorts in New York, famous for uncovering a scam. Um... not too exciting. Plus, she seems much too fearless. I could have sworn she wasn't afraid of death even throughout the entire book. If there's one question I want to ask Sarah, it's "Are you even afraid of anything?"
<img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uGUfnIbJtyY/U5yh6n3z6iI/AAAAAAAADe4/BU4P9O2rlTg/s1600/giphy+(12).gif"; border="0">
During the earlier parts of the book though, I sort of wanted to just toss Tabula Rasa aside and mark it as DNF. It felt a little too creepy, and confusing. The creepy part probably worked to an advantage, seeing how the surgery was quite detailed. *shudders*
<blockquote>Improvising seems familiar. Like it's my style.</blockquote>
Now the confusing part, that was just randomly thrown in. And I mean the quote. Not me randomly throwing the word confusing around and about. Sarah's going to a tool closet and putting things in her pocket. I'm not sure that's improvising. She's not making anything from what I read, aside from noticing a door. Does noticing a door count as improvising?
The romance between Thomas and Sarah. Really odd. Just... really odd. I felt like Thomas was trying a bit too hard on being funny at the beginning. Later he tends to be more "relaxed" and the humor felt more natural. But for a hacker with a father formerly in the Russian Intelligence Agency do they call it RIA? Thomas just seems too carefree. It was as though hacking just isn't... him. I suppose a new career is on the horizons for said character.
I did learn some new things though. I'm done with truth serums. What's with authors after Veronica Roth throwing serums around? They're popping up in so many places. O_o Oh, and apparently it actually snows in Hawaii. In the mountains. Wait, there are mountains in Hawaii? MIND = BLOWN.
<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_L4F_cUFsRc/U5yiXj5ftDI/AAAAAAAADfA/n9f9CgNd_H4/s1600/giphy+(13).gif"; border="0" height="179" width="320">
The Bourne Identity? I haven't read it myself, even though that sounds really familiar. Divergent? I'm not too sure. Even the folks of Dauntless are afraid of something. I guess the former's more of a bull's eye with Tabula Rasa than the latter. Tabula Rasa reminded me more of Nikita, Au Revoir Crazy European Chick, and apparently something else I can't remember with all the action and secret plots/schemes (it has something to do with operations).
------------------------
Advanced review copy provided by EgmontUSA for review
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/arc-review-tabula-rasa-by-kristen-lippert-martin.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Parker (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
So I, being the girl that I am, wasn’t exactly keyed up to go and see a “shoot-em up” style action flick — you know, the kind that Jason Statham excels at? My boyfriend, however, is like most red-blooded men and found this movie right up his alley. Perhaps it was due to the fact I “owed” him from cashing in my chick-flick points and making him watch “the Painted Veil” with me the other day; perhaps it was because my choice of Redbox rentals had been rather lackluster in comparison. Either way, he was looking forward the the prospect of this movie review far more than I.
“Parker” starts off in Ohio where Jason Statham’s character (Parker) is working a job with four other men. The job seems to go off without a hitch until the end when Parker discovers an innocent man died in the process, thus starting “beef” between he and one of his partners. The apparent boss of the crooks then asks Parker to join them in another job, requiring him to give up his share of the loot to contribute to the upcoming job. Parker politely declines and, of course, this doesn’t sit too well with the crooks. As predicted, they then turn on him and Parker is left for dead on the side of the road.
As we know, Jason Statham’s characters are indestructible. I mean, this was covered in both “Crank” movies so the audience should be well-versed in how this goes down, right? Of course, Parker survives and thus starts on a path of revenge. Mob bosses are involved, hits are put out, etc. Regardless, his journey takes him to Palm Springs where the four crooks who betrayed him are preparing for their next big job.
Now, you’re probably wondering where Jennifer Lopez is in all of this (yes, JLo has a part in this movie – I know, I feel your pain too). Given that her last decent flick was “the Cell” and “Selena,” I wasn’t expecting too much from her character. As Parker is making his way down to Palm Springs, the movie then focuses on JLo’s character, a depressed and rather broken divorcee living with her mother and desperate for a commission from her job as a real-estate agent. Cue in Parker, dressed as a wealthy Texan, and looking to buy a home in Palm Springs. Of course we see JLo checking him out and basically throwing herself at him because, well, that’s what all us desperate women do, right? We throw ourselves at rich men when times are hard without taking much else into consideration (like, say the cop – who comes across as a decent guy – who wants nothing else but to date her. But hey, he’s not Jason Statham, right? Pfft!). Regardless, JLo finds a way to weasel herself into helping Parker’s character and thwarting the four thieves who betrayed Parker. Luckily for all of us, JLo advances are shut down and we don’t have to fall witness to another “Gigli”.
Is the movie some amazing cinematic masterpiece? Absolutely not. Are Parker’s flashbacks cheesy and annoying? Of course. But we are talking about an action flick and one that doesn’t disappoint in lots of blood, gun fights, knifing action, and Jason Statham being an overall badass.
Will your girlfriend love this movie? Probably not. Will you, you red-blooded hunk of testosterone, love this movie? Probably. It is, after all, geared towards your sex. And, just in case the blood and fights don’t do it for you, there are more than enough exposed breasts throughout the film keep your interest piqued.
So if you’re looking for a good revenge-style action flick, this one is decent enough. It won’t win any awards, but it won’t leave your poor girlfriend screaming for the hills either. JLo’s performance, however, that’s just inexcusible….
“Parker” starts off in Ohio where Jason Statham’s character (Parker) is working a job with four other men. The job seems to go off without a hitch until the end when Parker discovers an innocent man died in the process, thus starting “beef” between he and one of his partners. The apparent boss of the crooks then asks Parker to join them in another job, requiring him to give up his share of the loot to contribute to the upcoming job. Parker politely declines and, of course, this doesn’t sit too well with the crooks. As predicted, they then turn on him and Parker is left for dead on the side of the road.
As we know, Jason Statham’s characters are indestructible. I mean, this was covered in both “Crank” movies so the audience should be well-versed in how this goes down, right? Of course, Parker survives and thus starts on a path of revenge. Mob bosses are involved, hits are put out, etc. Regardless, his journey takes him to Palm Springs where the four crooks who betrayed him are preparing for their next big job.
Now, you’re probably wondering where Jennifer Lopez is in all of this (yes, JLo has a part in this movie – I know, I feel your pain too). Given that her last decent flick was “the Cell” and “Selena,” I wasn’t expecting too much from her character. As Parker is making his way down to Palm Springs, the movie then focuses on JLo’s character, a depressed and rather broken divorcee living with her mother and desperate for a commission from her job as a real-estate agent. Cue in Parker, dressed as a wealthy Texan, and looking to buy a home in Palm Springs. Of course we see JLo checking him out and basically throwing herself at him because, well, that’s what all us desperate women do, right? We throw ourselves at rich men when times are hard without taking much else into consideration (like, say the cop – who comes across as a decent guy – who wants nothing else but to date her. But hey, he’s not Jason Statham, right? Pfft!). Regardless, JLo finds a way to weasel herself into helping Parker’s character and thwarting the four thieves who betrayed Parker. Luckily for all of us, JLo advances are shut down and we don’t have to fall witness to another “Gigli”.
Is the movie some amazing cinematic masterpiece? Absolutely not. Are Parker’s flashbacks cheesy and annoying? Of course. But we are talking about an action flick and one that doesn’t disappoint in lots of blood, gun fights, knifing action, and Jason Statham being an overall badass.
Will your girlfriend love this movie? Probably not. Will you, you red-blooded hunk of testosterone, love this movie? Probably. It is, after all, geared towards your sex. And, just in case the blood and fights don’t do it for you, there are more than enough exposed breasts throughout the film keep your interest piqued.
So if you’re looking for a good revenge-style action flick, this one is decent enough. It won’t win any awards, but it won’t leave your poor girlfriend screaming for the hills either. JLo’s performance, however, that’s just inexcusible….
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Last Letter from Your Lover (2021) in Movies
Aug 9, 2021
Engaging love story (at least, the one in the 60's) (2 more)
Lush production values, especially production design and cinematography
Great cast - especially Shailene Woodley and Ben Cross
A proper old-fashioned love story that older viewers will appreciate.
Is "chick flick" a phrase that you can use these days? I guess not, since it infers that a movie is only of interest to a particular gender. Perhaps "Sunday afternoon film" is a better phrase. And "The Last Letter From Your Lover" is a real SAF.
Positives:
- "They don't make them like this any more" the saying goes. This is a love story cum melodrama that is well told by director Augustine Frizzell, in only her second feature. The film zips backwards and forwards between different time periods, trusting the audience to keep up with where we are. The dialogue is suitably soupy for a film of this type, based on a Jojo Moyes book (who wrote "Me Before You", also well-filmed). I've seen a critic review in "The Times" where they mocked the sentimentality of the love letters: but part of me would love to say "OK - let's hear what you would have written"!
- The story ticks all the boxes to keep you engaged. Although never moved to tears, a scene towards the end of the movie certainly generated a lump in the throat.
- All the leads are great. Shailene Woodley has been a personal favourite actress since her amazing turn in "The Descendants". And she certainly doesn't disappoint here.
- The production design is lush, particularly with the 60's scenes of London and the Riviera (reminiscent for me of the recent remake of "Rebecca"). This is nicely brought out by the cinematography (by George Steel), with some of the scenes being 'hang on the wall' beautiful to look at.
- It's wonderful to see the late Ben Cross in the movie, and he gives an excellent and touching performance. Cross died of cancer in August 2020 at the age of just 72. This is probably not his last movie, since he was in another - "The Devil's Light" - currently in post-production. Such a sad loss to the industry.
Negatives:
- The movie tries to construct a love story in the 60's and one in the present day 2020's, contrasting the different rules and values at play. The 60's one works; the 20's one really didn't for me. Ellie comes across as a very unlikeable person. The contrast between the lack of communications in the 60's (waiting at a station, not sure if someone will turn up or not) and today's chat/SMS rich 'always on' world could perhaps have been brought out more. With my Dr Bob directorial hat on, I would have ditched the present-day love story entirely and focused in on two professional detectives uncovering the past together: not everything needs to involve love and sex.
- The film has a couple of rain sequences that are highly unconvincing. One Riviera in-car scene particularly made me chuckle. "TURN FIRE HOSE ON!" You can almost see the blue sky and people cavorting on the beach behind them!
Summary Thoughts on "The Last Letter from Your Lover": There are actually few films around these days that feature love stories outside the teenage years. This is an 'old-fashioned' film that will appeal to an older age group, looking for style, romance and escapism. It reminded me in turns of movies like "The Two Faces of January" and "The Age of Adeline" in its mood and presentation. I'm probably not the target audience for this movie and I really enjoyed it. But the illustrious Mrs Movie Man probably is. And she declared that she absolutely loved it!
Ignore the sniffy newspaper and ex-newspaper critics. I'd declare this to be a "recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- "They don't make them like this any more" the saying goes. This is a love story cum melodrama that is well told by director Augustine Frizzell, in only her second feature. The film zips backwards and forwards between different time periods, trusting the audience to keep up with where we are. The dialogue is suitably soupy for a film of this type, based on a Jojo Moyes book (who wrote "Me Before You", also well-filmed). I've seen a critic review in "The Times" where they mocked the sentimentality of the love letters: but part of me would love to say "OK - let's hear what you would have written"!
- The story ticks all the boxes to keep you engaged. Although never moved to tears, a scene towards the end of the movie certainly generated a lump in the throat.
- All the leads are great. Shailene Woodley has been a personal favourite actress since her amazing turn in "The Descendants". And she certainly doesn't disappoint here.
- The production design is lush, particularly with the 60's scenes of London and the Riviera (reminiscent for me of the recent remake of "Rebecca"). This is nicely brought out by the cinematography (by George Steel), with some of the scenes being 'hang on the wall' beautiful to look at.
- It's wonderful to see the late Ben Cross in the movie, and he gives an excellent and touching performance. Cross died of cancer in August 2020 at the age of just 72. This is probably not his last movie, since he was in another - "The Devil's Light" - currently in post-production. Such a sad loss to the industry.
Negatives:
- The movie tries to construct a love story in the 60's and one in the present day 2020's, contrasting the different rules and values at play. The 60's one works; the 20's one really didn't for me. Ellie comes across as a very unlikeable person. The contrast between the lack of communications in the 60's (waiting at a station, not sure if someone will turn up or not) and today's chat/SMS rich 'always on' world could perhaps have been brought out more. With my Dr Bob directorial hat on, I would have ditched the present-day love story entirely and focused in on two professional detectives uncovering the past together: not everything needs to involve love and sex.
- The film has a couple of rain sequences that are highly unconvincing. One Riviera in-car scene particularly made me chuckle. "TURN FIRE HOSE ON!" You can almost see the blue sky and people cavorting on the beach behind them!
Summary Thoughts on "The Last Letter from Your Lover": There are actually few films around these days that feature love stories outside the teenage years. This is an 'old-fashioned' film that will appeal to an older age group, looking for style, romance and escapism. It reminded me in turns of movies like "The Two Faces of January" and "The Age of Adeline" in its mood and presentation. I'm probably not the target audience for this movie and I really enjoyed it. But the illustrious Mrs Movie Man probably is. And she declared that she absolutely loved it!
Ignore the sniffy newspaper and ex-newspaper critics. I'd declare this to be a "recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated The Magic of Terry Pratchett in Books
May 27, 2020
As a child who was brought up in a house of Discworld stories, with a stepfather who (still) proudly displays the Clarecraft Rincewind figurine which bears an uncanny likeness to him, and a mother who has a matching Nanny Ogg (it bears no likeness but let’s just say encompasses a couple of her characteristics), this was an ARC that I was frankly desperate to read. I have to thank Netgalley and Marc Burrows for granting me this opportunity. My opinions are enthusiastic, and entirely my own.
As a 32 year old female, mother and accountant you may be forgiven for expecting my book reviews to be based around chick-lit or classical novels and, although it is the case that I own several very well-read copies of Pride & Prejudice, I am wholly a child of the sci-fi/fantasy genre. Terry Pratchett novels sit alongside George RR Martin, Terry Brooks, David Eddings and Ursula Le Guin in my house; I owned and loved Discworld computer games and probably know every word to the film Labyrinth.
It could therefore be said that I would find Marc Burrow’s biography fascinating regardless: however, I am ashamed to say that, before reading this book, I knew very little about the life of the author whose books I admire so much.
Burrows structures his writing predictably enough, running through the life of Terry Pratchett chronologically, from his working-class upbringing; his career in journalism; the progression in popularity of his novels; his knighthood all the way up to his untimely death from Alzheimer’s. However, this is where an affiliation to any standard biography ends.
It is immediately apparent that Marc Burrows is an avid Terry Pratchett fan, even without reading his foreword, due to the inclusion of footnotes: a writing style which is synonymous with Pratchett. This allows Burrows, as it did with Pratchett, to provide little notes and details which cannot be in the main text without limiting the reading experience. It also allows both authors to inject a large amount of humour into their writing.
It should also be mentioned that no book has gripped me from the introduction in a long time, although I am fairly sure no other book would use the word “crotch” before we even reach Chapter One!
‘The Magic of Terry Pratchett’ is a clever, well-informed biography which perfectly encompasses the humour of the Discworld creator whilst educating the reader of his journey to becoming the icon that he is today. I have no doubt that this has been a labour of love for Marc Burrows: when the kindle says you have 20 minutes reading time left and you have reached the bibliography, you know that a whole lot of research has been done!
Sir Terry also had the tendency to embellish his stories and this is a factor Burrows does not try to hide; highlighting when facts don't quite add up and almost analysing the situation to try and discern the truth. This was such a refreshing approach to a biography: the wool is not pulled over the eyes of the reader, nor the subject blindly believed for convenience.
It is important to note that this book transgresses the existence of Discworld and “the business with the elephant” and encompasses all of Sir Terry’s work: from short stories in the local paper to his TV documentary on assisted death.
The reader will also learn of the involvement of Rhianna Pratchett in her father’s work and discover that the “man in the hat” was not always the easiest man to work with.
I am going to need at least 3 copies upon release- can we preorder?
As a 32 year old female, mother and accountant you may be forgiven for expecting my book reviews to be based around chick-lit or classical novels and, although it is the case that I own several very well-read copies of Pride & Prejudice, I am wholly a child of the sci-fi/fantasy genre. Terry Pratchett novels sit alongside George RR Martin, Terry Brooks, David Eddings and Ursula Le Guin in my house; I owned and loved Discworld computer games and probably know every word to the film Labyrinth.
It could therefore be said that I would find Marc Burrow’s biography fascinating regardless: however, I am ashamed to say that, before reading this book, I knew very little about the life of the author whose books I admire so much.
Burrows structures his writing predictably enough, running through the life of Terry Pratchett chronologically, from his working-class upbringing; his career in journalism; the progression in popularity of his novels; his knighthood all the way up to his untimely death from Alzheimer’s. However, this is where an affiliation to any standard biography ends.
It is immediately apparent that Marc Burrows is an avid Terry Pratchett fan, even without reading his foreword, due to the inclusion of footnotes: a writing style which is synonymous with Pratchett. This allows Burrows, as it did with Pratchett, to provide little notes and details which cannot be in the main text without limiting the reading experience. It also allows both authors to inject a large amount of humour into their writing.
It should also be mentioned that no book has gripped me from the introduction in a long time, although I am fairly sure no other book would use the word “crotch” before we even reach Chapter One!
‘The Magic of Terry Pratchett’ is a clever, well-informed biography which perfectly encompasses the humour of the Discworld creator whilst educating the reader of his journey to becoming the icon that he is today. I have no doubt that this has been a labour of love for Marc Burrows: when the kindle says you have 20 minutes reading time left and you have reached the bibliography, you know that a whole lot of research has been done!
Sir Terry also had the tendency to embellish his stories and this is a factor Burrows does not try to hide; highlighting when facts don't quite add up and almost analysing the situation to try and discern the truth. This was such a refreshing approach to a biography: the wool is not pulled over the eyes of the reader, nor the subject blindly believed for convenience.
It is important to note that this book transgresses the existence of Discworld and “the business with the elephant” and encompasses all of Sir Terry’s work: from short stories in the local paper to his TV documentary on assisted death.
The reader will also learn of the involvement of Rhianna Pratchett in her father’s work and discover that the “man in the hat” was not always the easiest man to work with.
I am going to need at least 3 copies upon release- can we preorder?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ocean’s 8 (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Can 8 women do the work of 11, 12 or even 13 men?
The female empowerment #SheToo implications of the title are clearly writ large for this movie! The answer of course…. is a major spoiler, so we won’t go there.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 5ive Girls (2006) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: 5ive Girls starts when one of the student of Father Drake’s (Perlman) school it taken by an evil force leaving only blood stained classroom. With the school closed down on the outside we still see Father Drake trying to help troubled girls with his newest class being Alex (Miller), Mara (Madley), Cecilia (Vnesa), Leah (Mamabolo) and Connie (Quintas).
The girls discover they are all witches with different powers and when Alex starts getting haunted by Elizabeth but what is she trying to communicate. We learn that Miss Pearce (Lalonde) is involved with what is going on but is she good or bad? Could these girls have been bought together for a reason? The girls find themselves battling the ancient demon Legion who wants to walk the Earth once more.
5ive Girls gives us a witch based film where the witches are not evil but instead fighting evil. Having the girls not fully understanding their powers works because we get to learn about them with them but saying that doing that really doesn’t help when they get picked off easily. I would like to see more about the girl’s powers but in the end we just have basic ideas of them. The story does work well for the fighting evil but also could just have been an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Actor Review
Ron Perlman: Father Drake is haunted by losing one of his students to an evil spirit, he is bought back to the school to finally make up for what happened but finds himself fighting the same evil that took away his faith. Ron is good in this role even if he is more of a supporting character than leading man.
Jennifer Miller: Alex is the last of the five new girls to arrive at the school, she has the ability to prevent and move objects with her mind. While in the school she finds herself having to work with the other girls to solve the hauntings going on in the school. Jennifer is solid in this role that works as the unsure girl.
Jordan Madley: Mara is the streetwise of the five girls, she is overly aggressive when it comes to protecting herself but is great to have on the right side when it comes to fighting the evil. Jordan is good as the bad ass chick that is actually very insecure.
Terra Vnesa: Cecilia is one of the students, she is the blind student who makes light of her disability being one of the main comic reliefs in the film. Terra is good because she is the funniest of the characters involved.
Support Cast: 5ive Girls only has a couple of extra cast members that end up doing just as good a job of the rest of the cast.
Director Review: Warren P Sonoda – Warren gives us a solid film that is easy to watch but never really challenges us.
Horror: 5ive Girls has good horror elements of good versus evil along with solid gore moments.
Thriller: 5ive Girls keeps us guessing to what will happened next as well as wondering what is going on through the story even if you can work parts of the film out.
Settings: 5ive Girls keeps nearly all the film in one place the school that is meant to be locked from the outside.
Special Effects: 5ive Girls has solid effects for the kills but when we see Legion we don’t get the best effects.
Suggestion: 5ive Girls is one to watch if it is on late night television. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: Only having early witch abilities.
Worst Part: Slightly predictable.
Funniest Scene: Blind girl searching for someone alone while still enough people to do it in pairs.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $3 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 35 Minutes
Tagline: 5 Witches. 5 Powers. One Evil.
Overall: Easy to watch horror that does lack scares but has strong elements.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/10/05/movie-reviews-101-midnight-halloween-horror-5ive-girls-2006/
The girls discover they are all witches with different powers and when Alex starts getting haunted by Elizabeth but what is she trying to communicate. We learn that Miss Pearce (Lalonde) is involved with what is going on but is she good or bad? Could these girls have been bought together for a reason? The girls find themselves battling the ancient demon Legion who wants to walk the Earth once more.
5ive Girls gives us a witch based film where the witches are not evil but instead fighting evil. Having the girls not fully understanding their powers works because we get to learn about them with them but saying that doing that really doesn’t help when they get picked off easily. I would like to see more about the girl’s powers but in the end we just have basic ideas of them. The story does work well for the fighting evil but also could just have been an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Actor Review
Ron Perlman: Father Drake is haunted by losing one of his students to an evil spirit, he is bought back to the school to finally make up for what happened but finds himself fighting the same evil that took away his faith. Ron is good in this role even if he is more of a supporting character than leading man.
Jennifer Miller: Alex is the last of the five new girls to arrive at the school, she has the ability to prevent and move objects with her mind. While in the school she finds herself having to work with the other girls to solve the hauntings going on in the school. Jennifer is solid in this role that works as the unsure girl.
Jordan Madley: Mara is the streetwise of the five girls, she is overly aggressive when it comes to protecting herself but is great to have on the right side when it comes to fighting the evil. Jordan is good as the bad ass chick that is actually very insecure.
Terra Vnesa: Cecilia is one of the students, she is the blind student who makes light of her disability being one of the main comic reliefs in the film. Terra is good because she is the funniest of the characters involved.
Support Cast: 5ive Girls only has a couple of extra cast members that end up doing just as good a job of the rest of the cast.
Director Review: Warren P Sonoda – Warren gives us a solid film that is easy to watch but never really challenges us.
Horror: 5ive Girls has good horror elements of good versus evil along with solid gore moments.
Thriller: 5ive Girls keeps us guessing to what will happened next as well as wondering what is going on through the story even if you can work parts of the film out.
Settings: 5ive Girls keeps nearly all the film in one place the school that is meant to be locked from the outside.
Special Effects: 5ive Girls has solid effects for the kills but when we see Legion we don’t get the best effects.
Suggestion: 5ive Girls is one to watch if it is on late night television. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: Only having early witch abilities.
Worst Part: Slightly predictable.
Funniest Scene: Blind girl searching for someone alone while still enough people to do it in pairs.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $3 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 35 Minutes
Tagline: 5 Witches. 5 Powers. One Evil.
Overall: Easy to watch horror that does lack scares but has strong elements.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/10/05/movie-reviews-101-midnight-halloween-horror-5ive-girls-2006/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Underwater (2020) in Movies
Feb 16, 2020 (Updated Feb 16, 2020)
Frenetic action in murky water - baffling (2 more)
Scientific inconsistencies
Waterlogged Alien wannabe
Soggy and forgettable
I had a sinking feeling (excuse the pun) about this movie from the word go. It's a lazy approach to 'mansplain' the whole set up for the movie through digital news posts during the main titles. It feels more patronising to the audience than having main titles and then a 'Star Wars-style' synopsis.
Once into the movie, director William Eubank gives us the bare minimum of character set-up for our heroine while she brushes her teeth*. (And no way did she even follow the British Dental Association recommendation of two minutes brushing!) (* Interestingly, the trailer seems to show some above water scenes/dialogue and introductions to the rest of the crew that never made the final cut.)
And then....
BAM!!!
I was thinking that the manic action that follows was some sort of dream or flashback. But no. We are pitched headlong into the story without pause as disaster strikes. It all feels positively indecent.
For we are seven miles down in the Mariana trench, when a drilling station springs a leak.
Now call me a cynic, but I would have *thought* that, at that depth, a single leak would implode the whole station in about 10 seconds flat. But then that wouldn't be cinematic enough, and would be a much shorter movie!
And there are numerous other scientific implausibilities. For example, diving helmets that appear to be able to withstand 15,750 psi of pressure (I Googled it) can be smashed-in by a woman by just bashing it.
Sigh.
We are in 'Alien-lite' territory again. Just as in last year's "The Meg", those pesky humans have disturbed something in its home territory.... and it's suitably pissed-off. The action centres on hippy-chick engineer Norah (Kristen Stewart). The script neatly describes her as a "flat-chested elfin creature"... a fact which every male in the audience has thought (come on guys, admit it , you did!) from the immediately preceding scene.
It was never entirely clear to me what skills Norah was supposed to have.... it seemed to flex from diving to electrical engineering to computer engineering.
Stewart is a handy actress to have in a movie, but here she is mostly relegated to lots of shots of her athletic body running through corridors in her skimpy crop-top and knickers.
Supporting Stewart are veteran French actor Vincent Cassel as the mission captain; "the funny one" Paul (T.J. Miller); the trusty male action figure Smith (John Gallagher Jr.); and Emily - the 'less-flat chested but screamy one' (Jessica Henwick). Emily also gets to run around in a T-shirt and knickers: you kind of quickly get to know the audience the film is trying to appeal to.
As will be obvious if you've seen any of these types of film before, not all of these folks are going to make it.
As this movie is presumably filmed in a small water tank in a Louisiana studio. Clearly the memo said "fill it with murky water so the audience can't see the sides". "And just for good measure, let's film it with hand-help rapidly moving cameras". The result is that a lot of the time, when there was a burst of frenetic underwater action, I had NO IDEA what was actually going on.
In this way, the movie reminded me of the shark B-movie "47 Metres Down" from a few years ago.
This is certainly not "Alien". Although similarly set, this is not "The Abyss" either. It's most similar perhaps to "Life", but without the clever twist ending.
It's also not a truly TERRIBLE movie either. But unfortunately this is one of the most "meh" action movies I've seen in the past year. It's just brain-crushingly forgettable.
There was only one vaguely memorable shot in the whole movie: a final shot of Kristen Stewart. But that just serves to make me think.... 'Stewart deserves much better than this'.
For a movie concerning itself with a lack of oxygen, watching this felt like a waste of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-underwater-2020/ ).
Once into the movie, director William Eubank gives us the bare minimum of character set-up for our heroine while she brushes her teeth*. (And no way did she even follow the British Dental Association recommendation of two minutes brushing!) (* Interestingly, the trailer seems to show some above water scenes/dialogue and introductions to the rest of the crew that never made the final cut.)
And then....
BAM!!!
I was thinking that the manic action that follows was some sort of dream or flashback. But no. We are pitched headlong into the story without pause as disaster strikes. It all feels positively indecent.
For we are seven miles down in the Mariana trench, when a drilling station springs a leak.
Now call me a cynic, but I would have *thought* that, at that depth, a single leak would implode the whole station in about 10 seconds flat. But then that wouldn't be cinematic enough, and would be a much shorter movie!
And there are numerous other scientific implausibilities. For example, diving helmets that appear to be able to withstand 15,750 psi of pressure (I Googled it) can be smashed-in by a woman by just bashing it.
Sigh.
We are in 'Alien-lite' territory again. Just as in last year's "The Meg", those pesky humans have disturbed something in its home territory.... and it's suitably pissed-off. The action centres on hippy-chick engineer Norah (Kristen Stewart). The script neatly describes her as a "flat-chested elfin creature"... a fact which every male in the audience has thought (come on guys, admit it , you did!) from the immediately preceding scene.
It was never entirely clear to me what skills Norah was supposed to have.... it seemed to flex from diving to electrical engineering to computer engineering.
Stewart is a handy actress to have in a movie, but here she is mostly relegated to lots of shots of her athletic body running through corridors in her skimpy crop-top and knickers.
Supporting Stewart are veteran French actor Vincent Cassel as the mission captain; "the funny one" Paul (T.J. Miller); the trusty male action figure Smith (John Gallagher Jr.); and Emily - the 'less-flat chested but screamy one' (Jessica Henwick). Emily also gets to run around in a T-shirt and knickers: you kind of quickly get to know the audience the film is trying to appeal to.
As will be obvious if you've seen any of these types of film before, not all of these folks are going to make it.
As this movie is presumably filmed in a small water tank in a Louisiana studio. Clearly the memo said "fill it with murky water so the audience can't see the sides". "And just for good measure, let's film it with hand-help rapidly moving cameras". The result is that a lot of the time, when there was a burst of frenetic underwater action, I had NO IDEA what was actually going on.
In this way, the movie reminded me of the shark B-movie "47 Metres Down" from a few years ago.
This is certainly not "Alien". Although similarly set, this is not "The Abyss" either. It's most similar perhaps to "Life", but without the clever twist ending.
It's also not a truly TERRIBLE movie either. But unfortunately this is one of the most "meh" action movies I've seen in the past year. It's just brain-crushingly forgettable.
There was only one vaguely memorable shot in the whole movie: a final shot of Kristen Stewart. But that just serves to make me think.... 'Stewart deserves much better than this'.
For a movie concerning itself with a lack of oxygen, watching this felt like a waste of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-underwater-2020/ ).
