Search
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Hunt for Red October (1990) in Movies
Jul 15, 2020
Boring
I spent a minute trying to figure out a logline for this movie and I couldn’t quite get a grasp on how to put it into words. Something about a submarine led by a defective Soviet commander headed for American soil and special agent Jack Ryan (Alec Baldwin) having to hunt him down. That’s the best I can do.
Acting: 10
Performances were strong across the board and is not where the movie fell flat in the slightest. Alec Baldwin delivers as Ryan with a sharp charisma that makes the movie just slightly more bearable. I was also impressed with Sean Connery’s role as villain Marko Ramius. Definitely the type of guy you love to hate and Connery did a solid job of bringing him to life.
Beginning: 8
Wasn’t 100% bought in after the first ten minutes, but enough happened to make me want to watch more. While I have seen way better movies in my day, I have definitely seen way worse beginnings too. It gives you a bit of story while creating excitement and intrigue for the story.
Characters: 5
The acting was fine. The characters, on the other hand, bored the absolute hell out of me. None of their storylines or backgrounds compelled me to ultimately care about the story as a whole. How many times have I said bad characters breed bad movies? Couldn’t be truer here.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
This movie relies a lot on smoke and mirrors. First you see a submarine, then it disappears. You see a missile, then it’s gone. After awhile the parlor trick gets old and so does the story. It felt like their action sequences suffered from a lower budget.
Conflict: 5
The action was mediocre at best. For this to be a movie about dueling submarines, there certainly aren’t a lot of dueling submarines. I can’t think of a better way to say this: This movie is really boring. There is way too much close-quarters talk and not enough actually happening.
Entertainment Value: 6
For every solid moment The Hunt For Red October brings, it gives you more scenes of people just sitting around discussing strategy. The high points were few and far between. It’s not a total dumpster fire, but I was certainly hoping for more.
Memorability: 4
Pace: 2
Plot: 10
Resolution: 2
Overall: 57
Contrary to what you might think, I hate shitting on movies. Sometimes, as is the case for The Hunt For Red October, it’s unavoidable. With such a stellar cast, I was hoping for more.
Acting: 10
Performances were strong across the board and is not where the movie fell flat in the slightest. Alec Baldwin delivers as Ryan with a sharp charisma that makes the movie just slightly more bearable. I was also impressed with Sean Connery’s role as villain Marko Ramius. Definitely the type of guy you love to hate and Connery did a solid job of bringing him to life.
Beginning: 8
Wasn’t 100% bought in after the first ten minutes, but enough happened to make me want to watch more. While I have seen way better movies in my day, I have definitely seen way worse beginnings too. It gives you a bit of story while creating excitement and intrigue for the story.
Characters: 5
The acting was fine. The characters, on the other hand, bored the absolute hell out of me. None of their storylines or backgrounds compelled me to ultimately care about the story as a whole. How many times have I said bad characters breed bad movies? Couldn’t be truer here.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
This movie relies a lot on smoke and mirrors. First you see a submarine, then it disappears. You see a missile, then it’s gone. After awhile the parlor trick gets old and so does the story. It felt like their action sequences suffered from a lower budget.
Conflict: 5
The action was mediocre at best. For this to be a movie about dueling submarines, there certainly aren’t a lot of dueling submarines. I can’t think of a better way to say this: This movie is really boring. There is way too much close-quarters talk and not enough actually happening.
Entertainment Value: 6
For every solid moment The Hunt For Red October brings, it gives you more scenes of people just sitting around discussing strategy. The high points were few and far between. It’s not a total dumpster fire, but I was certainly hoping for more.
Memorability: 4
Pace: 2
Plot: 10
Resolution: 2
Overall: 57
Contrary to what you might think, I hate shitting on movies. Sometimes, as is the case for The Hunt For Red October, it’s unavoidable. With such a stellar cast, I was hoping for more.
The War on Women
Book
In 1973, Sue Lloyd Roberts joined ITN as a news trainee and went on to be one of the UK's first...
ClareR (5874 KP) rated If I Can’t Have You in Books
Dec 5, 2020
If I Can’t Have You is a story about obsession. It’s funny, serious, disturbing and at times, outrageous. Constance could be a character that would be easy to dislike, but I liked her vulnerability. She is a sad character who has had a troubled upbringing. When she believes that she has found the love of her life, and is then almost immediately let down by the frankly despicable Dr. Samuel Stevens, I felt so sorry for her. And continued to feel for her as he repeatedly uses her. He clearly neither knows or cares about Constance’s depth of feeling for him. She seems desperate as she lets him use her, and even more so as she looks for affection with her housemate, Dale. He certainly seems to have the potential to be a male version of Constance, and it’s clear that she actually feels revulsion with regards to him. But at the same time, she doesn’t want to be on her own.
I think the character of Edward, an elderly man who lives over the road from Samuel, is in part the father figure that she needs and never had. He needs her too. I think things could have been far worse for Constance if she hadn’t have had Edward to consider. Edward is the device that shows Constance is a caring person underneath the obsession. She makes time in her day to care for and visit him. Like the other two men, he is a broken soul - but his obsessive behaviour doesn’t translate in to being careless with people. Instead he is a hoarder of strange knick-knacks. Edward adds an element of humour as well - his relationship with Constance is lovely.
I found it hard NOT to put myself in Constance’s shoes. After all, isn’t that what we as readers do with the characters we read about? How easy would i be to slip from loneliness in to obsession? I hope I never find out, but it’s so well portrayed in this book. This is a supremely uncomfortable book in parts - Constance is used and abused, and she in turn can have some pretty unpleasant thoughts. But perhaps that’s because she doesn’t have someone to really confide in?
I can’t actually believe that this is a debut, and I will definitely be looking out for whatever comes next from Charlotte Levin.
Many thanks to The Pigeonhole for serialising this and to Charlotte for joining in with the chat in the margins!
I think the character of Edward, an elderly man who lives over the road from Samuel, is in part the father figure that she needs and never had. He needs her too. I think things could have been far worse for Constance if she hadn’t have had Edward to consider. Edward is the device that shows Constance is a caring person underneath the obsession. She makes time in her day to care for and visit him. Like the other two men, he is a broken soul - but his obsessive behaviour doesn’t translate in to being careless with people. Instead he is a hoarder of strange knick-knacks. Edward adds an element of humour as well - his relationship with Constance is lovely.
I found it hard NOT to put myself in Constance’s shoes. After all, isn’t that what we as readers do with the characters we read about? How easy would i be to slip from loneliness in to obsession? I hope I never find out, but it’s so well portrayed in this book. This is a supremely uncomfortable book in parts - Constance is used and abused, and she in turn can have some pretty unpleasant thoughts. But perhaps that’s because she doesn’t have someone to really confide in?
I can’t actually believe that this is a debut, and I will definitely be looking out for whatever comes next from Charlotte Levin.
Many thanks to The Pigeonhole for serialising this and to Charlotte for joining in with the chat in the margins!
BillMinder 3 for iPad
Finance and Business
App
Important: This is an older version of BillMinder that has been replaced by the all new BillMinder...
Shadow and Light (Arizona Raptors #3)
RJ Scott and V.L. Locey
10.0
Rate It
Book
Is it easier to fall into the shadows than hold onto the light? Injured in a horrific car...
Contemporary MM Sports Romance
Dominicana
8.0
Rate It
Book
SHORTLISTED FOR THE WOMEN'S PRIZE FOR FICTION 2020 'A story for now, an important story . . ....
Historical Fiction New York Literary Fiction Adult Fiction The Dominican Republic Coming of Age
Feedly - Get Smarter
News and Utilities
App
Your central place to organize, read, and share the information you need to stay ahead of the next...
Pony Sisters Pop Music Band
Games and Education
App
Help your virtual pony friends Rosie, Zoe, Britney, Rainbow and a new group member Molly look...
Ace (Moonshine Task Force #4)
10.0
Rate It
Book
Ace is saving lives and mending hearts....... Anthony “Ace” Bailey I’m not a rules...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hotel Artemis (2018) in Movies
Feb 10, 2019
Not as interesting as it wanted to be
On my airplane ride from Mpls to San Diego I was able to catch up with gritty, action-noir thriller BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE and was really surprised by how much I enjoyed it. So, I was excited to see that another gritty,, action-noir film, HOTEL ARTEMIS was showing on the flight back.
Well...HOTEL ARTEMIS is no EL ROYALE and maybe that's not fair to Artemis, for I was constantly comparing the two films, so let me see if I can separate the 2 and hold HOTEL ARTEMIS up to it's own scrutiny.
Telling the tale of a JOHN WICK-type world where - instead of a safehouse Hotel for crooks, the HOTEL ARTEMIS is a safehouse HOSPITAL for crooks where the rules are that the crooks cannot hurt each other on the premises. When a riot breaks out in downtown Los Angeles, the rules go out the window and mayhem - and violence - ensue.
Well...this film is no JOHN WICK either. Oh shoot, I've done it again. I've compared this film to another film.
And that's the problem with HOTEL ARTEMIS, it treads ground that has been trod better - and with more style - before. So this film, no matter how well intention-ed, falls short in originality, style and substance. I was still entertained, but not as entertained as I was by JOHN WICK or EL ROYALE.
Jodie Foster (in her first acting role since 2013's ELYSIUM) stars as the person who runs the Artemis. She has a mysterious background (of course) and runs the Artemis with an emotional-less efficiency. Her performance is quirky and interesting and almost holds the film together - almost. She is joined by Sterling K. Brown, Charlie Day, Brian Tyree Henry and Sofia Boutella as patients in the Hotel - none of which were interesting or unusual. They all were playing variants of the characters they usually play, almost as if Director/Writer Drew Pearce said "Get my a Charlie Day-type and a Sterling K. Brown-type", and the Casting Director thought they "scored" by getting the original person - each of whom looks like they are coasting through this film at about 70% output.
Only Dave Bautista shines as the "Health Care Professional" who works with Foster. He brings an interesting charisma to his character and was almost the high point in the film.
Almost. All of the performances pale in comparison to the Mob Boss who shows up about 2/3 of the way through the film. This character is talked about in reverential and scary terms throughout the film. The build-up was huge for this character and I was prepared for the inevitable let down when the mob boss finally shows up, but when the elevator door opens up and I saw that is was Jeff Goldblum in "full Goldblum" mode, I was thrilled and he did not disappoint. He commanded the screen at a time that the film was getting tiresome and he wound up the characters, the energy of the film and the action to help it ride to its inevitable, bloody conclusion.
Ultimately, Pearce delivered a solid B- film, one that has moments of quirk and interest, but set against a backdrop - and supporting actors - that are subdued and not memorable. This is a cardinal sin for this kind of film, instead of subduing those parts, Pearce needed to enhance those and he just plainly did not.
If you want to see a good, stylized, gritty action film, with interesting locales and supporting players, check out JOHN WICK or BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE. If you've seen these, HOTEL ARTEMIS is fine, but the other two do it better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Well...HOTEL ARTEMIS is no EL ROYALE and maybe that's not fair to Artemis, for I was constantly comparing the two films, so let me see if I can separate the 2 and hold HOTEL ARTEMIS up to it's own scrutiny.
Telling the tale of a JOHN WICK-type world where - instead of a safehouse Hotel for crooks, the HOTEL ARTEMIS is a safehouse HOSPITAL for crooks where the rules are that the crooks cannot hurt each other on the premises. When a riot breaks out in downtown Los Angeles, the rules go out the window and mayhem - and violence - ensue.
Well...this film is no JOHN WICK either. Oh shoot, I've done it again. I've compared this film to another film.
And that's the problem with HOTEL ARTEMIS, it treads ground that has been trod better - and with more style - before. So this film, no matter how well intention-ed, falls short in originality, style and substance. I was still entertained, but not as entertained as I was by JOHN WICK or EL ROYALE.
Jodie Foster (in her first acting role since 2013's ELYSIUM) stars as the person who runs the Artemis. She has a mysterious background (of course) and runs the Artemis with an emotional-less efficiency. Her performance is quirky and interesting and almost holds the film together - almost. She is joined by Sterling K. Brown, Charlie Day, Brian Tyree Henry and Sofia Boutella as patients in the Hotel - none of which were interesting or unusual. They all were playing variants of the characters they usually play, almost as if Director/Writer Drew Pearce said "Get my a Charlie Day-type and a Sterling K. Brown-type", and the Casting Director thought they "scored" by getting the original person - each of whom looks like they are coasting through this film at about 70% output.
Only Dave Bautista shines as the "Health Care Professional" who works with Foster. He brings an interesting charisma to his character and was almost the high point in the film.
Almost. All of the performances pale in comparison to the Mob Boss who shows up about 2/3 of the way through the film. This character is talked about in reverential and scary terms throughout the film. The build-up was huge for this character and I was prepared for the inevitable let down when the mob boss finally shows up, but when the elevator door opens up and I saw that is was Jeff Goldblum in "full Goldblum" mode, I was thrilled and he did not disappoint. He commanded the screen at a time that the film was getting tiresome and he wound up the characters, the energy of the film and the action to help it ride to its inevitable, bloody conclusion.
Ultimately, Pearce delivered a solid B- film, one that has moments of quirk and interest, but set against a backdrop - and supporting actors - that are subdued and not memorable. This is a cardinal sin for this kind of film, instead of subduing those parts, Pearce needed to enhance those and he just plainly did not.
If you want to see a good, stylized, gritty action film, with interesting locales and supporting players, check out JOHN WICK or BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE. If you've seen these, HOTEL ARTEMIS is fine, but the other two do it better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)