Search
Search results
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Oct 9, 2017 (Updated Oct 13, 2017)
One of the most visually stunning movies I have ever seen. (8 more)
Awesome production design.
Brilliant direction.
Beautiful cinematography.
Solid performances.
Incredible SFX.
Great score.
Good use of lighting.
Well written script and dialogue.
Villeneuve Strikes Gold Yet Again
Wow, this movie is a feast for your eyeballs. I won't go on about the visuals too much, as I'm sure that you have already heard how good looking this movie is, all I'll say is this; the movie deserves to be seen in the biggest screen possible. What is even better though, is unlike a Zack Snyder film, Blade Runner 2049 has more to it than just surface level, pretty visuals.
Somehow, Denis Villeneuve has achieved the impossible. He has directed a movie every year for the last five years and they have all been absolutely incredible, also he has managed to pull off a fantastic sequel to a 35 year old classic.
I loved almost every part of this movie. The direction was masterful to watch, with the movie being moved along at a deliberate, purposeful pace, rather than rushing through from action scene to action scene. The sets in this were out of this world, some props were really cool to look at and the use of mostly practical backdrops made a huge difference as opposed to using an abundance of green screen. Rodger Deakins' cinematography was astonishing, you could honestly screen grab an image from any time stamp in this movie and it would work perfectly as a beautiful desktop background.
I also thought that the performances were fantastic and everyone did a great job. Although Ford doesn't appear until the movie's third act, when he does he is great. Gosling commands his leading man role as we've come to expect him to. Robin Wright and Dave Bautista were the other standouts for me in terms of their performances.
The more technical elements of the movie worked perfectly in tandem with the story being told as well. The special effects were beautifully implemented and the lighting in the movie added a whole other layer of visual depth as well. The score also worked for the tone that the movie was aiming to achieve. The script was also solid and tightly woven.
The only thing I will say is; if you are going into the film expecting a sci-fi action blockbuster, you will come out disappointed. This is a slow paced, sci-fi noir, detective story. There are a few sparse moments of action and it does feel impactful when it occurs, but it is not the focus of the movie at all.
The one small element that bothered me was Jared Leto's performance. He took me out of the movie and was the only cast member who didn't feel like a real character within this world. Maybe I'm just being biased, as Jared Leto has always annoyed me in general, but for me he was the one bad part of this near masterpiece. Thankfully he doesn't get that much screen time, so it could have been worse. Also, the fact that David Bowie was originally cast in that role adds an extra sprinkle of salt in the wound.
Unfortunately, much like the original movie, this hasn't done great at the box office on its opening weekend. If like me, you are sick of mindless sequel cash cows that are total garbage such as Jurassic World, go and see this movie and vote with your wallet. If you don't, we are telling Hollywood that as a collective, we don't want sequels with depth and integrity, we want dumb, rushed, forgettable nonsense and that is what we will end up getting. Support this movie for the betterment of filmmaking and cinema, even if you haven't seen the original.
Overall I loved the movie, but I can see why people are finding it divisive. For me though, the vast majority of this movie's parts were absolutely fantastic and come together to form a journey that you must experience for yourself.
Somehow, Denis Villeneuve has achieved the impossible. He has directed a movie every year for the last five years and they have all been absolutely incredible, also he has managed to pull off a fantastic sequel to a 35 year old classic.
I loved almost every part of this movie. The direction was masterful to watch, with the movie being moved along at a deliberate, purposeful pace, rather than rushing through from action scene to action scene. The sets in this were out of this world, some props were really cool to look at and the use of mostly practical backdrops made a huge difference as opposed to using an abundance of green screen. Rodger Deakins' cinematography was astonishing, you could honestly screen grab an image from any time stamp in this movie and it would work perfectly as a beautiful desktop background.
I also thought that the performances were fantastic and everyone did a great job. Although Ford doesn't appear until the movie's third act, when he does he is great. Gosling commands his leading man role as we've come to expect him to. Robin Wright and Dave Bautista were the other standouts for me in terms of their performances.
The more technical elements of the movie worked perfectly in tandem with the story being told as well. The special effects were beautifully implemented and the lighting in the movie added a whole other layer of visual depth as well. The score also worked for the tone that the movie was aiming to achieve. The script was also solid and tightly woven.
The only thing I will say is; if you are going into the film expecting a sci-fi action blockbuster, you will come out disappointed. This is a slow paced, sci-fi noir, detective story. There are a few sparse moments of action and it does feel impactful when it occurs, but it is not the focus of the movie at all.
The one small element that bothered me was Jared Leto's performance. He took me out of the movie and was the only cast member who didn't feel like a real character within this world. Maybe I'm just being biased, as Jared Leto has always annoyed me in general, but for me he was the one bad part of this near masterpiece. Thankfully he doesn't get that much screen time, so it could have been worse. Also, the fact that David Bowie was originally cast in that role adds an extra sprinkle of salt in the wound.
Unfortunately, much like the original movie, this hasn't done great at the box office on its opening weekend. If like me, you are sick of mindless sequel cash cows that are total garbage such as Jurassic World, go and see this movie and vote with your wallet. If you don't, we are telling Hollywood that as a collective, we don't want sequels with depth and integrity, we want dumb, rushed, forgettable nonsense and that is what we will end up getting. Support this movie for the betterment of filmmaking and cinema, even if you haven't seen the original.
Overall I loved the movie, but I can see why people are finding it divisive. For me though, the vast majority of this movie's parts were absolutely fantastic and come together to form a journey that you must experience for yourself.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated What You Want To See (Roxane Weary #2) in Books
May 10, 2018
The Roxane Weary mystery series is straight-up great!
Roxane Weary is hired by Arthur Ungless, owner of a print shop, to track his fiance, Marin, whom he believes is cheating on him. But her case devolves quickly, between a bounced check and Tom (Roxane's dad's former partner) and a rude cop named Sanko showing up on Roxane's doorstep with the news that Marin is dead. Not only that, they make it pretty clear that they want Roxane to stay out of it. But this is "pathologically nosy" Roxane we are talking about. Stay out of it she cannot. So Roxane continues to work Arthur's case--as the husband, he's the main suspect after all. Roxane is determined he's innocent: a perspective not shared by Tom and Sanko. As she digs deeper into Marin's life, she discovers that she led quite the double life, and Roxane finds herself lost in a world of antiques dealing, wealthy families, and a lot of danger.
I loved this book. I love the first person aspect. The Roxane Weary series is straight-up great mystery writing. No unreliable narrator, no chapters that alternate POV or time periods, no gimmicks--just an excellent protagonist and a strong plot. It makes you long for mysteries of old (think Kinsey Millhone). The ways I love Roxane cannot truly be enumerated--she's a female lead in a mystery series, for one. She's smart, witty, and sarcastic. She's bisexual, but this characteristic is just who she is, not her main defining element or the entire defining point of the novel. As a bisexual female, I cannot stress how amazing this is in literature. To have bisexual representation (and have that representation be intelligent, funny, and not portrayed as evil and deviant), well, it's wonderful. She has relationships of all kinds and works on figuring out herself, just like any other person. Gasp! Imagine that. I couldn't love Roxane more (or Kristen Lepionka for creating this character). Also, Roxane calls waffles "golden beauty" and well, what more do you need in your PI? She's the Leslie Knope of private investigators.
I was worried that the second Roxane Weary novel wouldn't stand up to the first, but I was anxious for no reason. The second book is just as wonderful and intricately crafted as the first, and we get to see Roxane both struggling and growing professionally and personally. The case is a great one--it had me frantically reading and totally shocked me at the end, which I love. So rarely can a detective novel keep me guessing to the anymore. Marin Strasser is quite the character, and her web of lies pulls in a whole host of supporting characters.
We also see Roxane navigating new territory with Tom, her former lover (and, as mentioned, her dad's ex-partner), and get appearances again from the appealing Weary brothers and Roxane's mom. Roxane is still working on her relationships--not just romantic ones, but life ones, and you'll be touched as she figures out trying to be a "surrogate aunt" to Shelby, who appeared in book one. Watching her let her guard down at times is enjoyable.
The case is still mainly the star, though, and it won't disappoint. It's complicated and intriguing and everything comes together in ways that will make you gasp and keep you riveted. I was definitely shocked several times while reading. Not to mention I love it when an author can write a character that I truly hate--you know they've done a good job when you can feel that anger viscerally through the pages!
Overall, I have nothing bad to say about this book. Maybe that it's over, and I have to wait now for a (hopeful!!) book three? I love Roxane. I feel kinship toward her for sure, this sarcastic, bisexual PI whose still navigating the world around her. The mystery in this book won't disappoint, nor will the characters. If you haven't read the first Roxane Weary novel, I do recommend reading it first (mostly because it's also so good), but this will stand on its own. Highly recommend!!
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review. More at http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.
I loved this book. I love the first person aspect. The Roxane Weary series is straight-up great mystery writing. No unreliable narrator, no chapters that alternate POV or time periods, no gimmicks--just an excellent protagonist and a strong plot. It makes you long for mysteries of old (think Kinsey Millhone). The ways I love Roxane cannot truly be enumerated--she's a female lead in a mystery series, for one. She's smart, witty, and sarcastic. She's bisexual, but this characteristic is just who she is, not her main defining element or the entire defining point of the novel. As a bisexual female, I cannot stress how amazing this is in literature. To have bisexual representation (and have that representation be intelligent, funny, and not portrayed as evil and deviant), well, it's wonderful. She has relationships of all kinds and works on figuring out herself, just like any other person. Gasp! Imagine that. I couldn't love Roxane more (or Kristen Lepionka for creating this character). Also, Roxane calls waffles "golden beauty" and well, what more do you need in your PI? She's the Leslie Knope of private investigators.
I was worried that the second Roxane Weary novel wouldn't stand up to the first, but I was anxious for no reason. The second book is just as wonderful and intricately crafted as the first, and we get to see Roxane both struggling and growing professionally and personally. The case is a great one--it had me frantically reading and totally shocked me at the end, which I love. So rarely can a detective novel keep me guessing to the anymore. Marin Strasser is quite the character, and her web of lies pulls in a whole host of supporting characters.
We also see Roxane navigating new territory with Tom, her former lover (and, as mentioned, her dad's ex-partner), and get appearances again from the appealing Weary brothers and Roxane's mom. Roxane is still working on her relationships--not just romantic ones, but life ones, and you'll be touched as she figures out trying to be a "surrogate aunt" to Shelby, who appeared in book one. Watching her let her guard down at times is enjoyable.
The case is still mainly the star, though, and it won't disappoint. It's complicated and intriguing and everything comes together in ways that will make you gasp and keep you riveted. I was definitely shocked several times while reading. Not to mention I love it when an author can write a character that I truly hate--you know they've done a good job when you can feel that anger viscerally through the pages!
Overall, I have nothing bad to say about this book. Maybe that it's over, and I have to wait now for a (hopeful!!) book three? I love Roxane. I feel kinship toward her for sure, this sarcastic, bisexual PI whose still navigating the world around her. The mystery in this book won't disappoint, nor will the characters. If you haven't read the first Roxane Weary novel, I do recommend reading it first (mostly because it's also so good), but this will stand on its own. Highly recommend!!
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review. More at http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.
Midge (525 KP) rated Death In Provence in Books
Feb 2, 2019
Many twists and turns of the plot (1 more)
Great pacing
A Light And Relaxing Read
DEATH IN PROVENCE is a wonderful, light, and relaxed read with all of the matching vibes you get when on holiday. That’s exactly how I felt - this novel is almost as good being on a long vacation.
It is a refreshing, mystery fiction novel set in wonderfully scenic St Merlot, a sleepy, quiet village that has infrequent visitors at the unfashionable end of the Luberon Valley, France. St Merlot is unspoilt, with dry stone walls and wildflowers.
What’s really likeable about it straight-away are the opening chapters that draw you into the main character, Penelope Kite. Recently retired and divorced, she is an optimistic, happy, fifty-year-old with plenty of joie-de-vivre. Penelope, or Penny to her friends, has put her unfaithful ex-husband and her ungrateful stepchildren first, for a long time. Since she left her job in forensics at the Home Office in England, she’s been an unpaid babysitter and chauffeur for her grandchildren. Now, she’s going to start living for herself so she buys her dream house, Le Chant d’Eau, or The Song of Water. The stone farmhouse tucked high in the hills is in need of major restoration but is complete with a garden, swimming pool, and sweeping mountain vistas.
But not long after her arrival at Le Chant d’Eau, a corpse is found floating in her swimming pool. The local detective doesn’t seem particularly interested in finding out either the truth or the murderer, but Penny knows a thing or two about murder investigations herself so she starts an investigation of her own.
Enter Clemence Valencourt, the chic but supercilious estate agent, the disdainful chief of police, Inspector Paul Gamelin brought in from the headquarters of the Police Municipale in Cavaillon to investigate. He is 40-ish, has a tanned narrow face, greying hair and a grave demeanour. He also speaks excellent English. The devilishly handsome local mayor is called in to formally identify the corpse. He is the maire de St Merlot, and is gorgeous, with floppy sun-streaked hair, a caramel tan and chiselled cheekbones He also has stunning dark blue eyes...
All this and being tempted by the delightful food and drink delicacies that Provence has to offer. Luckily her kind and high-spirited, old friend, Frankie who is conveniently fluid in French is just a flight away.
One of the highlights of the book is following the many twists and turns of the plot. I liked the fact that Penny is a smart 50-year-old woman who has lots of life experience and is trying to come to terms with ageing and that she is not quite as naive as her new neighbours in St. Merlot seem to believe. Both the plot and the character development are excellent, and the story is captivating and engaging. It held my interest from start to finish.
DEATH IN PROVENCE was an interesting novel particularly for the interplay of the different secondary characters as well as the primary ones - a reticent and monosyllabic neighbour, an eccentric but honourable gardener, a jaunty and smiling electrician, and a close-knit village community, to name but a few. Plenty of ups and downs along the way and plenty of surprises. I loved Serena Kent’s writing style which I found to be so vivid and very easy to read. The descriptions of the places, people and food were very real and it was easy to imagine that you were actually there. She has reflected the spirit of the French villagers, their individuality brilliantly.
Although I did not figure out who was behind the murders, even though all the clues were there, I had a great time guessing and I loved it! I was very satisfied with the ending. I have been inspired to read more from Serena Kent and I highly recommend this book. I suggest wholeheartedly that you add it to your reading list.
Thank you to Edelweiss and the publisher for a free ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.
It is a refreshing, mystery fiction novel set in wonderfully scenic St Merlot, a sleepy, quiet village that has infrequent visitors at the unfashionable end of the Luberon Valley, France. St Merlot is unspoilt, with dry stone walls and wildflowers.
What’s really likeable about it straight-away are the opening chapters that draw you into the main character, Penelope Kite. Recently retired and divorced, she is an optimistic, happy, fifty-year-old with plenty of joie-de-vivre. Penelope, or Penny to her friends, has put her unfaithful ex-husband and her ungrateful stepchildren first, for a long time. Since she left her job in forensics at the Home Office in England, she’s been an unpaid babysitter and chauffeur for her grandchildren. Now, she’s going to start living for herself so she buys her dream house, Le Chant d’Eau, or The Song of Water. The stone farmhouse tucked high in the hills is in need of major restoration but is complete with a garden, swimming pool, and sweeping mountain vistas.
But not long after her arrival at Le Chant d’Eau, a corpse is found floating in her swimming pool. The local detective doesn’t seem particularly interested in finding out either the truth or the murderer, but Penny knows a thing or two about murder investigations herself so she starts an investigation of her own.
Enter Clemence Valencourt, the chic but supercilious estate agent, the disdainful chief of police, Inspector Paul Gamelin brought in from the headquarters of the Police Municipale in Cavaillon to investigate. He is 40-ish, has a tanned narrow face, greying hair and a grave demeanour. He also speaks excellent English. The devilishly handsome local mayor is called in to formally identify the corpse. He is the maire de St Merlot, and is gorgeous, with floppy sun-streaked hair, a caramel tan and chiselled cheekbones He also has stunning dark blue eyes...
All this and being tempted by the delightful food and drink delicacies that Provence has to offer. Luckily her kind and high-spirited, old friend, Frankie who is conveniently fluid in French is just a flight away.
One of the highlights of the book is following the many twists and turns of the plot. I liked the fact that Penny is a smart 50-year-old woman who has lots of life experience and is trying to come to terms with ageing and that she is not quite as naive as her new neighbours in St. Merlot seem to believe. Both the plot and the character development are excellent, and the story is captivating and engaging. It held my interest from start to finish.
DEATH IN PROVENCE was an interesting novel particularly for the interplay of the different secondary characters as well as the primary ones - a reticent and monosyllabic neighbour, an eccentric but honourable gardener, a jaunty and smiling electrician, and a close-knit village community, to name but a few. Plenty of ups and downs along the way and plenty of surprises. I loved Serena Kent’s writing style which I found to be so vivid and very easy to read. The descriptions of the places, people and food were very real and it was easy to imagine that you were actually there. She has reflected the spirit of the French villagers, their individuality brilliantly.
Although I did not figure out who was behind the murders, even though all the clues were there, I had a great time guessing and I loved it! I was very satisfied with the ending. I have been inspired to read more from Serena Kent and I highly recommend this book. I suggest wholeheartedly that you add it to your reading list.
Thank you to Edelweiss and the publisher for a free ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Sweet Little Lies in Books
Mar 18, 2019
Perplexing, well-written tale
Young Detective Constable Catrina (Cat) Kinsella hasn't had the easiest of lives--she didn't get along well with her father and her mother has since passed away. At twenty-six, Cat is in counseling after a traumatic incident while on the job, and she spends most of her nights alone, plagued by insomnia. She isn't close to her family, including her father, sister, or brother. Her latest case is that of thirty-five-year old Alice Lapaine, who is found murdered and dumped in Leamington Square. Alice too led a solitary life, spending weeks away from her husband, Thomas, who quickly becomes the team's top suspect. But then they receive a call--Alice isn't Alice, but rather Maryanne Doyle, a teenager who went missing in Ireland nearly twenty years ago. Suddenly, Cat's world is upside down. After all, she knew Maryanne, whom her family met while visiting Cat's grandmother when Cat was eight. And Cat has always suspected her father had something to do with Maryanne's sudden disappearance. Cat chooses not to tell her DCI about the linkages between Maryanne and her father, but this choice may have serious consequences: for Cat, her career, and her entire family.
"I feel it's necessary to make clear that I know nothing about what happened to Maryanne Doyle, the girl who went to Riley's for hairspray and never came back. I have my suspicions, of course. I speculate plenty, especially after white wine. But when it comes right down to it, I actually know nothing. The same cannot be said of my father."
This was an interesting, complicated tale. The mystery aspect of it was actually really fascinating, with the linkages slowly building between Alice and Maryanne, as we try to figure out what happened between Maryanne disappearing as a teen, her becoming Alice and then winding up murdered. Overall, I really enjoyed that part of the book. Frear has a lot of good surprises for us, and I was kept guessing for most of the novel.
The personal side of the book was a little harder for me. Don't get me wrong, I did like Cat. She certainly is a complicated character. I have to admit that characters that don't tell the truth or narratives that revolve around this aspect of keeping the truth hidden can be a bit of a pet peeve of mine. So basically an entire book that involves the main character keeping such a big secret (my Dad knew my murder victim, who was found a few paces outside the pub he owns)--that was tough for me. The more involved Cat gets in her case and the more entwined the case becomes with her own life and past: ugh. It all felt a little wrong and icky for me.
Honestly, I probably would have enjoyed this book more if the personal ties to Cat weren't there, or weren't so strong. I recognize they existed to give her depth and add more to the story and case, but they just made me uncomfortable and almost added an extra layer to the mystery that I felt wasn't necessary. Things were already twisty enough, it seemed as we didn't need this whole additional convoluted element with Cat's family. But maybe that's just me and my aversion to lying and such. (I don't even like when this happens in movies and eventually you know it's all going to come out and bad things will happen.)
This is not a simple book, and the story told is a perplexing and sophisticated one: you really have to be ready to follow along. On the plus side, it's original, and the characters are rather unique. I'm intrigued that it looks like Cat will be part of a series. I did like this book, even if some elements were a little harder for me to enjoy, and it was well-written. I'd certainly pick up the next book in a series and perhaps if her family wasn't so entwined in her case, enjoy it even more.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
"I feel it's necessary to make clear that I know nothing about what happened to Maryanne Doyle, the girl who went to Riley's for hairspray and never came back. I have my suspicions, of course. I speculate plenty, especially after white wine. But when it comes right down to it, I actually know nothing. The same cannot be said of my father."
This was an interesting, complicated tale. The mystery aspect of it was actually really fascinating, with the linkages slowly building between Alice and Maryanne, as we try to figure out what happened between Maryanne disappearing as a teen, her becoming Alice and then winding up murdered. Overall, I really enjoyed that part of the book. Frear has a lot of good surprises for us, and I was kept guessing for most of the novel.
The personal side of the book was a little harder for me. Don't get me wrong, I did like Cat. She certainly is a complicated character. I have to admit that characters that don't tell the truth or narratives that revolve around this aspect of keeping the truth hidden can be a bit of a pet peeve of mine. So basically an entire book that involves the main character keeping such a big secret (my Dad knew my murder victim, who was found a few paces outside the pub he owns)--that was tough for me. The more involved Cat gets in her case and the more entwined the case becomes with her own life and past: ugh. It all felt a little wrong and icky for me.
Honestly, I probably would have enjoyed this book more if the personal ties to Cat weren't there, or weren't so strong. I recognize they existed to give her depth and add more to the story and case, but they just made me uncomfortable and almost added an extra layer to the mystery that I felt wasn't necessary. Things were already twisty enough, it seemed as we didn't need this whole additional convoluted element with Cat's family. But maybe that's just me and my aversion to lying and such. (I don't even like when this happens in movies and eventually you know it's all going to come out and bad things will happen.)
This is not a simple book, and the story told is a perplexing and sophisticated one: you really have to be ready to follow along. On the plus side, it's original, and the characters are rather unique. I'm intrigued that it looks like Cat will be part of a series. I did like this book, even if some elements were a little harder for me to enjoy, and it was well-written. I'd certainly pick up the next book in a series and perhaps if her family wasn't so entwined in her case, enjoy it even more.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Live Free or Die Hard (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Computers have become such a mainstay of modern life that few of us even stop to imagine just how much of our lives are affected by them. In the course of a standard day, everything from the lights at the corner, offices, banks, and even the cars we drive are all governed in some ways by computers.
In the latest chapter in the Die Hard series, “Live Free or Die Hard”, audiences are given a glimpse of what could happen should a massive attack on our nation’s computer network occur, and shown how life as we know it could be severely altered without our digital creations monitoring the numerous tasks to which they have been assigned.
For Detective John McClane, (Bruce Willis), being in the wrong place at the right time has become par for the course, when his routine transportation of a suspected hacker named Matt Farrell (Justin Long), soon has him in a heated shootout, he realizes this is not going to be just another day at the office.
The nations computer network has come under attack by a cyber terrorist named Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), and in short order everything has shut down, and the cities of the country are in total chaos.
Since the bad guys have been so intent on silencing Matt, John becomes his guardian as the two try to unravel the master plan behind the attacks, and stay one step ahead of the legion of hired goons.
This is no easy task as seemingly every step of the way the duo are under attack from all fronts from an unseen enemy that can strike anywhere, and often without warning which results in some truly inspired and impressive action sequences.
In a race against time, old school cop McClane must rely on the tech fluent Matt as he once again finds himself the only man who can save the day before the world as we know it is lost.
This “Die Hard” is a real treat as it is the rare summer offering that not only lives up to the hype and promise, but surpasses it. Willis reportedly waited to find the write script and director (Len Wiseman of the “Underworld” films); to bring the next chapter to the series and it is a dynamic and effective pairing.
Wiseman is a fan of the series and as a teen was influenced by the earlier films in the series. His love and understanding of the characters and subject matter is clear as he stages very clever and entertaining action sequences that while thrilling, never take the place of the human elements of the film.
The film is clearly about McClane and his reluctant heroics as he laments that being a hero is not all that it is cracked up to be, and the aftermath of such actions often make for a life filled with baggage.
Willis is in top form, as he comfortably steps back into the familiar role and throws himself physically into a very demanding role, where he insisted upon doing the majority of his stunt work. His gritty approach to the character pays off, as McClane is not some super-powered character; he is a normal man, with faults who is driven to do his part when needed.
The film does take a brief pause about 80 minutes into the nearly two hour run time to expand on some of the characters and the plot, but ramps up for an amazing finale that has some of the best action and stunt work in recent memory.
It was reported that Wiseman kept CGI effects to a minimum for many sequences in order to give them a more realistic look, and in doing so, has crafted a true gem.
Some people have complained about the film being “toned down” to PG-13 but I can tell you that there is just as much action, violence, and body count as any film in the series; they were just not overly gratuitous with the use of blood. That being said, at no point did I get the impression I was watching a sanitized film, I was too busy enjoying a solid action film that takes the audience on one hell of a thrilling ride.
In the latest chapter in the Die Hard series, “Live Free or Die Hard”, audiences are given a glimpse of what could happen should a massive attack on our nation’s computer network occur, and shown how life as we know it could be severely altered without our digital creations monitoring the numerous tasks to which they have been assigned.
For Detective John McClane, (Bruce Willis), being in the wrong place at the right time has become par for the course, when his routine transportation of a suspected hacker named Matt Farrell (Justin Long), soon has him in a heated shootout, he realizes this is not going to be just another day at the office.
The nations computer network has come under attack by a cyber terrorist named Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), and in short order everything has shut down, and the cities of the country are in total chaos.
Since the bad guys have been so intent on silencing Matt, John becomes his guardian as the two try to unravel the master plan behind the attacks, and stay one step ahead of the legion of hired goons.
This is no easy task as seemingly every step of the way the duo are under attack from all fronts from an unseen enemy that can strike anywhere, and often without warning which results in some truly inspired and impressive action sequences.
In a race against time, old school cop McClane must rely on the tech fluent Matt as he once again finds himself the only man who can save the day before the world as we know it is lost.
This “Die Hard” is a real treat as it is the rare summer offering that not only lives up to the hype and promise, but surpasses it. Willis reportedly waited to find the write script and director (Len Wiseman of the “Underworld” films); to bring the next chapter to the series and it is a dynamic and effective pairing.
Wiseman is a fan of the series and as a teen was influenced by the earlier films in the series. His love and understanding of the characters and subject matter is clear as he stages very clever and entertaining action sequences that while thrilling, never take the place of the human elements of the film.
The film is clearly about McClane and his reluctant heroics as he laments that being a hero is not all that it is cracked up to be, and the aftermath of such actions often make for a life filled with baggage.
Willis is in top form, as he comfortably steps back into the familiar role and throws himself physically into a very demanding role, where he insisted upon doing the majority of his stunt work. His gritty approach to the character pays off, as McClane is not some super-powered character; he is a normal man, with faults who is driven to do his part when needed.
The film does take a brief pause about 80 minutes into the nearly two hour run time to expand on some of the characters and the plot, but ramps up for an amazing finale that has some of the best action and stunt work in recent memory.
It was reported that Wiseman kept CGI effects to a minimum for many sequences in order to give them a more realistic look, and in doing so, has crafted a true gem.
Some people have complained about the film being “toned down” to PG-13 but I can tell you that there is just as much action, violence, and body count as any film in the series; they were just not overly gratuitous with the use of blood. That being said, at no point did I get the impression I was watching a sanitized film, I was too busy enjoying a solid action film that takes the audience on one hell of a thrilling ride.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Inglourious Basterds (2009) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2019)
It's the middle of World War II and France is overrun with Nazis. A group of Jewish-American soldiers is making a name for themselves as, "The Basterds," as they have the full intention of scalping each and every Nazi involved in the Third Reich. The Basterds soon become a real nuisance to The Fuhrer as their reputation strengthens and fear spreads like wildfire amongst the Nazis. Shosanna Dreyfus, a French-Jew whose family was killed by the Nazis, now owns a movie theater that catches the eye of Joseph Goebbels and his new film. The smaller, more private theater gets handpicked by Fredrick Zoller, a Nazi war hero and star of Goebbels film Nation's Pride, for the premiere of his new film. As the premiere becomes an intimate gathering of the Nazis, including the most important people of the Third Reich, The Basterds realize this may be their chance to end this war once and for all.
Inglourious Basterds had the potential to be one of the greatest films of the year. It's the first full-length film from Quentin Tarantino since Death Proof and his films from the past 12 years have escalated him into being one of the most well-respected filmmakers of our time. That along with an incredibly strong cast led by Brad Pitt and the fact that the film took place during World War II had me incredibly excited for the film. I'm a fairly big admirer of most of Tarantino's previous works and there's something about World War II and Nazis that I've always found fascinating. The final product was still good, but just didn't wind up meeting my expectations.
The concept of Inglourious Basterds is rather ingenious. A group of Jewish-Americans coming together and killing as many Nazis as they can. An ultimate form of revenge. Not only that, but an incredible sense of satisfaction washes over them while they partake in it. It's great and is pulled off rather flawlessly when we actually get to see The Basterds in action. As much as I love Tarantino's dialogue, it just seemed like the majority of the film was spent waiting around and talking about what was actually going to happen. Significant events still took place, but there's really only three or four scenes that come to mind that you could label as being exciting. Whether the film needed more of that is fully up to the viewer, but I'm under the impression that the film was a bit lacking in that department. Something else that should be mentioned, the film is not historically accurate. It's more of a World War II set in the Tarantino-verse kind of deal and is more of an alternate universe. Knowing that before seeing the movie helped a great deal in enjoying the film a bit more.
As enjoyable as Brad Pitt's performance as Lt. Aldo Raine was, I believe the real performance worth noting is Christoph Waltz's portrayal of Col. Hans Landa. He's somehow able to walk the thin line between being polite and charming to being a frightening lunatic rather flawlessly. Even as he closes in on The Basterds and their plans, he still manages to steal most of the scenes he's in (the discussion about comparing Jews to rats at the beginning of the film, the "That's-a-bingo!" conversation with Aldo, etc). Landa is just an incredible detective with a marvelous personality that might just be one of the greatest characters Tarantino has ever written.
Inglourious Basterds is an extremely solid effort from Tarantino. The dialogue is definitely up to Tarantino's standard greatness, the performances are quite incredible, and the story is an entertaining one even with it straying away from what actually happened during that time period. It's just a shame it didn't meet the expectations I had based on the trailers and how much I enjoyed the past few Tarantino films. The hard hitting action scenes are magnificent, but it felt like there were too few and far between. The best suggestion I could give would be to go into the film expecting nothing and I think you'll walk away satisfied.
Inglourious Basterds had the potential to be one of the greatest films of the year. It's the first full-length film from Quentin Tarantino since Death Proof and his films from the past 12 years have escalated him into being one of the most well-respected filmmakers of our time. That along with an incredibly strong cast led by Brad Pitt and the fact that the film took place during World War II had me incredibly excited for the film. I'm a fairly big admirer of most of Tarantino's previous works and there's something about World War II and Nazis that I've always found fascinating. The final product was still good, but just didn't wind up meeting my expectations.
The concept of Inglourious Basterds is rather ingenious. A group of Jewish-Americans coming together and killing as many Nazis as they can. An ultimate form of revenge. Not only that, but an incredible sense of satisfaction washes over them while they partake in it. It's great and is pulled off rather flawlessly when we actually get to see The Basterds in action. As much as I love Tarantino's dialogue, it just seemed like the majority of the film was spent waiting around and talking about what was actually going to happen. Significant events still took place, but there's really only three or four scenes that come to mind that you could label as being exciting. Whether the film needed more of that is fully up to the viewer, but I'm under the impression that the film was a bit lacking in that department. Something else that should be mentioned, the film is not historically accurate. It's more of a World War II set in the Tarantino-verse kind of deal and is more of an alternate universe. Knowing that before seeing the movie helped a great deal in enjoying the film a bit more.
As enjoyable as Brad Pitt's performance as Lt. Aldo Raine was, I believe the real performance worth noting is Christoph Waltz's portrayal of Col. Hans Landa. He's somehow able to walk the thin line between being polite and charming to being a frightening lunatic rather flawlessly. Even as he closes in on The Basterds and their plans, he still manages to steal most of the scenes he's in (the discussion about comparing Jews to rats at the beginning of the film, the "That's-a-bingo!" conversation with Aldo, etc). Landa is just an incredible detective with a marvelous personality that might just be one of the greatest characters Tarantino has ever written.
Inglourious Basterds is an extremely solid effort from Tarantino. The dialogue is definitely up to Tarantino's standard greatness, the performances are quite incredible, and the story is an entertaining one even with it straying away from what actually happened during that time period. It's just a shame it didn't meet the expectations I had based on the trailers and how much I enjoyed the past few Tarantino films. The hard hitting action scenes are magnificent, but it felt like there were too few and far between. The best suggestion I could give would be to go into the film expecting nothing and I think you'll walk away satisfied.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Wanna Get Lucky? (Lucky O'Toole #1) in Books
Nov 28, 2019
Lucky O'Toole is head of Customer Relations at the splendidly over-the-top Babylon Hotel and Casino complex in Las Vegas. That means she spends all of her time dealing with the gamblers, drunks and high maintenance high rollers as well as dealing with any potential bad publicity. When a cocktail waitress falls out of one of their helicopters and is headline news it is a complication Lucky doesn't need, but as she starts to deal with this latest problem it soon becomes clear it may not have been an accident. Determined to get to the bottom of what is going on she plunges into the seedy world of Vegas behind the bright lights. As if this isn't enough her long-neglected love life starts adding complications all of its own. With the adult film awards and a convention for swingers about to hit the hotel she certainly has her hands full.
This book has it all. It is very funny (and yes I did laugh out loud several times and insist on reading passages out to my wife) with Lucky's self-deprecating humour and sharp sarcastic streak balanced off against the odd ball events that happen that could only be considered routine in Las Vegas. Coonts has a terrifically light touch with both dialogue and prose. I particularly liked the way lucky didn't just answer her phone but 'pushes to talk'. That always made me smile.
There is also a good thriller plot around the fall from the helicopter and who might be responsible and for what reason. Lucky has good reason to suspect everyone, even those she feels she ought to trust as the plot goes to the heart of the power play behind the big casino resorts. Although most of the pieces are in place and it's pretty clear what has happened by just over half way through, it's still fun seeing Lucky use all her contacts and knowledge to round everything up to a satisfying conclusion.
Romance is also a big theme, with Lucky being thrown into a quandary over her love life and friendships. She struggles with this between trying to sort out the main plot line and as the book goes on it becomes more important both to her and the reader, but again Coonts deals with this well and at no point does the narrative bog down in any kind of over-romantic slush but manages to keep everything light but believable.
There is also some personal background for Lucky to deal with, and also her complicated relationship with her mother (who runs an out of town brothel) thrown into the mix to keep everything lively. This is certainly not a boring read.
Despite some of the obvious themes - Lucky's romantic incidents, her mother running a brothel, the adult movie stars and the swingers convention - there is nothing salacious or titillating. Lucky has essentially seen it all before and is far to smart to do anything other than make sardonic comments.
The characterisation is superb. Lucky is a brilliant character, very capable and with her acerbic wit very much to the fore. The supporting cast are no less well drawn, any of them could have carried a book of their own. Tall Texan security man Paxton Dane, occasionally baffled by the detail of how Las Vegas works is a good foil for Lucky as is her best friend Teddie, a female impersonator who looks better in her clothes than she does. The inexperienced Detective Romeo is gifted the arrest by Lucky but doesn't ever feel like he is just a stooge. There are too many more to mention here but each one - staff, guests or anyone else that appears - you get the impression that you are only seeing the smallest snapshot of their larger life.
There are some coincidences and luck in getting the plots to work out but after all, this is Vegas. There is too much fun to be had reading this book to worry about every detail.
Overall this is a terrific book and one that would appeal to anyone who likes a sassy, sharp and sexy story set in the seedy and seamy world of the Strip.
This book has it all. It is very funny (and yes I did laugh out loud several times and insist on reading passages out to my wife) with Lucky's self-deprecating humour and sharp sarcastic streak balanced off against the odd ball events that happen that could only be considered routine in Las Vegas. Coonts has a terrifically light touch with both dialogue and prose. I particularly liked the way lucky didn't just answer her phone but 'pushes to talk'. That always made me smile.
There is also a good thriller plot around the fall from the helicopter and who might be responsible and for what reason. Lucky has good reason to suspect everyone, even those she feels she ought to trust as the plot goes to the heart of the power play behind the big casino resorts. Although most of the pieces are in place and it's pretty clear what has happened by just over half way through, it's still fun seeing Lucky use all her contacts and knowledge to round everything up to a satisfying conclusion.
Romance is also a big theme, with Lucky being thrown into a quandary over her love life and friendships. She struggles with this between trying to sort out the main plot line and as the book goes on it becomes more important both to her and the reader, but again Coonts deals with this well and at no point does the narrative bog down in any kind of over-romantic slush but manages to keep everything light but believable.
There is also some personal background for Lucky to deal with, and also her complicated relationship with her mother (who runs an out of town brothel) thrown into the mix to keep everything lively. This is certainly not a boring read.
Despite some of the obvious themes - Lucky's romantic incidents, her mother running a brothel, the adult movie stars and the swingers convention - there is nothing salacious or titillating. Lucky has essentially seen it all before and is far to smart to do anything other than make sardonic comments.
The characterisation is superb. Lucky is a brilliant character, very capable and with her acerbic wit very much to the fore. The supporting cast are no less well drawn, any of them could have carried a book of their own. Tall Texan security man Paxton Dane, occasionally baffled by the detail of how Las Vegas works is a good foil for Lucky as is her best friend Teddie, a female impersonator who looks better in her clothes than she does. The inexperienced Detective Romeo is gifted the arrest by Lucky but doesn't ever feel like he is just a stooge. There are too many more to mention here but each one - staff, guests or anyone else that appears - you get the impression that you are only seeing the smallest snapshot of their larger life.
There are some coincidences and luck in getting the plots to work out but after all, this is Vegas. There is too much fun to be had reading this book to worry about every detail.
Overall this is a terrific book and one that would appeal to anyone who likes a sassy, sharp and sexy story set in the seedy and seamy world of the Strip.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Muppets Most Wanted (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
It was nostalgia and curiousity that made the Muppets successful return to the big screen in 2011 such a hit. Parents wanted to introduce their kids to the dysfunctional entertainers of their childhood, and the adults who grew up on the Muppets wanted to see if the crazy bunch could still make them laugh. With the help of celebrity cameos and catchy parodies of popular songs, I remember thoroughly enjoying the Muppets’ comeback.
Three years in real time means just a few seconds in Muppet-land. Muppets Most Wanted begins where the last movie ended. Riding high on their successful return to stage, the Muppets are approached by a promoter named Dominic Badguy. played by Ricky Gervais, who convinces the Muppets to take their show on a worldwide tour. Despite his misgivings, Kermit agrees and soon the gang is traveling across the Atlantic.
Of course, no surprise Badguy has ulterior motives, which involve switching Kermit with an imprisoned doppelganger named Constantine, the word’s most dangerous frog. He and Kermit are identical, except for a mole Constantine must hide to trick Kermit’s friends into believing he’s Kermit, because his awkward American accent isn’t a dead giveaway at all. With awful accents themselves, Ty Burrell and Tina Fey play a French detective and a Russian prison warden who provide some of the human comic relief.
Riddled with funny moments and entertaining musical numbers, this sequel meets the expectations of most sequels. Even the Muppets know sequels are rarely as good as the original – they even sing about it. The movie has the silly capers and signature acts the Muppets know how to deliver, which will keep the kids entertained. The curiousity factor may not motivate, and nostalgic feelings may have waned a bit, but like its predecessor, the revolving door of celebrity cameos is what will keep the adults interested.
3 out of 5
Review by Barnetty Kushner
Muppets Most Wanted is the eighth big screen Muppets adventure, which carries the warmth and charm that we come to find with the Jim Henson created lovable characters. What sets this film apart from the 2011 reboot “Muppet Movie,” is that the characters are the forefront of the entire story and their human counterparts serve as secondary.
This time they are no longer worried about reuniting or trying to reintroduce themselves, the Muppets are on a world tour with their new Tour Manager, Dominic Badguy (Ricky Gervais). Dominic arranges a European tour for the Muppets with the ulterior motive of trying to replace Kermit with a look-a-like frog named Constantine, a wanted criminal who escapes prison and uses the Muppet tour as a cover to stage a multi-national heist ultimately ending with stealing the crown jewels. While Constantine attempts to play the role of ‘head muppet ‘, poor Kermit gets whisked away to the gulag, a maximum security prison located in Siberia, Russia where he has to contend with the warden, Nadya (Tina Fey). Due to Kermit’s good hearted nature and excellent stage show management skills, the prisoners and Nadya quickly realize that Kermit is not Constantine and forces him to direct the prison’s annual “Gulag Review.”
Even though the storyline is a bit drab, the production numbers are epic-from the “everybody knows a sequel is never quite as good” opener, the Miss Piggy/Celion Dion duet number, to the Siberian prisoners 1980’s Chorus Line show stopping dance sequence. In true Muppets tradition, this movie is peppered with dozens of amusing celebrity cameos along with a spirited stew of wordplay, slapstick comedic jokes. You can’t help but feel a sense of nostalgia back the days from your childhood of waking up Saturday mornings and watching “The Muppet Show.” Kids will enjoy the movie, adults will laugh out loud at all the bad puns, and hopefully in the end they will have succeeded in connecting the new generation to the charm of the Muppets, in a world more that is more familiar with CGI and 3-D animation.
Three years in real time means just a few seconds in Muppet-land. Muppets Most Wanted begins where the last movie ended. Riding high on their successful return to stage, the Muppets are approached by a promoter named Dominic Badguy. played by Ricky Gervais, who convinces the Muppets to take their show on a worldwide tour. Despite his misgivings, Kermit agrees and soon the gang is traveling across the Atlantic.
Of course, no surprise Badguy has ulterior motives, which involve switching Kermit with an imprisoned doppelganger named Constantine, the word’s most dangerous frog. He and Kermit are identical, except for a mole Constantine must hide to trick Kermit’s friends into believing he’s Kermit, because his awkward American accent isn’t a dead giveaway at all. With awful accents themselves, Ty Burrell and Tina Fey play a French detective and a Russian prison warden who provide some of the human comic relief.
Riddled with funny moments and entertaining musical numbers, this sequel meets the expectations of most sequels. Even the Muppets know sequels are rarely as good as the original – they even sing about it. The movie has the silly capers and signature acts the Muppets know how to deliver, which will keep the kids entertained. The curiousity factor may not motivate, and nostalgic feelings may have waned a bit, but like its predecessor, the revolving door of celebrity cameos is what will keep the adults interested.
3 out of 5
Review by Barnetty Kushner
Muppets Most Wanted is the eighth big screen Muppets adventure, which carries the warmth and charm that we come to find with the Jim Henson created lovable characters. What sets this film apart from the 2011 reboot “Muppet Movie,” is that the characters are the forefront of the entire story and their human counterparts serve as secondary.
This time they are no longer worried about reuniting or trying to reintroduce themselves, the Muppets are on a world tour with their new Tour Manager, Dominic Badguy (Ricky Gervais). Dominic arranges a European tour for the Muppets with the ulterior motive of trying to replace Kermit with a look-a-like frog named Constantine, a wanted criminal who escapes prison and uses the Muppet tour as a cover to stage a multi-national heist ultimately ending with stealing the crown jewels. While Constantine attempts to play the role of ‘head muppet ‘, poor Kermit gets whisked away to the gulag, a maximum security prison located in Siberia, Russia where he has to contend with the warden, Nadya (Tina Fey). Due to Kermit’s good hearted nature and excellent stage show management skills, the prisoners and Nadya quickly realize that Kermit is not Constantine and forces him to direct the prison’s annual “Gulag Review.”
Even though the storyline is a bit drab, the production numbers are epic-from the “everybody knows a sequel is never quite as good” opener, the Miss Piggy/Celion Dion duet number, to the Siberian prisoners 1980’s Chorus Line show stopping dance sequence. In true Muppets tradition, this movie is peppered with dozens of amusing celebrity cameos along with a spirited stew of wordplay, slapstick comedic jokes. You can’t help but feel a sense of nostalgia back the days from your childhood of waking up Saturday mornings and watching “The Muppet Show.” Kids will enjoy the movie, adults will laugh out loud at all the bad puns, and hopefully in the end they will have succeeded in connecting the new generation to the charm of the Muppets, in a world more that is more familiar with CGI and 3-D animation.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 4, 2020
Millie Bobby Brown - a confident raw talent (1 more)
Henry Cavill as a new take on Sherlock
The unsinkable Millie Bobby Brown
Sherlock Holmes never had a sister. But if he did, what adventures would Enola Holmes get up to? That’s the premise behind this Netflix feature. starring rising star Millie Bobby Brown.
Enola Holmes (Millie Bobby Brown) thinks she’s been named as such because it spells “alone” backwards. (But then, she admits, that it doesn’t seem to follow for either kcolrehs or tforcym!)
Enola has been brought up by her dearest mother Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter) to be a strong and confident woman, free of the normal 19th century rituals of ladylike husband-seeking niceties: for her, it’s all mental gymnastics and martial arts. But when on her 16th birthday her mother vanishes, Enola sets out on a quest to find her. But Eudoria is a Holmes, and knows the value of clues and how to cover her tracks.
Of greater concern to Enola is her brother and ward Mycroft (Sam Claflin), who is intent on packing her off to the Victorian finishing school of Miss Harrison (“Killing Eve’s” Fiona Shaw). But while trying to escape from her brothers – not a trivial matter when one is the famous detective Sherlock (Henry Cavill) – Enola encounters a Marquess on the run (Louis Partridge) and adventure, intrigue and murder are on the cards.
Filming in this “Fleabag” style – where the lead is constantly breaking the fourth wall – requires a confidence in delivery that many young actors would struggle with. But not Millie Bobby Brown. Her asides and camera glances – while not quite as skillful as the astonishingly accomplished Phoebe Waller-Bridge – are nonetheless impressive and constantly entertaining. An underwater wink at the camera was particularly enjoyable.
So… actress – tick!
But perhaps more impressive to me was that the 16 year old – most famous for her role in “Stranger Things”, which I still haven’t watched – was also a PRODUCER of this movie. Which makes me think she is a serious person to watch in the movie business (if there ever is a movie business left after 2020). I read that she is the youngest person ever to appear on the annual list of the “world’s 100 most influential people” by Time magazine: so others agree!
The supporting case are a broad array of British acting talent, with Henry Cavill being particularly appealing as Sherlock, Burn Gorman at his slimy evil best as a murderous henchman, and Sam Claflin being as anonymous as I always find him. (That’s a compliment by the way: whereas I see some actors and think “oh, there’s <<Tom Hanks>> again”, I never recognize Claflin until the credits role… he is a chameleon of the acting world).
But acting the socks off everyone else for me is Frances de la Tour as the Marquess’s grandmother. A deliciously twinkling and charming performance from an old dame of the screen.
The similarities with “Fleabag” are not coincidental, since the director is Harry Bradbeer; director of all of the episodes except the original pilot. But it’s unfortunate in some ways that the style has been interpolated into the Holmes story. Since, of course, this approach was previously done by Guy Ritchie in the two very entertaining movies featuring Robert Downey Jnr and Jude Law. And for me, that’s a shame. Since although the styles are markedly different – here we have a lot of Paddington-style cardboard animations – the “feel” of the films is the same. As such, it doesn’t feel as novel as it should do. Why couldn’t she have been someone else’s sister? Houdini perhaps? Or Oscar Wilde?
As two hours of entertaining escapism, Enola Holmes worked well for me. Brown is eminently watchable, and given the Netflix response to the movie, a sequel would be – I expect – on the cards.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/04/the-unsinkable-millie-bobby-brown/. Thanks.)
Enola Holmes (Millie Bobby Brown) thinks she’s been named as such because it spells “alone” backwards. (But then, she admits, that it doesn’t seem to follow for either kcolrehs or tforcym!)
Enola has been brought up by her dearest mother Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter) to be a strong and confident woman, free of the normal 19th century rituals of ladylike husband-seeking niceties: for her, it’s all mental gymnastics and martial arts. But when on her 16th birthday her mother vanishes, Enola sets out on a quest to find her. But Eudoria is a Holmes, and knows the value of clues and how to cover her tracks.
Of greater concern to Enola is her brother and ward Mycroft (Sam Claflin), who is intent on packing her off to the Victorian finishing school of Miss Harrison (“Killing Eve’s” Fiona Shaw). But while trying to escape from her brothers – not a trivial matter when one is the famous detective Sherlock (Henry Cavill) – Enola encounters a Marquess on the run (Louis Partridge) and adventure, intrigue and murder are on the cards.
Filming in this “Fleabag” style – where the lead is constantly breaking the fourth wall – requires a confidence in delivery that many young actors would struggle with. But not Millie Bobby Brown. Her asides and camera glances – while not quite as skillful as the astonishingly accomplished Phoebe Waller-Bridge – are nonetheless impressive and constantly entertaining. An underwater wink at the camera was particularly enjoyable.
So… actress – tick!
But perhaps more impressive to me was that the 16 year old – most famous for her role in “Stranger Things”, which I still haven’t watched – was also a PRODUCER of this movie. Which makes me think she is a serious person to watch in the movie business (if there ever is a movie business left after 2020). I read that she is the youngest person ever to appear on the annual list of the “world’s 100 most influential people” by Time magazine: so others agree!
The supporting case are a broad array of British acting talent, with Henry Cavill being particularly appealing as Sherlock, Burn Gorman at his slimy evil best as a murderous henchman, and Sam Claflin being as anonymous as I always find him. (That’s a compliment by the way: whereas I see some actors and think “oh, there’s <<Tom Hanks>> again”, I never recognize Claflin until the credits role… he is a chameleon of the acting world).
But acting the socks off everyone else for me is Frances de la Tour as the Marquess’s grandmother. A deliciously twinkling and charming performance from an old dame of the screen.
The similarities with “Fleabag” are not coincidental, since the director is Harry Bradbeer; director of all of the episodes except the original pilot. But it’s unfortunate in some ways that the style has been interpolated into the Holmes story. Since, of course, this approach was previously done by Guy Ritchie in the two very entertaining movies featuring Robert Downey Jnr and Jude Law. And for me, that’s a shame. Since although the styles are markedly different – here we have a lot of Paddington-style cardboard animations – the “feel” of the films is the same. As such, it doesn’t feel as novel as it should do. Why couldn’t she have been someone else’s sister? Houdini perhaps? Or Oscar Wilde?
As two hours of entertaining escapism, Enola Holmes worked well for me. Brown is eminently watchable, and given the Netflix response to the movie, a sequel would be – I expect – on the cards.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/04/the-unsinkable-millie-bobby-brown/. Thanks.)
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) in Movies
Dec 22, 2020
Not as bad as expected
Sonic the Hedgehog is a legend, a gaming institution, and adapting him for the big screen was always going to be a tall order. This was proved when the trailer for this 2020 release first dropped in 2019 - the original appearance of Sonic faced such outcry and derision that studio Paramount did the unexpected and completely overhauled Sonic's looks. The result in the final film released in February of this year is a character that looks very much like the Sonic we know and love, but in a storyline and film that is sadly rather lacking.
Sonic the Hedgehog was directed by Jeff Fowler and stars James Marsden and Jim Carrey as the humans, with Ben Schwartz voicing the animated Sonic. The plot unfortunately is the entirely predictable buddy story you'd expect when a CGI character gets thrown into the real world - Sonic befriends a human, experiences all the fun earth has to offer before being hunted by an evil villain, and at the end everyone learns the value of friendship. So far, so generic and for me this was the biggest disappointment about this entire film. The script, the plot, the animation, it was all just so average.
Having seen the surprisingly good Detective Pikachu the previous year, which managed to seamlessly blend the real world with animated characters in a better than average story, I'd hoped Sonic would follow in the same vein but I'm sad to say it didn't. Yes Sonic looks a million times better than he did initially (the teeth in the original version are the stuff of nightmares), but he still looks too animated and cartoonish for the real world. The Pokémon in Warner Bros' film looked real, but Sonic just looks out of place. He isn't helped with Ben Schwartz's rather unconvincing voice which feels ill-fitting too, personally I think they should've done a Pikachu and Ryan Reynolds and gone with a completely outlandish OTT voice. It's a shame as the rest of the scenery and action based CGI are actually quite good, although the slow motion scenes have been done before and so much better (X-Men: Days of Future Past).
To be fair, despite a sometimes dodgy script, the human cast do at least do their best. James Marsden has surprisingly good chemistry with an animated hedgehog, although it's Jim Carrey as Dr Robotnik that steals the show. Whilst his Robotnik isn't quite the rounded Eggman of the games, Carrey's performance is wonderfully wacky, sinister and completely over the top, and is responsible for virtually all of the laughs here. He's having an absolute whale of a time and this really draws us in as viewers and makes us have fun too. He's the Carrey we know from the 90s, his performance so akin to those of Ace Ventura and The Mask that you can't help but love the exaggerated show he gives here.
Paramount has also done a good job of including some nostalgic nods to the games, from the gold rings in the opening Paramount logo to Sonic's red sneakers. Even the final battle between Sonic and Robotnik had me squealing with joy at how much it reminded me of the actions you undertake to defeat the boss battles. There are some aspects of the games that are missing, most noticeably the Badniks (Robotnik's creature like robots) and Sonic's friends, who have sadly been left for a blatant sequel baiting end credits scene for a sequel we may never see. I also found Robotnik's machines and vehicles to be a little too technologically advanced and was disappointed not to see some that were more reminiscent of the wacky contraptions from the games.
This adaptation of Sonic the Hedgehog isn't the best, and to be frank it could have been done so much better. That said, it still held my attention for its 100min run time and could never be called dull, even if it was a little too puerile to be anything better than average.
Sonic the Hedgehog was directed by Jeff Fowler and stars James Marsden and Jim Carrey as the humans, with Ben Schwartz voicing the animated Sonic. The plot unfortunately is the entirely predictable buddy story you'd expect when a CGI character gets thrown into the real world - Sonic befriends a human, experiences all the fun earth has to offer before being hunted by an evil villain, and at the end everyone learns the value of friendship. So far, so generic and for me this was the biggest disappointment about this entire film. The script, the plot, the animation, it was all just so average.
Having seen the surprisingly good Detective Pikachu the previous year, which managed to seamlessly blend the real world with animated characters in a better than average story, I'd hoped Sonic would follow in the same vein but I'm sad to say it didn't. Yes Sonic looks a million times better than he did initially (the teeth in the original version are the stuff of nightmares), but he still looks too animated and cartoonish for the real world. The Pokémon in Warner Bros' film looked real, but Sonic just looks out of place. He isn't helped with Ben Schwartz's rather unconvincing voice which feels ill-fitting too, personally I think they should've done a Pikachu and Ryan Reynolds and gone with a completely outlandish OTT voice. It's a shame as the rest of the scenery and action based CGI are actually quite good, although the slow motion scenes have been done before and so much better (X-Men: Days of Future Past).
To be fair, despite a sometimes dodgy script, the human cast do at least do their best. James Marsden has surprisingly good chemistry with an animated hedgehog, although it's Jim Carrey as Dr Robotnik that steals the show. Whilst his Robotnik isn't quite the rounded Eggman of the games, Carrey's performance is wonderfully wacky, sinister and completely over the top, and is responsible for virtually all of the laughs here. He's having an absolute whale of a time and this really draws us in as viewers and makes us have fun too. He's the Carrey we know from the 90s, his performance so akin to those of Ace Ventura and The Mask that you can't help but love the exaggerated show he gives here.
Paramount has also done a good job of including some nostalgic nods to the games, from the gold rings in the opening Paramount logo to Sonic's red sneakers. Even the final battle between Sonic and Robotnik had me squealing with joy at how much it reminded me of the actions you undertake to defeat the boss battles. There are some aspects of the games that are missing, most noticeably the Badniks (Robotnik's creature like robots) and Sonic's friends, who have sadly been left for a blatant sequel baiting end credits scene for a sequel we may never see. I also found Robotnik's machines and vehicles to be a little too technologically advanced and was disappointed not to see some that were more reminiscent of the wacky contraptions from the games.
This adaptation of Sonic the Hedgehog isn't the best, and to be frank it could have been done so much better. That said, it still held my attention for its 100min run time and could never be called dull, even if it was a little too puerile to be anything better than average.