Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) in Movies
Jul 3, 2020 (Updated Jul 3, 2020)
The introduction of funny Freddy (2 more)
Welcome to primetime, bitch!
Death Scene's
Welcome to primetime, bitch!
Contains spoilers, click to show
A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors- is a excellent movie, coming off the disappointed Freedy's Revenge, Dream Warriors goes back to the oringal formula, Scary, twisted, dramatic and excellent deaths. Dream Warriors adds more like taking place psychiatric ward, a excellent line that was on the spot, "Welcome to primetime, bitch!". Also Heather Langenkamp and John Saxton return. Also you new charcters that will return in later sequels like Kristen, Kincaid and Joey. A great cast of charcters, a great story and also introduces Freddy's mom and her back story and adds more to Freddy's back story.
Lets talk more: production and deaths.
Production:
Craven's very first concept for the film was to have Freddy Krueger invade the real world: Krueger would haunt the actors filming a new Nightmare on Elm Street sequel. New Line Cinema rejected the metacinematic idea, but years later, Craven's concept was brought to the screen in Wes Craven's New Nightmare.
Before it was decided what script would be used for the film's story, both John Saxon and Robert Englund wrote their own scripts for a third Nightmare film; in Saxon's script called How the Nightmare on Elm Street All Began, which would have been a prequel story, Freddy would ultimately turn out to have been innocent, or at least set up for the murders by Charles Manson, who along with his followers would have been the main culprit of the murders; Freddy would be forced by the mob of angry parents to make a confession of the crimes, which would enrage them further. After they lynch Freddy, he comes back to avenge his wrongful death by targeting the parent's children.
In Englund's treatment called Freddy's Funhouse, the protagonist would have been Tina Gray's older sister, who would have been in college by the time Tina was murdered, and ends up coming back to Springwood to investigate how she died. In the script, Freddy had claimed the 1428 Elm Street house for his own in the dreamworld, setting up booby traps like Nancy did against him.
The death scenes: I love the death scene's in this film. Their are both memorable and excellent and probley my favorite out of all the franchise. You have Phillip's death: Veins pulled out/manipulated into falling off high ledge by Krueger, Jennifer's death: Head smashed into TV screen, Taryn death: Leg slashed with bladed glove, massive amounts of heroin injected into veins and Freddy saying "let's get high", William's death: Lifted, chest impaled with bladed glove and Freddy saying " Sorry kid, but I don't believe in fairy tales", Donald's death: Thrown/impaled through back on car's tail fin by a skeleton verison of krueger and Nancy's death: Stomach impaled twice/gutted with bladed glove/bled out, in dream world cause she sees her dad but its krueger. Also you have the Freddy worm that attacks Kristen.
The plot: During a hallucinatory incident, young Kristen Parker (Patricia Arquette) has her wrists slashed by dream-stalking monster Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund). Her mother, mistaking the wounds for a suicide attempt, sends Kristen to a psychiatric ward, where she joins a group of similarly troubled teens. One of the doctors there is Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp), who had battled Freddy some years before. Nancy senses a potential in Kristen to rid the world of Freddy once and for all.
Dream Warriors: is a return to the oringal formula, and adds more. Adds memorable lines, better deaths, intoduction of comedy side of Freddy and above all a excellent movie.
The ending is sad cause Nancy and John doe die by freedy but it ends their story for now and starts a new story with Kristen, Kincaid and Joey. Its a percent, but sad ending. Ending the oringal maim charcters arc/story, while senting up a new trio of charcters.
Also you can't forget about that excellent theme song, "Dream Warrors" by Dokken.
Lets talk more: production and deaths.
Production:
Craven's very first concept for the film was to have Freddy Krueger invade the real world: Krueger would haunt the actors filming a new Nightmare on Elm Street sequel. New Line Cinema rejected the metacinematic idea, but years later, Craven's concept was brought to the screen in Wes Craven's New Nightmare.
Before it was decided what script would be used for the film's story, both John Saxon and Robert Englund wrote their own scripts for a third Nightmare film; in Saxon's script called How the Nightmare on Elm Street All Began, which would have been a prequel story, Freddy would ultimately turn out to have been innocent, or at least set up for the murders by Charles Manson, who along with his followers would have been the main culprit of the murders; Freddy would be forced by the mob of angry parents to make a confession of the crimes, which would enrage them further. After they lynch Freddy, he comes back to avenge his wrongful death by targeting the parent's children.
In Englund's treatment called Freddy's Funhouse, the protagonist would have been Tina Gray's older sister, who would have been in college by the time Tina was murdered, and ends up coming back to Springwood to investigate how she died. In the script, Freddy had claimed the 1428 Elm Street house for his own in the dreamworld, setting up booby traps like Nancy did against him.
The death scenes: I love the death scene's in this film. Their are both memorable and excellent and probley my favorite out of all the franchise. You have Phillip's death: Veins pulled out/manipulated into falling off high ledge by Krueger, Jennifer's death: Head smashed into TV screen, Taryn death: Leg slashed with bladed glove, massive amounts of heroin injected into veins and Freddy saying "let's get high", William's death: Lifted, chest impaled with bladed glove and Freddy saying " Sorry kid, but I don't believe in fairy tales", Donald's death: Thrown/impaled through back on car's tail fin by a skeleton verison of krueger and Nancy's death: Stomach impaled twice/gutted with bladed glove/bled out, in dream world cause she sees her dad but its krueger. Also you have the Freddy worm that attacks Kristen.
The plot: During a hallucinatory incident, young Kristen Parker (Patricia Arquette) has her wrists slashed by dream-stalking monster Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund). Her mother, mistaking the wounds for a suicide attempt, sends Kristen to a psychiatric ward, where she joins a group of similarly troubled teens. One of the doctors there is Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp), who had battled Freddy some years before. Nancy senses a potential in Kristen to rid the world of Freddy once and for all.
Dream Warriors: is a return to the oringal formula, and adds more. Adds memorable lines, better deaths, intoduction of comedy side of Freddy and above all a excellent movie.
The ending is sad cause Nancy and John doe die by freedy but it ends their story for now and starts a new story with Kristen, Kincaid and Joey. Its a percent, but sad ending. Ending the oringal maim charcters arc/story, while senting up a new trio of charcters.
Also you can't forget about that excellent theme song, "Dream Warrors" by Dokken.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Midnight Sky (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
As a movie star, which, let’s face it, is George Clooney’s main and best job, we haven’t seen the guy for four years, since the largely underwhelming Money Monster. And, as a director, you’d be forgiven for thinking he hasn’t done anything for years, so unmemorable was 2017’s Suburbicon, with Matt Damon. It is a worrying trend of his entire career, that despite some genuine gold, and even a few diamonds here and there over the years, there are way more duds, with large pockets of “meh” thrown in.
The Netflix original movie The Midnight Sky was never going to be met with very high expectations, therefore. Although, it is testament to gorgeous George’s allure that we are still curious to at least see for ourselves what all the poor reviews are about. It seemed to be unanimous around the big voices that the main issue is that “nothing happens”. This does not worry me normally, as it quite often demonstrates how a 2020s audience, especially a Netflix one, has the attention span of a hungry vole in search of a fast worm followed by a quick nap! Patient story building and minimalism are not well regarded any more in the main. And that is a big problem for this film in finding an appreciative audience.
Clooney himself pitched it as Gravity meets The Revenant. Now, what you have done there, George, is set yourself up to be compared to two works of relative genius, both with far bigger budgets and the actual big screen in mind, not the “yes, it’s still a movie, but it is made for TV and phones” phenomenon. So it is bound to suffer in any critique. It didn’t stand a chance.
OK, it is ponderously slow. Fact. And there are moments when staring at Clooney’s extremely compelling beard is the most interesting thing to do with your brain or eyes in that moment. But to say nothing happens is erroneously unfair – Augustine is dying, and alone, in a world that has destroyed itself in an unspecified way. As he navigates a nightmare landscape of ice and his own diminishing sanity his subconscious creates an ethereal presence to guide him to his “essential” purpose: getting a message to a distant space station not to return to Earth under any circumstances.
Whilst not remotely original, and borrowing from the previously specified references in big, obvious ways (as well as Solaris, which GC didn’t mention, but its influence is apparent, both the Soderburgh and Tarkovsky versions), the heart of the idea isn’t anywhere near as weak as the naysayers would have you believe. If, in fact, you tune in to Clooney’s fine, sensitive performance, whilst reading between the lines of emotion and meaning, it is quite a satisfying tale. Yes, with a lot of problems, not least of all in momentum and the excitement you might expect from a sci-fi. But it isn’t “bad”, per se. Merely ponderous.
As for those up in space, including the always watchable and wonderful Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo, and Kyle Chandler, their lot is much more difficult than the Earthbound sequences. Caught between budget CGI and sets, and trapped in recreations of better space films, they simply don’t have the script to create any atmosphere or chemistry between themselves. Including an excruciating sing-along sequence that serves no purpose other than to make you cringe! The shame then is that we never feel like they are worth saving, which makes Augustine’s efforts feel futile and hollow – maybe something Clooney as director wanted to convey… but he shouldn’t have done it by making us care absolutely zero about those being saved.
Ultimately, it is an admirable failure in many ways, and not worth an earnest recommendation. It is another flop for Clooney as director. But there is just enough beauty and fragility in what Clooney is doing as an actor to make it far from a complete waste of time. Yes, it is a further example of Netflix producing something that feels churned out and corner cutting, rather than a fully rounded work that has all the framework a big cinema release would receive. It just isn’t quite as bad as the reviews suggest.
The Netflix original movie The Midnight Sky was never going to be met with very high expectations, therefore. Although, it is testament to gorgeous George’s allure that we are still curious to at least see for ourselves what all the poor reviews are about. It seemed to be unanimous around the big voices that the main issue is that “nothing happens”. This does not worry me normally, as it quite often demonstrates how a 2020s audience, especially a Netflix one, has the attention span of a hungry vole in search of a fast worm followed by a quick nap! Patient story building and minimalism are not well regarded any more in the main. And that is a big problem for this film in finding an appreciative audience.
Clooney himself pitched it as Gravity meets The Revenant. Now, what you have done there, George, is set yourself up to be compared to two works of relative genius, both with far bigger budgets and the actual big screen in mind, not the “yes, it’s still a movie, but it is made for TV and phones” phenomenon. So it is bound to suffer in any critique. It didn’t stand a chance.
OK, it is ponderously slow. Fact. And there are moments when staring at Clooney’s extremely compelling beard is the most interesting thing to do with your brain or eyes in that moment. But to say nothing happens is erroneously unfair – Augustine is dying, and alone, in a world that has destroyed itself in an unspecified way. As he navigates a nightmare landscape of ice and his own diminishing sanity his subconscious creates an ethereal presence to guide him to his “essential” purpose: getting a message to a distant space station not to return to Earth under any circumstances.
Whilst not remotely original, and borrowing from the previously specified references in big, obvious ways (as well as Solaris, which GC didn’t mention, but its influence is apparent, both the Soderburgh and Tarkovsky versions), the heart of the idea isn’t anywhere near as weak as the naysayers would have you believe. If, in fact, you tune in to Clooney’s fine, sensitive performance, whilst reading between the lines of emotion and meaning, it is quite a satisfying tale. Yes, with a lot of problems, not least of all in momentum and the excitement you might expect from a sci-fi. But it isn’t “bad”, per se. Merely ponderous.
As for those up in space, including the always watchable and wonderful Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo, and Kyle Chandler, their lot is much more difficult than the Earthbound sequences. Caught between budget CGI and sets, and trapped in recreations of better space films, they simply don’t have the script to create any atmosphere or chemistry between themselves. Including an excruciating sing-along sequence that serves no purpose other than to make you cringe! The shame then is that we never feel like they are worth saving, which makes Augustine’s efforts feel futile and hollow – maybe something Clooney as director wanted to convey… but he shouldn’t have done it by making us care absolutely zero about those being saved.
Ultimately, it is an admirable failure in many ways, and not worth an earnest recommendation. It is another flop for Clooney as director. But there is just enough beauty and fragility in what Clooney is doing as an actor to make it far from a complete waste of time. Yes, it is a further example of Netflix producing something that feels churned out and corner cutting, rather than a fully rounded work that has all the framework a big cinema release would receive. It just isn’t quite as bad as the reviews suggest.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Needful Things (1993) in Movies
Aug 29, 2019
Verdict: One of King’s Most Interesting Stories
Story: Needful Things starts when Leland Gaunt (von Sydow) opens up an antique shop in the small town of Castle Rock, the shop known as Needful Things, see the locals visit, with them getting an unusually attachment to certain items in the shop, items that are clearly meant for each individual person, one that strikes a memory.
As the town starts flocking to the shop, it becomes clear that Leland has alternate plans for the town, with Sheriff Alan Pangborn (Harris) needing to investigate a new increase amount of small crimes, which slowly start to build in seriousness before the town turns to chaos.
Thoughts on Needful Things
Characters – Leland Gaunt is the mysterious shopkeeper that arrives to Castle Rock, his shop has everything the people of the town want and he knows everything about everyone in the town. He trades their desires for favours, which mostly involve going against people in the town, he knows how to remain calm through the conversations, knowing just what they want to hear. Sheriff Alan Pangborn left the big city for a quiet life, he is enjoying his life in the town, with his new fiancée, until the crime levels start to rise, which sees him going from dealing with cats in trees, to murders, can he stop the power Leland has over the town before it is too late. Polly is Alan’s fiancée, she runs the local diner opposite the new shop, she doesn’t run in like some of the other residents, which sees her witnessing the changes from the locals. Nettie is a shy former abuse victim that becomes one of the first customers of the shop, showing how easily people can like what he is willing to offer. We do get a string of people that start to get caught in his ideas.
Performances – Max von Sydow is wonderful to watch in this film, he gives the character the mystery and charisma he needs to seem like a friendly person. Ed Harris is always good to watch, here he does the small town cop routine with ease, playing a good man who must help his people. Bennie Bedelia is strong without getting enough important early scenes to make us understand how disturbed her character’s life is.
Story – The story here follows a small town that gets a new visitor in a shopkeeper that soon starts giving the locals everything they ever wanted, for a price, which sees the town turn to chaos and the sheriff needing to solve the problem before it is too late. This is one of the most interesting of the Stephen King stories, it looks at human desires taking control over our own sanity, how one town can be turned upside down by the ideas of what could be ours, rather than giving us what we need. The story is shown to unfold at a delightful pace because it shows how the deals are put in place with each deal, slowly starting to growing from disruptive behaviour right up to murder. The story does rely on the idea of town working together to prove themselves.
Fantasy/Horror – The fantasy side of the film shows just how Leland can bring about whatever the person in the town wants, he can make the impossible, possible, which only plays into the horrors of just what he can do to this world, when people get everything they ever wanted.
Settings – The film is set in the small town of Castle Rock, this is one location where everybody knows each other, which is one of the trademarks for any Stephen King novel.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are very simple, they do play into the idea of fantasy elements, when we see just what will happen with the power given to the people.
Scene of the Movie – He is a monster.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does feel like it could have gone a lot darker.
Final Thoughts – This is easily one of the more underrated of Stephen King’s adaptions, it gives us a perfect moral dilemma and keeps everything feel a lot more grounded for a horror one.
Overall: Entertaining throughout.
Story: Needful Things starts when Leland Gaunt (von Sydow) opens up an antique shop in the small town of Castle Rock, the shop known as Needful Things, see the locals visit, with them getting an unusually attachment to certain items in the shop, items that are clearly meant for each individual person, one that strikes a memory.
As the town starts flocking to the shop, it becomes clear that Leland has alternate plans for the town, with Sheriff Alan Pangborn (Harris) needing to investigate a new increase amount of small crimes, which slowly start to build in seriousness before the town turns to chaos.
Thoughts on Needful Things
Characters – Leland Gaunt is the mysterious shopkeeper that arrives to Castle Rock, his shop has everything the people of the town want and he knows everything about everyone in the town. He trades their desires for favours, which mostly involve going against people in the town, he knows how to remain calm through the conversations, knowing just what they want to hear. Sheriff Alan Pangborn left the big city for a quiet life, he is enjoying his life in the town, with his new fiancée, until the crime levels start to rise, which sees him going from dealing with cats in trees, to murders, can he stop the power Leland has over the town before it is too late. Polly is Alan’s fiancée, she runs the local diner opposite the new shop, she doesn’t run in like some of the other residents, which sees her witnessing the changes from the locals. Nettie is a shy former abuse victim that becomes one of the first customers of the shop, showing how easily people can like what he is willing to offer. We do get a string of people that start to get caught in his ideas.
Performances – Max von Sydow is wonderful to watch in this film, he gives the character the mystery and charisma he needs to seem like a friendly person. Ed Harris is always good to watch, here he does the small town cop routine with ease, playing a good man who must help his people. Bennie Bedelia is strong without getting enough important early scenes to make us understand how disturbed her character’s life is.
Story – The story here follows a small town that gets a new visitor in a shopkeeper that soon starts giving the locals everything they ever wanted, for a price, which sees the town turn to chaos and the sheriff needing to solve the problem before it is too late. This is one of the most interesting of the Stephen King stories, it looks at human desires taking control over our own sanity, how one town can be turned upside down by the ideas of what could be ours, rather than giving us what we need. The story is shown to unfold at a delightful pace because it shows how the deals are put in place with each deal, slowly starting to growing from disruptive behaviour right up to murder. The story does rely on the idea of town working together to prove themselves.
Fantasy/Horror – The fantasy side of the film shows just how Leland can bring about whatever the person in the town wants, he can make the impossible, possible, which only plays into the horrors of just what he can do to this world, when people get everything they ever wanted.
Settings – The film is set in the small town of Castle Rock, this is one location where everybody knows each other, which is one of the trademarks for any Stephen King novel.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are very simple, they do play into the idea of fantasy elements, when we see just what will happen with the power given to the people.
Scene of the Movie – He is a monster.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does feel like it could have gone a lot darker.
Final Thoughts – This is easily one of the more underrated of Stephen King’s adaptions, it gives us a perfect moral dilemma and keeps everything feel a lot more grounded for a horror one.
Overall: Entertaining throughout.
My Boo Virtual Pet & Mini Game
Games and Entertainment
6.0
Rate It
App
Meet Boo, your very own virtual pet! Enjoy countless hours of fun in this addictive and entertaining...
Siren's Call (Dark Tides #1)
8.0
Rate It
Book
Between desire and love there are some things that can’t stay buried, even in the deep of the...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Eastwood is back, but is he hero or anti-hero?
It’s delightful to see Clint Eastwood back in front of the camera on the big screen. His last starring film was “Trouble with the Curve” in 2012 – a baseball-themed film that I don’t remember coming out in the UK, let alone remember seeing. Before that was 2008’s excellent “Gran Torino”.
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A tremendously energetic and fun video game spin-off.
In this #TimesUp year, reviewing a film like “Tomb Raider” is just asking for trouble! So where shall I start digging my shallow grave?
Let’s start with the video game… “Tomb Raider” is of course the original video game phenomenon that started in 1993, featuring Lara Croft: someone that teenagers across the land mastur…. did their homework alongside in bedrooms up and down the land. Beauty; athleticism; a fierce independence; unfeasibly large breasts; ridiculously impossible leaps: in this film reboot, Alicia Vikander’s Lara differs from this ideal in just one respect. And before the Dora Milaje smash through my windows and drag me off for incarceration on Mysogeny Island, I’ll point out that this is OBVIOUSLY the least important omission! 🙂
For this film is good… very good.
“I’M SORRY….? WHAT DID YOU SAY DR BOB??” “But this is a film about a VIDEO GAME! … They are all uniformly s****e!”
Beauty, brains and talent: the GB Olympic team will likely be calling.
I know – I can barely bring myself to admit it. But this one really is good. Most of this is down to the reason I was looking forward so much to this one. Alicia Vikander (“Ex Machina“; “The Danish Girl“; “The Light Between Oceans“) is such a class act, and here she is so much more than just a one-dimensional action hero. She hurts, she mourns, she feels guilt, she’s vulnerable. And it’s all there on her face. Great acting skill. She also kicks ass like no woman on film since Emily Blunt in “Edge of Tomorrow“!
Don’t you just hate it when you drop a bag of flour in your kitchen?
The story by Evan Daugherty and Geneva Robertson-Dworet (with Alastair Siddons adding to the screenplay) rockets off in great style with a “fox and hounds” bike chase around the City of London which is brilliantly done and sets up Croft’s character with the minimum of tedious back story. Switch to the main story and Lara is struggling to face the fact that her father (Dominic West, “Money Monster“), seen in flashback, is finally dead after going off to Japan seven years previously in search of the legendary tomb of ancient sorceress Queen Himiko. The Croft corp. COO (Kristin Scott Thomas, “Darkest Hour“) persuades Lara its time to sign the necessary papers, but on the verge of this act the lawyer Mr Yaffe (Derek Jacobi, “Murder on the Orient Express“) lets a significant cat out of the bag and sets Lara off on the trail of her long-dead father’s original mission.
In happier times. Daddy (Dominic West) goes off on yet another trip from Croft Manor.
It’s a rollercoaster ride that’s really well done. But I reckon the writers should have named Jeffrey Boam, George Lucas and Menno Meyjes as co-collaborators, for the film plagerises terribly from “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. In two or three places, the similarities are shocking! As in the best of Lucas traditions though there are some breathtaking set-pieces, with the best of them staged at the top of a raging waterfall that’s just plane ridiculous! (Even if it plagerises blatantly from “The Lost World”!).
English and patient. Kristin Scott Thomas as the guiding hand at the Croft corporation.
The movie’s tremendous to look at too, with cinematography by George Richmond (“Kingsman“; “Eddie the Eagle“) and (aside from a dodgy helicopter effect) good special effect by Max Poolman (“District 9”) and his team.
My one criticism would be that Vogel – the chief villain, played by Walton Goggins (“The Hateful Eight“) – is rather too unremittingly evil to have two sweetly smiling young children in his desk photo. One can only hope he faces a nasty demise!
Never trust a guy with a beard. Walton Goggins, a bit over the top as the villain of the piece.
The film is directed by Norwegian director Roar Uthaug, in what looks to be his first “non-Norwegian” film. Roar by name; roar by nature! He does a great job. An early “summer blockbuster” actioner that gets two thumbs up from me. What a pleasant surprise!
Let’s start with the video game… “Tomb Raider” is of course the original video game phenomenon that started in 1993, featuring Lara Croft: someone that teenagers across the land mastur…. did their homework alongside in bedrooms up and down the land. Beauty; athleticism; a fierce independence; unfeasibly large breasts; ridiculously impossible leaps: in this film reboot, Alicia Vikander’s Lara differs from this ideal in just one respect. And before the Dora Milaje smash through my windows and drag me off for incarceration on Mysogeny Island, I’ll point out that this is OBVIOUSLY the least important omission! 🙂
For this film is good… very good.
“I’M SORRY….? WHAT DID YOU SAY DR BOB??” “But this is a film about a VIDEO GAME! … They are all uniformly s****e!”
Beauty, brains and talent: the GB Olympic team will likely be calling.
I know – I can barely bring myself to admit it. But this one really is good. Most of this is down to the reason I was looking forward so much to this one. Alicia Vikander (“Ex Machina“; “The Danish Girl“; “The Light Between Oceans“) is such a class act, and here she is so much more than just a one-dimensional action hero. She hurts, she mourns, she feels guilt, she’s vulnerable. And it’s all there on her face. Great acting skill. She also kicks ass like no woman on film since Emily Blunt in “Edge of Tomorrow“!
Don’t you just hate it when you drop a bag of flour in your kitchen?
The story by Evan Daugherty and Geneva Robertson-Dworet (with Alastair Siddons adding to the screenplay) rockets off in great style with a “fox and hounds” bike chase around the City of London which is brilliantly done and sets up Croft’s character with the minimum of tedious back story. Switch to the main story and Lara is struggling to face the fact that her father (Dominic West, “Money Monster“), seen in flashback, is finally dead after going off to Japan seven years previously in search of the legendary tomb of ancient sorceress Queen Himiko. The Croft corp. COO (Kristin Scott Thomas, “Darkest Hour“) persuades Lara its time to sign the necessary papers, but on the verge of this act the lawyer Mr Yaffe (Derek Jacobi, “Murder on the Orient Express“) lets a significant cat out of the bag and sets Lara off on the trail of her long-dead father’s original mission.
In happier times. Daddy (Dominic West) goes off on yet another trip from Croft Manor.
It’s a rollercoaster ride that’s really well done. But I reckon the writers should have named Jeffrey Boam, George Lucas and Menno Meyjes as co-collaborators, for the film plagerises terribly from “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. In two or three places, the similarities are shocking! As in the best of Lucas traditions though there are some breathtaking set-pieces, with the best of them staged at the top of a raging waterfall that’s just plane ridiculous! (Even if it plagerises blatantly from “The Lost World”!).
English and patient. Kristin Scott Thomas as the guiding hand at the Croft corporation.
The movie’s tremendous to look at too, with cinematography by George Richmond (“Kingsman“; “Eddie the Eagle“) and (aside from a dodgy helicopter effect) good special effect by Max Poolman (“District 9”) and his team.
My one criticism would be that Vogel – the chief villain, played by Walton Goggins (“The Hateful Eight“) – is rather too unremittingly evil to have two sweetly smiling young children in his desk photo. One can only hope he faces a nasty demise!
Never trust a guy with a beard. Walton Goggins, a bit over the top as the villain of the piece.
The film is directed by Norwegian director Roar Uthaug, in what looks to be his first “non-Norwegian” film. Roar by name; roar by nature! He does a great job. An early “summer blockbuster” actioner that gets two thumbs up from me. What a pleasant surprise!
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Quiet Place: Part II (2021) in Movies
Oct 6, 2021
Less contained than the first film - we get to see more of the outside world. (2 more)
More monsters.
Cillian Murphy's performance.
Uses jump scares as a crutch (1 more)
Marcus is a bit of a unbearable turd in the film.
Long Time, No Hear
A Quiet Place Part II begins with a flashback chronicling the first day the creatures arrived. It’s also an excuse to allow John Krasinski’s Lee Abbott character to show up again despite dying in the previous film. Day 1 is mostly the scene in the trailer where the creatures are destroying the town and everyone is learning that they attack based on sound. And yes, this scene would have been and is far more effective if you haven’t seen the trailer several times beforehand.
What’s great about this sequel is that it is no longer so contained. The Abbott family is forced to leave their farm and their home and go out into the outside world. But the scariest aspect of all is that the monsters aren’t the most inhuman thing to exist in whatever remains of this desolate world – it’s the human survivors.
The sequel seems to feature far more of the creatures than the original film. It’s not that they weren’t around in the original film, but A Quiet Place Part II gives them a more prominent presence. There seems to be more of them. The film does utilize jump scares a bit more often than it should. They’re cheap tactics to begin with, but become more and more annoying after the first one or two times they’re used in a film.
Marcus Abbott (Noah Jupe) is nearly unbearable until the last ten or so minutes of the film, but it’s also a sensible form of irritation. Marcus lost his little brother and his father in the previous film and, without spoiling too much, doesn’t have a great time in the sequel. He doesn’t want to lose anyone else close to him and is now incredibly attached to the family members he has left. This results in Marcus being too clingy when someone needs to go on a supply run or has an idea that could potentially save everyone.
Cillian Murphy inherits the male lead since Lee Abbott’s exit. Murphy plays a character named Emmett and is actually a friend of the Abbott family. Emmett has lost everyone and everything and has remained relatively close to the Abbott’s farm even after the creatures arrived, but he never came for them. He has shelter and some supplies, but has spent so much time being on his own that he’s forgotten how to sympathize with anyone who isn’t himself. Murphy delivers this gloriously conflicted performance where he seems to be constantly struggling. Emmett often knows the right thing that should be done, but wants to remain hidden. He basically wants to survive over being a compassionate human being.
The formula for A Quiet Place II is intriguing because it plays out like an episodic arc of The Walking Dead. The zombie element is replaced with the creatures as the human characters go on supply runs, look for other survivors, and search for a sanctuary that may or may not exist. Since both A Quiet Place films are PG-13, there’s not much in the gore department. You’re attacked by these creatures and you’re basically just gone. The way the creature’s heads open up like a flower whenever they’re around audio feedback is visually similar to The Last of Us or even Resident Evil.
A Quiet Place Part II ditches the tension and the stealth the first film was known for and introduces more monsters, more action, more characters, and more of a world that’s barely hanging on by a thread. Lee’s oldest kids become they key players here while Emily Blunt takes a backseat. Cillian Murphy proves why he’s one of the most underrated actors working today. Overall, A Quiet Place Part II is an exceptionally entertaining sequel with quality performances and a primary focus on monster mayhem which, as horror and suspense fans, we should all get behind.
What’s great about this sequel is that it is no longer so contained. The Abbott family is forced to leave their farm and their home and go out into the outside world. But the scariest aspect of all is that the monsters aren’t the most inhuman thing to exist in whatever remains of this desolate world – it’s the human survivors.
The sequel seems to feature far more of the creatures than the original film. It’s not that they weren’t around in the original film, but A Quiet Place Part II gives them a more prominent presence. There seems to be more of them. The film does utilize jump scares a bit more often than it should. They’re cheap tactics to begin with, but become more and more annoying after the first one or two times they’re used in a film.
Marcus Abbott (Noah Jupe) is nearly unbearable until the last ten or so minutes of the film, but it’s also a sensible form of irritation. Marcus lost his little brother and his father in the previous film and, without spoiling too much, doesn’t have a great time in the sequel. He doesn’t want to lose anyone else close to him and is now incredibly attached to the family members he has left. This results in Marcus being too clingy when someone needs to go on a supply run or has an idea that could potentially save everyone.
Cillian Murphy inherits the male lead since Lee Abbott’s exit. Murphy plays a character named Emmett and is actually a friend of the Abbott family. Emmett has lost everyone and everything and has remained relatively close to the Abbott’s farm even after the creatures arrived, but he never came for them. He has shelter and some supplies, but has spent so much time being on his own that he’s forgotten how to sympathize with anyone who isn’t himself. Murphy delivers this gloriously conflicted performance where he seems to be constantly struggling. Emmett often knows the right thing that should be done, but wants to remain hidden. He basically wants to survive over being a compassionate human being.
The formula for A Quiet Place II is intriguing because it plays out like an episodic arc of The Walking Dead. The zombie element is replaced with the creatures as the human characters go on supply runs, look for other survivors, and search for a sanctuary that may or may not exist. Since both A Quiet Place films are PG-13, there’s not much in the gore department. You’re attacked by these creatures and you’re basically just gone. The way the creature’s heads open up like a flower whenever they’re around audio feedback is visually similar to The Last of Us or even Resident Evil.
A Quiet Place Part II ditches the tension and the stealth the first film was known for and introduces more monsters, more action, more characters, and more of a world that’s barely hanging on by a thread. Lee’s oldest kids become they key players here while Emily Blunt takes a backseat. Cillian Murphy proves why he’s one of the most underrated actors working today. Overall, A Quiet Place Part II is an exceptionally entertaining sequel with quality performances and a primary focus on monster mayhem which, as horror and suspense fans, we should all get behind.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Exodus: An Interstellar Pathways Adventure in Tabletop Games
Jan 10, 2022
We ALL loved those “Adventure Books That Let You Choose Your Own Path” when growing up. At least I THINK we all loved them. But what would happen if the same premise was applied to a card game and set in the same universe as another game from the same designer and publisher? Well let me introduce you to Exodus.
Exodus is a “choose thine own pathway” card game for one to five players. In it, players will be reading sections of a story that unfolds across several oversized cards in the hopes of settling down on some other planet not being torn apart by galactic war. Sound familiar?
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components (I think), and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook or purchase the game from the publisher directly. -T
Setup is super simple with this one. Yank out the cards from the box (and make sure they are numerically ordered), place them in a stack on the table, and also place out the stack of Inventory cards. The main Exodus cards are numbered 1-121 and there are 12 Inventory cards. Determine the first reader and the game may begin!
There really are not any “rules,” aside from reading the new card/scenario and choosing the card to jump to in order to continue the story. Or die, as I happen to do quite often. DARN YOU, CARD 13!! Players may decide to follow one path, or players may even split up and follow their own stories. The rules state that stories may have players rejoining each other on future cards, but I have yet to experience that before death.
The game continues with players reading cards, collecting Inventory items that are necessary for certain future choices, and attempting to tell a great story. Exodus could take five minutes, or even up to 60 minutes if the players make good choices. Players decide when to finish, and are even allowed to respawn after death or even retrace their steps in order to choose alternate endings to their stories.
Components. Again, we were provided with a prototype copy of the game. That said, Exodus is a box full of big tarot cards depicting excellent artwork and lots of text to be read. This certainly is not a game for budding readers (like my 5-year-old), but for players who enjoy a nice night reading an interesting sci-fi story.
I have a hard time deciding if I consider this a game or not. There are definitely choices to be made, akin to those made in the inspiration sourcebooks. However, I really feel this is more an activity that is set in the Xenohunters universe that may setup lore and be a jump-off to other games in the family. This is not at all a knock on the game, as having fleshed out lore for a game universe is necessary for a series containing several titles. You know, a game or not a game, I enjoyed playing through this one and discovering little secrets about the lore of the Xenohunters universe.
Though this isn’t a complex game at all, the choices made are sometimes quite difficult and could result in game-end conditions. I have definitely had games last five minutes before I died, but I have also had a couple that have lasted a lot longer as I try to find optimal choices and even backtracked a choice or two. I think I would suggest gamers play through this one a few times before attempting the Xenohunters game, if just for the backstories and lore alone. Want to grab a copy for yourself? Check out the Half-Monster Games store listing for Exodus. I also recommend grabbing both Xenohunters and Trust Me, I’m A Superhero. They are both great!
Exodus is a “choose thine own pathway” card game for one to five players. In it, players will be reading sections of a story that unfolds across several oversized cards in the hopes of settling down on some other planet not being torn apart by galactic war. Sound familiar?
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components (I think), and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook or purchase the game from the publisher directly. -T
Setup is super simple with this one. Yank out the cards from the box (and make sure they are numerically ordered), place them in a stack on the table, and also place out the stack of Inventory cards. The main Exodus cards are numbered 1-121 and there are 12 Inventory cards. Determine the first reader and the game may begin!
There really are not any “rules,” aside from reading the new card/scenario and choosing the card to jump to in order to continue the story. Or die, as I happen to do quite often. DARN YOU, CARD 13!! Players may decide to follow one path, or players may even split up and follow their own stories. The rules state that stories may have players rejoining each other on future cards, but I have yet to experience that before death.
The game continues with players reading cards, collecting Inventory items that are necessary for certain future choices, and attempting to tell a great story. Exodus could take five minutes, or even up to 60 minutes if the players make good choices. Players decide when to finish, and are even allowed to respawn after death or even retrace their steps in order to choose alternate endings to their stories.
Components. Again, we were provided with a prototype copy of the game. That said, Exodus is a box full of big tarot cards depicting excellent artwork and lots of text to be read. This certainly is not a game for budding readers (like my 5-year-old), but for players who enjoy a nice night reading an interesting sci-fi story.
I have a hard time deciding if I consider this a game or not. There are definitely choices to be made, akin to those made in the inspiration sourcebooks. However, I really feel this is more an activity that is set in the Xenohunters universe that may setup lore and be a jump-off to other games in the family. This is not at all a knock on the game, as having fleshed out lore for a game universe is necessary for a series containing several titles. You know, a game or not a game, I enjoyed playing through this one and discovering little secrets about the lore of the Xenohunters universe.
Though this isn’t a complex game at all, the choices made are sometimes quite difficult and could result in game-end conditions. I have definitely had games last five minutes before I died, but I have also had a couple that have lasted a lot longer as I try to find optimal choices and even backtracked a choice or two. I think I would suggest gamers play through this one a few times before attempting the Xenohunters game, if just for the backstories and lore alone. Want to grab a copy for yourself? Check out the Half-Monster Games store listing for Exodus. I also recommend grabbing both Xenohunters and Trust Me, I’m A Superhero. They are both great!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
May 4, 2019 (Updated May 4, 2019)
Surprisingly Strong Chemistry Between The Leads
Quite a few people that I have spoken with don't like either Charlize Theron or Seth Rogan as performers, so the idea of a pairing of the straight-laced, uptight politician played by Theron and the shlubby, weed-smoking slacker played by Rogan was like "nails on a chalkboard" to them.
And these people would be wrong, for LONG SHOT is a very entertaining, heartfelt romantic comedy that has one big surprise - the strong chemistry between the two leads.
Kind of the "anti-AMERICAN PRESIDENT" (the 1995 Michael Douglas/Annette Benning RomCom written by Aaron Sorkin), LONG SHOT tells the tale of Secretary of State, Charlotte Field (Theron) who embarks on a Presidential bid. When she polls low in "sense of humor" she decides to add a comedy writer to her staff to punch up her speeches. A chance encounter with her childhood next door neighbor leads Field to hire Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan). Will sparks fly? Can Fred remind Charlotte of why she chose politics in the first place?
What do you think? It's a RomCom afterall, but it's the journey and not the destination that is important.
And...his is a fun journey...mostly because of the performances of Theron and Rogan. Over the years, I have grown to really appreciate Theron - from dramas like NORTH COUNTRY and her Oscar-winning turn in MONSTER, to action flicks like MAD MAX:FURY ROAD and FATE OF THE FURIOUS, to comedies like A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST and this film - there is nothing (apparently) that she can't do. She is really good in all of these - even if the material is not the greatest.
The surprise to me here was the performance of Rogan - it was "wacky", "stoner-ish" and "out there", but toned down and tempered - probably the sign of a good, strong Director at the helm. I bought Flarsky's journey in this story and the relationship between these two characters was believable because Rogan was able to match Theron's energy and show real chemistry between the two.
Other fine turns are given by O'Shea Jackson, Jr (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON), as Rogan's buddy, Ravi Patel (TV's MASTER OF NONE) as one of Theron's support staff and (especially) June Diane Rapheal (TV's GRACE AND FRANKIE) who really shines in the unenviable role of the Theron's Chief of Staff who doesn't approve of putting Rogan's character on the team, but she plays the role with layers - not one-note - and so we get a real person, with conflicted feelings at time, and she rises above the typical type of character in this type of role.
The only disappointment for me was Bob Odenkirk's President (who is stepping down for - he hopes - a much bigger job, MOVIE STAR) and not because of Odenkirk's performance, he was fine with what he was given, but there wasn't much nuance written in this part and (compared to the layers shown/written by others) the one-note-ness of Odenkirk's character was noticeable. As was Andy Serkis as a heavily-made up, older media mogul who is trying to use his wealth to manipulate the events from behind the scene - this character (and make-up) was a "swing and a miss" for me. But, fortunately, neither Serkis nor Odenkirk have much screen time, so it was more of a "distraction" than an "annoyance" for me.
I mention the Director - so I better give credit to Jonathan Levine (the awful SNATCHED with Amy Shumer and Goldie Hawn) - I have not really enjoyed anything else he has Directed, but I have to give him credit for this one - he brings "the funny and the crude" without going overboard, driving the story efficiently while putting in enough yuks and (surprisingly) heart in this movie along the way.
Now...don't be fooled here...there is quite a bit of "crude, lewd and rude" behavior and jokes (a crucial plot point hangs on a "sex act"), so don't expect a gentile, Cary Grant/Katherine Hepburn battle of the sexes. Expect a funny (crude), sexy (lewd) and opinionated (rude) take on the modern political system and how a person can lose their soul if they choose to play the game.
With a large amount of heart - and strong performances/chemistry between the two leads - I was pleasantly surprised by LONG SHOT - and, if you can handle the crude, lude and rude, then you will have a good time at this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And these people would be wrong, for LONG SHOT is a very entertaining, heartfelt romantic comedy that has one big surprise - the strong chemistry between the two leads.
Kind of the "anti-AMERICAN PRESIDENT" (the 1995 Michael Douglas/Annette Benning RomCom written by Aaron Sorkin), LONG SHOT tells the tale of Secretary of State, Charlotte Field (Theron) who embarks on a Presidential bid. When she polls low in "sense of humor" she decides to add a comedy writer to her staff to punch up her speeches. A chance encounter with her childhood next door neighbor leads Field to hire Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan). Will sparks fly? Can Fred remind Charlotte of why she chose politics in the first place?
What do you think? It's a RomCom afterall, but it's the journey and not the destination that is important.
And...his is a fun journey...mostly because of the performances of Theron and Rogan. Over the years, I have grown to really appreciate Theron - from dramas like NORTH COUNTRY and her Oscar-winning turn in MONSTER, to action flicks like MAD MAX:FURY ROAD and FATE OF THE FURIOUS, to comedies like A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST and this film - there is nothing (apparently) that she can't do. She is really good in all of these - even if the material is not the greatest.
The surprise to me here was the performance of Rogan - it was "wacky", "stoner-ish" and "out there", but toned down and tempered - probably the sign of a good, strong Director at the helm. I bought Flarsky's journey in this story and the relationship between these two characters was believable because Rogan was able to match Theron's energy and show real chemistry between the two.
Other fine turns are given by O'Shea Jackson, Jr (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON), as Rogan's buddy, Ravi Patel (TV's MASTER OF NONE) as one of Theron's support staff and (especially) June Diane Rapheal (TV's GRACE AND FRANKIE) who really shines in the unenviable role of the Theron's Chief of Staff who doesn't approve of putting Rogan's character on the team, but she plays the role with layers - not one-note - and so we get a real person, with conflicted feelings at time, and she rises above the typical type of character in this type of role.
The only disappointment for me was Bob Odenkirk's President (who is stepping down for - he hopes - a much bigger job, MOVIE STAR) and not because of Odenkirk's performance, he was fine with what he was given, but there wasn't much nuance written in this part and (compared to the layers shown/written by others) the one-note-ness of Odenkirk's character was noticeable. As was Andy Serkis as a heavily-made up, older media mogul who is trying to use his wealth to manipulate the events from behind the scene - this character (and make-up) was a "swing and a miss" for me. But, fortunately, neither Serkis nor Odenkirk have much screen time, so it was more of a "distraction" than an "annoyance" for me.
I mention the Director - so I better give credit to Jonathan Levine (the awful SNATCHED with Amy Shumer and Goldie Hawn) - I have not really enjoyed anything else he has Directed, but I have to give him credit for this one - he brings "the funny and the crude" without going overboard, driving the story efficiently while putting in enough yuks and (surprisingly) heart in this movie along the way.
Now...don't be fooled here...there is quite a bit of "crude, lewd and rude" behavior and jokes (a crucial plot point hangs on a "sex act"), so don't expect a gentile, Cary Grant/Katherine Hepburn battle of the sexes. Expect a funny (crude), sexy (lewd) and opinionated (rude) take on the modern political system and how a person can lose their soul if they choose to play the game.
With a large amount of heart - and strong performances/chemistry between the two leads - I was pleasantly surprised by LONG SHOT - and, if you can handle the crude, lude and rude, then you will have a good time at this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)