Search
Search results
kims convenience
10.0
Rate It
TV Show
Kim's Convenience is a Canadian television sitcom that aired on CBC Television from October 2016 to...
DiscoStu (6 KP) rated Bright (2017) in Movies
Jan 8, 2018 (Updated Jan 8, 2018)
“A competent buddy cop movie that offers solid pacing and character portrayals at the expense of building up the films (admittedly) interesting universe”.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Netflix’s ‘Bright’, directed by David Ayer (Suicide Squad) and starring Will Smith and Joel Edgerton, brings the big budget box office trappings of a fully fledged cinema release to their home streaming subscription service and arguably the end result is a fun and enjoyable, if slightly flawed, buddy-cop-movie-with-a-twist that sets up a universe you’ll likely want to see more of.
Smith plays Daryl Ward, a weary veteran L.A. cop reluctantly partnered with orc partner Nick, the first and only orc to make the force in this alternate earth story. The film opens with Ward taking a round of buckshot from an orc thug whilst Nick looks on waiting for a burrito from a street vendor. The incident leaves a distrust between Ward and Nick, with Ward unsure whether his partner really has his back after Nick not only failed to step up and prevent the shooting but also failed to apprehend the orc perpetrator during the ensuing foot chase. Ward also finds himself at odds with other members of the force who don’t share the police’s ‘progressive’ attitudes of allowing orcs into the force.
The film briefly touches on a two thousand year old conflict between the nine armies and the Dark Lord who was defeated when various races allied to defeat him. In the established lore the orcs allied with the Dark Lord and have been subjugated ever since. The film attempts to portray the orcs through a social commentary that reflects the black community today and how heavy handed the film tackles the subject will probably depend on the viewer. For me it was handled sensitively enough without being too in your face.
The film sees the two protagonists dispatched to a disturbance that quickly escalates to a situation that goes from bad to worse. Finding themselves on the run with a Bright, the film’s titular white haired magic wielders, and a coveted magic wand Ward and Nick have to navigate hostile L.A. gang land environments whilst pursued by Inferni (the magic version of the Illuminati), the police and human and orc gangsters, all who have their own plans for the wand.
The film is shot well, with plenty of scenery that builds up the shared world of humans, orcs, elves , centaurs and the other races that we don’t get to spend any time with. A montage at the start of the film shows various L.A. scenery graffiti tagged with striking imagery depicting the struggle of orcs in an oppressed landscape. Evidently, orc lives matter. The film also doesn’t struggle for pacing. The two hour runtime services the story well enough, even if some of the world building and character exploration suffers as a result. I would have liked to have spent more time exploring the shared history of the various races and understanding the motivations of the stories’ villains but sadly these elements are undersold in favour of a shorter runtime that hurries the narrative along. To the credit of the writers and the director this world bares revisiting and at the time of writing it sounds like Netflix know this too with a sequel already greenlit.
Bright is a fun jaunt in a world I’d like to get to know better. Smith and Edgerton are strong leads who share a strong chemistry and make you care about their characters. The bad guys don’t fare as well here, especially disappointing given that Noomi Rapace is the lead antagonist but hopefully a sequel will correct some of these missteps. Bright feels like a £20 cinema ticket movie and gives enough to the viewer that you’ll want to discuss it with friends afterwards. As a film bundled with your Netflix subscription it’s hard to be too critical.
Smith plays Daryl Ward, a weary veteran L.A. cop reluctantly partnered with orc partner Nick, the first and only orc to make the force in this alternate earth story. The film opens with Ward taking a round of buckshot from an orc thug whilst Nick looks on waiting for a burrito from a street vendor. The incident leaves a distrust between Ward and Nick, with Ward unsure whether his partner really has his back after Nick not only failed to step up and prevent the shooting but also failed to apprehend the orc perpetrator during the ensuing foot chase. Ward also finds himself at odds with other members of the force who don’t share the police’s ‘progressive’ attitudes of allowing orcs into the force.
The film briefly touches on a two thousand year old conflict between the nine armies and the Dark Lord who was defeated when various races allied to defeat him. In the established lore the orcs allied with the Dark Lord and have been subjugated ever since. The film attempts to portray the orcs through a social commentary that reflects the black community today and how heavy handed the film tackles the subject will probably depend on the viewer. For me it was handled sensitively enough without being too in your face.
The film sees the two protagonists dispatched to a disturbance that quickly escalates to a situation that goes from bad to worse. Finding themselves on the run with a Bright, the film’s titular white haired magic wielders, and a coveted magic wand Ward and Nick have to navigate hostile L.A. gang land environments whilst pursued by Inferni (the magic version of the Illuminati), the police and human and orc gangsters, all who have their own plans for the wand.
The film is shot well, with plenty of scenery that builds up the shared world of humans, orcs, elves , centaurs and the other races that we don’t get to spend any time with. A montage at the start of the film shows various L.A. scenery graffiti tagged with striking imagery depicting the struggle of orcs in an oppressed landscape. Evidently, orc lives matter. The film also doesn’t struggle for pacing. The two hour runtime services the story well enough, even if some of the world building and character exploration suffers as a result. I would have liked to have spent more time exploring the shared history of the various races and understanding the motivations of the stories’ villains but sadly these elements are undersold in favour of a shorter runtime that hurries the narrative along. To the credit of the writers and the director this world bares revisiting and at the time of writing it sounds like Netflix know this too with a sequel already greenlit.
Bright is a fun jaunt in a world I’d like to get to know better. Smith and Edgerton are strong leads who share a strong chemistry and make you care about their characters. The bad guys don’t fare as well here, especially disappointing given that Noomi Rapace is the lead antagonist but hopefully a sequel will correct some of these missteps. Bright feels like a £20 cinema ticket movie and gives enough to the viewer that you’ll want to discuss it with friends afterwards. As a film bundled with your Netflix subscription it’s hard to be too critical.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Cloverfield Paradox (2018) in Movies
Feb 22, 2018
A fun "who-will-survive" flick
During the Super Bowl, a "surprise" trailer dropped for a new entry in the Cloverfield family of films. The good news is that the film was dropping on Netflix the next day, so fanboys immediately jumped on-line and then started hating on it (again, on-line) because it wasn't exactly what they thought it would be.
Which is too bad, for THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is a very fun, very well made, very well acted "10 Little Indians" style Sci-Fi film (you know, the type of film where a finite group of folks are marooned someplace - like and island or an isolated, creepy mansion and are picked off one by one). This time, they are on a space station, and when an experiment goes awry, bad things start to happen.
I stated that this film is another entry in the "Cloverfield family of films", so let me explain that. The overseer of these films is none other than JJ Abrams and he has stated that there will be a series of films - very different in style, type and substance - that will (somehow) be related in the Cloverfield Universe. And, so far, he has fulfilled his promise (at least to me) - for those that just want "more of the same", he has alienated.
The first film, CLOVERFIELD, is a "found footage" film about a giant monster (think Godzilla) rampaging through modern day New York City. Of the 3 films,thus far, in the Cloverfield family, this one (for me) was the least effective (especially because I am not a big fan of "found footage" films). The 2nd film was 2016's 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE and was a very effective psychological horror/drama starring John Goodman as a fellow who has rescued/captured (kidnapped?) Mary Elizabeth Winstead and has locked her in his survival bunker in order to - he says - save her from the monster above. The film effectively goes back and forth with wondering what is scarier - the monster above or the monster (Goodman) below. If you haven't seen 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE, I highly recommend it.
The third installment, then, is THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX, a prequel of sorts about a group of scientists aboard a space station conducting a desperate, highly dangerous power experiments to solve the world's energy crisis. When something goes wrong, bad things happen. And since this is in the Cloverfield family, you gotta know it has some connection with how the Cloverfield monster got on Earth.
But this film doesn't really concern itself with the Cloverfield monster - which is what I think is angering the "fanboys" - this film is about the survival of the charismatic, international scientists that are stranded on this space station after the accident. Almost every one of the actors in this film are "oh...that guy" type actors - all very good. From German actor Daniel Bruhl (RUSH) to Chinese actress Ziyi Zhang (CROUCHING TIGER...) to Englishman David Oyelowo (SELMA) to good ol' John Ortiz (a million different things) - the cast is strong, fun to watch and easy to root for. They all are in service to the plot devices (and predicaments they are in) and they serve the plot (and the film) well.
Special notice should be made for Chris O'Dowd (BRIDESMAIDS) who brings some much needed levity via his deadpan humor approach to everything as the ship's handyman and, especially, Gugu Mbatha-Raw (BELLE) as the heroine of the adventure from through who's eyes we encounter the events of the film.
I have stated before that I am a sucker for these types of "10 Little Indians who-will-survive" films and this one is no exception. Go in with no preconceived notions, roll with what the film throws at you and you'll have a good time time, too.
THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is now streaming on Netflix.
Letter Grade: B (it is the very definition of a "B" movie).
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Which is too bad, for THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is a very fun, very well made, very well acted "10 Little Indians" style Sci-Fi film (you know, the type of film where a finite group of folks are marooned someplace - like and island or an isolated, creepy mansion and are picked off one by one). This time, they are on a space station, and when an experiment goes awry, bad things start to happen.
I stated that this film is another entry in the "Cloverfield family of films", so let me explain that. The overseer of these films is none other than JJ Abrams and he has stated that there will be a series of films - very different in style, type and substance - that will (somehow) be related in the Cloverfield Universe. And, so far, he has fulfilled his promise (at least to me) - for those that just want "more of the same", he has alienated.
The first film, CLOVERFIELD, is a "found footage" film about a giant monster (think Godzilla) rampaging through modern day New York City. Of the 3 films,thus far, in the Cloverfield family, this one (for me) was the least effective (especially because I am not a big fan of "found footage" films). The 2nd film was 2016's 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE and was a very effective psychological horror/drama starring John Goodman as a fellow who has rescued/captured (kidnapped?) Mary Elizabeth Winstead and has locked her in his survival bunker in order to - he says - save her from the monster above. The film effectively goes back and forth with wondering what is scarier - the monster above or the monster (Goodman) below. If you haven't seen 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE, I highly recommend it.
The third installment, then, is THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX, a prequel of sorts about a group of scientists aboard a space station conducting a desperate, highly dangerous power experiments to solve the world's energy crisis. When something goes wrong, bad things happen. And since this is in the Cloverfield family, you gotta know it has some connection with how the Cloverfield monster got on Earth.
But this film doesn't really concern itself with the Cloverfield monster - which is what I think is angering the "fanboys" - this film is about the survival of the charismatic, international scientists that are stranded on this space station after the accident. Almost every one of the actors in this film are "oh...that guy" type actors - all very good. From German actor Daniel Bruhl (RUSH) to Chinese actress Ziyi Zhang (CROUCHING TIGER...) to Englishman David Oyelowo (SELMA) to good ol' John Ortiz (a million different things) - the cast is strong, fun to watch and easy to root for. They all are in service to the plot devices (and predicaments they are in) and they serve the plot (and the film) well.
Special notice should be made for Chris O'Dowd (BRIDESMAIDS) who brings some much needed levity via his deadpan humor approach to everything as the ship's handyman and, especially, Gugu Mbatha-Raw (BELLE) as the heroine of the adventure from through who's eyes we encounter the events of the film.
I have stated before that I am a sucker for these types of "10 Little Indians who-will-survive" films and this one is no exception. Go in with no preconceived notions, roll with what the film throws at you and you'll have a good time time, too.
THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is now streaming on Netflix.
Letter Grade: B (it is the very definition of a "B" movie).
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
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.)
Ross (3284 KP) rated Insidious: Chapter 3 (2015) in Movies
Dec 4, 2017
No attempt to explain the background of ... anyone really (1 more)
No Rose Byrne
"Chapter 3" is a prequel to the first 2 Insidious films and follows a young girl, Quinn attempting to contact her dead mother, who eventually calls in the help of Elise Rainier (a former psychic who since her husband passed away has become a weird cat lady, played by the weird dog lady from There's Something About Mary), a key character of the first 2 films.
Quinn thinks her mother is attempting to respond to her and wants help breaking through, but after she is hit by a car, breaking both legs, she starts to realise it isn't her mother trying to contact her.
The demon in the film clearly has a backstory (tar footprints, breathing apparatus in his mouth, hospital gown) but there is no attempt to explain this at all. One of the best bits of the second film was the exposition of the demon haunting Josh his whole life and what he had been in life. That is completely absent here. Fan theories abound on the internet but these all seem like nonsense and clutching at straws.
This in itself is a half-decent horror film, there is enough atmosphere and the acting is (in places) decent, but for me was quite a disappointment based on the first film (and to a lesser extent the second chapter). It just be me being grumpy having paid for this film (despite having Sky Cinema, Netflix and Amazon Prime) and didn't feel like I got my £3.49 worth, but I felt a little disappointed at the end.
There was an annoying little teaser at the end of the film where the main demon from the first film appears. This was a bit "Prometheus" as it kind of felt like a prequel but didn't really make sense, and Elise seeing this demon should have meant she was expecting it in the first movie, which didn't quite sit right.
There was a similar teaser at the end of the second film which bore no relation to this film, so plenty of pressure on 2018's conclusion to tie up the loose ends!
Quinn thinks her mother is attempting to respond to her and wants help breaking through, but after she is hit by a car, breaking both legs, she starts to realise it isn't her mother trying to contact her.
The demon in the film clearly has a backstory (tar footprints, breathing apparatus in his mouth, hospital gown) but there is no attempt to explain this at all. One of the best bits of the second film was the exposition of the demon haunting Josh his whole life and what he had been in life. That is completely absent here. Fan theories abound on the internet but these all seem like nonsense and clutching at straws.
This in itself is a half-decent horror film, there is enough atmosphere and the acting is (in places) decent, but for me was quite a disappointment based on the first film (and to a lesser extent the second chapter). It just be me being grumpy having paid for this film (despite having Sky Cinema, Netflix and Amazon Prime) and didn't feel like I got my £3.49 worth, but I felt a little disappointed at the end.
There was an annoying little teaser at the end of the film where the main demon from the first film appears. This was a bit "Prometheus" as it kind of felt like a prequel but didn't really make sense, and Elise seeing this demon should have meant she was expecting it in the first movie, which didn't quite sit right.
There was a similar teaser at the end of the second film which bore no relation to this film, so plenty of pressure on 2018's conclusion to tie up the loose ends!
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Nails (2017) in Movies
May 12, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
If you’re looking for a film packed with clichés and continuity issues, I recommend Nails – an Irish film currently available on Netflix. I ended up watching it yesterday with my sister-in-law and while it isn’t absolutely awful, it was definitely something I won’t be watching again.
The movie begins with a bam, jumping immediately into what can be read in the above synopsis. There’s not much of a build up and the characters are awfully flat. In fact, we don’t really get much of a chance to learn anything about them other than that Dana Milgrom, the main character, is helpless and dismissed by her healthcare professionals, and Steve Milgrom is a cheating asshole (because hey, what movie does that not happen in?). There’s also a daughter, and while she plays a major role toward the end of the film, she’s fairly minor otherwise.
What bothers me most about Nails isn’t its dry characters, though. The film is riddled with continuity errors. For instance, Dana is struck by a car and hits the pavement, but her face appears to have been severely burnt after the fact. Also Dana’s broken arm somehow heals faster than her face. Similarly, her stitches don’t lighten up or begin to heal. Later, there’s a scene where she’s tossed haphazardly over a wheelchair, then magically has repositioned herself.
As for clichés, here’s a list of them:
-Creepy scenes accompanied with ear shattering music
-Borderline creeper psychiatrist
-Eric Nilsson is an “angel of mercy” that killed five children then, surprise, killed himself in the same room Dana just happens to be stuck in.
-Hospital has a prior nefarious history and record of poor choices
Steve’s affair
-The dismissal of Dana’s concerns as being a mental issue (though this does have some importance when you consider the current mental health battles, it is hugely overplayed in horror movies without actually addressing the issue itself)
This is just a short compilation of issues I found with the movie. It’s one saving grace really is the type of monster being radically different from what you usually see. I felt Nails, the entity itself, was unique enough to save this movie from a one skull rating. Nonetheless, it could have been a lot better.
The movie begins with a bam, jumping immediately into what can be read in the above synopsis. There’s not much of a build up and the characters are awfully flat. In fact, we don’t really get much of a chance to learn anything about them other than that Dana Milgrom, the main character, is helpless and dismissed by her healthcare professionals, and Steve Milgrom is a cheating asshole (because hey, what movie does that not happen in?). There’s also a daughter, and while she plays a major role toward the end of the film, she’s fairly minor otherwise.
What bothers me most about Nails isn’t its dry characters, though. The film is riddled with continuity errors. For instance, Dana is struck by a car and hits the pavement, but her face appears to have been severely burnt after the fact. Also Dana’s broken arm somehow heals faster than her face. Similarly, her stitches don’t lighten up or begin to heal. Later, there’s a scene where she’s tossed haphazardly over a wheelchair, then magically has repositioned herself.
As for clichés, here’s a list of them:
-Creepy scenes accompanied with ear shattering music
-Borderline creeper psychiatrist
-Eric Nilsson is an “angel of mercy” that killed five children then, surprise, killed himself in the same room Dana just happens to be stuck in.
-Hospital has a prior nefarious history and record of poor choices
Steve’s affair
-The dismissal of Dana’s concerns as being a mental issue (though this does have some importance when you consider the current mental health battles, it is hugely overplayed in horror movies without actually addressing the issue itself)
This is just a short compilation of issues I found with the movie. It’s one saving grace really is the type of monster being radically different from what you usually see. I felt Nails, the entity itself, was unique enough to save this movie from a one skull rating. Nonetheless, it could have been a lot better.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Polar (2019) in Movies
Feb 7, 2019 (Updated Feb 7, 2019)
Extremely Polarizing
Wow, what a train wreck this turned out to be..
Think diet John Wick meets an immature, garish comic book full of pantomime villains and you have Polar. Sometimes you see a movie and can't help but wonder, "What the hell were they thinking?" Unfortunately this is one of those times. There are folks out there that have crafted a solid script and are struggling to get their movie funded and made, meanwhile there is low level trash like this being paid for and distributed by a huge platform like Netflix?! It is an outrageous and pretty sad state of affairs.
Without a doubt the worst part of this thing is the god awful assortment of villains. They are so annoying and infuriating in every scene they are in and only get worse as the movie goes on. Half the movie is spent following this massively irritating group as they hunt for Mads Mikkelsen's character and they are so unlikable, but not in the way that they are supposed to be. They all work for the main villain, who is inexplicably played by Matt Lucas from Little Britain. That's right, Vicky Pollard is this movie's main antagonist. He is god awful here and I genuinely don't even know what they were attempting to do with this character. Every scene that he is in feels like a discarded Little Britain sketch.
The one bright spot in the film is Mads Mikkelsen's turn as Duncan, the ex-hitman being hunted throughout the film by his ex-employers who serves as our main protagonist. I love seeing Mads in anything he appears in, so I actually found the scenes with him in them pretty enjoyable, and frankly they were the only thing that stopped this movie from being scored a pathetic 1/10.
Overall, this is total mess. It is the worst type of comic book movie and doesn't seem appealing to anyone over the age of 12. Please don't waste your time with this garbage, there are much better movies out there based on graphic novels that don't only cater to horny, brain-dead teenagers.
Think diet John Wick meets an immature, garish comic book full of pantomime villains and you have Polar. Sometimes you see a movie and can't help but wonder, "What the hell were they thinking?" Unfortunately this is one of those times. There are folks out there that have crafted a solid script and are struggling to get their movie funded and made, meanwhile there is low level trash like this being paid for and distributed by a huge platform like Netflix?! It is an outrageous and pretty sad state of affairs.
Without a doubt the worst part of this thing is the god awful assortment of villains. They are so annoying and infuriating in every scene they are in and only get worse as the movie goes on. Half the movie is spent following this massively irritating group as they hunt for Mads Mikkelsen's character and they are so unlikable, but not in the way that they are supposed to be. They all work for the main villain, who is inexplicably played by Matt Lucas from Little Britain. That's right, Vicky Pollard is this movie's main antagonist. He is god awful here and I genuinely don't even know what they were attempting to do with this character. Every scene that he is in feels like a discarded Little Britain sketch.
The one bright spot in the film is Mads Mikkelsen's turn as Duncan, the ex-hitman being hunted throughout the film by his ex-employers who serves as our main protagonist. I love seeing Mads in anything he appears in, so I actually found the scenes with him in them pretty enjoyable, and frankly they were the only thing that stopped this movie from being scored a pathetic 1/10.
Overall, this is total mess. It is the worst type of comic book movie and doesn't seem appealing to anyone over the age of 12. Please don't waste your time with this garbage, there are much better movies out there based on graphic novels that don't only cater to horny, brain-dead teenagers.
Fred (860 KP) rated Love, Death & Robots in TV
Mar 24, 2019
A Heavy Metal reboot? I'm in!
This is an anthology series, airing on Netflix. Originally, it was going to be a theatrical reboot of the Heavy Metal animated movies, but became a series instead. It's split into 18 animated shorts (well, 17 & one mostly live-action) with an average length of about 10 minutes or so each. Unlike the original Heavy Metal movie, there is nothing tying the shorts together, like the Loc-nar.
I want to say, overall, the series is great. Most of the animation is great. Some of it, like in the short "The Witness" is so realistic, you'll think you're watching actual film. However, there are some shorts where the animation is done in the choppy, crappy CGI-drawn animation & this takes away from them. Just like the original Heavy Metal, some shorts work, some don't. Fortunately, most of them work, overall. Some have problems with their endings. They seem to either have no ending, or they're just not satisfying enough. I kind of wish they were 20 minutes each. But there are also some where the ending is the best part.
My favorite short is probably "Three Robots", which is about...3 robots. They're "taking a vacation" through an apocalyptic wasteland. It's funny & smart. My least favorite is probably "When the Yogurt Took Over", which is about...sentient yogurt. Fortunately, this one is also the shortest of them. Funny enough, both of these shorts were written by the same writer.
I see people complaining about the show's sexism towards women. Yes, this is a problem. But a minor one. The show does have fan service, especially in the short "The Witness" I mentioned. There's nudity just for the sake of having nudity. I feel that although in this day & age, in America, this is frowned upon, it fits with these shorts. It's not like it's non-stop nudity, it's just here & there. It also fits with the Heavy Metal series & I'm happy that it's there.
I could talk about each short separately, but I don't think they need to be. You can watch the entire series in a few hours & it's worth it. So what you waiting for?
I want to say, overall, the series is great. Most of the animation is great. Some of it, like in the short "The Witness" is so realistic, you'll think you're watching actual film. However, there are some shorts where the animation is done in the choppy, crappy CGI-drawn animation & this takes away from them. Just like the original Heavy Metal, some shorts work, some don't. Fortunately, most of them work, overall. Some have problems with their endings. They seem to either have no ending, or they're just not satisfying enough. I kind of wish they were 20 minutes each. But there are also some where the ending is the best part.
My favorite short is probably "Three Robots", which is about...3 robots. They're "taking a vacation" through an apocalyptic wasteland. It's funny & smart. My least favorite is probably "When the Yogurt Took Over", which is about...sentient yogurt. Fortunately, this one is also the shortest of them. Funny enough, both of these shorts were written by the same writer.
I see people complaining about the show's sexism towards women. Yes, this is a problem. But a minor one. The show does have fan service, especially in the short "The Witness" I mentioned. There's nudity just for the sake of having nudity. I feel that although in this day & age, in America, this is frowned upon, it fits with these shorts. It's not like it's non-stop nudity, it's just here & there. It also fits with the Heavy Metal series & I'm happy that it's there.
I could talk about each short separately, but I don't think they need to be. You can watch the entire series in a few hours & it's worth it. So what you waiting for?
TheBookMother (105 KP) rated All That She Can See in Books
May 11, 2019 (Updated May 11, 2019)
As light and pleasant as one of Mary Berry's bakes!
I had some doubts about this book when I picked it up in a charity shop recently but hands up now, I was pleasantly surprised and did enjoy it.
I am a bit of a fan of the Fletcher's and find them to write some quite charming books which I tend to think of as my guilty pleasure!
They are the ones that have a heart warming tail or romantic fairy tale twist that gives you the warm fuzzies.
They are what I turn to in-between some heavy reads for some light relief.
It started off in a fairly standard way but I was very taken aback to where the story did lead and in fact end!
There is a sci fi and almost paranormal element that reminded me of something you can imagine watching on Netflix a bit like The OA. It was similar to The Book of Tomorrow by Celia Adhern.
It was very emotive which was to be expected when alot of the story is about feelings.
There is alot of very imaginative text which really does draw you in and you want to carry on reading.
I did devour this book in a couple of days. Some areas are a tad predictable but all in all it is a pleasant read.
It isn't a literary masterpiece per se but I don't think it's pretending to be either.
It may not change your life but it will stay with you for a little while afterwards and what it did do was help one mum escape the chaos of raising two young boys for a little while!
If you like Celia Adhern, Joanne Harris and of course Giovanna Fletcher then you will no doubt enjoy this read too.
I am a bit of a fan of the Fletcher's and find them to write some quite charming books which I tend to think of as my guilty pleasure!
They are the ones that have a heart warming tail or romantic fairy tale twist that gives you the warm fuzzies.
They are what I turn to in-between some heavy reads for some light relief.
It started off in a fairly standard way but I was very taken aback to where the story did lead and in fact end!
There is a sci fi and almost paranormal element that reminded me of something you can imagine watching on Netflix a bit like The OA. It was similar to The Book of Tomorrow by Celia Adhern.
It was very emotive which was to be expected when alot of the story is about feelings.
There is alot of very imaginative text which really does draw you in and you want to carry on reading.
I did devour this book in a couple of days. Some areas are a tad predictable but all in all it is a pleasant read.
It isn't a literary masterpiece per se but I don't think it's pretending to be either.
It may not change your life but it will stay with you for a little while afterwards and what it did do was help one mum escape the chaos of raising two young boys for a little while!
If you like Celia Adhern, Joanne Harris and of course Giovanna Fletcher then you will no doubt enjoy this read too.
Benedick Lewis (3001 KP) rated My Movies - Movie & TV in Apps
Jul 11, 2018
Just scan and it instantly uploads (1 more)
Easy interface
Can be pricey for full app (1 more)
Not the easiest thing to share
For all DVD and Blu Ray lovers
Not to boast but this app informs me I have catalogued over 3,000 DVDs and Blu Rays in my collection and I still haven’t logged them all. One day I might have room in my apartment and I will be able to do it but that’s a little way away.
This app is a lifesaver. Having this amount in a collection can make you wonder when you get more whether you have it or not. I do have duplicates in my collection but purposefully so because of collectors editions or the like. This app allows you to scan the barcode and log it into a collection that allows you to see all your dvds at a glance. You can filter any way you want (I do it by most recently bought) and you can search using either a simple or complex search system. It is just an app to store dvd information like the cover and not a chance to view the actual film. This is obvious to many but may not be to some who will see this as a disappointment.
The one major downside is how you can share this collection with your friends. It’s not the easiest thing to do and involves URLs and other things that are not necessary. It does have a feature that allows you to ‘book out’ your films and enter the details of who has what.
A lot of people will think why bother? Netflix, amazon prime or Now TV (streaming services available in the UK) provide me with my viewing needs and for the most part yes, they do but do they offer, correct at the time of writing, the James Bond franchise? 24? The office (US)? All of these have licencing issues that DVDs don’t. This is a bigger issue than this app and ever so slightly off point but the app does allow people with big collections to have quick and easy access on the go to what they have.
This app is a lifesaver. Having this amount in a collection can make you wonder when you get more whether you have it or not. I do have duplicates in my collection but purposefully so because of collectors editions or the like. This app allows you to scan the barcode and log it into a collection that allows you to see all your dvds at a glance. You can filter any way you want (I do it by most recently bought) and you can search using either a simple or complex search system. It is just an app to store dvd information like the cover and not a chance to view the actual film. This is obvious to many but may not be to some who will see this as a disappointment.
The one major downside is how you can share this collection with your friends. It’s not the easiest thing to do and involves URLs and other things that are not necessary. It does have a feature that allows you to ‘book out’ your films and enter the details of who has what.
A lot of people will think why bother? Netflix, amazon prime or Now TV (streaming services available in the UK) provide me with my viewing needs and for the most part yes, they do but do they offer, correct at the time of writing, the James Bond franchise? 24? The office (US)? All of these have licencing issues that DVDs don’t. This is a bigger issue than this app and ever so slightly off point but the app does allow people with big collections to have quick and easy access on the go to what they have.