Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Dead Don't Die (2019) in Movies
Oct 29, 2019
The Acting Wasn't My Issue
On paper, you look at the cast of The Dead Don’t Die and you think, “This has gotta be a hit!” Adam Driver. The great Bill Murray. Tilda Swinton. Count me in. Sadly, I was extremely disappointed in the finished product. The film centers around what happens when a zombie outbreak hits a sleepy town.
Acting: 10
Just because I didn’t enjoy the film doesn’t mean it didn’t harbor strong performances from the cast. The aforementioned names above were all phenomenal in their respective roles. When the setting is “quiet town”, sometimes actors have a tendency to go overboard with their bumpkin pretenses, but this crew play to their parts perfectly. They made the movie somewhat bearable.
Beginning: 1
The movie really takes awhile to build up. I kept waiting for the engine to turn over, but I was left in a cold car for at least the first twenty minutes. Here’s the thing: I don’t hate slow starts if they serve a greater purpose. I’ll use a direct example from the same genre: Shaun of the Dead takes a bit to get going, but you can feel it actually building to something. Every few minutes you’re getting hints to the things happening around Shaun and his friend and you know it’s only a matter of time before they realize shit has hit the fan. With The Dead Don’t Die, the beginning feels more like a slow lull that doesn’t exactly get you excited to watch the rest of the movie.
Characters: 10
Not only were each of the characters hilarious, but I love how they surprised me by breaking the fourth wall. They made you feel like you were somehow in on the joke. Officer Mindy Morrison (Chloe Sevigny) was one of my favorites. It was hilarious watching how she handled certain situations, particularly when we finally know it’s zombies. Her and Ronnie Peterson (Adam Driver) onscreen definitely gave me a couple laughs.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 9
You can always expect some semblance of a good time when zombies are involved. After a slow start, the action picks up enough to at least keep things interesting. There were a number of cool action sequences that I thoroughly enjoyed. I wish it was enough to save the movie as a whole.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 6
One of the areas where the movie fell short for me. I don’t know quite how to explain it except to say there wasn’t enough meat in it for me. It’s been a few weeks since I last saw the film and, even now, I’m struggling to remember anything substantial. For me, it doesn’t come off as a complete film.
Pace: 5
Plot: 1
Resolution: 1
Overall: 63
Much like a lot of movies that fall into this range, I really wanted to like The Dead Don’t Die more. Had it tweaked a few areas and punched up the script with more laughs, I think we would be looking at a hit. Oh well. Can’t win ‘em all.
Acting: 10
Just because I didn’t enjoy the film doesn’t mean it didn’t harbor strong performances from the cast. The aforementioned names above were all phenomenal in their respective roles. When the setting is “quiet town”, sometimes actors have a tendency to go overboard with their bumpkin pretenses, but this crew play to their parts perfectly. They made the movie somewhat bearable.
Beginning: 1
The movie really takes awhile to build up. I kept waiting for the engine to turn over, but I was left in a cold car for at least the first twenty minutes. Here’s the thing: I don’t hate slow starts if they serve a greater purpose. I’ll use a direct example from the same genre: Shaun of the Dead takes a bit to get going, but you can feel it actually building to something. Every few minutes you’re getting hints to the things happening around Shaun and his friend and you know it’s only a matter of time before they realize shit has hit the fan. With The Dead Don’t Die, the beginning feels more like a slow lull that doesn’t exactly get you excited to watch the rest of the movie.
Characters: 10
Not only were each of the characters hilarious, but I love how they surprised me by breaking the fourth wall. They made you feel like you were somehow in on the joke. Officer Mindy Morrison (Chloe Sevigny) was one of my favorites. It was hilarious watching how she handled certain situations, particularly when we finally know it’s zombies. Her and Ronnie Peterson (Adam Driver) onscreen definitely gave me a couple laughs.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 9
You can always expect some semblance of a good time when zombies are involved. After a slow start, the action picks up enough to at least keep things interesting. There were a number of cool action sequences that I thoroughly enjoyed. I wish it was enough to save the movie as a whole.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 6
One of the areas where the movie fell short for me. I don’t know quite how to explain it except to say there wasn’t enough meat in it for me. It’s been a few weeks since I last saw the film and, even now, I’m struggling to remember anything substantial. For me, it doesn’t come off as a complete film.
Pace: 5
Plot: 1
Resolution: 1
Overall: 63
Much like a lot of movies that fall into this range, I really wanted to like The Dead Don’t Die more. Had it tweaked a few areas and punched up the script with more laughs, I think we would be looking at a hit. Oh well. Can’t win ‘em all.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Harriet (2019) in Movies
Nov 4, 2019
Collapses under the weight of it's own earnestness
The filmmakers behind the true story of HARRIET, the film based on the remarkable actions of Harriet Tubman (the former slave who helped free others slaves via the Underground Railroad) were surprised to find that there had been no accurate film portrayal of this remarkable woman, so they set out to make one.
And the result, was a film that is very deep in accuracy and very slight everywhere else.
Starring Cynthia Erivo (WIDOWS), HARRIET tells the tale of Harriet Tubman from her time as a slave, through her escape to freedom and her return (many, many times) via the "Underground Railroad" to free many other slaves. Her story is astonishing, filled with heroes, villains, visions, successes and failures and should have lent itself to a film befitting of the great heights this woman achieved.
Unfortunately, Writer Director Kasi Lemmons (EVE'S BAYOU) spends a great deal of the film showing the actual, accurate events of Tubman's tale, so much so that it suffers one of the most deadly of sins in filmdom - it drags into boredom under the weight of it's own earnestness. Lemmons, obviously, has great respect for Tubman and shows her in a reverential light throughout this film, showing few (if any) warts and giving us a one-note character that is laser-focused on her purpose, and not much else. While this might have been true-to-life, it does not lend itself to an interesting film.
The same goes for the lead performance from Erivo. I have liked her previous work in films like WIDOWS and BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE, so was excited to see her take the lead in an important film like this. But...her portrayal is one-note and slight and does not plumb the depths of a character that I am sure has many, many more layers than is portrayed on this screen.
The supporting cast (including Leslie Odom, Jr, Vondie Curtis-Hall and Clarke Peters) are also earnest and slight and don't really add anything to the proceedings. Only Janelle Monae, as a fictional free black woman who becomes a mentor of sorts to Tubman, seems to rise above this weak script.
Usually, in films about slavery, the evil (or conflicted) slave owners have a tendency to shine out because of their wickedness (or their confliction) - but in this film, and with this script, Joe Alwyn as Gideon Brodess (the fictional owner of Tubman who is obsessed with bringing her back to slavery) and Jennifer Nettles (as his mother) are...you guessed it...slight and underwritten and don't really bring anything to the proceedings.
What this film did do - and did do well - was make me want to find out more about this hero...and that is a good thing. So, if that is all this film does, then I applaud the attempt, I just wished it would have landed as a film in a much stronger way.
Letter Grade B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And the result, was a film that is very deep in accuracy and very slight everywhere else.
Starring Cynthia Erivo (WIDOWS), HARRIET tells the tale of Harriet Tubman from her time as a slave, through her escape to freedom and her return (many, many times) via the "Underground Railroad" to free many other slaves. Her story is astonishing, filled with heroes, villains, visions, successes and failures and should have lent itself to a film befitting of the great heights this woman achieved.
Unfortunately, Writer Director Kasi Lemmons (EVE'S BAYOU) spends a great deal of the film showing the actual, accurate events of Tubman's tale, so much so that it suffers one of the most deadly of sins in filmdom - it drags into boredom under the weight of it's own earnestness. Lemmons, obviously, has great respect for Tubman and shows her in a reverential light throughout this film, showing few (if any) warts and giving us a one-note character that is laser-focused on her purpose, and not much else. While this might have been true-to-life, it does not lend itself to an interesting film.
The same goes for the lead performance from Erivo. I have liked her previous work in films like WIDOWS and BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE, so was excited to see her take the lead in an important film like this. But...her portrayal is one-note and slight and does not plumb the depths of a character that I am sure has many, many more layers than is portrayed on this screen.
The supporting cast (including Leslie Odom, Jr, Vondie Curtis-Hall and Clarke Peters) are also earnest and slight and don't really add anything to the proceedings. Only Janelle Monae, as a fictional free black woman who becomes a mentor of sorts to Tubman, seems to rise above this weak script.
Usually, in films about slavery, the evil (or conflicted) slave owners have a tendency to shine out because of their wickedness (or their confliction) - but in this film, and with this script, Joe Alwyn as Gideon Brodess (the fictional owner of Tubman who is obsessed with bringing her back to slavery) and Jennifer Nettles (as his mother) are...you guessed it...slight and underwritten and don't really bring anything to the proceedings.
What this film did do - and did do well - was make me want to find out more about this hero...and that is a good thing. So, if that is all this film does, then I applaud the attempt, I just wished it would have landed as a film in a much stronger way.
Letter Grade B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Magicians' Guild (Black Magician Trilogy, #1) in Books
Nov 20, 2019
Trudi Canavan has been on my 'to read' list for a long time (far too long really). I finally found the time to read The Magicians' Guild - book one of the Black Magician trilogy.
The story revolves around Sonea, a girl living amongst the poor and near-poor of Imardin. The city is home to the titular guild, where the greatest magicians in the world learn and teach.
Those showing magical talent only come from the ruling classes. But Sonea has magical talent so the guild need to either break tradition and train her or block her powers as unless she is trained they will unleash themselves and kill her. The problem is that Sonea (along with the rest of the less privileged city dwellers) distrusts and fears the guild.
The book is in two parts - the first involves Sonea hiding from the guild and their attempts to find her. This is quite a clever strategy from a story telling point of view since the world and characters can be gradually introduced. We meet Sonea and her friends, and also the Thieves that control the slums. On the magicians' side we find some are sympathetic towards Sonea while others are outraged at the thought of training a slum girl - some for more personal reasons than others.
The second half involves Sonea's initial training at the guild. I do try not to give away major plot direction in these reviews, but I don't think it's much of a spoiler that she does end up in the guild, given the name of the book. In this part we find out more about magic and the guild, plus the plot that forms the core of this book moves forward and is resolved in a satisfactory - and dramatic - style.
Canavan's writing is focused firmly on character, although the world around them is fully realised, with the slums suitably dingy and grubby and the guild grand and opulent. The characters are allowed to develop through the pages. I found the start a little slow going, but I think that was mostly because the previous book I read was for more action based. There is also very little dramatic tension about Sonea ending up in the guild, but I don't think that is the purpose of the first half of the book anyway.
This story is clearly there to set up the characters for the trilogy as a whole - and as the plot progresses Sonea discovers some things that are clearly going to be important in her future. The way the ending is left is therefore very finely balanced between the resolution of the main plot and leaving the threads for the next book, and Canavan is spot on in delivering this.
Overall I really liked this book and will read the other installments as time allows without hesitation. If you are looking for some brutal anti-hero cutting a swathe of destruction through his enemies this is not the book for you. If you want some careful characterisation and a personality driven and human-scale plot, pick up this book. It is also refreshing to have a female main protagonist in the traditionally macho world of fantasy. Recommended.
The story revolves around Sonea, a girl living amongst the poor and near-poor of Imardin. The city is home to the titular guild, where the greatest magicians in the world learn and teach.
Those showing magical talent only come from the ruling classes. But Sonea has magical talent so the guild need to either break tradition and train her or block her powers as unless she is trained they will unleash themselves and kill her. The problem is that Sonea (along with the rest of the less privileged city dwellers) distrusts and fears the guild.
The book is in two parts - the first involves Sonea hiding from the guild and their attempts to find her. This is quite a clever strategy from a story telling point of view since the world and characters can be gradually introduced. We meet Sonea and her friends, and also the Thieves that control the slums. On the magicians' side we find some are sympathetic towards Sonea while others are outraged at the thought of training a slum girl - some for more personal reasons than others.
The second half involves Sonea's initial training at the guild. I do try not to give away major plot direction in these reviews, but I don't think it's much of a spoiler that she does end up in the guild, given the name of the book. In this part we find out more about magic and the guild, plus the plot that forms the core of this book moves forward and is resolved in a satisfactory - and dramatic - style.
Canavan's writing is focused firmly on character, although the world around them is fully realised, with the slums suitably dingy and grubby and the guild grand and opulent. The characters are allowed to develop through the pages. I found the start a little slow going, but I think that was mostly because the previous book I read was for more action based. There is also very little dramatic tension about Sonea ending up in the guild, but I don't think that is the purpose of the first half of the book anyway.
This story is clearly there to set up the characters for the trilogy as a whole - and as the plot progresses Sonea discovers some things that are clearly going to be important in her future. The way the ending is left is therefore very finely balanced between the resolution of the main plot and leaving the threads for the next book, and Canavan is spot on in delivering this.
Overall I really liked this book and will read the other installments as time allows without hesitation. If you are looking for some brutal anti-hero cutting a swathe of destruction through his enemies this is not the book for you. If you want some careful characterisation and a personality driven and human-scale plot, pick up this book. It is also refreshing to have a female main protagonist in the traditionally macho world of fantasy. Recommended.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? There is always a purpose and a message the film-maker’s have manufactured and edited to suit themselves, I find. They often leave you with more questions than answers. The best ones are open to interpretation enough to allow you in; allowing the source material to speak for itself. The worst ones rely on talking heads too much and can feel very manipulative.
Jim and Andy: The Great Beyond, is fortunately much more of the former than the latter. However, two days after watching this mind-blowing exposé of how Jim Carrey behaved on set of the excellent Man On The Moon, playing genius / lunatic Andy Kaufman, I am still left pondering what to think of it all. Is Carrey an ego maniac who belongs in a straight-jacket, or is he a hippie genius, dedicated to his art, who would do anything to achieve a perfect performance?
It focuses on a fully bearded Carrey reliving his memories of 20 years ago. Reinforced by a plethora of behind the scenes footage, which at turns is hilarious, shocking, confusing and revealing, in uncomfortable and fascinating ways. The premise is that at the time of being cast Kaufman’s spirit inhabited Carrey, allowing him to channel the actual man, and BE him, rather than merely play him!
Whatever your thoughts on method acting, and how indulgent that can be, it is always astonishing to see just how far he went! And why everyone else allowed him to get away with it? Director Milos Forman is forced to cope with never talking to “Jim”, only to “Andy”, and seems often at the point of break-down. Fellow cast members seem to deal with it in different ways too. Danny DeVito seems in awe; Courtney Love seems to embrace it; Paul Giamatti seems very uncomfortable. But the whole show goes ahead with Carrey as king. Simply extraordinary!
The thing is, both 1999 Jim and 2017 Jim never seem entirely insane, but rather totally in control and eloquent. It seems as if every “crazy” thing he did was a choice, conscious or unconscious, that as an actor he was happy to be part of; as if the performance was all that mattered. There have always been mental health questions about Carrey, and this throws a bright spotlight on his technique, personality and self-awareness. At some point you just have to say “wow” and to a degree applaud it.
Your enjoyment of it hinges on how much of a Carrey fan you are? If you have never liked or got him as a performer then you will be screaming at the screen in consternation. If you love his work then this is indespesible viewing! Either way, there is something wondrous about it! Just consider, Carrey won a Golden Globe for this role, and remains the only person ever to do so not to be Oscar nominated…
There is also a suggestion the whole thing is a joke, in typical Kaufman style, using the footage to create a trick on the audience… Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? You decide.
Jim and Andy: The Great Beyond, is fortunately much more of the former than the latter. However, two days after watching this mind-blowing exposé of how Jim Carrey behaved on set of the excellent Man On The Moon, playing genius / lunatic Andy Kaufman, I am still left pondering what to think of it all. Is Carrey an ego maniac who belongs in a straight-jacket, or is he a hippie genius, dedicated to his art, who would do anything to achieve a perfect performance?
It focuses on a fully bearded Carrey reliving his memories of 20 years ago. Reinforced by a plethora of behind the scenes footage, which at turns is hilarious, shocking, confusing and revealing, in uncomfortable and fascinating ways. The premise is that at the time of being cast Kaufman’s spirit inhabited Carrey, allowing him to channel the actual man, and BE him, rather than merely play him!
Whatever your thoughts on method acting, and how indulgent that can be, it is always astonishing to see just how far he went! And why everyone else allowed him to get away with it? Director Milos Forman is forced to cope with never talking to “Jim”, only to “Andy”, and seems often at the point of break-down. Fellow cast members seem to deal with it in different ways too. Danny DeVito seems in awe; Courtney Love seems to embrace it; Paul Giamatti seems very uncomfortable. But the whole show goes ahead with Carrey as king. Simply extraordinary!
The thing is, both 1999 Jim and 2017 Jim never seem entirely insane, but rather totally in control and eloquent. It seems as if every “crazy” thing he did was a choice, conscious or unconscious, that as an actor he was happy to be part of; as if the performance was all that mattered. There have always been mental health questions about Carrey, and this throws a bright spotlight on his technique, personality and self-awareness. At some point you just have to say “wow” and to a degree applaud it.
Your enjoyment of it hinges on how much of a Carrey fan you are? If you have never liked or got him as a performer then you will be screaming at the screen in consternation. If you love his work then this is indespesible viewing! Either way, there is something wondrous about it! Just consider, Carrey won a Golden Globe for this role, and remains the only person ever to do so not to be Oscar nominated…
There is also a suggestion the whole thing is a joke, in typical Kaufman style, using the footage to create a trick on the audience… Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? You decide.
China Shopping
Shopping and Business
App
Do you like to do shopping on Aliexpress, Ebay or Alibaba? But there are a lot of great online shops...
Airbus A320 Memory Items Trainer
Education and Productivity
App
**This app requires subscription, available as an in app purchase, to gain full access to the...
ICU Pearls Critical Care tips for doctors, nurses
Medical and Reference
App
Previously Featured as What's Hot in multiple countries including Columbia, Israel, New Zealand, S....
Building Telephony Systems with Opensips
Flavio E. Goncalves and Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
Book
Build high-speed and highly scalable telephony systems using OpenSIPS About This Book * Install and...
PI
Play in Early Childhood Education: Learning in Diverse Contexts
Marjory Ebbeck and Manjula Waniganayake
Book
The topic of play is fundamental to understanding how children grow and learn. Play in Early...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Snake Eyes: G.I. Joe Origins (2021) in Movies
Jul 22, 2021
The latest film in the G.I. Joe cinematic universe has arrived with “Snake Eyes: GI Joe Origins”. The film was originally planned to arrive in March of 2020 but faced delays due to cinematic closures during the Pandemic.
The film opens with a young boy being orphaned after a group of thugs kills his father. Years later the man is still obsessed with finding out who killed his father and earns a living in underground fighting known as Snake Eyes (Henry Golding)
His exploits get the attention of Kenta (Takehiro Hira); who hires him into his organization with a promise to help him find the man who killed his father.
Snake Eyes soon finds himself working on the docks where he smuggles guns into fish bound for Japan. Despite his misgivings working for criminals, he befriends a man named Tommy (Andrew Koji); who teases him about his demeaning work by calling him “Fish Boy”.
When Kenta forces Snake Eyes to kill Tommy for being a spy; Snake Eyes refuses and the two make a daring escape to Japan. It is learned that Tommy is next in line to run his clan and that Kenta was banished years prior and plans revenge.
Despite mistrust from a trusted associate named Akiko (Hakura Abe); Snake Eyes begins his training in the Ninja Arts which should he survive will make him a valued part of the Clan which Tommy believes is correct thanks to his Blood Debt to Snake Eyes.
The film focuses on various aspects of training before branching into the larger story of divided loyalties and honors which results in a few battles and chases along the way.
While the film does space the action out; it does provide some great cinematography and the action is entertaining even if it lacks much tension.
The biggest issue is that the G.I. Joe/COBRA connection seems a bit forced as The Baroness (Ursula Corbero) arrives to move things along but it is mainly for the purpose of getting characters to do this and get that so the film can move towards the climactic action.
Samara Weaving does show up as Scarlett but she does not have a very large part in the story and aside from a few limited action moments; she seems to be more of the token G.I.Joe representation.
Golding and Hira are very good and their intertwined and complicated relationship is giving plenty of time to develop as their past is a large part of their futures and the film does a good job in explaining their past and future motivations.
The film blends Asian and Western film styles and in doing so creates an enjoyable film that for me was more enjoyable than the prior films in the series. To me those films focused mainly on action and this one was focused on developing characters.
While it remains to be seen what direction future films in the franchise will take; it would be interesting to see more of Snake Eyes story down the line.
3 stars out of 5
The film opens with a young boy being orphaned after a group of thugs kills his father. Years later the man is still obsessed with finding out who killed his father and earns a living in underground fighting known as Snake Eyes (Henry Golding)
His exploits get the attention of Kenta (Takehiro Hira); who hires him into his organization with a promise to help him find the man who killed his father.
Snake Eyes soon finds himself working on the docks where he smuggles guns into fish bound for Japan. Despite his misgivings working for criminals, he befriends a man named Tommy (Andrew Koji); who teases him about his demeaning work by calling him “Fish Boy”.
When Kenta forces Snake Eyes to kill Tommy for being a spy; Snake Eyes refuses and the two make a daring escape to Japan. It is learned that Tommy is next in line to run his clan and that Kenta was banished years prior and plans revenge.
Despite mistrust from a trusted associate named Akiko (Hakura Abe); Snake Eyes begins his training in the Ninja Arts which should he survive will make him a valued part of the Clan which Tommy believes is correct thanks to his Blood Debt to Snake Eyes.
The film focuses on various aspects of training before branching into the larger story of divided loyalties and honors which results in a few battles and chases along the way.
While the film does space the action out; it does provide some great cinematography and the action is entertaining even if it lacks much tension.
The biggest issue is that the G.I. Joe/COBRA connection seems a bit forced as The Baroness (Ursula Corbero) arrives to move things along but it is mainly for the purpose of getting characters to do this and get that so the film can move towards the climactic action.
Samara Weaving does show up as Scarlett but she does not have a very large part in the story and aside from a few limited action moments; she seems to be more of the token G.I.Joe representation.
Golding and Hira are very good and their intertwined and complicated relationship is giving plenty of time to develop as their past is a large part of their futures and the film does a good job in explaining their past and future motivations.
The film blends Asian and Western film styles and in doing so creates an enjoyable film that for me was more enjoyable than the prior films in the series. To me those films focused mainly on action and this one was focused on developing characters.
While it remains to be seen what direction future films in the franchise will take; it would be interesting to see more of Snake Eyes story down the line.
3 stars out of 5