Search
Search results
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Spectre (2015) in Movies
Jul 20, 2017
Well written (1 more)
Good direction
Mr Hinx (1 more)
Not enough Cristoph Waltz
As good as the last?
Contains spoilers, click to show
When Casino Royale released in 2006, it was to be a soft reboot of the franchise that showed viewers the events of Bond’s first mission and it strived to rectify some of the silly gadgets etc that were being over-used with Brosnan’s Bond. In my opinion, Casino Royale was a great film, it just wasn’t a Bond film. It done away with all of the silly gimmicks and cheesy one liners and was an introduction to a more grounded version of the iconic character, which made for a great spy thriller but not a great Bond movie. Then Quantum of Solace came out and literally nobody cared, not many people went to see it, it didn’t make much money at the box office and to this day I’ve still not seen that whole movie from start to finish and to be honest, I’m perfectly okay with that. Skyfall was the third Craig Bond movie to be released and it was a triumph. Finally Craig felt like he was actually playing Bond and not just some random hard ass military spy. It even flirted with the idea of gadgets, had a flamboyant supervillain and introduced a young, fresh faced Q, which was a nice touch. The movie ended with Silva killing Judi Dench’s M and Bond killing Silva, Ralph Fiennes was then appointed with the title of M and Naomi Harris was revealed to be the new Moneypenny. So with the last movie pleasing both long time Bond fans and newcomers alike, SPECTRE had a lot to live up to.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated the PC version of Mortal Shell in Video Games
Oct 8, 2020
Beautiful Scenery (1 more)
Hardening Skill can save you when you screw up
Back in 2009 Demon’s Soul, a PlayStation 3 exclusive, made its way into the hands of players around the world. The game was punishingly difficult, and was revered for its no handholding, brutally steep learning curve. A game that harkened back to the days of old, when video games were more about a player spending hour upon hour of mastering its nuances then relying on a never-ending supply of save games. This game, and the even more popular successor Dark Souls, gave way to its own genre defining style, the “souls-like” game. Since those genre defining years, several companies have tried to take inspiration from the originals and craft them into their own unique experiences. Whether that be futuristic takes such as Surge 2, or sticking to a familiar fantasy setting, with mixed results. Enter the latest in this genre, a game developed by the fine folks at Cold Symetry, released on Windows, Xbox and PlayStation.
Mortal Shell is an “souls-like” action role playing game, where you are a creature whose unique ability is to inhabit the bodies of fallen warriors scattered across the realm of Fallgrim. Much like its inspiration, Fallgrim is a land that is bleak and unforgiving. Whether you are traipsing across murky swamps, filled with bear tramps and poisonous frogs, snowy fields or fiery plains, there are always an unending supply of enemies that you must contend with. Each “shell” you inhabit offers up a distinct playstyle and upgrade tree that should appeal to every unique player.
The first shell you inhabit, is what I refer to as the Jack-of-All trades shell, Harros. Harros is a traditional knight like character that has a balance of health, stamina, and resolve (the statistic that allows you to use your special upgrades applied to your weapon of choice). As you progress through the story, you will come across three other shells for you to inhabit, that you can switch between as you wish. This allows you to vary your play style between Eredrim, a tank-architype with lots of health but low stamina, Tiel, the acolyte with less health but is more agile and able to dodge and roll out of the way, or Solomon, who has the most resolve. Each character upgrade requires Tar (the gold of Fallgrim) and Glimpses. These are acquired by defeating enemies, and through gathering various plants throughout your journey.
In addition to the four shells, there are also four upgradable weapons that can be found along your journey. You begin with the Hollow Sword but will come across others to aid you on your quest. There is the Hammer and Chisel, a dual wield, fast attack, but lower damage weapon. The Martyr’s Blade, a heavy two-handed sword that does massive damage but is slow to attack. Lastly, The Smoldering Mace. All of these can be upgrades with special attacks that are initiated by your characters resolve, that can do an incredible amount of damage when initiated.
Combat occurs by locking onto your opponent and then utilizing fast and heavy attacks to defeat them. Experimenting with executing fast and heavy in specific sequences will result in numerous combos that do additional damage and stagger your foes. Mortal Shells unique blocking ability is what the game refers to as Hardening. Hardening, does exactly as the name suggests, turning yourself into stone and blocking most incoming attacks. It can be initiated at practically any time, even during the middle of your attack, allowing you to brush off an incoming attack and finish up with an epic strike. Learning the best time and place to use your hardening skill, is the key to overcoming your most difficult opponents, and ultimately slaying them in the process. There is also a parry aspect, which you obtain at the beginning of your quest, that allows you to parry incoming blows, and respond with devastating effect. Be aware that not all attacks can be parried, and your Tarnished Seal Emblem (which enables your skill) will glow red to warn you of this.
During combat, if your health reaches zero, you will be pushed out of your shell (which reminded me of playing a mech game where your mech is destroyed and you are automatically ejected). You are given the chance to climb back into your shell, but if you are hit while outside of your shell you will almost always die quickly. If your health reaches zero again, you die and you return back to Sester Genessa, a shadowy figure who acts like a bonfire from the souls’ games. As with the games before it, dying forces you to drop your tar and re-spawns all enemies that you have killed previously. Returning to your body allows you to retrieve your tar and restores all your health.
One of the more interesting aspects of the game is in the use of items you discover during your adventure. Most items effects will be unknown until you use the item, which forces you to experiment with everything you find. As you use the item more frequently you become more familiar with the item, and as that familiarity grows, the effects grow as well. Some will damage you in the beginning, only to benefit you as you grow more familiar with them, others you will utilize at the wrong time, and not benefit from the effect, but you will still learn from the experience. In this way Mortal Shell rewards you for experimentation, and forces those who like to hoard their findings for “when the right time arrives to use it” to utilize it and learn from it.
Much like the Souls-like games that inspired it, Mortal Shell could almost be mistaken for one of the games it garnered inspiration from. The setting, the characters, even the fonts used, could easily have been taken directly from a Dark Souls game. You’d be forgiven if someone came up to you and asked you which of the Dark Souls games you are playing. That’s not to say that Mortal Shell doesn’t distinguish itself in other ways, but on the surface, it would be easy to mistake it for another clone. The sound design, the graphic design, is all very well done, so at least the inspiration is put to good use in Mortal Shell
While Mortal Shell generally plays fast and well, there are a couple of instances where death seemed to come due to little I had control over. There are various cut scenes where you are crawling through tunnels, and you come out on the other side. Occasionally your character will be attacked immediately follow the cut scene, which gives you little time to react. There are ways to time your crawl, as to not emerge immediately into a group of baddies, but nothing frustrated me more, when I came across these areas. The difficulty and learning curve are about as difficult as one would expect from such a game.
If you are a fan of Dark Souls or Souls-like games, there is a lot to like in Mortal Shell. Most of the gameplay and style will feel immediately familiar, and there is just enough uniqueness in the game to satisfy veterans of the soul’s type games. If you have been put off by the difficulty of souls-like games in the past, Mortal Shell doesn’t differ enough from the formula to likely change your mind. While it’s not as long as the games that inspire it, it’s hard to beat the price ($29.99 on the Epic Store), and it’s refreshing enough to act as a place holder until the Demon’s Soul remake becomes available
What I liked: Beautiful Scenery, Hardening Skill can save you when you screw up
What I liked less: No real direction on where to start
Mortal Shell is an “souls-like” action role playing game, where you are a creature whose unique ability is to inhabit the bodies of fallen warriors scattered across the realm of Fallgrim. Much like its inspiration, Fallgrim is a land that is bleak and unforgiving. Whether you are traipsing across murky swamps, filled with bear tramps and poisonous frogs, snowy fields or fiery plains, there are always an unending supply of enemies that you must contend with. Each “shell” you inhabit offers up a distinct playstyle and upgrade tree that should appeal to every unique player.
The first shell you inhabit, is what I refer to as the Jack-of-All trades shell, Harros. Harros is a traditional knight like character that has a balance of health, stamina, and resolve (the statistic that allows you to use your special upgrades applied to your weapon of choice). As you progress through the story, you will come across three other shells for you to inhabit, that you can switch between as you wish. This allows you to vary your play style between Eredrim, a tank-architype with lots of health but low stamina, Tiel, the acolyte with less health but is more agile and able to dodge and roll out of the way, or Solomon, who has the most resolve. Each character upgrade requires Tar (the gold of Fallgrim) and Glimpses. These are acquired by defeating enemies, and through gathering various plants throughout your journey.
In addition to the four shells, there are also four upgradable weapons that can be found along your journey. You begin with the Hollow Sword but will come across others to aid you on your quest. There is the Hammer and Chisel, a dual wield, fast attack, but lower damage weapon. The Martyr’s Blade, a heavy two-handed sword that does massive damage but is slow to attack. Lastly, The Smoldering Mace. All of these can be upgrades with special attacks that are initiated by your characters resolve, that can do an incredible amount of damage when initiated.
Combat occurs by locking onto your opponent and then utilizing fast and heavy attacks to defeat them. Experimenting with executing fast and heavy in specific sequences will result in numerous combos that do additional damage and stagger your foes. Mortal Shells unique blocking ability is what the game refers to as Hardening. Hardening, does exactly as the name suggests, turning yourself into stone and blocking most incoming attacks. It can be initiated at practically any time, even during the middle of your attack, allowing you to brush off an incoming attack and finish up with an epic strike. Learning the best time and place to use your hardening skill, is the key to overcoming your most difficult opponents, and ultimately slaying them in the process. There is also a parry aspect, which you obtain at the beginning of your quest, that allows you to parry incoming blows, and respond with devastating effect. Be aware that not all attacks can be parried, and your Tarnished Seal Emblem (which enables your skill) will glow red to warn you of this.
During combat, if your health reaches zero, you will be pushed out of your shell (which reminded me of playing a mech game where your mech is destroyed and you are automatically ejected). You are given the chance to climb back into your shell, but if you are hit while outside of your shell you will almost always die quickly. If your health reaches zero again, you die and you return back to Sester Genessa, a shadowy figure who acts like a bonfire from the souls’ games. As with the games before it, dying forces you to drop your tar and re-spawns all enemies that you have killed previously. Returning to your body allows you to retrieve your tar and restores all your health.
One of the more interesting aspects of the game is in the use of items you discover during your adventure. Most items effects will be unknown until you use the item, which forces you to experiment with everything you find. As you use the item more frequently you become more familiar with the item, and as that familiarity grows, the effects grow as well. Some will damage you in the beginning, only to benefit you as you grow more familiar with them, others you will utilize at the wrong time, and not benefit from the effect, but you will still learn from the experience. In this way Mortal Shell rewards you for experimentation, and forces those who like to hoard their findings for “when the right time arrives to use it” to utilize it and learn from it.
Much like the Souls-like games that inspired it, Mortal Shell could almost be mistaken for one of the games it garnered inspiration from. The setting, the characters, even the fonts used, could easily have been taken directly from a Dark Souls game. You’d be forgiven if someone came up to you and asked you which of the Dark Souls games you are playing. That’s not to say that Mortal Shell doesn’t distinguish itself in other ways, but on the surface, it would be easy to mistake it for another clone. The sound design, the graphic design, is all very well done, so at least the inspiration is put to good use in Mortal Shell
While Mortal Shell generally plays fast and well, there are a couple of instances where death seemed to come due to little I had control over. There are various cut scenes where you are crawling through tunnels, and you come out on the other side. Occasionally your character will be attacked immediately follow the cut scene, which gives you little time to react. There are ways to time your crawl, as to not emerge immediately into a group of baddies, but nothing frustrated me more, when I came across these areas. The difficulty and learning curve are about as difficult as one would expect from such a game.
If you are a fan of Dark Souls or Souls-like games, there is a lot to like in Mortal Shell. Most of the gameplay and style will feel immediately familiar, and there is just enough uniqueness in the game to satisfy veterans of the soul’s type games. If you have been put off by the difficulty of souls-like games in the past, Mortal Shell doesn’t differ enough from the formula to likely change your mind. While it’s not as long as the games that inspire it, it’s hard to beat the price ($29.99 on the Epic Store), and it’s refreshing enough to act as a place holder until the Demon’s Soul remake becomes available
What I liked: Beautiful Scenery, Hardening Skill can save you when you screw up
What I liked less: No real direction on where to start
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
After putting in plenty of years and two prior movies spent protecting the President, Secret Service member Mike Banning is up for promotion. In Angel Has Fallen, the third installment of the Fallen franchise, Banning has been personally hand-picked by President Allan Trumbull to take over as the new Secret Service Director. Trumbull tells him the good news directly during a getaway fishing trip, but then things quickly turn bad when a drone attack attempts to assassinate the President. Banning is able to successfully save himself and the President, but the attack kills all the rest of the Secret Service members on site and the aftermath leaves Trumbull in a coma. Planted DNA evidence linking Banning to an involvement in the attack leads to his arrest, and with the President unconscious, he has no other witness to clear his name. Banning’s obviously been framed and set-up and will have to escape from authorities to find out who is responsible, and to also protect the President from any further attempts on his life.
Directed by Ric Roman Waugh, Angel Has Fallen is a film that starts off pretty well, yet I feel that the whole narrative of Banning being so easily framed is pretty hard to believe, especially given that he’s been the hero of two films already. It’s the driving force of the film’s story and yet it seems highly questionable to me that the intelligence committee would be so quick to blame it all on Banning considering his reputable history. Naturally any attack on the President is taken very seriously, but the FBI is extremely quick to condemn the man that just saved his life. I think it’s the weakest part of the story, although story is not an area this film ever really excels at. I would even say that most of its attempts at being smart usually fall flat. Regardless, this is the kind of movie that would be best enjoyed if you didn’t take it too seriously. It’s in many ways a throwback to the macho action movies of yesteryear, and that’s where it makes up for its shortcomings.
As the first film I’ve seen in this series, I admittedly had low expectations for it. If not for my dad wanting to see it, I probably would have skipped it entirely, but in truth it turned out to be better than I had anticipated. It’s also been the number one movie at the box office for two weeks running, so what do I know? I must confess that ever since seeing Den of Thieves last year, I’ve instantly become a huge fan of Gerard Butler, whose filmography I’ve largely overlooked. I love his energy, his over-the-top acting and his tough guy persona. He’s a great fit here in Angel Has Fallen as Banning and is enjoyable to watch, even if at times it can be a little hard to believe that he’s somehow always the smartest guy in the room.
The rest of the cast in the movie is respectful as well. Morgan Freeman is a comfortable choice as President Trumbull, and he truly makes me long for a time when we had a sane and competent President. It’s a rather reserved role for Freeman, as he spends most of the runtime in a coma. Still, he’s a graceful and welcome presence who has at least a couple moments to shine. Jada Pinkett Smith has the unfortunate role of playing the FBI agent who orders Banning’s arrest, and I wish she had a bit more to work with. Nick Nolte plays Banning’s estranged father Clay, a paranoid war veteran living off the grid, and he’s one of the highlights of the film. I enjoyed his character’s relationship with Banning, and he and Butler play off each other well. Danny Huston also gives a worthwhile performance as Banning’s former military companion Wade Jennings.
Despite having the appearance of a run-of-the-mill, rescue-the-President type of action movie, the action is actually for the most part quite admirable. Right from the get-go, it makes an impressive statement with its tense and exciting introductory scene which feels reminiscent of tactical military-style video games. The movie is heavy on explosions, shootouts, and hand-to-hand combat, and its action is generally fun. There’s also an impressive final stand-off that’s surprisingly well-planned and executed. It’s in moments like this where the movie demonstrates its intelligence and expertise. If not for these strong action sequences, I feel the movie as a whole would have suffered tremendously, but it rightfully delivers on what we came to see. Of course, not all of the action is stellar, and there’s a clunker of a car chase thrown into the mix, but overall I was entertained.
One area where the movie could have used some more improvement was with the special effects. They’re sufficient in the sense that they still clearly convey what the movie is trying to show, but a lot of it looks noticeably fake. It’s unfortunate, but I also don’t believe it was ever a major distraction. Another issue with the film is that its run-time feels a little long and there are some subplots that I really couldn’t care less about. It’s your standard government scheming and political conspiracy stuff, complete with all of the twists you would expect, but it isn’t particularly interesting, even if it does explain the purpose of the initial attack on the President.
Overall, I had a better time with Angel Has Fallen than I would have imagined. It’s far from great, but it’s good enough that I’ll probably now check out the two previous Fallen films at some point. The story might leave a lot to be desired, but the action sequences help fill the void. I would recommend it for fans of action movies, or anyone who likes Gerard Butler. It’s not something anyone needs to rush to the theater to see, but if you’re looking for a little action to end your summer with, it should do the trick.
Directed by Ric Roman Waugh, Angel Has Fallen is a film that starts off pretty well, yet I feel that the whole narrative of Banning being so easily framed is pretty hard to believe, especially given that he’s been the hero of two films already. It’s the driving force of the film’s story and yet it seems highly questionable to me that the intelligence committee would be so quick to blame it all on Banning considering his reputable history. Naturally any attack on the President is taken very seriously, but the FBI is extremely quick to condemn the man that just saved his life. I think it’s the weakest part of the story, although story is not an area this film ever really excels at. I would even say that most of its attempts at being smart usually fall flat. Regardless, this is the kind of movie that would be best enjoyed if you didn’t take it too seriously. It’s in many ways a throwback to the macho action movies of yesteryear, and that’s where it makes up for its shortcomings.
As the first film I’ve seen in this series, I admittedly had low expectations for it. If not for my dad wanting to see it, I probably would have skipped it entirely, but in truth it turned out to be better than I had anticipated. It’s also been the number one movie at the box office for two weeks running, so what do I know? I must confess that ever since seeing Den of Thieves last year, I’ve instantly become a huge fan of Gerard Butler, whose filmography I’ve largely overlooked. I love his energy, his over-the-top acting and his tough guy persona. He’s a great fit here in Angel Has Fallen as Banning and is enjoyable to watch, even if at times it can be a little hard to believe that he’s somehow always the smartest guy in the room.
The rest of the cast in the movie is respectful as well. Morgan Freeman is a comfortable choice as President Trumbull, and he truly makes me long for a time when we had a sane and competent President. It’s a rather reserved role for Freeman, as he spends most of the runtime in a coma. Still, he’s a graceful and welcome presence who has at least a couple moments to shine. Jada Pinkett Smith has the unfortunate role of playing the FBI agent who orders Banning’s arrest, and I wish she had a bit more to work with. Nick Nolte plays Banning’s estranged father Clay, a paranoid war veteran living off the grid, and he’s one of the highlights of the film. I enjoyed his character’s relationship with Banning, and he and Butler play off each other well. Danny Huston also gives a worthwhile performance as Banning’s former military companion Wade Jennings.
Despite having the appearance of a run-of-the-mill, rescue-the-President type of action movie, the action is actually for the most part quite admirable. Right from the get-go, it makes an impressive statement with its tense and exciting introductory scene which feels reminiscent of tactical military-style video games. The movie is heavy on explosions, shootouts, and hand-to-hand combat, and its action is generally fun. There’s also an impressive final stand-off that’s surprisingly well-planned and executed. It’s in moments like this where the movie demonstrates its intelligence and expertise. If not for these strong action sequences, I feel the movie as a whole would have suffered tremendously, but it rightfully delivers on what we came to see. Of course, not all of the action is stellar, and there’s a clunker of a car chase thrown into the mix, but overall I was entertained.
One area where the movie could have used some more improvement was with the special effects. They’re sufficient in the sense that they still clearly convey what the movie is trying to show, but a lot of it looks noticeably fake. It’s unfortunate, but I also don’t believe it was ever a major distraction. Another issue with the film is that its run-time feels a little long and there are some subplots that I really couldn’t care less about. It’s your standard government scheming and political conspiracy stuff, complete with all of the twists you would expect, but it isn’t particularly interesting, even if it does explain the purpose of the initial attack on the President.
Overall, I had a better time with Angel Has Fallen than I would have imagined. It’s far from great, but it’s good enough that I’ll probably now check out the two previous Fallen films at some point. The story might leave a lot to be desired, but the action sequences help fill the void. I would recommend it for fans of action movies, or anyone who likes Gerard Butler. It’s not something anyone needs to rush to the theater to see, but if you’re looking for a little action to end your summer with, it should do the trick.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Salt (2010) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Disappointing 80's retread...
Contains spoilers, click to show
Salt. The trailer looked rubbish, dated and starring Angelina Jolie, was never going to tickle my fancy. Reminding me of Rodger Donaldson's, Kevin Costner starrer, No Way Out, I felt that the attempt may be to bring that 80′s thriller to a new audience but instead we got a very confused tome. Firstly, I will cover the good points, which start with the script.
Though heavily flawed and mired by poor dialogue, pacing and a schizophrenic narrative, it was clearly intelligently conceived and several neat twists, though generally predictable, had survived. And besides the music, that's about it. In the end, this is a film with little identity, seeking to confuse the audience and bring them into the complex world of double agents and apocalyptic doomsday scenarios.
The story begins with Evelyn Salt, who after being released from a Korean prison and being brutally integrated as a spy, married her "Cover" husband who we believe she actually loves, in spite of the fact that he is being used as the aforementioned "cover". Then, 2 years later, she is brought into interrogate a Russian defector who tells her that she is a sleeper agent whose mission it to kill the Russian Premier, which she vehemently denies and goes on the run to prove her innocence and protect her husband
Sounds pretty straight forward so far But after about half an hour, everything shifts as she assassinates the Russian President, dons a Russian hat, meets up with the defector and watches her husband drown before her eyes to prove her loyalty to her brethren of sleeper agents. Then, she murders ALL of them! She meets up with another sleeper, breaks into the White House, blows part of it up and ends up in a room with a "master agent", a key player from earlier in the film and completely predictable twist, with a dead U.S. President and a nuclear countdown ticking
The main problem with this isn't the outlandish plotting but the fact that we never really know who Salt is. She starts out as a normal CIA agent, who is then placed under suspicion of being a Russian sleeper, then she 's on the run and until this point were satisfied that she's being set up, but then she is not only guilty, thereby destroying all the character development of the first act, she's a VERY guilty and clearly a bad guy.
Then she is forced to watch her husband die to prove her loyalty, only to promptly kill those who murdered him, so really, what was then point? This was a man whom she was wanting to save at all costs in the opening 30 minutes but when she finds him he's left to die.
Then she commits an outlandish assassination of the Russian Premier, or does she? But by the time she's making her way into the preposterously defended nuclear bunker, I simply don't like her, or really understand what the hell she's playing at? And without the empathy for the titular character, there's little going for the film.
This is an ambitious project but fails to engage with me, as Jolie is a truly terrible leading lady in my opinion, and casting her in such a duplicitous role was a mistake. Even if a character changes allegiances, we still know who they are but this is not the case here as Salt seems to have a split personality with little explanation.
And the final point must be that if Russia had trained a band of sleeper agents this skilled, this lethal that they could not only infiltrate the U.S., but fight their way into the heart of the White House's Nuclear Bunker, I believe that the Cold War would have heated up a long time ago and that we'd all be speaking Russian too!
A real shame that what could have been a pretty effective Cold War thriller was allowed to descend into an unpleasant and non-empathetic watch.
Though heavily flawed and mired by poor dialogue, pacing and a schizophrenic narrative, it was clearly intelligently conceived and several neat twists, though generally predictable, had survived. And besides the music, that's about it. In the end, this is a film with little identity, seeking to confuse the audience and bring them into the complex world of double agents and apocalyptic doomsday scenarios.
The story begins with Evelyn Salt, who after being released from a Korean prison and being brutally integrated as a spy, married her "Cover" husband who we believe she actually loves, in spite of the fact that he is being used as the aforementioned "cover". Then, 2 years later, she is brought into interrogate a Russian defector who tells her that she is a sleeper agent whose mission it to kill the Russian Premier, which she vehemently denies and goes on the run to prove her innocence and protect her husband
Sounds pretty straight forward so far But after about half an hour, everything shifts as she assassinates the Russian President, dons a Russian hat, meets up with the defector and watches her husband drown before her eyes to prove her loyalty to her brethren of sleeper agents. Then, she murders ALL of them! She meets up with another sleeper, breaks into the White House, blows part of it up and ends up in a room with a "master agent", a key player from earlier in the film and completely predictable twist, with a dead U.S. President and a nuclear countdown ticking
The main problem with this isn't the outlandish plotting but the fact that we never really know who Salt is. She starts out as a normal CIA agent, who is then placed under suspicion of being a Russian sleeper, then she 's on the run and until this point were satisfied that she's being set up, but then she is not only guilty, thereby destroying all the character development of the first act, she's a VERY guilty and clearly a bad guy.
Then she is forced to watch her husband die to prove her loyalty, only to promptly kill those who murdered him, so really, what was then point? This was a man whom she was wanting to save at all costs in the opening 30 minutes but when she finds him he's left to die.
Then she commits an outlandish assassination of the Russian Premier, or does she? But by the time she's making her way into the preposterously defended nuclear bunker, I simply don't like her, or really understand what the hell she's playing at? And without the empathy for the titular character, there's little going for the film.
This is an ambitious project but fails to engage with me, as Jolie is a truly terrible leading lady in my opinion, and casting her in such a duplicitous role was a mistake. Even if a character changes allegiances, we still know who they are but this is not the case here as Salt seems to have a split personality with little explanation.
And the final point must be that if Russia had trained a band of sleeper agents this skilled, this lethal that they could not only infiltrate the U.S., but fight their way into the heart of the White House's Nuclear Bunker, I believe that the Cold War would have heated up a long time ago and that we'd all be speaking Russian too!
A real shame that what could have been a pretty effective Cold War thriller was allowed to descend into an unpleasant and non-empathetic watch.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Casino Royale (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In an effort to breathe life into franchises, Hollywood, has looked to remaking franchises instead of adding sequels. This is a stark contrast to remaking a film 10-20 years after the original film appeared, rather the new trend is to start series anew, in effect wiping away the previous history and continuity of the past films in the series.
The idea is that rather than let several years pass in a series, or creating another sequel, filmmaker will go back to the beginning and start anew, in order to propel the franchise forward.
While remakes are nothing new in Hollywood, the idea to revamp series that recently had sequels is gaining ground. With the classic Horror film “Halloween” about to be remade, it seems that Hollywood is taking a long hard look at this new trend.
Perhaps the biggest example of this trend is in the new James Bond film Casino Royale, which introduces Daniel Craig as the new 007. The film takes the controversial twist to show the first mission of Bond and how he earned the rank of 00.
The twist is that the film takes place in the modern day and for the most part, casts aside all previous history and continuity that has been established by decades of Bond films.
The story involves bond on the trail of a Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a man who makes his living laundering money for various insurgents thus providing them cash for their terrorist and military missions.
In exotic locales ranging from the Caribbean to Montenegro Bond soon finds himself facing off against Le Chiffre in a high-stakes poker game in order to defeat Le Chiffre and thus cripple him and his network.
Of course there are plenty of subplots, and some great action sequences especially a thrilling chase in a construction site and a break neck chase in an airport that underscores that the series still have plenty of life in it and always sets the standards for stunt work in action films.
That being said the film has its issues. First, it is to long, and lengthy sequences past without action or dynamic tension. I know this is a film based on a card game, but I come to a Bond film expecting action, sex, and thrills, not a series of poker games that cover nearly 30 minutes with precious little action between them.
In addition, there is precious little romance in the film. Sure there are gorgeous women and Bond never fails to charm them, but, how many times has Bond ever passed up spending the night with a woman, simply to get out of town fast to pursue a lead. I am sure Sean Connery’s Bond would have found the time to do both with his typical style.
This is not to say that Craig is bad in his role as he does a darker and much grittier Bond than we have previously films which will serve the franchise well in the future.
What concerns me most is that from the books and all previous history, Bond is an orphan of noble birth and is a member of upper society and radiates class, sophistication and nobility, and this was evident from his early years all through his recruitment from the Royal Navy into the ranks of espionage.
Craig’s Bond does not show these qualities but rather comes across as a common Joe who is playing the part of a heavy. The appeal of Bond is underscored by the fact that he is a suave individual who can bend a person to his will as easily as he can kill without mercy or regret.
While I do not like the decision to remake the franchise, I will say that the film was much better than I expected it to be and is one of the better Bonds in recent years. Here is hoping that for the next time out, the reigns are loosed on Craig so we can allow him to interpret Bond in a way that is original and fresh, yet stays true to the source material and history of the character.
The idea is that rather than let several years pass in a series, or creating another sequel, filmmaker will go back to the beginning and start anew, in order to propel the franchise forward.
While remakes are nothing new in Hollywood, the idea to revamp series that recently had sequels is gaining ground. With the classic Horror film “Halloween” about to be remade, it seems that Hollywood is taking a long hard look at this new trend.
Perhaps the biggest example of this trend is in the new James Bond film Casino Royale, which introduces Daniel Craig as the new 007. The film takes the controversial twist to show the first mission of Bond and how he earned the rank of 00.
The twist is that the film takes place in the modern day and for the most part, casts aside all previous history and continuity that has been established by decades of Bond films.
The story involves bond on the trail of a Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a man who makes his living laundering money for various insurgents thus providing them cash for their terrorist and military missions.
In exotic locales ranging from the Caribbean to Montenegro Bond soon finds himself facing off against Le Chiffre in a high-stakes poker game in order to defeat Le Chiffre and thus cripple him and his network.
Of course there are plenty of subplots, and some great action sequences especially a thrilling chase in a construction site and a break neck chase in an airport that underscores that the series still have plenty of life in it and always sets the standards for stunt work in action films.
That being said the film has its issues. First, it is to long, and lengthy sequences past without action or dynamic tension. I know this is a film based on a card game, but I come to a Bond film expecting action, sex, and thrills, not a series of poker games that cover nearly 30 minutes with precious little action between them.
In addition, there is precious little romance in the film. Sure there are gorgeous women and Bond never fails to charm them, but, how many times has Bond ever passed up spending the night with a woman, simply to get out of town fast to pursue a lead. I am sure Sean Connery’s Bond would have found the time to do both with his typical style.
This is not to say that Craig is bad in his role as he does a darker and much grittier Bond than we have previously films which will serve the franchise well in the future.
What concerns me most is that from the books and all previous history, Bond is an orphan of noble birth and is a member of upper society and radiates class, sophistication and nobility, and this was evident from his early years all through his recruitment from the Royal Navy into the ranks of espionage.
Craig’s Bond does not show these qualities but rather comes across as a common Joe who is playing the part of a heavy. The appeal of Bond is underscored by the fact that he is a suave individual who can bend a person to his will as easily as he can kill without mercy or regret.
While I do not like the decision to remake the franchise, I will say that the film was much better than I expected it to be and is one of the better Bonds in recent years. Here is hoping that for the next time out, the reigns are loosed on Craig so we can allow him to interpret Bond in a way that is original and fresh, yet stays true to the source material and history of the character.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
I was introduced to Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (the amazing book series written by Alvin Schwartz back in 1981) in my Junior High history class. An odd place for sure to listen to this amazing collection of stories, and yet it displayed how these stories are impactful even if you aren’t reading them around a campfire in the middle of the woods. Schwartz had written two additional sequels to his stories in 1984 and 1991 and the incredibly creepy illustrations (by Stephen Gammell) helped to complete a collection of books that are at home in anyone’s collection both young and old.
The 80’s was a decade obsessed with the occult and works of fiction that parents thought were written to corrupt the minds of the youth of the age. Before video games were blamed for all the evil in the world there was Heavy Metal music, the fantastical role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons and books such as these that parents rallied around and attempted to ban from schools and after school functions. Looking back now at the hysteria that this caused is almost laughable, but for those of us growing up in that time it was a very real threat to the imaginations of youth around the globe. Outside of this brief history lesson however, I wondered how the books would translate into a movie.
Our story begins on Halloween night, the year is 1968 and the Vietnam War and the upcoming presidential elections are on everyone’s mind. Stella (Zoe Colletti) and her nerd friends Chuck (Austin Zajur) and Auggie (Gabriel Rush) decide that this will be the year that they get revenge on the local bully Tommy (Austin Abrams) for all his years of stealing candy from them on Halloween. After things go predictably wrong, the young group of kids are pursued to a drive-in theater where they seek refuge in a car that is owned by another out-of-town youngster named Ramon (Michael Garza). As thanks for “saving” them from a certain beating, Stella and the group decide to take Ramon to a real-life haunted house. A place where a young Sarah Bellows would tell stories to frighten children only for them to end up dead days later. While exploring the house the young group discover the hidden room of young Sarah Bellows and come across her book of “Scary Stories”. Unable to contain her own curiosity, Stella takes the book home with her and watches as the words on the pages turn into living nightmares of their own darkest fears.
Produced by Guillermo del Toro, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, Scary Stories takes a handful of fan favorites and weaves them into a “scary” story of their very own. Instead of simply being a collection of haunting tales, each one serves a purpose, whether it’s the “Red Dot” or “Harold”, each one is used to drive the story even further along. While at first, I was hoping that it would be a collection of short stories featuring these timeless classics, the way in which each individual story progresses the plot leads to a far more interesting experience overall.
Those looking for a movie filled with frightening tales that will have you reaching for the closest shoulder (whether you know who it belongs to or not) will be in for a bit of disappointment. That’s not to take away from the incredible amount of vision needed to bring these classic stories to life, but it takes on a far more contemporary feel, then the dark stories and supernatural visions of the books that came before it. The film comes away feeling more like Goosebumps and less like Freakshow which makes sense given its PG-13 rating and its obvious pre-teen to teen demographic. The movie is still fun however, particularly for those who fondly remember the stories from their youth and is one that will proudly sit beside the likes of Hocus Pocus when it comes to network television down the road as part of its likely Halloween line-up.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/08/scary-stories-to-tell-in-the-dark/
The 80’s was a decade obsessed with the occult and works of fiction that parents thought were written to corrupt the minds of the youth of the age. Before video games were blamed for all the evil in the world there was Heavy Metal music, the fantastical role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons and books such as these that parents rallied around and attempted to ban from schools and after school functions. Looking back now at the hysteria that this caused is almost laughable, but for those of us growing up in that time it was a very real threat to the imaginations of youth around the globe. Outside of this brief history lesson however, I wondered how the books would translate into a movie.
Our story begins on Halloween night, the year is 1968 and the Vietnam War and the upcoming presidential elections are on everyone’s mind. Stella (Zoe Colletti) and her nerd friends Chuck (Austin Zajur) and Auggie (Gabriel Rush) decide that this will be the year that they get revenge on the local bully Tommy (Austin Abrams) for all his years of stealing candy from them on Halloween. After things go predictably wrong, the young group of kids are pursued to a drive-in theater where they seek refuge in a car that is owned by another out-of-town youngster named Ramon (Michael Garza). As thanks for “saving” them from a certain beating, Stella and the group decide to take Ramon to a real-life haunted house. A place where a young Sarah Bellows would tell stories to frighten children only for them to end up dead days later. While exploring the house the young group discover the hidden room of young Sarah Bellows and come across her book of “Scary Stories”. Unable to contain her own curiosity, Stella takes the book home with her and watches as the words on the pages turn into living nightmares of their own darkest fears.
Produced by Guillermo del Toro, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, Scary Stories takes a handful of fan favorites and weaves them into a “scary” story of their very own. Instead of simply being a collection of haunting tales, each one serves a purpose, whether it’s the “Red Dot” or “Harold”, each one is used to drive the story even further along. While at first, I was hoping that it would be a collection of short stories featuring these timeless classics, the way in which each individual story progresses the plot leads to a far more interesting experience overall.
Those looking for a movie filled with frightening tales that will have you reaching for the closest shoulder (whether you know who it belongs to or not) will be in for a bit of disappointment. That’s not to take away from the incredible amount of vision needed to bring these classic stories to life, but it takes on a far more contemporary feel, then the dark stories and supernatural visions of the books that came before it. The film comes away feeling more like Goosebumps and less like Freakshow which makes sense given its PG-13 rating and its obvious pre-teen to teen demographic. The movie is still fun however, particularly for those who fondly remember the stories from their youth and is one that will proudly sit beside the likes of Hocus Pocus when it comes to network television down the road as part of its likely Halloween line-up.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/08/scary-stories-to-tell-in-the-dark/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Lockout (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In the later part of the 21st-century the worst criminals the planet has to offer are kept safely away from public in stasis aboard an orbiting prison known as MS: One. Although it is never explained in the film, it does not take a rocket scientist to guess that “MS” stands for Maximum Security and much like the rest of the movie “Lockout”, this is a film that does not aspire to be more than the sum of its heavily borrowed parts.
The film stars Guy Pearce as Snow, a special agent who has been wrongly accused in the killing of a high-ranking operative. Railroaded through the system, Snow is looking at a lengthy sentence.
At the same time, the presidents daughter Emily (Maggie Grace), has visited MS: One on a goodwill tour. One of her special causes is to confirm the truth that long-term stasis has damaging psychological and neurological effects for the prisoners. Since the prison is funded by a deep space research development she definitely sees conflict of interest in how prisoners are being treated.
Things take a turn for the worse when a violent prisoner goes off during his interview and proceeds to release pent-up inmate population and take the crew hostage. The prisoners run amok and for the time being are unaware that they had president’s daughter in their midst. Snow was given an ultimatum that the successful retrieval of the first daughter will help him avoid becoming a future resident of the orbiting prison.
Despite his misgivings, Snow accepts the assignment as he learns that one of his friends is incarcerated on board. This friend holds valuable information that can exonerates Snow from his charges. Once on board the station, Snow must battle mobs of psychopaths as he attempts to locate and rescue Emily.
While one would think this premise would hold plenty of excitement, thrills, and suspense, the film is essentially undone by its inability to sustain any real momentum for any developed and real tension.
While the prisoners do a great job of appearing menacing, torturing and killing the hostages, we really never learn of their true objective. At no time do they really make any serious demands for freedom, material goods, and so on which basically leaves them vulnerable to an all-out attack from the amassing forces around the prison.
One would think they would’ve asked for something as simple as pardons but they seem more interested in glaring threats to the president and the authorities via videoconference, not truly grasping the magnitude of their situation.
Pearce does a good job as the gruff Snow but sadly the script gives him very little to do other than smug one-liners and occasionally shoot the bad guys. Smith does show some spark and personality in her performance but she is given little to do aside from playing the damsel in distress although she doesn infuse the role with some strength and humor.
What really surprised me about the movie was even though it borrowed very heavily from Fortress 1 & 2 as well as an escape from New York, and have surprisingly little new to offer. It was clear that the intention was to create a diehard style film in space but unfortunately it fell relatively flat.
This was a huge surprise to me as one would think that Luc Besson and many of the creative talents that made “Taken” such a thrilling smash would have been able to come up with a better action film.
This is not to say that “Lockout” is a bad film more than it is a disappointment considering the premise, cast, and the potential that it had going for it.
I can certainly overlook plot holes, thinly crafted stock characters, and run-of-the-mill action sequences in my action films as long as they can get me some solid entertainment.
Sadly this is not the case and it plays out more like a direct to DVD release that’s certainly would be extremely welcome us and Netflix are red box rental but for my taste thanks to the lo-res and dated special effects did not warrant a major theatrical release.
The film stars Guy Pearce as Snow, a special agent who has been wrongly accused in the killing of a high-ranking operative. Railroaded through the system, Snow is looking at a lengthy sentence.
At the same time, the presidents daughter Emily (Maggie Grace), has visited MS: One on a goodwill tour. One of her special causes is to confirm the truth that long-term stasis has damaging psychological and neurological effects for the prisoners. Since the prison is funded by a deep space research development she definitely sees conflict of interest in how prisoners are being treated.
Things take a turn for the worse when a violent prisoner goes off during his interview and proceeds to release pent-up inmate population and take the crew hostage. The prisoners run amok and for the time being are unaware that they had president’s daughter in their midst. Snow was given an ultimatum that the successful retrieval of the first daughter will help him avoid becoming a future resident of the orbiting prison.
Despite his misgivings, Snow accepts the assignment as he learns that one of his friends is incarcerated on board. This friend holds valuable information that can exonerates Snow from his charges. Once on board the station, Snow must battle mobs of psychopaths as he attempts to locate and rescue Emily.
While one would think this premise would hold plenty of excitement, thrills, and suspense, the film is essentially undone by its inability to sustain any real momentum for any developed and real tension.
While the prisoners do a great job of appearing menacing, torturing and killing the hostages, we really never learn of their true objective. At no time do they really make any serious demands for freedom, material goods, and so on which basically leaves them vulnerable to an all-out attack from the amassing forces around the prison.
One would think they would’ve asked for something as simple as pardons but they seem more interested in glaring threats to the president and the authorities via videoconference, not truly grasping the magnitude of their situation.
Pearce does a good job as the gruff Snow but sadly the script gives him very little to do other than smug one-liners and occasionally shoot the bad guys. Smith does show some spark and personality in her performance but she is given little to do aside from playing the damsel in distress although she doesn infuse the role with some strength and humor.
What really surprised me about the movie was even though it borrowed very heavily from Fortress 1 & 2 as well as an escape from New York, and have surprisingly little new to offer. It was clear that the intention was to create a diehard style film in space but unfortunately it fell relatively flat.
This was a huge surprise to me as one would think that Luc Besson and many of the creative talents that made “Taken” such a thrilling smash would have been able to come up with a better action film.
This is not to say that “Lockout” is a bad film more than it is a disappointment considering the premise, cast, and the potential that it had going for it.
I can certainly overlook plot holes, thinly crafted stock characters, and run-of-the-mill action sequences in my action films as long as they can get me some solid entertainment.
Sadly this is not the case and it plays out more like a direct to DVD release that’s certainly would be extremely welcome us and Netflix are red box rental but for my taste thanks to the lo-res and dated special effects did not warrant a major theatrical release.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Cider House Rules (1999) in Movies
Apr 26, 2020
Great acting, great writing, great directing
When we do our "Secret Cinema" adventures at our house (one person picks the film and the rest of the family doesn't know what it is until it starts running), we try to give clues. This film was nominated for 7 Oscars for the 1999 season, winning 2 - including a 2nd BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR OSCAR for a veteran actor. It is based on a wonderful novel and features 3 young actors well before they became stars.
Sound interesting? Then check out THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
Based on the novel by John Irving, THE CIDER HOUSE RULES follows the life of Homer Wells (a pre-SPIDERMAN Tobey Maguire), a young orphan who is raised/mentored by the head of his Orphanage, Dr. Wilbur Larch (Michael Caine). When Homer decides to leave the orphanage and experience the world, he learns quite a bit about life including THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
This is one of those "coming of age/follow a person through their life"-type films that relies heavily on style, substance and the performance of the actors on the screen. And under the Direction of Swedish Director Lasse Hallstrom and with words of the Screenplay by the author of the novel, John Irving, and with terrific actors like Maguire and Caine (amongst others) speaking those lines - a spell is cast and a heartwarming, life-affirming experience unfolds.
Caine won his 2nd Oscar for his role as Dr. Larch. This is a complex character who has his own, very certain, views on the world and is uncompromising in his care for others. It is a wonderful performance - even taking into account the peculiar Maine/United States accent Caine puts on. His character's empathy, strength and vulnerability are at play throughout this performance and he is a very deserving recipient of the Oscar.
A very young Charlize Theron and a (then) unknown Paul Rudd are engaging, charming and extremely photogenic as a young couple that Homer leaves the orphanage to see the world with. Rudd is the embodiment of the "nice guy" in this film - you can see the seeds of a career of playing "the nice guy" in this performance. Theron radiates beauty, power and a self-reliance that shows the strong actress she will become. While Homer's relationship with Dr. Larch is the heart and conflict of this film, the trio of McGuire/Theron/Rudd are the soul. The film also features a bevy of strong character actors in smaller roles that prop this film up. Jane Alexander, Kathy Baker, J.K. Simmons, Kate Nelligan and Delroy Lindo all shine in smaller roles - as do some of the child actors that portray other orphans like Keiran Caulkin and (especially) Per Erik Sullivan as the physically compromised Fuzzy.
But...none of this works if Maguire doesn't hold this film together (for we see this world/film through his eyes and he is in every scene) and he brings it. He has a quiet charm and innocence that helps bring us into his world in a welcoming way. Certainly, the awkwardness that Homer shows around Theron will be in evidence when he plays Peter Parker years later, but it is the inner strength that Maguire shows that really makes this character shine.
John Irving wrote the screen play based on his novel - and the results are satisfying, both to those who've never read the book (or have encountered an Irving novel/book before) or veteran readers/lovers of Irving's work (like myself).
All of this is wrapped in a package by Director Lasse Hallstrom (MY LIFE AS A DOG) in a charming, loving way that show the people, events and times through a lens that amplifies the proceedings in a way that is welcoming and engaging.
It is always a bit of a concern of mine to revisit a film that I remember fondly, but in this case, I am glad I jumped at the chance to revisit this charming film.
And you'll be glad you did, too.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sound interesting? Then check out THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
Based on the novel by John Irving, THE CIDER HOUSE RULES follows the life of Homer Wells (a pre-SPIDERMAN Tobey Maguire), a young orphan who is raised/mentored by the head of his Orphanage, Dr. Wilbur Larch (Michael Caine). When Homer decides to leave the orphanage and experience the world, he learns quite a bit about life including THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
This is one of those "coming of age/follow a person through their life"-type films that relies heavily on style, substance and the performance of the actors on the screen. And under the Direction of Swedish Director Lasse Hallstrom and with words of the Screenplay by the author of the novel, John Irving, and with terrific actors like Maguire and Caine (amongst others) speaking those lines - a spell is cast and a heartwarming, life-affirming experience unfolds.
Caine won his 2nd Oscar for his role as Dr. Larch. This is a complex character who has his own, very certain, views on the world and is uncompromising in his care for others. It is a wonderful performance - even taking into account the peculiar Maine/United States accent Caine puts on. His character's empathy, strength and vulnerability are at play throughout this performance and he is a very deserving recipient of the Oscar.
A very young Charlize Theron and a (then) unknown Paul Rudd are engaging, charming and extremely photogenic as a young couple that Homer leaves the orphanage to see the world with. Rudd is the embodiment of the "nice guy" in this film - you can see the seeds of a career of playing "the nice guy" in this performance. Theron radiates beauty, power and a self-reliance that shows the strong actress she will become. While Homer's relationship with Dr. Larch is the heart and conflict of this film, the trio of McGuire/Theron/Rudd are the soul. The film also features a bevy of strong character actors in smaller roles that prop this film up. Jane Alexander, Kathy Baker, J.K. Simmons, Kate Nelligan and Delroy Lindo all shine in smaller roles - as do some of the child actors that portray other orphans like Keiran Caulkin and (especially) Per Erik Sullivan as the physically compromised Fuzzy.
But...none of this works if Maguire doesn't hold this film together (for we see this world/film through his eyes and he is in every scene) and he brings it. He has a quiet charm and innocence that helps bring us into his world in a welcoming way. Certainly, the awkwardness that Homer shows around Theron will be in evidence when he plays Peter Parker years later, but it is the inner strength that Maguire shows that really makes this character shine.
John Irving wrote the screen play based on his novel - and the results are satisfying, both to those who've never read the book (or have encountered an Irving novel/book before) or veteran readers/lovers of Irving's work (like myself).
All of this is wrapped in a package by Director Lasse Hallstrom (MY LIFE AS A DOG) in a charming, loving way that show the people, events and times through a lens that amplifies the proceedings in a way that is welcoming and engaging.
It is always a bit of a concern of mine to revisit a film that I remember fondly, but in this case, I am glad I jumped at the chance to revisit this charming film.
And you'll be glad you did, too.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sarah (7799 KP) rated Silk Road (2021) in Movies
Mar 12, 2021
Squandered a promising story
Silk Road is a 2021 thriller from writer/director Tiller Russell focusing on the true story of Ross Ulbricht who created and operated the darknet marketplace of the same name, selling drugs and other illegal items across the globe. On paper, Silk Road sounds like it should be a fascinating, interesting story and even the trailer makes it appear exciting, but unfortunately it never quite manages to pull off what it promises.
Ross Ulbricht (Nick Robinson) is a mid 20s libertarian from Texas who has a number of failed business ideas behind him, when he becomes convinced that he can strike a blow against the system by creating an illegal underground marketplace to seek drugs. The man on his tail is DEA Agent Rick Bowden (Jason Clarke), a former narc who botched his last undercover mission due to drug and alcohol addiction and transferred to Cyber Crime, where he’s introduced to the Silk Road marketplace. The story focuses on both men as they become increasingly involved in the darknet - Ross’s desperation to keep his site running and his identity hidden at all costs, even to the detriment of his relationship with girlfriend Julia (Alexandra Shipp), and Rick’s obsession to be back pursuing a case, resulting in corruption, extortion and even torture.
Silk Road promised so much, but unfortunately unlike Ross Ulbricht, just didn’t deliver. The story is fascinating and watching this has at least made me want to go out and read more about the truth behind this, as somehow this completely passed me by back in 2013. However Tiller Russell has taken this fascinating tale and turned it into something dull and clichéd. From the opening flash forward scenes to the cat and mouse chase between Ross and Bowden, there’s little originality on offer here. The story is long, dull and drawn out over 2 hours, and what makes it worse is that it seems to be lacking in any real detail on the true story. How Ross actually setup Silk Road has been glossed over in a brief montage, and the entire operation including Bowden’s entrapment and extortion haven’t faired much better and trying to figure out the timeline here too is impossible. I don’t know if Russell’s intentions were to avoid confusing and over facing the watcher with too much technical jargon, but whatever his motives, he only left us wanting more. There are ways to explain complicated technical matters without alienating the watcher (think The Big Short), but Silk Road just doesn’t bother.
On the surface Silk Road looks stylish and sleek, but on watching the entire film even the cinematography is questionable. Parts of the film look cheap and poorly made, and there are a lot of shots (especially those with any form of light involved) that seem hazy and have a lot of glare that detracts from the action in the scene. There was even some camerawork that made this look like a shaky cam documentary rather than the glossy thriller the trailer made it out to be.
The cast don’t fare much better either. Nick Robinson is a talented actor which was shown with Love, Simon, but here he’s given virtually nothing to work with as his character spends almost all the entire film staring at his phone or laptop. Alexandra Shipp too is sidelined as the generic girlfriend, and Jimmi Simpson, who I think is a rather engaging yet entirely underrated actor, is given the generic FBI agent role who barely gets a word in. Only Jason Clarke comes out of this unscathed, playing the most developed and interesting character (who incidentally isn’t actually real and an amalgamation of 2 agents on the real life Ulbricht’s tail), but even he suffers thanks to the faults with the story.
With a fascinating story and decent cast, Silk Road could’ve been good. In fact it could’ve been better than good. Instead it’s execution is it’s downfall, turning an intriguing story into a rather dull affair.
Ross Ulbricht (Nick Robinson) is a mid 20s libertarian from Texas who has a number of failed business ideas behind him, when he becomes convinced that he can strike a blow against the system by creating an illegal underground marketplace to seek drugs. The man on his tail is DEA Agent Rick Bowden (Jason Clarke), a former narc who botched his last undercover mission due to drug and alcohol addiction and transferred to Cyber Crime, where he’s introduced to the Silk Road marketplace. The story focuses on both men as they become increasingly involved in the darknet - Ross’s desperation to keep his site running and his identity hidden at all costs, even to the detriment of his relationship with girlfriend Julia (Alexandra Shipp), and Rick’s obsession to be back pursuing a case, resulting in corruption, extortion and even torture.
Silk Road promised so much, but unfortunately unlike Ross Ulbricht, just didn’t deliver. The story is fascinating and watching this has at least made me want to go out and read more about the truth behind this, as somehow this completely passed me by back in 2013. However Tiller Russell has taken this fascinating tale and turned it into something dull and clichéd. From the opening flash forward scenes to the cat and mouse chase between Ross and Bowden, there’s little originality on offer here. The story is long, dull and drawn out over 2 hours, and what makes it worse is that it seems to be lacking in any real detail on the true story. How Ross actually setup Silk Road has been glossed over in a brief montage, and the entire operation including Bowden’s entrapment and extortion haven’t faired much better and trying to figure out the timeline here too is impossible. I don’t know if Russell’s intentions were to avoid confusing and over facing the watcher with too much technical jargon, but whatever his motives, he only left us wanting more. There are ways to explain complicated technical matters without alienating the watcher (think The Big Short), but Silk Road just doesn’t bother.
On the surface Silk Road looks stylish and sleek, but on watching the entire film even the cinematography is questionable. Parts of the film look cheap and poorly made, and there are a lot of shots (especially those with any form of light involved) that seem hazy and have a lot of glare that detracts from the action in the scene. There was even some camerawork that made this look like a shaky cam documentary rather than the glossy thriller the trailer made it out to be.
The cast don’t fare much better either. Nick Robinson is a talented actor which was shown with Love, Simon, but here he’s given virtually nothing to work with as his character spends almost all the entire film staring at his phone or laptop. Alexandra Shipp too is sidelined as the generic girlfriend, and Jimmi Simpson, who I think is a rather engaging yet entirely underrated actor, is given the generic FBI agent role who barely gets a word in. Only Jason Clarke comes out of this unscathed, playing the most developed and interesting character (who incidentally isn’t actually real and an amalgamation of 2 agents on the real life Ulbricht’s tail), but even he suffers thanks to the faults with the story.
With a fascinating story and decent cast, Silk Road could’ve been good. In fact it could’ve been better than good. Instead it’s execution is it’s downfall, turning an intriguing story into a rather dull affair.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Promising Young Woman (2020) in Movies
Apr 20, 2021
Writing and directing is pitch perfect (1 more)
Carey Mulligan - awesome acting
Emerald Fennell delivers a real ‘page turner’ of a movie
"Promising Young Woman" sees Cassie (Carrie Mulligan) out to wage war on predatory men sexually asserting themselves on vulnerable woman in bars. But with the chance mention of a name, her mission takes on a whole new level and becomes very personal. How far will Carrie go to right a wrong?
Positives:
- Where to start! This is an astonishingly engrossing story from the multi-talented Emerald Fennell. It's rare to find a movie script where you have no idea in which direction the plot will take you. Some of the twists in this movie (no spoilers) are quite Hitchcockian in their execution. And Fennell cocks a wonderful snook at the 'Hollywood ending' that takes your breath away.
- Fennell also directs superbly, never letting the viewer get bored for an instant (the film doesn't outstay its welcome at only 113 minutes). The "show don't tell" approach shows respect for the audience's intelligence. (What happened after the boozy lunch? Who's voice was it on the video?) The use of 'chapter headings' as well is clever and reminiscent of Quentin Tarantino.
- And Carrie Mulligan! A simply stunning performance. What WAS that 'Variety' critic on about in saying she was "not hot enough" to play this role? Had he not fed his Guide Dog or something that day? Mulligan first drew my attention and respect when she was just 20 years old playing Ada in the BBC's "Bleak House": she had "star" written all over her. And so it has proved. Arguably - since there are so many stunning performances on her CV - this is a career best for her.
- Again reminiscent of Tarantino (and indeed "Killing Eve") is the wonderful use of music (by Anthony Willis). As well as some deliciously 'bubblegum' tracks (for example, one by Paris Hilton) there are some seriously "out there" choices. For example, "Pearl's Dream" (about the "pretty fly") is taken from the 1955 movie "The Night of the Hunter". It's haunting and evocative, reflecting the shattering revelation for Cassie within the story.
- Hair and Make-up (Angela Wells), Costume (Nancy Steiner), Cinematography (Benjamin Kracun), Editing (Frédéric Thoraval): all top-notch.
Negatives:
- For once, not a single one!
Summary Thoughts:
Sex without consent is rape. A woman, intoxicated through drink or drugs, cannot give consent. The rules aren't difficult are they? Anyone who's been to a city centre bar or nightclub late at night will have seen - or suspected they've seen - this sort of slow-motion car crash in progress.
This movie will inevitably be seen as the 'poster-child' for this aspect of the "Me Too" movement, and rightly so. And because the movie is so fabulous, it is inevitably going to have a positive effect in highlighting the issue.
Those woman who have had these experiences (and I'm sure there are a LOT of them out there, many of who will have never gone to the police) will probably not want to be further traumatised by watching the movie. But, for everyone else. If the first five minutes make you feel queasily like "this one's not for me" then it's worth sticking with it. it's all done in good taste.
One of the reasons this movie is so good is because of Emerald Fennell. What a talent she is! In acting mode, she plays Sarah Ferguson in "The Crown" and - in an uncredited cameo - the "blow job make-up" video blog lady in this. In writing mode, she's delivered the brilliant BAFTA-winning script for this as well as series two of "Killing Eve". And now in directing mode, she delivers this stunning directorial debut. She's even writing a musical version of "Cinderella" with Andrew Lloyd-Webber! (Come on love, you're just making us all feel wholly inadequate!)
"Promising Young Woman" is the easiest 10* movie I've rated in a while. And it soars straight to the top of my current long-list for my "Films of the Year 2021".
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/20/promising-young-woman-emerald-fennell-delivers-a-real-page-turner-of-a-movie/. Thanks).
Positives:
- Where to start! This is an astonishingly engrossing story from the multi-talented Emerald Fennell. It's rare to find a movie script where you have no idea in which direction the plot will take you. Some of the twists in this movie (no spoilers) are quite Hitchcockian in their execution. And Fennell cocks a wonderful snook at the 'Hollywood ending' that takes your breath away.
- Fennell also directs superbly, never letting the viewer get bored for an instant (the film doesn't outstay its welcome at only 113 minutes). The "show don't tell" approach shows respect for the audience's intelligence. (What happened after the boozy lunch? Who's voice was it on the video?) The use of 'chapter headings' as well is clever and reminiscent of Quentin Tarantino.
- And Carrie Mulligan! A simply stunning performance. What WAS that 'Variety' critic on about in saying she was "not hot enough" to play this role? Had he not fed his Guide Dog or something that day? Mulligan first drew my attention and respect when she was just 20 years old playing Ada in the BBC's "Bleak House": she had "star" written all over her. And so it has proved. Arguably - since there are so many stunning performances on her CV - this is a career best for her.
- Again reminiscent of Tarantino (and indeed "Killing Eve") is the wonderful use of music (by Anthony Willis). As well as some deliciously 'bubblegum' tracks (for example, one by Paris Hilton) there are some seriously "out there" choices. For example, "Pearl's Dream" (about the "pretty fly") is taken from the 1955 movie "The Night of the Hunter". It's haunting and evocative, reflecting the shattering revelation for Cassie within the story.
- Hair and Make-up (Angela Wells), Costume (Nancy Steiner), Cinematography (Benjamin Kracun), Editing (Frédéric Thoraval): all top-notch.
Negatives:
- For once, not a single one!
Summary Thoughts:
Sex without consent is rape. A woman, intoxicated through drink or drugs, cannot give consent. The rules aren't difficult are they? Anyone who's been to a city centre bar or nightclub late at night will have seen - or suspected they've seen - this sort of slow-motion car crash in progress.
This movie will inevitably be seen as the 'poster-child' for this aspect of the "Me Too" movement, and rightly so. And because the movie is so fabulous, it is inevitably going to have a positive effect in highlighting the issue.
Those woman who have had these experiences (and I'm sure there are a LOT of them out there, many of who will have never gone to the police) will probably not want to be further traumatised by watching the movie. But, for everyone else. If the first five minutes make you feel queasily like "this one's not for me" then it's worth sticking with it. it's all done in good taste.
One of the reasons this movie is so good is because of Emerald Fennell. What a talent she is! In acting mode, she plays Sarah Ferguson in "The Crown" and - in an uncredited cameo - the "blow job make-up" video blog lady in this. In writing mode, she's delivered the brilliant BAFTA-winning script for this as well as series two of "Killing Eve". And now in directing mode, she delivers this stunning directorial debut. She's even writing a musical version of "Cinderella" with Andrew Lloyd-Webber! (Come on love, you're just making us all feel wholly inadequate!)
"Promising Young Woman" is the easiest 10* movie I've rated in a while. And it soars straight to the top of my current long-list for my "Films of the Year 2021".
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/20/promising-young-woman-emerald-fennell-delivers-a-real-page-turner-of-a-movie/. Thanks).
