Search
Search results
Cody (12 KP) rated The Green Mile (1999) in Movies
Aug 2, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
A wonderful film about selflessness. This is what it really seems to come down to. It is a story about doing what is right no matter the cost.
Tom Hanks is Paul Edgecomb, a guard for the death row inmates. Michael Clarke Duncan is John Coffey, the newest inmate on death row for the rape and murder of two young girls. But Paul soon discovers that John can heal illnesses and injuries
After both Paul and a pet mouse are healed by John, the guards risk their jobs, their lively hoods, to sneak John out so he is able to heal the warden's dying wife.
Each time Coffey heals someone it takes something out of him. Taking the darkness of disease and injury costs Coffey a piece of himself. The jail break could have cost the guards their lives in a manner of speaking.
The execution of Coffey remains one of the most tragic deaths on screen. It effectively drives home the darkness of the world we live in and the need for goodness in it.
The whole film is brilliantly acted by a stellar cast. The script has a good flow and a few touches of humor. It never loses its impact.
Tom Hanks is Paul Edgecomb, a guard for the death row inmates. Michael Clarke Duncan is John Coffey, the newest inmate on death row for the rape and murder of two young girls. But Paul soon discovers that John can heal illnesses and injuries
After both Paul and a pet mouse are healed by John, the guards risk their jobs, their lively hoods, to sneak John out so he is able to heal the warden's dying wife.
Each time Coffey heals someone it takes something out of him. Taking the darkness of disease and injury costs Coffey a piece of himself. The jail break could have cost the guards their lives in a manner of speaking.
The execution of Coffey remains one of the most tragic deaths on screen. It effectively drives home the darkness of the world we live in and the need for goodness in it.
The whole film is brilliantly acted by a stellar cast. The script has a good flow and a few touches of humor. It never loses its impact.
colin... (64 KP) rated I'm Thinking of Ending Things (2020) in Movies
Sep 30, 2020
I've been waiting an entire year for this film. This is my favorite book I've ever read, so I had a bit of skepticism coming into it, but if anyone could do it, Kaufman could. Now, I've seen it, and I'm incredibly conflicted. I'm kind of disappointed that Kaufman used his normal "I'm so quirky and this is off-putting" doalogue instead of leaning into the psychological horror aspects that the book heavily relies on. He also takes a lot of creative liberty with some stupid jokes, like the whole Zemeckis joke which is nowhere to be found in the book. It just kinda peeves me how Kaufman seemed very unwilling to step outside of his comfort zone, but that's a conversation for another day.
That being said, it's impossible for me to deny that it's a great film. It's technically brilliant, and aside from some occasionally grating dialogue, or monologue, the pacing and script is very well done. Although I'm very disappointed in the film that I was given, I'd be very wrong to identify it as anything other than brilliant.
Edit: After reading his Indiewire interview, I fucking hate Kaufman and the way that he butchered the original material with reckless abandon. Fuck his pretentious ass.
That being said, it's impossible for me to deny that it's a great film. It's technically brilliant, and aside from some occasionally grating dialogue, or monologue, the pacing and script is very well done. Although I'm very disappointed in the film that I was given, I'd be very wrong to identify it as anything other than brilliant.
Edit: After reading his Indiewire interview, I fucking hate Kaufman and the way that he butchered the original material with reckless abandon. Fuck his pretentious ass.
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Assassination Bureau (1969) in Movies
Oct 1, 2020
Knockabout black comedy thriller. A feisty journalist (Rigg) challenges the leader of a group of elite assassins (Reed) to have himself killed: feeling his associates have become sloppy and corrupt, he accepts the challenge as it will allow him to purge his organisation. Exploits across Edwardian Europe follow, together with a touch of romance.
Oliver Reed never had the career as a leading man he deserved; Diana Rigg didn't get the film career you would have expected, either, so the film has a certain rarity value. However it's just not very funny, or thrilling, and the duo don't seem to have much chemistry - that said, a script which doesn't seem to know whether to be darkly witty or zany means he seems to be operating at about half-power. With Rigg and Savalas co-starring in a 1969 film about a suave assassin taking on a criminal conspiracy, the temptation is to speculate that this film gives a hint of what On Her Majesty's Secret Service might have looked like had Eon made better casting decisions - one hopes not, for this film isn't great in any department, on top of which the special effects in the climax are rotten and the closing song is pretty grim too. A waste of several great talents.
Oliver Reed never had the career as a leading man he deserved; Diana Rigg didn't get the film career you would have expected, either, so the film has a certain rarity value. However it's just not very funny, or thrilling, and the duo don't seem to have much chemistry - that said, a script which doesn't seem to know whether to be darkly witty or zany means he seems to be operating at about half-power. With Rigg and Savalas co-starring in a 1969 film about a suave assassin taking on a criminal conspiracy, the temptation is to speculate that this film gives a hint of what On Her Majesty's Secret Service might have looked like had Eon made better casting decisions - one hopes not, for this film isn't great in any department, on top of which the special effects in the climax are rotten and the closing song is pretty grim too. A waste of several great talents.
Love Unscripted (Love, #1)
6.0
Rate It
Book
The first book in New York Times bestselling author Tina Reber’s The Love Series, a sexy, romantic...
Syrian Arabic Travel Phrases
Travel and Education
App
Syrian Arabic Travel Phrases 400 TERMS AND PHRASES Teach yourself Syrian Arabic terms and phrases. ...
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in TV
Nov 13, 2018 (Updated Nov 13, 2018)
Predictable jumpscares (2 more)
Bad acting
Crappy script
Overhyped Garbage
The Haunting Of Hill House is a 2018 Netflix series directed by Mike Flanagan, who directed last year's fantastically creepy adaption of Stephen King's 'Gerald's Game'. Hill House even features some of the same cast members in Carla Gugino and Henry Thomas, whom I both really like. Before diving into it, I thought that this show was going to be tailor made for me, with a brilliant cast and the same subtle but terrifying horror that Flanagan used in Gerald's Game.
However, after watching the first couple of episodes, I was struggling to get into it. Due to the massive amount of hype and praise that this show was getting I decided to stick with it. By the time I got to episode 6, I was done, but then my girlfriend guilted me into watching that rest of the series because she wanted to see it and she was, "too scared to watch it alone."
What a huge waste of time that turned out to be.
If you have read any of my other reviews of horror-based media, you will know that I have a love/hate relationship with the genre. There are very few horror movies or shows that I feel indifferent about. I hate lazy, formulaic bad horror and that is exactly what Hill House is.
Every single episode consists of a jumpscare at the start of the episode, then a hard cut either forwards or backwards in the timeline. Then about 15-20 minutes of piss poor acting and boring dialogue. This is followed by another cheap jumpscare, usually a woman screaming at an obnoxiously loud volume at the camera. Then we get another hard cut back to the other timeline.
The main issue with this structure, (other than being extremely lazy and repetitive,) is that when the hard cut is made to the other timeline, the audience knows that it is done by an editor and that we are now being asked to focus on a part of the story within the other timeline, but for the characters within the show, it makes no sense. For example, two people are having a conversation when something creepy happens. They go to investigate and a screaming woman comes launching towards them or is standing at the edge of a bed or doing basically any other ghost story cliché you can think of. Then the show cuts away to show the characters as children being haunted by a different ghost, but then when we cut back to the present, we never find out how the last jumpscare was resolved. What was the aftermath of that screaming lady at the end of the bed you ask? How was that resolved? How are the character's mentalities after this happened to them? Who cares?! Say the writers, let's just move on to the next cheap jumpscare.
The script is extraordinarily lazy and the child actors are horribly bad. This is an issue that I feel that there isn't really any excuse for anymore after the brilliant child performances in shows like Stranger Things and Season 2 of the Sinner.
If you judge the quality of something based on what it sets out to do versus what it actually does, then The Haunting Of Hill House is the worst show that I have had the displeasure of sitting through this year. The scares are pathetic, the acting is atrocious in places, the script is diabolically cheesy at times, there is hardly any originality present for an, 'original series,' and the show is overflowing with clichés. Not once did a jumpscare actually scare me, because they were all either laughably predicable or they would be totally out of place just for the sake of shock value and would merit a heavy sigh rather than an legit scare. The most egregious, offensively bad example of this was when two characters were having a conversation in a car in episode 6 and a ghost randomly screams from the backseat.
Please do not waste your time with this series, 2018 had so much brilliance to offer on the small screen and despite what you might hear from big publications, this is not one of them.
However, after watching the first couple of episodes, I was struggling to get into it. Due to the massive amount of hype and praise that this show was getting I decided to stick with it. By the time I got to episode 6, I was done, but then my girlfriend guilted me into watching that rest of the series because she wanted to see it and she was, "too scared to watch it alone."
What a huge waste of time that turned out to be.
If you have read any of my other reviews of horror-based media, you will know that I have a love/hate relationship with the genre. There are very few horror movies or shows that I feel indifferent about. I hate lazy, formulaic bad horror and that is exactly what Hill House is.
Every single episode consists of a jumpscare at the start of the episode, then a hard cut either forwards or backwards in the timeline. Then about 15-20 minutes of piss poor acting and boring dialogue. This is followed by another cheap jumpscare, usually a woman screaming at an obnoxiously loud volume at the camera. Then we get another hard cut back to the other timeline.
The main issue with this structure, (other than being extremely lazy and repetitive,) is that when the hard cut is made to the other timeline, the audience knows that it is done by an editor and that we are now being asked to focus on a part of the story within the other timeline, but for the characters within the show, it makes no sense. For example, two people are having a conversation when something creepy happens. They go to investigate and a screaming woman comes launching towards them or is standing at the edge of a bed or doing basically any other ghost story cliché you can think of. Then the show cuts away to show the characters as children being haunted by a different ghost, but then when we cut back to the present, we never find out how the last jumpscare was resolved. What was the aftermath of that screaming lady at the end of the bed you ask? How was that resolved? How are the character's mentalities after this happened to them? Who cares?! Say the writers, let's just move on to the next cheap jumpscare.
The script is extraordinarily lazy and the child actors are horribly bad. This is an issue that I feel that there isn't really any excuse for anymore after the brilliant child performances in shows like Stranger Things and Season 2 of the Sinner.
If you judge the quality of something based on what it sets out to do versus what it actually does, then The Haunting Of Hill House is the worst show that I have had the displeasure of sitting through this year. The scares are pathetic, the acting is atrocious in places, the script is diabolically cheesy at times, there is hardly any originality present for an, 'original series,' and the show is overflowing with clichés. Not once did a jumpscare actually scare me, because they were all either laughably predicable or they would be totally out of place just for the sake of shock value and would merit a heavy sigh rather than an legit scare. The most egregious, offensively bad example of this was when two characters were having a conversation in a car in episode 6 and a ghost randomly screams from the backseat.
Please do not waste your time with this series, 2018 had so much brilliance to offer on the small screen and despite what you might hear from big publications, this is not one of them.
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Bad Frank (2017) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
I love it when a movie can come completely out of nowhere and surprise this humble reviewer. Bad Frank is exactly that, A movie that on paper looks and sounds like most other Kidnap Revenge thrillers you may have seen over the years. But let me tell you that Bad Frank is far from some of the copy and paste garbage out there.
I was instantly drawn to this Flick after stumbling upon its Twitter page and hey full disclosure I saw Tom Sizemore and Brian O’Halloran and thought ‘Okay, Im in’. Little did I know that after contacting the movies director I was about to watch a somewhat by the numbers movie that takes all of the numbers and turns them on there head with a great tightly written script and one hell of a powerhouse performance (not by either of the two men I named above by the way).
Bad Frank is about a man named ummmm Frank. Frank (played by Kevin Interdonato) is a seemingly normal guy living a seemingly normal existence. He seems to have it all, but you can tell right from the outset that the man has got some demons. We learn that he is on some serious medication to deal with his head aches from a life of regrets, He is estranged from both his mum and dad and struggling to keep his marriage together. Frank is pulled into an easy money job by his buddy Travis (Brandon Heitkamp) who is in deep to Donny Shakes (O’Halloran). What is promised to be a quick job brings Frank face to face with an old acquaintance he would rather forget. Things really go sideways on the job and in turn his life, when Franks wife Gina (Amanda Clayton) is kidnapped by face from the past Mickey Duro (Sizemore). I am gonna stop plot wise now because anymore and I am giving too much away.
Tony Germinario has pulled an absolute stormer out of the bag for his debut feature length movie, a fact that was completely lost on me upon viewing. For a budget of roughly 80k he has used all tricks at his disposal to make it look like a multi million dollar flick and Bad Frank looks all the more impressive for it. A lot of the time a the script to a movie like this can get lost in its own simplicity but Tony wrote a script that really didnt conform to what I was expecting and gave the lead a chance to deliver. So lets just talk about the lead, Kevin Interdonato brings an absolute realism and intensity to this role that sucks you right in and leaves you kinda second guessing yourself, anything could happen with this guy at any moment and that to me is scary. I went from feeling sorry for this guy to thinking well he deserved everything and ending up thinking ‘SHIT’.
Tom Sizemore is in fine form as Sizemore always is. An actor that I personally love and wish got more of the beefier roles but it was great to see him on screen and like I say, seeing his name splashed on the poster was one of the reasons I sought this one out. Then there is Brian O’Halloran doing his thing as he does (always liked this dude since his Clerks days nice to see him spreading his wings).
It is easy to see how Tony and his crew took Bad Frank to Film Fest International in London last week and was not only nominated for 5 awards but Tony himself won Best Director.
I am gonna recommend the shit out of this Flick, Bad Frank is not what you expect going in, there are some pretty cool curve-balls, it moves along at a quick enough pace and no spoilers but the final 10 minutes are a Tour-De-Force. Performances wise you are getting more bang for you buck in what the Director himself considers to be an “as Indie as it gets” movie (not that you can tell mind you).
I was instantly drawn to this Flick after stumbling upon its Twitter page and hey full disclosure I saw Tom Sizemore and Brian O’Halloran and thought ‘Okay, Im in’. Little did I know that after contacting the movies director I was about to watch a somewhat by the numbers movie that takes all of the numbers and turns them on there head with a great tightly written script and one hell of a powerhouse performance (not by either of the two men I named above by the way).
Bad Frank is about a man named ummmm Frank. Frank (played by Kevin Interdonato) is a seemingly normal guy living a seemingly normal existence. He seems to have it all, but you can tell right from the outset that the man has got some demons. We learn that he is on some serious medication to deal with his head aches from a life of regrets, He is estranged from both his mum and dad and struggling to keep his marriage together. Frank is pulled into an easy money job by his buddy Travis (Brandon Heitkamp) who is in deep to Donny Shakes (O’Halloran). What is promised to be a quick job brings Frank face to face with an old acquaintance he would rather forget. Things really go sideways on the job and in turn his life, when Franks wife Gina (Amanda Clayton) is kidnapped by face from the past Mickey Duro (Sizemore). I am gonna stop plot wise now because anymore and I am giving too much away.
Tony Germinario has pulled an absolute stormer out of the bag for his debut feature length movie, a fact that was completely lost on me upon viewing. For a budget of roughly 80k he has used all tricks at his disposal to make it look like a multi million dollar flick and Bad Frank looks all the more impressive for it. A lot of the time a the script to a movie like this can get lost in its own simplicity but Tony wrote a script that really didnt conform to what I was expecting and gave the lead a chance to deliver. So lets just talk about the lead, Kevin Interdonato brings an absolute realism and intensity to this role that sucks you right in and leaves you kinda second guessing yourself, anything could happen with this guy at any moment and that to me is scary. I went from feeling sorry for this guy to thinking well he deserved everything and ending up thinking ‘SHIT’.
Tom Sizemore is in fine form as Sizemore always is. An actor that I personally love and wish got more of the beefier roles but it was great to see him on screen and like I say, seeing his name splashed on the poster was one of the reasons I sought this one out. Then there is Brian O’Halloran doing his thing as he does (always liked this dude since his Clerks days nice to see him spreading his wings).
It is easy to see how Tony and his crew took Bad Frank to Film Fest International in London last week and was not only nominated for 5 awards but Tony himself won Best Director.
I am gonna recommend the shit out of this Flick, Bad Frank is not what you expect going in, there are some pretty cool curve-balls, it moves along at a quick enough pace and no spoilers but the final 10 minutes are a Tour-De-Force. Performances wise you are getting more bang for you buck in what the Director himself considers to be an “as Indie as it gets” movie (not that you can tell mind you).
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) in Movies
Jul 3, 2020 (Updated Jul 3, 2020)
The introduction of funny Freddy (2 more)
Welcome to primetime, bitch!
Death Scene's
Welcome to primetime, bitch!
Contains spoilers, click to show
A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors- is a excellent movie, coming off the disappointed Freedy's Revenge, Dream Warriors goes back to the oringal formula, Scary, twisted, dramatic and excellent deaths. Dream Warriors adds more like taking place psychiatric ward, a excellent line that was on the spot, "Welcome to primetime, bitch!". Also Heather Langenkamp and John Saxton return. Also you new charcters that will return in later sequels like Kristen, Kincaid and Joey. A great cast of charcters, a great story and also introduces Freddy's mom and her back story and adds more to Freddy's back story.
Lets talk more: production and deaths.
Production:
Craven's very first concept for the film was to have Freddy Krueger invade the real world: Krueger would haunt the actors filming a new Nightmare on Elm Street sequel. New Line Cinema rejected the metacinematic idea, but years later, Craven's concept was brought to the screen in Wes Craven's New Nightmare.
Before it was decided what script would be used for the film's story, both John Saxon and Robert Englund wrote their own scripts for a third Nightmare film; in Saxon's script called How the Nightmare on Elm Street All Began, which would have been a prequel story, Freddy would ultimately turn out to have been innocent, or at least set up for the murders by Charles Manson, who along with his followers would have been the main culprit of the murders; Freddy would be forced by the mob of angry parents to make a confession of the crimes, which would enrage them further. After they lynch Freddy, he comes back to avenge his wrongful death by targeting the parent's children.
In Englund's treatment called Freddy's Funhouse, the protagonist would have been Tina Gray's older sister, who would have been in college by the time Tina was murdered, and ends up coming back to Springwood to investigate how she died. In the script, Freddy had claimed the 1428 Elm Street house for his own in the dreamworld, setting up booby traps like Nancy did against him.
The death scenes: I love the death scene's in this film. Their are both memorable and excellent and probley my favorite out of all the franchise. You have Phillip's death: Veins pulled out/manipulated into falling off high ledge by Krueger, Jennifer's death: Head smashed into TV screen, Taryn death: Leg slashed with bladed glove, massive amounts of heroin injected into veins and Freddy saying "let's get high", William's death: Lifted, chest impaled with bladed glove and Freddy saying " Sorry kid, but I don't believe in fairy tales", Donald's death: Thrown/impaled through back on car's tail fin by a skeleton verison of krueger and Nancy's death: Stomach impaled twice/gutted with bladed glove/bled out, in dream world cause she sees her dad but its krueger. Also you have the Freddy worm that attacks Kristen.
The plot: During a hallucinatory incident, young Kristen Parker (Patricia Arquette) has her wrists slashed by dream-stalking monster Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund). Her mother, mistaking the wounds for a suicide attempt, sends Kristen to a psychiatric ward, where she joins a group of similarly troubled teens. One of the doctors there is Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp), who had battled Freddy some years before. Nancy senses a potential in Kristen to rid the world of Freddy once and for all.
Dream Warriors: is a return to the oringal formula, and adds more. Adds memorable lines, better deaths, intoduction of comedy side of Freddy and above all a excellent movie.
The ending is sad cause Nancy and John doe die by freedy but it ends their story for now and starts a new story with Kristen, Kincaid and Joey. Its a percent, but sad ending. Ending the oringal maim charcters arc/story, while senting up a new trio of charcters.
Also you can't forget about that excellent theme song, "Dream Warrors" by Dokken.
Lets talk more: production and deaths.
Production:
Craven's very first concept for the film was to have Freddy Krueger invade the real world: Krueger would haunt the actors filming a new Nightmare on Elm Street sequel. New Line Cinema rejected the metacinematic idea, but years later, Craven's concept was brought to the screen in Wes Craven's New Nightmare.
Before it was decided what script would be used for the film's story, both John Saxon and Robert Englund wrote their own scripts for a third Nightmare film; in Saxon's script called How the Nightmare on Elm Street All Began, which would have been a prequel story, Freddy would ultimately turn out to have been innocent, or at least set up for the murders by Charles Manson, who along with his followers would have been the main culprit of the murders; Freddy would be forced by the mob of angry parents to make a confession of the crimes, which would enrage them further. After they lynch Freddy, he comes back to avenge his wrongful death by targeting the parent's children.
In Englund's treatment called Freddy's Funhouse, the protagonist would have been Tina Gray's older sister, who would have been in college by the time Tina was murdered, and ends up coming back to Springwood to investigate how she died. In the script, Freddy had claimed the 1428 Elm Street house for his own in the dreamworld, setting up booby traps like Nancy did against him.
The death scenes: I love the death scene's in this film. Their are both memorable and excellent and probley my favorite out of all the franchise. You have Phillip's death: Veins pulled out/manipulated into falling off high ledge by Krueger, Jennifer's death: Head smashed into TV screen, Taryn death: Leg slashed with bladed glove, massive amounts of heroin injected into veins and Freddy saying "let's get high", William's death: Lifted, chest impaled with bladed glove and Freddy saying " Sorry kid, but I don't believe in fairy tales", Donald's death: Thrown/impaled through back on car's tail fin by a skeleton verison of krueger and Nancy's death: Stomach impaled twice/gutted with bladed glove/bled out, in dream world cause she sees her dad but its krueger. Also you have the Freddy worm that attacks Kristen.
The plot: During a hallucinatory incident, young Kristen Parker (Patricia Arquette) has her wrists slashed by dream-stalking monster Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund). Her mother, mistaking the wounds for a suicide attempt, sends Kristen to a psychiatric ward, where she joins a group of similarly troubled teens. One of the doctors there is Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp), who had battled Freddy some years before. Nancy senses a potential in Kristen to rid the world of Freddy once and for all.
Dream Warriors: is a return to the oringal formula, and adds more. Adds memorable lines, better deaths, intoduction of comedy side of Freddy and above all a excellent movie.
The ending is sad cause Nancy and John doe die by freedy but it ends their story for now and starts a new story with Kristen, Kincaid and Joey. Its a percent, but sad ending. Ending the oringal maim charcters arc/story, while senting up a new trio of charcters.
Also you can't forget about that excellent theme song, "Dream Warrors" by Dokken.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Allied (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
There's a great film in here somewhere
Director Robert Zemeckis has some impressive film credits to his name. From cult classics like Back to the Future to last year’s nausea inducing The Walk, there hasn’t been a genre his skills haven’t graced over the last four decades.
His most recent effort, Allied, sees the veteran director tackle the war genre with a film that certainly has its moments, but just how good is this wartime romantic drama?
Max Vatan (Brad Pitt) and Marianne Beauséjour (Marion Cotillard) are World War II operatives who never reveal their true identities. After falling in love during a risky mission, they hope to leave all that double-dealing behind them and start new lives. Instead, suspicion and danger envelop their marriage as both husband and wife become pitted against each other in an escalating, potentially lethal test that has global consequences.
Allied is an assured piece of film-making that tackles the claustrophobia of war incredibly well, but considering the talent at both ends of the camera, it lacks depth, harmony and above all; a plot that remains coherent throughout.
Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard are their usual dependable selves but they lack chemistry until the closing act and as a result, their relationship lacks believability, hampering what is in effect, a love story.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is too often blighted by poorly lit scenes that restrict the talents of Allied’s director. Robert Zemeckis is at his best embarking upon projects that leap off the screen with their vibrancy. Take Back to the Future and Forrest Gump as prime examples of this.
Nevertheless, the film’s final act almost makes up for these shortcomings and turns a plodding romantic drama into a tense, well-acted and above all interesting movie that has a great script; it’s just a shame the first hour lacks any punch.
When it comes to special effects, well, they’re used sparingly, with the upside of this being that they liven up the film nicely. The scenes of London during the blitz are harrowingly beautiful, with one sequence in particular being a standout throughout the entire running time.
Overall, Allied is a decent stab at constructing a meaningful wartime romantic drama, though looking to history should have perhaps sent alarm bells ringing; Pearl Harbour anyone. The story is intriguing most definitely, and it has some nice special effects, but the script it’s crafted around lacks depth until the final hour. It’s probably fair to say that this may slip under the radar when we look back at Robert Zemeckis’s illustrious career.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/26/theres-a-great-film-in-here-somewhere-allied-review/
His most recent effort, Allied, sees the veteran director tackle the war genre with a film that certainly has its moments, but just how good is this wartime romantic drama?
Max Vatan (Brad Pitt) and Marianne Beauséjour (Marion Cotillard) are World War II operatives who never reveal their true identities. After falling in love during a risky mission, they hope to leave all that double-dealing behind them and start new lives. Instead, suspicion and danger envelop their marriage as both husband and wife become pitted against each other in an escalating, potentially lethal test that has global consequences.
Allied is an assured piece of film-making that tackles the claustrophobia of war incredibly well, but considering the talent at both ends of the camera, it lacks depth, harmony and above all; a plot that remains coherent throughout.
Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard are their usual dependable selves but they lack chemistry until the closing act and as a result, their relationship lacks believability, hampering what is in effect, a love story.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is too often blighted by poorly lit scenes that restrict the talents of Allied’s director. Robert Zemeckis is at his best embarking upon projects that leap off the screen with their vibrancy. Take Back to the Future and Forrest Gump as prime examples of this.
Nevertheless, the film’s final act almost makes up for these shortcomings and turns a plodding romantic drama into a tense, well-acted and above all interesting movie that has a great script; it’s just a shame the first hour lacks any punch.
When it comes to special effects, well, they’re used sparingly, with the upside of this being that they liven up the film nicely. The scenes of London during the blitz are harrowingly beautiful, with one sequence in particular being a standout throughout the entire running time.
Overall, Allied is a decent stab at constructing a meaningful wartime romantic drama, though looking to history should have perhaps sent alarm bells ringing; Pearl Harbour anyone. The story is intriguing most definitely, and it has some nice special effects, but the script it’s crafted around lacks depth until the final hour. It’s probably fair to say that this may slip under the radar when we look back at Robert Zemeckis’s illustrious career.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/26/theres-a-great-film-in-here-somewhere-allied-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Creed II (2018) in Movies
Dec 7, 2018
Good Enough
By my count, this is the 8th time that Sylvester Stallone has put on the character of Rocky Balboa. This time it comes after the resurgence of this character (and franchise) with the introduction of Adonis Creed (Michael B. Jordan) and a script that allowed Stallone to explore the character in a way that he had not previously been able to - and garnered him a well-deserved Oscar nomination for his efforts.
In CREED II we are back to an above average by-the-numbers boxing picture with Jordan's Adonis Creed character starting the picture on top, losing it all when he loses himself (and stops listening to Rocky) in his success only to go on a journey of redemption (by following Rocky's advice) at the end. This is, in essence, a regurgitation of ROCKY III and I was somewhat bored by it.
That is, until the final bout, then (gosh darnnit) I was drawn right into the melodrama, pomp and pageantry of the fight and was cheering along with the rest of the audience at all the appropriate moments.
In Creed II, Apollo Creed's son battles Ivan Drago's son. For those of you not up on your Rocky history, Drago (Dolph Lundgren, reprising his role) was the boxer that killed Apollo Creed (Adonis' father) in the ring all those years ago.
Jordan is properly cocky, arrogant, stubborn, shell-shocked, morose, repentant and cocky (again) as the script would indicate. Tessa Thompson (as his wife) deserves better material than what she is given as does Stallone, who falls back to "being Rocky" without anything really new here. Surprisingly, Dolph Lundgren does a nice job as the washed-up boxer who's life was "ruined" when he lost to Rocky at the end of Rocky IV (not a spoiler). Finally, Russel Horsnby (as the "I just want to earn money" promoter of the fight) and Phylicia Rashad (as Adonis' mother/Apollo's wife) are both really good in roles that deserved to be much bigger - and more fleshed out - than they were.
My biggest disappointment from this film is the ommision of Director Ryan Coogler. He brought a visceral attitude to the series in the first CREED film and I felt that this spark of energy was just missing throughout this film with Steven Caple, Jr at the helm. It seemed, to me, that this series is quickly devolving into "paycheck" movies for Stallone and that really saddens me.
All-in-all a rather above average "by-the-numbers" boxing flick with a really good fight at the end of the film that is well worth sticking around for.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
In CREED II we are back to an above average by-the-numbers boxing picture with Jordan's Adonis Creed character starting the picture on top, losing it all when he loses himself (and stops listening to Rocky) in his success only to go on a journey of redemption (by following Rocky's advice) at the end. This is, in essence, a regurgitation of ROCKY III and I was somewhat bored by it.
That is, until the final bout, then (gosh darnnit) I was drawn right into the melodrama, pomp and pageantry of the fight and was cheering along with the rest of the audience at all the appropriate moments.
In Creed II, Apollo Creed's son battles Ivan Drago's son. For those of you not up on your Rocky history, Drago (Dolph Lundgren, reprising his role) was the boxer that killed Apollo Creed (Adonis' father) in the ring all those years ago.
Jordan is properly cocky, arrogant, stubborn, shell-shocked, morose, repentant and cocky (again) as the script would indicate. Tessa Thompson (as his wife) deserves better material than what she is given as does Stallone, who falls back to "being Rocky" without anything really new here. Surprisingly, Dolph Lundgren does a nice job as the washed-up boxer who's life was "ruined" when he lost to Rocky at the end of Rocky IV (not a spoiler). Finally, Russel Horsnby (as the "I just want to earn money" promoter of the fight) and Phylicia Rashad (as Adonis' mother/Apollo's wife) are both really good in roles that deserved to be much bigger - and more fleshed out - than they were.
My biggest disappointment from this film is the ommision of Director Ryan Coogler. He brought a visceral attitude to the series in the first CREED film and I felt that this spark of energy was just missing throughout this film with Steven Caple, Jr at the helm. It seemed, to me, that this series is quickly devolving into "paycheck" movies for Stallone and that really saddens me.
All-in-all a rather above average "by-the-numbers" boxing flick with a really good fight at the end of the film that is well worth sticking around for.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)