Search
Search results
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Thor: The Dark World (2013) in Movies
Oct 10, 2017 (Updated Oct 10, 2017)
Loki was fun to watch. (1 more)
Good SFX.
Totally forgettable villain. (1 more)
Any scene involving Kat Dennings and her intern.
Thor: God Of Meh
In the run up to the release of Thor: Ragnarok, the third Thor movie, I decided to go back and watch the only movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that I have not seen yet. I never had anything against this movie before I saw it, I had just heard it is mediocre and a bit unnecessary and to be honest Thor is one of my least favourite Avengers. Funnily enough what I got was a fairly unnecessary, mediocre superhero sequel with some fun moments sprinkled throughout.
This isn't a bad movie overall, it's just painfully mediocre. The direction is uninspired, the performances are phoned in and the plot is run of the mill for a superhero story. The new characters introduced are extraordinarily vanilla, the score is okay and the script is pretty pedestrian in terms of the kind of story it is telling. The whole thing is just passable and yet extremely unremarkable.
I know Marvel movies have become notorious for their obvious lack of decent antagonists, (other than Loki,) but this takes it to a new level of generic. This group of villains makes the Ultron bots look like deep, fleshed out characters.
I found myself getting extremely annoyed every time that Kat Dennings was in the screen and I don't hate this actress, I don't even remember hating her in the first Thor movie, but in this she was insufferable. Her over the top pantomime acting was painful to watch and none of the snarky remarks that she hit out with landed. The guy that was her intern was just as bad and there wasn't even any real need for these characters to be in the movie.
In summary, it's okay. Not much focus is put on Tom Hiddleston's Loki in this one, but when it is, these are the best parts of the movie. He is easily the highlight of a sub par movie overall. Even Chris Hemsworth was bad in this and I know that the guy is a good actor, I've seen him give brilliant performances in movies both within and outside of the MCU. Every part of this movie is positively conventional and these moderately successful parts add up to a tolerable film that is by no means required viewing, not even for the most die hard of comic book fans.
This isn't a bad movie overall, it's just painfully mediocre. The direction is uninspired, the performances are phoned in and the plot is run of the mill for a superhero story. The new characters introduced are extraordinarily vanilla, the score is okay and the script is pretty pedestrian in terms of the kind of story it is telling. The whole thing is just passable and yet extremely unremarkable.
I know Marvel movies have become notorious for their obvious lack of decent antagonists, (other than Loki,) but this takes it to a new level of generic. This group of villains makes the Ultron bots look like deep, fleshed out characters.
I found myself getting extremely annoyed every time that Kat Dennings was in the screen and I don't hate this actress, I don't even remember hating her in the first Thor movie, but in this she was insufferable. Her over the top pantomime acting was painful to watch and none of the snarky remarks that she hit out with landed. The guy that was her intern was just as bad and there wasn't even any real need for these characters to be in the movie.
In summary, it's okay. Not much focus is put on Tom Hiddleston's Loki in this one, but when it is, these are the best parts of the movie. He is easily the highlight of a sub par movie overall. Even Chris Hemsworth was bad in this and I know that the guy is a good actor, I've seen him give brilliant performances in movies both within and outside of the MCU. Every part of this movie is positively conventional and these moderately successful parts add up to a tolerable film that is by no means required viewing, not even for the most die hard of comic book fans.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Taken 3 (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Impossible to recommend
The first Taken propelled Liam Neeson to action man stardom and became one of the most surprising hits of 2009. Its successor to some extent managed to capture the same thrilling suspense despite its ridiculous 12A certification.
Despite Neeson’s efforts to shut the series down, he decided to return as Bryan Mills for his final outing, Taken 3, but can it hold a candle to its predecessors?
No is the short answer. Everything from Neeson’s phoned-in performance to the horrific camerawork and poor special effects ensure it becomes the first turkey of 2015, and by the end, you’ll wish it was you being taken – out of the cinema.
Taken 3 follows Mills as he tries to evade the LAPD after he is wrongly accused of killing his wife Lenny – played by Famke Janssen who wasliamneeson clearly more interested in the paycheque than anything else.
This is the first problem with the film. Showing the killing of Janssen’s character in the trailer makes the audience all too aware of where the film is going – destroying any suspense that you would expect from the murder of a series’ main character.
Maggie Grace returns as Kim, now looking like the world’s oldest teenager and is the only actor to leave the film with their reputation intact. Her performance is decent but the hammy, almost comedic dialogue she is given to work with spoils her credibility.
Taken-3-Movie-PosterA new addition is Forest Whitaker who plays the detective tasked with bringing Mills in, Franck Dotzler, though he again gives a career-worst performance.
As with its predecessor, Taken 3 suffers from a ridiculous 12A certification which means that Neeson is only able to look vaguely menacing. The action which was such an integral part of the first film is completely lost and becomes repetitive after seeing the 15th punch in a row.
Unfortunately, Oliver Megaton’s uninspiring direction only worsens things. Taking lessons from the Michael Bay school of cinematography, everything is ridiculously shaky, devoid of any suspense or tension at all.
The final act of Taken 3’s 109 minute running time alleviates the offerings somewhat but there’s a twist you can see coming from a mile away.
Overall, Neeson’s performances have always bettered some of the more average films of his career, but by the time the end credits role here it feels like Liam himself is fed up. From an incomprehensible script to bland performances, Taken 3 is a dire film which simply is impossible to give a recommendation.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/09/impossible-to-recommend-taken-3-review/
Despite Neeson’s efforts to shut the series down, he decided to return as Bryan Mills for his final outing, Taken 3, but can it hold a candle to its predecessors?
No is the short answer. Everything from Neeson’s phoned-in performance to the horrific camerawork and poor special effects ensure it becomes the first turkey of 2015, and by the end, you’ll wish it was you being taken – out of the cinema.
Taken 3 follows Mills as he tries to evade the LAPD after he is wrongly accused of killing his wife Lenny – played by Famke Janssen who wasliamneeson clearly more interested in the paycheque than anything else.
This is the first problem with the film. Showing the killing of Janssen’s character in the trailer makes the audience all too aware of where the film is going – destroying any suspense that you would expect from the murder of a series’ main character.
Maggie Grace returns as Kim, now looking like the world’s oldest teenager and is the only actor to leave the film with their reputation intact. Her performance is decent but the hammy, almost comedic dialogue she is given to work with spoils her credibility.
Taken-3-Movie-PosterA new addition is Forest Whitaker who plays the detective tasked with bringing Mills in, Franck Dotzler, though he again gives a career-worst performance.
As with its predecessor, Taken 3 suffers from a ridiculous 12A certification which means that Neeson is only able to look vaguely menacing. The action which was such an integral part of the first film is completely lost and becomes repetitive after seeing the 15th punch in a row.
Unfortunately, Oliver Megaton’s uninspiring direction only worsens things. Taking lessons from the Michael Bay school of cinematography, everything is ridiculously shaky, devoid of any suspense or tension at all.
The final act of Taken 3’s 109 minute running time alleviates the offerings somewhat but there’s a twist you can see coming from a mile away.
Overall, Neeson’s performances have always bettered some of the more average films of his career, but by the time the end credits role here it feels like Liam himself is fed up. From an incomprehensible script to bland performances, Taken 3 is a dire film which simply is impossible to give a recommendation.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/09/impossible-to-recommend-taken-3-review/
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated Winchester: The House That Ghosts Built (2018) in Movies
Feb 2, 2018
It was okay. Nothing more, nothing less.
So, when I saw the trailer for Winchester, I was a little intrigued. Not a lot, but a little. A bit more so when I realized that Helen Mirren was in it. Though I can’t say I could name anything else she’s been in off-hand, I did recognize that she had a bit of weight behind her name. Her presence, combined with Jason Clarke (who I recognize more as a “Hey, it’s that guy” than actually recognize) gave me some hope for the movie. Hence stealing away on a Friday afternoon, paying entirely too much money for a ticket and popcorn to get the big-screen experience.
Winchester could have been good, if it didn’t feel like they were scared to go outside the realm of jump-scares. (Though, I will give the directors credit for surprising me and putting a different spin on the typical mirror scare.) Most of the acting was decent-to-solid, but the actors were sorely limited by a distinctly yawn-worthy script.
In regards to the Winchester cast: Clarke has an undeniable charisma. The way Mirren portrayed Sara Winchester, she had that haughty, truth-speaking old lady thing going on that I appreciated and thought I was in for a treat. I was wrong, unfortunately. I felt very much like Mirren’s heart wasn’t in her role at all, and hiding her behind a veil was sometimes the only way to disguise the blue cardboard of her eyes. Sarah Snook reminded me a bit of Maggie Smith, and she had a way of keeping your attention on her. However, Henry, played by Finn Scicluna-O’Prey was barely worth noticing. Scicluna-O’Prey’s ability to command attention on the screen was pretty much solely limited to the well-light scenes featuring his brilliant red hair. (I feel really mean saying that about a younger actor, but it’s the truth.)
The pacing was middling. I definitely got the fidgets a few times during the movie. The dialogue had it’s moments. (There’s a scene between Mirren and Clarke that’ll have you snickering.) The action, such as it was, was bland and cliched. The ending scene had me rolling my eyes.
Overall, Winchester wasn’t god-awful, but it wasn’t something your average horror-movie watcher hasn’t seen 999 times before. It’s one to rent at your local Redbox, or when it his Amazon, but not worth paying movie theatre prices for right now.
Winchester could have been good, if it didn’t feel like they were scared to go outside the realm of jump-scares. (Though, I will give the directors credit for surprising me and putting a different spin on the typical mirror scare.) Most of the acting was decent-to-solid, but the actors were sorely limited by a distinctly yawn-worthy script.
In regards to the Winchester cast: Clarke has an undeniable charisma. The way Mirren portrayed Sara Winchester, she had that haughty, truth-speaking old lady thing going on that I appreciated and thought I was in for a treat. I was wrong, unfortunately. I felt very much like Mirren’s heart wasn’t in her role at all, and hiding her behind a veil was sometimes the only way to disguise the blue cardboard of her eyes. Sarah Snook reminded me a bit of Maggie Smith, and she had a way of keeping your attention on her. However, Henry, played by Finn Scicluna-O’Prey was barely worth noticing. Scicluna-O’Prey’s ability to command attention on the screen was pretty much solely limited to the well-light scenes featuring his brilliant red hair. (I feel really mean saying that about a younger actor, but it’s the truth.)
The pacing was middling. I definitely got the fidgets a few times during the movie. The dialogue had it’s moments. (There’s a scene between Mirren and Clarke that’ll have you snickering.) The action, such as it was, was bland and cliched. The ending scene had me rolling my eyes.
Overall, Winchester wasn’t god-awful, but it wasn’t something your average horror-movie watcher hasn’t seen 999 times before. It’s one to rent at your local Redbox, or when it his Amazon, but not worth paying movie theatre prices for right now.
Steven Sklansky (231 KP) rated The Happytime Murders (2017) in Movies
Aug 23, 2018
Funny for a Puppet Movie
I did not go in to this movie with the highest of hopes but I came out with a big smile on my face. There were a lot of people that told me not to go to this movie, but I never listen to anyone and this is a good reason why. I try not to judge a movie by the trailer for the the big reason they never tell the whole story and you have to trust the person making the trailer. So I went anyway.
I am really glad I did because it was really funny from start to finish. I thought they would put in to much toilet humor and they didn't. What they did put in was well placed and fit the story line great. It was also kind of great seeing a different side to brutal murders. Without blood and guts they were able to be more creative with the killing and give you something very different.
I do have to give props to the puppeteers. At the end of the movie they showed some clips of behind the scenes and some of the things they had to do to get the shots looked difficult. Also how they shot the interactions with human puppet were done fantastic, It really did not look like CGI was used at all even though there was a lot.
Brian Henson did a great job writing the script. The use of humans vs puppets was done very well. It almost reminded me of a Who Framed Roger Rabbit type of movie. I almost thought at the end the killer was going to be a puppet in a human body. Wouldn't that have been a twist.
Buddy cop movies have always been a favorite of mine from Lethal Weapon to Bad Boys. This movie was right up there. I would say the best but it had its moments. I did think Melissa McCarthy wasn't going to be the choice, but she worked out. He type of humor did have place in this movie, although in some places it was over the top. All the puppet cast was really good. You mostly had human puppets but there were some animals thrown in the mix. I do with there were more monster puppets like Oscar the Grouch or Elmo. That would have been great.
Overall I think it is worth a watch if you like puppets and murder mysteries and don't mind the occasional sex joke. Until next time, enjoy the show.
I am really glad I did because it was really funny from start to finish. I thought they would put in to much toilet humor and they didn't. What they did put in was well placed and fit the story line great. It was also kind of great seeing a different side to brutal murders. Without blood and guts they were able to be more creative with the killing and give you something very different.
I do have to give props to the puppeteers. At the end of the movie they showed some clips of behind the scenes and some of the things they had to do to get the shots looked difficult. Also how they shot the interactions with human puppet were done fantastic, It really did not look like CGI was used at all even though there was a lot.
Brian Henson did a great job writing the script. The use of humans vs puppets was done very well. It almost reminded me of a Who Framed Roger Rabbit type of movie. I almost thought at the end the killer was going to be a puppet in a human body. Wouldn't that have been a twist.
Buddy cop movies have always been a favorite of mine from Lethal Weapon to Bad Boys. This movie was right up there. I would say the best but it had its moments. I did think Melissa McCarthy wasn't going to be the choice, but she worked out. He type of humor did have place in this movie, although in some places it was over the top. All the puppet cast was really good. You mostly had human puppets but there were some animals thrown in the mix. I do with there were more monster puppets like Oscar the Grouch or Elmo. That would have been great.
Overall I think it is worth a watch if you like puppets and murder mysteries and don't mind the occasional sex joke. Until next time, enjoy the show.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated WarGames The Dead Code (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
It is hard to believe that 25 years have passed since a computer took the world to the edge of nuclear annihilation in “War Games” The film starring Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy was a cautionary tale about the dangers of taking the human factor about military decisions, and like films such as “The Terminator” a cautionary warning about dependence on technology.
As the two and a half decades unfolded, many films have emerged that feature a central theme of technology run amuck, and how despite our frailties, humanity in the end is the ultimate master of its own fate.
In the new film “Wargames: The Dead Code”, audiences are given an updated retelling of the classic tale with more than a few reverent nods to the original.
The film stars Matt Lanter as Will Farmer, a good natured techie who is as eager to help his neighbor fix his computer as he is to play online games with his friend Dennis (Nicholas Wright). When Will decides to take on a new game that features terrorist attack scenarios he inadvertently triggers a series of events that will soon cause hundreds of thousands of lives to hang in the balance.
The game is actually a top secret project that is designed to locate, test, and remove any potential threats and is overseen by a computer system named Ripley.
Will embarks on a school trip to Montreal hoping to spend more time with the lovely Annie (Amanda Walsh), and is unaware that forces are at play that thanks to a unfortunate series of events, will soon have Amanda and Will not only running for their lives but locked in a race against time to prevent a catastrophe of epic proportion.
The film has a good premise, but asks you to take several leaps of faith as it progresses and uses logic that at times is absurd even for a genre film. Much of the film unfolds as a movie of the week rather than a taut action thriller that should be expected with the talent attached to the film, as many of the characters are not developed enough for the audience to truly care about their fates.
The film is also surprisingly short in the suspense department, though it does try to make up for this with some nice chase sequences.
It is a shame that the talented cast could not be given a script worth of their talents or the premise of the film.
As the two and a half decades unfolded, many films have emerged that feature a central theme of technology run amuck, and how despite our frailties, humanity in the end is the ultimate master of its own fate.
In the new film “Wargames: The Dead Code”, audiences are given an updated retelling of the classic tale with more than a few reverent nods to the original.
The film stars Matt Lanter as Will Farmer, a good natured techie who is as eager to help his neighbor fix his computer as he is to play online games with his friend Dennis (Nicholas Wright). When Will decides to take on a new game that features terrorist attack scenarios he inadvertently triggers a series of events that will soon cause hundreds of thousands of lives to hang in the balance.
The game is actually a top secret project that is designed to locate, test, and remove any potential threats and is overseen by a computer system named Ripley.
Will embarks on a school trip to Montreal hoping to spend more time with the lovely Annie (Amanda Walsh), and is unaware that forces are at play that thanks to a unfortunate series of events, will soon have Amanda and Will not only running for their lives but locked in a race against time to prevent a catastrophe of epic proportion.
The film has a good premise, but asks you to take several leaps of faith as it progresses and uses logic that at times is absurd even for a genre film. Much of the film unfolds as a movie of the week rather than a taut action thriller that should be expected with the talent attached to the film, as many of the characters are not developed enough for the audience to truly care about their fates.
The film is also surprisingly short in the suspense department, though it does try to make up for this with some nice chase sequences.
It is a shame that the talented cast could not be given a script worth of their talents or the premise of the film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Love, Simon (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Meet Simon, just your average teenage boy who loves to hang out with his best friends and spend time with his family. His life is seemingly perfect, except he has a secret. Simon (Nick Robinson) is gay. With news of a closeted gay kid at school, who only is known as Blue; Simon starts to venture out of his secret. However, as John Hughes taught us in the 1980’s it’s not easy being a teenager. As Simon tries to navigate this new friendship with Blue, he begins to affect the lives of his best friends Leah (Katherine Langford), Nick (Keiynan Lonsdale), and Abby (Alexandra Shipp) just to keep his secret safe. Even his mom (Jennifer Gardiner) and dad (Josh Duhamel) begin to realize something is up. So, the question is if his secret gets out how will he handle it?
Love, Simon is the coming of age story 2018 needed. Modern coming of age films lack critical aspects of the teenage condition; being selfish and having massive amounts of teen angst. That is what was special about the 1980’s classics Breakfast Club and Sixteen Candles, they showed how teenagers actually felt.
Love, Simon also bring an LGBT love story into a heavily saturated heteronormative genre. Now for those who say, well why is this important? It’s important because representation in film matters. Being able to see yourself in a character on the big screen can mean so much.
Originally, going into this film I was a bit skeptical; as the film has been heavily advertised on all social media platforms. So, I began to worry if the hype would live up to the actual film. I was glad to be proven quite the opposite; as I ended up completely falling in love with this film. The wit shown in the script, and the delivery made by the actors was incredible. Watching this film was a breath of fresh air; as most coming of age films follow very formulated clichés and while this had some it used them in completely different ways. I would say more on this matter but truly you have to see it to experience it. Even the soundtrack exuded the teenage experience; completely complementing it from beginning to end.
Love, Simon is a film that shows being yourself is a freeing experience and it is definitely a film I will be buying once it hits Blu Ray. This film is for anyone who loved those coming of age movies from the 1980’s and anyone who loves a good love story
Love, Simon is the coming of age story 2018 needed. Modern coming of age films lack critical aspects of the teenage condition; being selfish and having massive amounts of teen angst. That is what was special about the 1980’s classics Breakfast Club and Sixteen Candles, they showed how teenagers actually felt.
Love, Simon also bring an LGBT love story into a heavily saturated heteronormative genre. Now for those who say, well why is this important? It’s important because representation in film matters. Being able to see yourself in a character on the big screen can mean so much.
Originally, going into this film I was a bit skeptical; as the film has been heavily advertised on all social media platforms. So, I began to worry if the hype would live up to the actual film. I was glad to be proven quite the opposite; as I ended up completely falling in love with this film. The wit shown in the script, and the delivery made by the actors was incredible. Watching this film was a breath of fresh air; as most coming of age films follow very formulated clichés and while this had some it used them in completely different ways. I would say more on this matter but truly you have to see it to experience it. Even the soundtrack exuded the teenage experience; completely complementing it from beginning to end.
Love, Simon is a film that shows being yourself is a freeing experience and it is definitely a film I will be buying once it hits Blu Ray. This film is for anyone who loved those coming of age movies from the 1980’s and anyone who loves a good love story
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace (1999) in Movies
Nov 8, 2019
I genuinely find The Phantom Menace really hard to review.
I was 11 years old when it came out in cinemas, and I of course absolutely loved it, and I did for a good few years.
As I grew older, it became apparent that the original Star Wars trilogy was a set of films that truly stood the test of time, a statement that doesn't hold true to the prequel films, but when I look back on Episode I in particular, it's a huge part of the Star Wars that I grew up with, so I really can't hate on it too aggressively!
Episode 1 is undeniably geared towards a younger audience. It has a pretty basic script, colourful characters, low brow humour, and is dripping with CGI. This direction is a huge part of it's downfall, with infamous characters like Jar Jar Binks being a big source of fan contempt. Likewise, young Anakin Skywalker was also not received well by a lot of fans, a character geared towards the young audience TPM is aimed at, and so unbelievably far away from the iconic villain he will eventually become.
A big part of Episode I that I personally dislike is the need to give a backstory to everything. An example of this is the scientific explanation behind The Force, taking away the mystical side of it. (I'm also not a huge fan of C3-PO being built by a pre-adolescent Darth Vader, but here we are)
The above mentioned CGI is completely overloaded. It's aged pretty badly when it comes to characters like the Gungans, and is a far cry from the practical effects and sets of the original trilogy.
Saying all this though, there is still a load of stuff I love about TPM, and I don't care what you think...
Ewan McGregor is great casting as a young Obi-Wan Kenobi, and is the beating heart of this whole trilogy.
I also like Liam Neeson as Qui-Gon.
It gets a lot of flack, but I love the pod race scene (sue me) and then of course, Darth Maul. No backstory is given here, just a badass Sith Lord with a dual ended lightsaber, and that's all we need to know.
The Phantom Menace, isn't the most gracious start to the chronological Star Wars story, but it still has an odd sort of charm and it's certainly not the worst Star Wars film out there.
To be honest, I lost count a long time ago in regards to how many times I've seen it, and dammit, I'll watch it again 🖕
I was 11 years old when it came out in cinemas, and I of course absolutely loved it, and I did for a good few years.
As I grew older, it became apparent that the original Star Wars trilogy was a set of films that truly stood the test of time, a statement that doesn't hold true to the prequel films, but when I look back on Episode I in particular, it's a huge part of the Star Wars that I grew up with, so I really can't hate on it too aggressively!
Episode 1 is undeniably geared towards a younger audience. It has a pretty basic script, colourful characters, low brow humour, and is dripping with CGI. This direction is a huge part of it's downfall, with infamous characters like Jar Jar Binks being a big source of fan contempt. Likewise, young Anakin Skywalker was also not received well by a lot of fans, a character geared towards the young audience TPM is aimed at, and so unbelievably far away from the iconic villain he will eventually become.
A big part of Episode I that I personally dislike is the need to give a backstory to everything. An example of this is the scientific explanation behind The Force, taking away the mystical side of it. (I'm also not a huge fan of C3-PO being built by a pre-adolescent Darth Vader, but here we are)
The above mentioned CGI is completely overloaded. It's aged pretty badly when it comes to characters like the Gungans, and is a far cry from the practical effects and sets of the original trilogy.
Saying all this though, there is still a load of stuff I love about TPM, and I don't care what you think...
Ewan McGregor is great casting as a young Obi-Wan Kenobi, and is the beating heart of this whole trilogy.
I also like Liam Neeson as Qui-Gon.
It gets a lot of flack, but I love the pod race scene (sue me) and then of course, Darth Maul. No backstory is given here, just a badass Sith Lord with a dual ended lightsaber, and that's all we need to know.
The Phantom Menace, isn't the most gracious start to the chronological Star Wars story, but it still has an odd sort of charm and it's certainly not the worst Star Wars film out there.
To be honest, I lost count a long time ago in regards to how many times I've seen it, and dammit, I'll watch it again 🖕
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Playing with Fire (2019) in Movies
Jan 9, 2020
Seeing the trailer for this I was mildly excited, this sort of daft family humour holds a place in my heart and it looked like I was going to get another film to add to the "pick me up" watchlist. But oh my, everything about this experience rubbed me the wrong way.
Jake Carson runs a rugged group of smokejumpers that swoop into action and stop fires from taking hold. On their latest callout they find a cabin about to be engulfed by flames and trapped inside are three children in need of help.
Following the rules, Jake calls Child Protective Services, but being so remote they won't be able to get to them quickly. It's now their duty to keep the three of them safe until they arrive. Four grown men, three kids... what could possibly go wrong?
Where to start? How about that humour I was looking forward to? Or perhaps the severe lack of it. Over the whole runtime I laughed more at the end credits that I did at the whole film. Keegan-Michael Key is by far the funniest thing about the film, but it still isn't a perfect part. Key's way of sliding into scenes and just taking over was excellent, it made me smile, but when these moments started he was funny with just the right amount of over the top but the script would quite often throw him over that fine line and it became tiresome.
John Cena generally isn't bad when it comes to comedy offerings, but in Playing With Fire he's very stiff even for the by-the-books character he's playing. It felt like Jake had been made too straight-laced, he needs to make the transition from uptight to more relaxed but they could have brought it down just one step and it would have been something a lot easier to watch.
Brianna Hildebrand plays the oldest of the rescued children, Brynn. She gives a solid performance and probably has the best character overall, no frustrating quirks, nothing over the top. While she manages to make a good show of it being up against the over the top nature of everything else means it gets lost in the background.
While there might be a twist on the sort of story it doesn't feel new in any respects. I'm feeling rather let down with the whole thing but thankfully we're not short of other films that do this exact thing.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/playing-with-fire-movie-review.html
Jake Carson runs a rugged group of smokejumpers that swoop into action and stop fires from taking hold. On their latest callout they find a cabin about to be engulfed by flames and trapped inside are three children in need of help.
Following the rules, Jake calls Child Protective Services, but being so remote they won't be able to get to them quickly. It's now their duty to keep the three of them safe until they arrive. Four grown men, three kids... what could possibly go wrong?
Where to start? How about that humour I was looking forward to? Or perhaps the severe lack of it. Over the whole runtime I laughed more at the end credits that I did at the whole film. Keegan-Michael Key is by far the funniest thing about the film, but it still isn't a perfect part. Key's way of sliding into scenes and just taking over was excellent, it made me smile, but when these moments started he was funny with just the right amount of over the top but the script would quite often throw him over that fine line and it became tiresome.
John Cena generally isn't bad when it comes to comedy offerings, but in Playing With Fire he's very stiff even for the by-the-books character he's playing. It felt like Jake had been made too straight-laced, he needs to make the transition from uptight to more relaxed but they could have brought it down just one step and it would have been something a lot easier to watch.
Brianna Hildebrand plays the oldest of the rescued children, Brynn. She gives a solid performance and probably has the best character overall, no frustrating quirks, nothing over the top. While she manages to make a good show of it being up against the over the top nature of everything else means it gets lost in the background.
While there might be a twist on the sort of story it doesn't feel new in any respects. I'm feeling rather let down with the whole thing but thankfully we're not short of other films that do this exact thing.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/playing-with-fire-movie-review.html
JT (287 KP) rated Insidious (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
James Wan has all the talent but for some reason is unable to put the killer instinct into his films and finish them off like they should be. With the exception of being one of the founding members of the Saw franchise, his films to date haven’t quite lived up to the expectations we know he can and should be able to deliver on.
Wan returns with Leigh Whannell the creator and writer of Saw, with the pair looking to yet again scare everyone shitless with a haunted house tale, this time focussing on a young boy whose slipped into a coma and drifted into the outer realms called The Further.
When writing Insidious Whannell wanted to make sure that he avoided all the haunted house cliches, and he pretty much did that. What he failed to do though was script a stronger third act, something which might have brought this up on a par with Saw.
Dalton is the one in peril as he suddenly slips into a coma one morning, his mother Renai (Byrne) is then forced to spend time looking after her trio of kids all the while looking over her shoulder, as she hears one bump to the next occurring both in broad daylight and at night.
After some decent scares from the outset including the old “he’s behind you” and murmurings through the baby monitor the film was almost guilty of slipping into a farce as our protagonist Josh Lambert (Wilson) was forced to engage in some astro physics in order to save the day.
It was a real shame as up till that point you’d have spent most of the run time hiding under the covers, as Wan introduced one jolt after another, some more subtle than others but ultimately offering the same desired effect.
The introduction of Elise Rainier (Lin Shaye) the Ghost hunter whose come to see what all the fuss is about is pretty much inevitable. Armed with the latest high tech equipment and a couple of geeks, the aptly named Specs and Tucker, provides much amusement as Rainier delivers the killer line “It’s not the house that’s haunted”.
The film moves through the gears well, but it’s that annoyingly poor third act that ruins it for me. It does try and redeem itself with an all too predictable ending, those that have seen Wan and Whannel’s other film Dead Silence will know what I mean.
At the end of the day you feel all Wan had to do was hit the target, but this is just off to the right!
Wan returns with Leigh Whannell the creator and writer of Saw, with the pair looking to yet again scare everyone shitless with a haunted house tale, this time focussing on a young boy whose slipped into a coma and drifted into the outer realms called The Further.
When writing Insidious Whannell wanted to make sure that he avoided all the haunted house cliches, and he pretty much did that. What he failed to do though was script a stronger third act, something which might have brought this up on a par with Saw.
Dalton is the one in peril as he suddenly slips into a coma one morning, his mother Renai (Byrne) is then forced to spend time looking after her trio of kids all the while looking over her shoulder, as she hears one bump to the next occurring both in broad daylight and at night.
After some decent scares from the outset including the old “he’s behind you” and murmurings through the baby monitor the film was almost guilty of slipping into a farce as our protagonist Josh Lambert (Wilson) was forced to engage in some astro physics in order to save the day.
It was a real shame as up till that point you’d have spent most of the run time hiding under the covers, as Wan introduced one jolt after another, some more subtle than others but ultimately offering the same desired effect.
The introduction of Elise Rainier (Lin Shaye) the Ghost hunter whose come to see what all the fuss is about is pretty much inevitable. Armed with the latest high tech equipment and a couple of geeks, the aptly named Specs and Tucker, provides much amusement as Rainier delivers the killer line “It’s not the house that’s haunted”.
The film moves through the gears well, but it’s that annoyingly poor third act that ruins it for me. It does try and redeem itself with an all too predictable ending, those that have seen Wan and Whannel’s other film Dead Silence will know what I mean.
At the end of the day you feel all Wan had to do was hit the target, but this is just off to the right!
JT (287 KP) rated Killer Elite (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Just another mindless Statham master-class of ass kicking? Think again people, this one is a whole different ball game, and one that sets this easily one of the Stath’s best to date. Paired alongside Robert De Niro would be an honour in itself for any actor and the rapport between the two was like they had been lifelong friends.
Despite De Niro’s relatively smallish part he still gets his moment in the limelight, and makes the most of the opportunity, with a few witty pieces of dialogue thrown in, we all know he can handle an automatic weapon.
It’s more than just an action film though, it’s part drama part spy thriller
This is all about Danny (Jason Statham) and his group of deadly assassins, Davies, played by Prison Break’s Dominic Purcell and Meier (Aden Young) who set out to take down three former SAS soldiers who are alleged to have killed a dying Sheik’s three sons. All this in return for the release of Hunter, simply put “You do this job, or Hunter’s a dead man.”
Set in the 80s it gives the film a real retro feel to it, and the action is balls and all, there is no CGI here. From an opening sequence centred on a assassination attempt to close hand to hand combat, director McKendry goes a little Bourne-esque with his sharp direction and tight camera shots.
Clive Owen sporting the film’s dodgiest tash is ultra slick and uber cool as the dogsbody of a secret society called The Feather Men which is actually a book by Ranulph Fiennes to which the film is based. Why The Feather Men? Because they have the lightest touch, apt really when Owen goes about his business heavy handed.
It’s more than just an action film though, its part drama part spy thriller. The script is extremely well written with intricate characters that you can care about, rather than go to watch kick the shit out of each other.
The film does jump from a variety of locations, from the Middle East to London to Paris to the outback bush of Australia, it can be hard to follow and keep up with just where they are. But a close eye will leave no confusion whatsoever.
It’s a great debut feature from McKendry and will do his stock no harm at all, and for Statham fans this one has got a bit more meat on it to chew through.
Despite De Niro’s relatively smallish part he still gets his moment in the limelight, and makes the most of the opportunity, with a few witty pieces of dialogue thrown in, we all know he can handle an automatic weapon.
It’s more than just an action film though, it’s part drama part spy thriller
This is all about Danny (Jason Statham) and his group of deadly assassins, Davies, played by Prison Break’s Dominic Purcell and Meier (Aden Young) who set out to take down three former SAS soldiers who are alleged to have killed a dying Sheik’s three sons. All this in return for the release of Hunter, simply put “You do this job, or Hunter’s a dead man.”
Set in the 80s it gives the film a real retro feel to it, and the action is balls and all, there is no CGI here. From an opening sequence centred on a assassination attempt to close hand to hand combat, director McKendry goes a little Bourne-esque with his sharp direction and tight camera shots.
Clive Owen sporting the film’s dodgiest tash is ultra slick and uber cool as the dogsbody of a secret society called The Feather Men which is actually a book by Ranulph Fiennes to which the film is based. Why The Feather Men? Because they have the lightest touch, apt really when Owen goes about his business heavy handed.
It’s more than just an action film though, its part drama part spy thriller. The script is extremely well written with intricate characters that you can care about, rather than go to watch kick the shit out of each other.
The film does jump from a variety of locations, from the Middle East to London to Paris to the outback bush of Australia, it can be hard to follow and keep up with just where they are. But a close eye will leave no confusion whatsoever.
It’s a great debut feature from McKendry and will do his stock no harm at all, and for Statham fans this one has got a bit more meat on it to chew through.
Lee (2222 KP) Oct 10, 2017