Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Martian (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Ridley Scott's best film since Alien
It’s safe to say that Ridley Scott knows his way around a camera. From Alien to Gladiator, the director has brought to the silver screen some of the greatest films of all time, heck even Prometheus wasn’t that bad in a muddled kind of way.
Now, after the underwhelming Exodus: Gods & Kings, Scott returns to the director’s chair doing what he does best, sci-fi. But is The Martian as good as his earlier works?
Thankfully, the answer is yes and The Martian proves how good the director can be when he’s given the right material to work with. Andy Weir’s 2011 novel of the same name lends a good starting point and Scott ends up with his best film since 1979’s masterpiece, Alien – that’s no joke.
Matt Damon stars as Mark Wateny, an astronaut and botanist left stranded on Mars after a mission goes horribly wrong. After being left behind by his colleagues, played by talent including Jessica Chastain (The Hurt Locker) and Kate Mara (Fantastic Four), Mark must find a way to survive on the red planet until a rescue operation can reach him – years later.
Sean Bean, Kristen Wiig, Donald Glover and Jeff Daniels also star as NASA directors, scientists and astrophysicists. Despite their limited screen time, each brings something to the table with a spirited performance.
Scott directs The Martian with a huge amount of confidence, clearly helped by his time on Alien and Prometheus, and his cinematography is absolute perfection. Never has Mars looked this good on film. The desolate, arid landscape is breath-taking and the numerous aerial shots that feature Damon’s character only add to the emptiness.
The special effects too are wonderful. CGI is mixed with amazing practical props that integrate so well together that it’s impossible to tell the difference. The numerous spacecraft, living quarters and vehicles all feel so real and continue to add more credibility to The Martian’s cause.
Damon is also second-to-none and over the course of the film develops new personality traits, all due to the intense stress of being stranded 50 million miles away from Earth. The film lives and dies on his efforts and thankfully, the ever-reliable actor gives one of his best performances in years.
Unfortunately, Jessica Chastain doesn’t have too much to do until the finale and feels a little side-lined – she has won an Oscar after all, though Damon’s magnetic presence is enough to forgive some of the shortcomings in other characters.
The script is, on the whole, very good indeed. Despite only featuring one character for the majority of its 140 minute run-time, The Martian is funny, witty and helped by a fantastic disco soundtrack that has hits from the likes of ABBA dotted about.
Overall, The Martian is sci-fi film-making at its peak. Ridley Scott has crafted a beautiful looking and deeply involving film that features the very best in special effects and scientific accuracy. With Matt Damon’s dry humour and emotional depth, it’s a winner all round.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/04/ridley-scotts-best-film-since-alien-the-martian-review/
Now, after the underwhelming Exodus: Gods & Kings, Scott returns to the director’s chair doing what he does best, sci-fi. But is The Martian as good as his earlier works?
Thankfully, the answer is yes and The Martian proves how good the director can be when he’s given the right material to work with. Andy Weir’s 2011 novel of the same name lends a good starting point and Scott ends up with his best film since 1979’s masterpiece, Alien – that’s no joke.
Matt Damon stars as Mark Wateny, an astronaut and botanist left stranded on Mars after a mission goes horribly wrong. After being left behind by his colleagues, played by talent including Jessica Chastain (The Hurt Locker) and Kate Mara (Fantastic Four), Mark must find a way to survive on the red planet until a rescue operation can reach him – years later.
Sean Bean, Kristen Wiig, Donald Glover and Jeff Daniels also star as NASA directors, scientists and astrophysicists. Despite their limited screen time, each brings something to the table with a spirited performance.
Scott directs The Martian with a huge amount of confidence, clearly helped by his time on Alien and Prometheus, and his cinematography is absolute perfection. Never has Mars looked this good on film. The desolate, arid landscape is breath-taking and the numerous aerial shots that feature Damon’s character only add to the emptiness.
The special effects too are wonderful. CGI is mixed with amazing practical props that integrate so well together that it’s impossible to tell the difference. The numerous spacecraft, living quarters and vehicles all feel so real and continue to add more credibility to The Martian’s cause.
Damon is also second-to-none and over the course of the film develops new personality traits, all due to the intense stress of being stranded 50 million miles away from Earth. The film lives and dies on his efforts and thankfully, the ever-reliable actor gives one of his best performances in years.
Unfortunately, Jessica Chastain doesn’t have too much to do until the finale and feels a little side-lined – she has won an Oscar after all, though Damon’s magnetic presence is enough to forgive some of the shortcomings in other characters.
The script is, on the whole, very good indeed. Despite only featuring one character for the majority of its 140 minute run-time, The Martian is funny, witty and helped by a fantastic disco soundtrack that has hits from the likes of ABBA dotted about.
Overall, The Martian is sci-fi film-making at its peak. Ridley Scott has crafted a beautiful looking and deeply involving film that features the very best in special effects and scientific accuracy. With Matt Damon’s dry humour and emotional depth, it’s a winner all round.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/04/ridley-scotts-best-film-since-alien-the-martian-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Potter goes International
It’s almost unbearable to think that Harry Potter & the Philosopher’s Stone was released…wait for it… 15 years ago this very week. I know, I can’t believe it too, and what’s even more depressing is that the eight film behemoth concluded over five years ago.
Since then, Potter aficionados have been calling on writer J.K. Rowling to release new material in the hope of creating more silver screen magic. Well, prayers were answered with the announcement of a film adaptation of her short book, Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them. The day is finally here, but what is the finished product like?
The year is 1926, and Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) has just completed a global excursion to find and document an extraordinary array of magical creatures. Arriving in New York for a brief stopover, he might have come and gone without incident, were it not for a No-Maj (American for Muggle) named Jacob (Dan Fogler), a misplaced magical case, and the escape of some of Newt’s fantastic beasts, which could spell trouble for both the wizarding and No-Maj worlds.
David Yates returns to the franchise after directing the final four instalments in the Harry Potter saga and manages to craft a film that’ll no doubt please fans and newcomers, but lacks the subtle touches that made its British counterparts so enthralling for 10 years.
The cast is on point however, despite Eddie Redmayne’s slightly over-the-top performance as Mr. Scamander. Ron Perlman, Jon Voight and Ezra Miller all lend themselves to the film in some form with Colin Farrell providing an excellent portrayal, though Dan Fogler’s muggle Jacob steals the show by a country mile.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is very good with 1920’s New York looking incredibly realistic and the sweeping shots of the city are beautifully juxtaposed with more intimate basement settings.
Unfortunately, the special effects occasionally let the film down. For a franchise start-up (we have four more films to look forward to) the consistency just isn’t there and Redmayne’s interactions with his unique beasts feel rough and disappointingly unfinished.
There’s also a bit of an issue with Fantastic Beasts’ pacing, something that the Potter films were also guilty of from time to time. The first hour is unacceptably slow, the plot continuously dragging its heels as it sets up the side story to Redmayne’s creature feature.
Speaking of which, that second scenario really does pull things together nicely and takes the flick into much darker territory than expected. It’s a fascinating third act that really makes up for the rather dull first. The twists and turns that the script takes the audience on making it genuinely exciting.
Overall, what made the Harry Potter movies a success was the chemistry between each and every member of the cast. Fantastic Beasts certainly has a great cast individually, but the characters lack chemistry when on screen together. Couple this with some poor special effects plus a dull first hour and what we’re left with is a reasonable start to a new franchise, but not a magical one.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/19/potter-goes-international-fantastic-beasts-and-where-to-find-them-review/
Since then, Potter aficionados have been calling on writer J.K. Rowling to release new material in the hope of creating more silver screen magic. Well, prayers were answered with the announcement of a film adaptation of her short book, Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them. The day is finally here, but what is the finished product like?
The year is 1926, and Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) has just completed a global excursion to find and document an extraordinary array of magical creatures. Arriving in New York for a brief stopover, he might have come and gone without incident, were it not for a No-Maj (American for Muggle) named Jacob (Dan Fogler), a misplaced magical case, and the escape of some of Newt’s fantastic beasts, which could spell trouble for both the wizarding and No-Maj worlds.
David Yates returns to the franchise after directing the final four instalments in the Harry Potter saga and manages to craft a film that’ll no doubt please fans and newcomers, but lacks the subtle touches that made its British counterparts so enthralling for 10 years.
The cast is on point however, despite Eddie Redmayne’s slightly over-the-top performance as Mr. Scamander. Ron Perlman, Jon Voight and Ezra Miller all lend themselves to the film in some form with Colin Farrell providing an excellent portrayal, though Dan Fogler’s muggle Jacob steals the show by a country mile.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is very good with 1920’s New York looking incredibly realistic and the sweeping shots of the city are beautifully juxtaposed with more intimate basement settings.
Unfortunately, the special effects occasionally let the film down. For a franchise start-up (we have four more films to look forward to) the consistency just isn’t there and Redmayne’s interactions with his unique beasts feel rough and disappointingly unfinished.
There’s also a bit of an issue with Fantastic Beasts’ pacing, something that the Potter films were also guilty of from time to time. The first hour is unacceptably slow, the plot continuously dragging its heels as it sets up the side story to Redmayne’s creature feature.
Speaking of which, that second scenario really does pull things together nicely and takes the flick into much darker territory than expected. It’s a fascinating third act that really makes up for the rather dull first. The twists and turns that the script takes the audience on making it genuinely exciting.
Overall, what made the Harry Potter movies a success was the chemistry between each and every member of the cast. Fantastic Beasts certainly has a great cast individually, but the characters lack chemistry when on screen together. Couple this with some poor special effects plus a dull first hour and what we’re left with is a reasonable start to a new franchise, but not a magical one.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/19/potter-goes-international-fantastic-beasts-and-where-to-find-them-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Legend of Tarzan (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
CPR Needed
As tends to be the case with Hollywood, studios pay very close attention to their rivals release schedules, eyeing up potential competition to pit their films against, maxing box-office returns in the process.
And when Disney announced they were rebooting The Jungle Book in March this year, Warner Bros quickly responded with another jungle-themed film; The Legend of Tarzan. But does this interpretation on the classic character swing or fall?
It’s been nearly a decade since Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård), aka John Clayton III, left Africa to live in Victorian England with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie). Danger lurks on the horizon as Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), a treacherous envoy for King Leopold, devises a scheme that lures the couple and friend George Williams (Samuel L Jackson) to the Congo. Rom plans to capture Tarzan and deliver him to an old enemy in exchange for diamonds. When Jane becomes a pawn in his devious plot, Tarzan must return to the jungle to save the woman he loves.
Directed by David Yates (Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows), Legend of Tarzan features committed performances from its lead cast, immersive scenery and impressive special effects, but all of the glitz can’t save a film that plods along at a dreadful pace. Not since Peter Jackson’s King Kong has there been a movie that wastes so much of its opening act.
Alexander Skarsgård is likeable and commanding as the titular character, but lacks enough acting prowess to tackle the deeper, more emotional side that writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer have brought to the table here. Therefore, the scenes featuring a solo Tarzan suffer somewhat and Samuel L Jackson feels wasted in a poorly written and half-hearted role.
It is in Margot Robbie and Christoph Waltz that we find the film’s saving graces. Their characters leap off the screen with Waltz in particular being a highlight throughout. It’s unfortunate that one of our greatest living actors is lambasted with poor dialogue however, though the script just about keeps him afloat.
David Yates brings a similar filming style here to that of his foray into Harry Potter. The action is confidently filmed, but he avoids the use of shaky-cam that many directors seem to find appealing nowadays. The CGI is on the whole very good, especially in the finale which is breath-taking to watch.
It’s just a shame the rest of the film is such a drag. The first hour is incredibly poorly paced with very brief, albeit well-filmed, action sequences not doing enough to brighten Legend of Tarzan up. Elsewhere, the use of flashbacks is at first a decent way of giving the audience some exposition, but after the tenth one, they’re a nuisance.
Overall, The Legend of Tarzan does a lot more with its iconic character than other films have done, but that doesn’t excuse its poor pacing. Thankfully, the exciting finale lifts the final act above the standard of the first hour, and commanding performances from all the cast sustain interest just about enough to see it through to the end.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/07/cpr-needed-the-legend-of-tarzan-review/
And when Disney announced they were rebooting The Jungle Book in March this year, Warner Bros quickly responded with another jungle-themed film; The Legend of Tarzan. But does this interpretation on the classic character swing or fall?
It’s been nearly a decade since Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård), aka John Clayton III, left Africa to live in Victorian England with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie). Danger lurks on the horizon as Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), a treacherous envoy for King Leopold, devises a scheme that lures the couple and friend George Williams (Samuel L Jackson) to the Congo. Rom plans to capture Tarzan and deliver him to an old enemy in exchange for diamonds. When Jane becomes a pawn in his devious plot, Tarzan must return to the jungle to save the woman he loves.
Directed by David Yates (Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows), Legend of Tarzan features committed performances from its lead cast, immersive scenery and impressive special effects, but all of the glitz can’t save a film that plods along at a dreadful pace. Not since Peter Jackson’s King Kong has there been a movie that wastes so much of its opening act.
Alexander Skarsgård is likeable and commanding as the titular character, but lacks enough acting prowess to tackle the deeper, more emotional side that writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer have brought to the table here. Therefore, the scenes featuring a solo Tarzan suffer somewhat and Samuel L Jackson feels wasted in a poorly written and half-hearted role.
It is in Margot Robbie and Christoph Waltz that we find the film’s saving graces. Their characters leap off the screen with Waltz in particular being a highlight throughout. It’s unfortunate that one of our greatest living actors is lambasted with poor dialogue however, though the script just about keeps him afloat.
David Yates brings a similar filming style here to that of his foray into Harry Potter. The action is confidently filmed, but he avoids the use of shaky-cam that many directors seem to find appealing nowadays. The CGI is on the whole very good, especially in the finale which is breath-taking to watch.
It’s just a shame the rest of the film is such a drag. The first hour is incredibly poorly paced with very brief, albeit well-filmed, action sequences not doing enough to brighten Legend of Tarzan up. Elsewhere, the use of flashbacks is at first a decent way of giving the audience some exposition, but after the tenth one, they’re a nuisance.
Overall, The Legend of Tarzan does a lot more with its iconic character than other films have done, but that doesn’t excuse its poor pacing. Thankfully, the exciting finale lifts the final act above the standard of the first hour, and commanding performances from all the cast sustain interest just about enough to see it through to the end.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/07/cpr-needed-the-legend-of-tarzan-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Wedding Ringer (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Best reserved for the DVD shelf
The comedy genre is one which goes through many cycles. You can go for years with lacklustre efforts featuring big-name celebrities like Norbit and Johnny English: Reborn, but every so often something special comes along to remind you how funny films can be – a la Bridesmaids or The Heat.
This year’s first offering is The Wedding Ringer. Fronted by Kevin Hart and Josh Gad, it follows the story of a loner who is forced to hire a best man to ensure his upcoming wedding goes without a hitch. But will it have you in fits of laughter or running from the altar?
Jeremy Garelick directs a film that despite a few chuckles here and there and the odd laugh-out-loud moment never really manages to settle into a groove and as such it all feels a little, well vanilla.
Dough Harris (Gad) is a man with a secret, one so big he is unable to share it with his obnoxious fiancée Gretchen – the normally adorable Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting in an against type performance. He simply hasn’t got any friends and is forced to hire Jimmy Callahan (Hart) as his best man to make himself look less of a loser.
Naturally things don’t go quite to plan with a selection of mildly amusing set-pieces involving bachelor parties, dogs and dancing interspersed with genuinely touching scenes which look at self-worth and finding true love and friendship.
Unfortunately this is where things begin to unravel. A mixture of slapstick and more complex comedic elements are put into a film which isn’t quite sure which genre it is trying to be, outright comedy or romantic comedy drama.
Hart plays Jimmy well and Gad is good as the bumbling yet sweet Doug, but the former seems to be on autopilot for the majority of The Wedding Ringer’s 101 minute running time while the latter seems to be just going through the motions, exhibiting no real connection with the script.
Other characters including a selection of hired groomsmen and close family barely register as cardboard cut-outs, never mind major characters in a motion picture.
However, the real fun to be had here is in the more childish sequences with one involving a dog, and another featuring an extended danceringer-dancing sequence having the audience in fits of laughter, though again these moments are few and far between.
Ultimately then, The Wedding Ringer isn’t as disappointing as it could have been but falls short of the comedic standard that audiences now expect when paying the increasingly expensive price of a cinema ticket.
Despite some reasonably charming performances, a couple of stand-out scenes and a cracking soundtrack, The Wedding Ringer fits into a bracket reserved for comedy films which could have delivered so much, but in the end just didn’t go quite far enough and it leaves Bridesmaids at the top of the pile for wedding-themed hilarity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/02/22/best-reserved-for-the-dvd-shelf-the-wedding-ringer-review/
This year’s first offering is The Wedding Ringer. Fronted by Kevin Hart and Josh Gad, it follows the story of a loner who is forced to hire a best man to ensure his upcoming wedding goes without a hitch. But will it have you in fits of laughter or running from the altar?
Jeremy Garelick directs a film that despite a few chuckles here and there and the odd laugh-out-loud moment never really manages to settle into a groove and as such it all feels a little, well vanilla.
Dough Harris (Gad) is a man with a secret, one so big he is unable to share it with his obnoxious fiancée Gretchen – the normally adorable Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting in an against type performance. He simply hasn’t got any friends and is forced to hire Jimmy Callahan (Hart) as his best man to make himself look less of a loser.
Naturally things don’t go quite to plan with a selection of mildly amusing set-pieces involving bachelor parties, dogs and dancing interspersed with genuinely touching scenes which look at self-worth and finding true love and friendship.
Unfortunately this is where things begin to unravel. A mixture of slapstick and more complex comedic elements are put into a film which isn’t quite sure which genre it is trying to be, outright comedy or romantic comedy drama.
Hart plays Jimmy well and Gad is good as the bumbling yet sweet Doug, but the former seems to be on autopilot for the majority of The Wedding Ringer’s 101 minute running time while the latter seems to be just going through the motions, exhibiting no real connection with the script.
Other characters including a selection of hired groomsmen and close family barely register as cardboard cut-outs, never mind major characters in a motion picture.
However, the real fun to be had here is in the more childish sequences with one involving a dog, and another featuring an extended danceringer-dancing sequence having the audience in fits of laughter, though again these moments are few and far between.
Ultimately then, The Wedding Ringer isn’t as disappointing as it could have been but falls short of the comedic standard that audiences now expect when paying the increasingly expensive price of a cinema ticket.
Despite some reasonably charming performances, a couple of stand-out scenes and a cracking soundtrack, The Wedding Ringer fits into a bracket reserved for comedy films which could have delivered so much, but in the end just didn’t go quite far enough and it leaves Bridesmaids at the top of the pile for wedding-themed hilarity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/02/22/best-reserved-for-the-dvd-shelf-the-wedding-ringer-review/
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Misery in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Also read my review here: http://bookbum.weebly.com/book-reviews/misery-by-stephen-king
<b><i>Annie Annie oh Annie please please no please dont Annie I swear to you Ill be good I swear to God Ill be good please give me a chance to be good OH ANNIE PLEASE LET ME BE GOOD -
Just a little pain. Then this nasty business will be behind us for good Paul.</b></i>
Well hot fucking damn. Is this the best book Ive read all year? <b>I think it might be.</b> I am officially a Stephen King fan. A Stephen King convert as my mother is calling me. Misery is a goddamn masterpiece. Its <i>so</i> tense. I dont know how anyone can write so well that Im actually squirming. <b>LEGIT SQUIRMING AS I READ.</b>
Misery is about a bestselling author, Paul Sheldon, who, after celebrating his completion of his next (and best) book, drinks a little too much champagne and gets himself into a nasty car accident in the middle of nowhere. He wakes to find his legs shattered but splintered (splinted???) in a mysterious house. Luckily, or unluckily, hes found himself saved and in the capable hands of his number one fan and ex-nurse, Annie Wilkes.
I put off reading Misery for, oh I dont know, maybe 5 years? I watched the film, of course, because disliking a film can be down to a number of variables, the wrong director, actors you dislike, bad script etc, but not liking a book, <i>a Stephen King book</i>, is down to one and one thing only, the author. And I was <i>so</i> terrified I wouldnt like Stephen King! Honestly, terrified is this right word for it. I didnt want to turn around in a house, no, a society, that claims Stephen King is a modern day Charles Dickens, of sorts, and say nah, not that into him myself. But lo and behold, I ended up liking both the film and the book, thank Christ. The book more so than the film, but isnt that usually the case? Although the actors for both Paul and Annie in the film version were <i>spot on.</i>
I dont think Ive ever been so vocal whilst reading a book. Misery had me yelping and oohing and arring and laughing and yucking all the way through. Kings writing is so vivid you <i>are</i> Paul Sheldon for the duration of the book. Youre Paul, rolling around in his wheelchair, holding your breath and crying and sweating, hoping that car you hear isnt Annies. Hoping shes holding those Godsent Novril tablets every few hours to subdue your pain. Wondering how the hell youre ever going to be able to escape. You completely immerse yourself in the nail biting story, page by page. This is a perfect novel from start to finish, thats all I have left to say.
If youve never read Stephen King before, start with Misery. <b>I double donkey dare you.</b>
<b><i>Annie Annie oh Annie please please no please dont Annie I swear to you Ill be good I swear to God Ill be good please give me a chance to be good OH ANNIE PLEASE LET ME BE GOOD -
Just a little pain. Then this nasty business will be behind us for good Paul.</b></i>
Well hot fucking damn. Is this the best book Ive read all year? <b>I think it might be.</b> I am officially a Stephen King fan. A Stephen King convert as my mother is calling me. Misery is a goddamn masterpiece. Its <i>so</i> tense. I dont know how anyone can write so well that Im actually squirming. <b>LEGIT SQUIRMING AS I READ.</b>
Misery is about a bestselling author, Paul Sheldon, who, after celebrating his completion of his next (and best) book, drinks a little too much champagne and gets himself into a nasty car accident in the middle of nowhere. He wakes to find his legs shattered but splintered (splinted???) in a mysterious house. Luckily, or unluckily, hes found himself saved and in the capable hands of his number one fan and ex-nurse, Annie Wilkes.
I put off reading Misery for, oh I dont know, maybe 5 years? I watched the film, of course, because disliking a film can be down to a number of variables, the wrong director, actors you dislike, bad script etc, but not liking a book, <i>a Stephen King book</i>, is down to one and one thing only, the author. And I was <i>so</i> terrified I wouldnt like Stephen King! Honestly, terrified is this right word for it. I didnt want to turn around in a house, no, a society, that claims Stephen King is a modern day Charles Dickens, of sorts, and say nah, not that into him myself. But lo and behold, I ended up liking both the film and the book, thank Christ. The book more so than the film, but isnt that usually the case? Although the actors for both Paul and Annie in the film version were <i>spot on.</i>
I dont think Ive ever been so vocal whilst reading a book. Misery had me yelping and oohing and arring and laughing and yucking all the way through. Kings writing is so vivid you <i>are</i> Paul Sheldon for the duration of the book. Youre Paul, rolling around in his wheelchair, holding your breath and crying and sweating, hoping that car you hear isnt Annies. Hoping shes holding those Godsent Novril tablets every few hours to subdue your pain. Wondering how the hell youre ever going to be able to escape. You completely immerse yourself in the nail biting story, page by page. This is a perfect novel from start to finish, thats all I have left to say.
If youve never read Stephen King before, start with Misery. <b>I double donkey dare you.</b>
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Hurricane Heist (2018) in Movies
Mar 10, 2018
Doesn't Go Far Enough
There are times when all I want to do is to sit in a darkened movie theater, turn off my brain, and let a movie with a silly, over-the-top premise wash all over me. THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS films are an example of an "A" in this category. Last year's GEOSTORM was a "B" (it was so over-the-top that it was fun, especially when the meteorologist declared - as if he was reciting Shakespeare - "Oh my God, it's a GEOSTORM!"). Unfortunately, a "C" example of this is THE HURRICANE HEIST.
Directed by Rob Cohen - who brought us the original FAST AND FURIOUS film lo' those many years ago - THE HURRICANE HEIST tells the tale of a HEIST set during a...anyone?...HURRICANE. That's pretty much all you need to know of the plot. The rest is action, escapes, weather gone bad, bad guys being bad guys and good guys being good guys.
The good guys are Toby Kebbel (so good as the motion capture bad-guy ape in DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES), perennial "B"-movie actress Maggie Grace (TAKEN, LOST and the immortal HOT GIRL, FAST CAR, EATING A BANANA) and Ryan Kwanten (I guess he was in TRUE BLOOD). What do these good guys have in common? They are not hard to look at on the screen. The two men also have really bad Southern accents.
The bad guys are led by Ralph Ineson ( a perennial "that guy" in such films as STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI, GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY and KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE) and a host of "red shirts". The problem is that Ineson plays his bad guy role as a "that guy" and the "red shirts" have no personality at all. One guy tries to be the "loose cannon" but he doesn't go far enough, nor does Ineson or ANY of the bad guys.
Oh...did I mention Ben Cross (Sarek in the new STAR TREK films)? Cross leaped off the screen in the Oscar winning film CHARIOTS OF FIRE way back in 1981 and was going to be "the next big thing". How has that worked out for him? I'm sure he's making a nice living, but...
But...you don't come to this kind of films for the acting. You come to it for the insane premise, the over-the-top acting, the out-of-this-world stunts and special effects. Unfortunately, THE HURRICANE HEIST plays each one of these "safely". The premise is insane, just not insane enough. The acting is melodramatic - just not over-the-top. The script doesn't really have any "oh-my-gosh, did he just say that" lines and the action, stunts and special effects are pretty good, (maybe even good), but not great.
A pretty mediocre time at the movies. It did serve it's purpose, I turned my brain off for two hours. I just wish it didn't power down as well.
Letter Grade: C (thanks for trying)
5 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by Rob Cohen - who brought us the original FAST AND FURIOUS film lo' those many years ago - THE HURRICANE HEIST tells the tale of a HEIST set during a...anyone?...HURRICANE. That's pretty much all you need to know of the plot. The rest is action, escapes, weather gone bad, bad guys being bad guys and good guys being good guys.
The good guys are Toby Kebbel (so good as the motion capture bad-guy ape in DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES), perennial "B"-movie actress Maggie Grace (TAKEN, LOST and the immortal HOT GIRL, FAST CAR, EATING A BANANA) and Ryan Kwanten (I guess he was in TRUE BLOOD). What do these good guys have in common? They are not hard to look at on the screen. The two men also have really bad Southern accents.
The bad guys are led by Ralph Ineson ( a perennial "that guy" in such films as STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI, GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY and KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE) and a host of "red shirts". The problem is that Ineson plays his bad guy role as a "that guy" and the "red shirts" have no personality at all. One guy tries to be the "loose cannon" but he doesn't go far enough, nor does Ineson or ANY of the bad guys.
Oh...did I mention Ben Cross (Sarek in the new STAR TREK films)? Cross leaped off the screen in the Oscar winning film CHARIOTS OF FIRE way back in 1981 and was going to be "the next big thing". How has that worked out for him? I'm sure he's making a nice living, but...
But...you don't come to this kind of films for the acting. You come to it for the insane premise, the over-the-top acting, the out-of-this-world stunts and special effects. Unfortunately, THE HURRICANE HEIST plays each one of these "safely". The premise is insane, just not insane enough. The acting is melodramatic - just not over-the-top. The script doesn't really have any "oh-my-gosh, did he just say that" lines and the action, stunts and special effects are pretty good, (maybe even good), but not great.
A pretty mediocre time at the movies. It did serve it's purpose, I turned my brain off for two hours. I just wish it didn't power down as well.
Letter Grade: C (thanks for trying)
5 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated Road House (1989) in Movies
May 30, 2018
Very underrated
Contains spoilers, click to show
So what kind of film do you get when you have great one liners, bar fights, guns, knives, egos, strippers, blues music, a polar bear and a monster truck? You get one of the most enjoyable and entertaining films of the late 80's, Road House. The film follows James Dalton (Patrick Swayze) a cooler (bouncer) and the best in the business, as he takes employment with Frank Tilghman (Kevin Tighe) the owner of the Double Deuce in Jasper, Missouri. The bar is the roughest in town and he needs Dalton to clean it up. However corrupt business man and crime boss Brad Wesley (Ben Gazzara) stands in his way. After the classic "chick flick" Dirty Dancing, Patrick Swayze was Hollywood gold. Women loved him and men wanted to be him. The film was full of romance. Then along came Road House, a complete opposite to Dirty Dancing, a little romance and loads of action. The film has a great cast including Patrick Swayze, Kevin Tighe, Ben Gazzara, Kelly Lynch, Marshall R. Teague, Red West, Kathleen Wilhoite, John William Young, John Doe, Kurt James Stefka, Keith David & Terry Funk. The cast works well together and it is full of great performances. Naturally Patrick Swayze at the height of his career stands miles apart from the rest of the cast as Dalton. A character that can hurt you with his words just as much as his fists. Tragically, 20 years later Swayze had his life cut short by cancer. His death is still a major loss to the entertainment industry, but his legacy will live on in the great performances and memorable characters he played. The film also a features a great performance by the late great blues guitarist Jeff Healey as Cody. It's the music in the film that goes a long way to achieving the right feel for the film. Everything works well from the characters, the music to the setting. Set in a rural area the scenery is breath-taking and it is used to great effect. But it's the fight choreography that stands out from many other films. Great bar fights are pretty much a thing of the past, but here they are full of action and humour just like the classic westerns. The one on one fights are brutal, mainly for the realism they portray. The script is awesome and full of classic lines mainly from Dalton and although many are cheesy, when he says it, it feels right. The director surprisingly hasn't made many films but the ones I have seen of his I really like and I know I am in the minority. See my review of Gladiator (1992) for more by this director. This is truly a great film, although very underrated. It is also one of my personal all-time favourites. There are a couple of versions of this so ensure that you see the USA or UK version released after 2002 as these are the uncut editions. So grab a few beers and a few friends, but this on a big screen and turn the sound way up for a really great movie experience.
Steve Fearon (84 KP) rated Lake Placid (1999) in Movies
Sep 5, 2018
The Toothless Croc Adventure that bit off more than it could chew
If you are big horror fan, like I am, then you will no doubt have seen and loved Jaws at some point.
The spectacular fear of something huge and unseen in the water, a perfectly evolved marine predator capable of tremendous power and speed, with a jaw size capable of cutting you in half.
Jaws hit on a very primal fear, that there is an unreasoning, prehistoric simplicity to the shark, that reminds us that until the last few thousand years, we were just another form of food for many creatures on this planet, and that we could be again, in the right circumstances.
It is this fear that also informs our love of Zombie movies, our disgust at cannibals and keeps us watching endless episodes of dirty, tired-looking people arguing in 'The Walking Dead'.
Where Jaws created a whole genre of horror in 'Killer Shark' movies, their reptilian counterparts have had to make do with a somewhat less successful series of outings, with Alligator, Croc etc
They just haven't quite hit our imagination in the same way, whether that be because of their comical waddle on land, or having watched an excited Australian man jumping all over them on TV (RIP Steve Irwin)...
Regardless, Lake Placid is the one that most remember from recent history, and having listened to a 'Horrow Show' Podcast on the film recently, I mentioned to my better half I wouldn't mind seeing it again, to see if it is as bad as it sounded.
Well last night, said better half suggested we watch it and boy oh boy...
So first off, Brendan Gleeson was by far the best thing about this movie, his one liners and grumpy demeanor were, for long periods, the best thing about this movie, shortly followed by the hilarious Betty White.
Stan Winstone, legendary physical creature effects maestro turns in some great stuff, and when they are dealing withe the physical creature, it is very effective but all too often they resort to CGI, which is passable but still tends to take you out of the moment..
Oliver Platt's casting as a crocodile expert playboy is amusing at first, then confusing and eventually just...well not laughable exactly as it isnt very funny, but strange certainly.
The movie languishes for long periods, focusing on the incredibly inert chemistry between leading lady Fonda, and wooden cardboard cut out Pullman, giving you poorly written rom com scripts where we signed up to see a giant Croc eat people.
Long story short, this movie is light on tension and action, heavy on clumsy exposition and strange casting choices, and it a poor relation to Jaws, which is more worthy of your time.
The spectacular fear of something huge and unseen in the water, a perfectly evolved marine predator capable of tremendous power and speed, with a jaw size capable of cutting you in half.
Jaws hit on a very primal fear, that there is an unreasoning, prehistoric simplicity to the shark, that reminds us that until the last few thousand years, we were just another form of food for many creatures on this planet, and that we could be again, in the right circumstances.
It is this fear that also informs our love of Zombie movies, our disgust at cannibals and keeps us watching endless episodes of dirty, tired-looking people arguing in 'The Walking Dead'.
Where Jaws created a whole genre of horror in 'Killer Shark' movies, their reptilian counterparts have had to make do with a somewhat less successful series of outings, with Alligator, Croc etc
They just haven't quite hit our imagination in the same way, whether that be because of their comical waddle on land, or having watched an excited Australian man jumping all over them on TV (RIP Steve Irwin)...
Regardless, Lake Placid is the one that most remember from recent history, and having listened to a 'Horrow Show' Podcast on the film recently, I mentioned to my better half I wouldn't mind seeing it again, to see if it is as bad as it sounded.
Well last night, said better half suggested we watch it and boy oh boy...
So first off, Brendan Gleeson was by far the best thing about this movie, his one liners and grumpy demeanor were, for long periods, the best thing about this movie, shortly followed by the hilarious Betty White.
Stan Winstone, legendary physical creature effects maestro turns in some great stuff, and when they are dealing withe the physical creature, it is very effective but all too often they resort to CGI, which is passable but still tends to take you out of the moment..
Oliver Platt's casting as a crocodile expert playboy is amusing at first, then confusing and eventually just...well not laughable exactly as it isnt very funny, but strange certainly.
The movie languishes for long periods, focusing on the incredibly inert chemistry between leading lady Fonda, and wooden cardboard cut out Pullman, giving you poorly written rom com scripts where we signed up to see a giant Croc eat people.
Long story short, this movie is light on tension and action, heavy on clumsy exposition and strange casting choices, and it a poor relation to Jaws, which is more worthy of your time.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Predator (2018) in Movies
Sep 26, 2018
Waste of idea, talent and my time
If I was to show future generations a prototypical 1980's "Machismo, Blood and Guts Action Flick", I would pull the original 1987 PREDATOR (starring good ol' Arnold Schwarzenegger) off my dusty shelves and show this to them. It is a film so "of it's time".
In subsequent years, there have been more films that attempted to use the Predator character - PREDATOR 2 (1990), AVP: ALIENS VS. PREDATOR (2004), ALIENS VS. PREDATOR: REQUIEM (2007) and PREDATORS (2010) - all disappointing. All failing to equal the balance of machismo, action and humor that is needed.
So...it was with great anticipation that I looked forward to THE PREDATOR, a new film written and directed by Shane Black (KISS KISS BANG BANG, IRON MAN 3, THE NICE GUYS) - one of the actors in the 1987 flick!
And...I was disappointed again.
This film fails because it never really got a grip on just what type of film it wanted to be - is it a Sci-Fi film? Is it an Action film? A buddy flick? A gore fest? A look at Autism? Black's script and direction spreads all these items out on the picnic blanket that is this film and then intermittently picks each one of these up to show us - sometimes a couple of them - like a kid trying to decide whether he wants the chips or the hot dogs or the Oreo cookies and just shoves them all in his mouth together.
And that's too bad, for Black has an interesting premise - rival Predators battling on Earth - with a ragtag group of Earthlings thrown in the middle - and what a "ragtag" group they are! Trevante Rhodes (MOONLIGHTING), Thomas Jane (THE MIST), Keegan-Michael Key (KEY & PEELE), Alfie Allen (GAME OF THRONES) and Augusto Aguilera (CHASING LIFE) make an intriguing band of misfit soldiers that easily could have been an equal to Arnold's ragtag group of soldiers from the 1987 original.
Unfortunately, they are the "back-up band" to the boring Boyd Holbrook (NARCOS) and Olivia Munn (X-MEN: APOCALYPSE) as a couple thrown together to defend Holbrook's Autistic son (Jacob Tremblay - so good in ROOM and wasted here) in a by-the-book "they hate each other when they first meet, so - naturally - they'll fall in love by the end" plot contrivance that doesn't work at all.
Add on top of that Sterling K. Brown (THIS IS US) as a "mysterious" Gov't Agent who is so much of a bad guy, all he was missing was a mustache twirl and the missed opportunities of actors such as Yvonne Stahovski (THE HANDMAID'S TALE) and NIall Matter (EUREKA) who both just stand around and do nothing. They even cast Jake Busey (Gary's kid) - who would be the perfect "over-the-top" bad guy for this sort of film, but...he is just misdirection and wasted as well.
What a wasted effort, a wasted opportunity and a waste of my time.
Letter Grade C_+: The ragtag group of soldiers were at least fun to watch (give Thomas Jane and Keegan-Michael Key their own "buddy" picture)!
5 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the BankofMarquis
In subsequent years, there have been more films that attempted to use the Predator character - PREDATOR 2 (1990), AVP: ALIENS VS. PREDATOR (2004), ALIENS VS. PREDATOR: REQUIEM (2007) and PREDATORS (2010) - all disappointing. All failing to equal the balance of machismo, action and humor that is needed.
So...it was with great anticipation that I looked forward to THE PREDATOR, a new film written and directed by Shane Black (KISS KISS BANG BANG, IRON MAN 3, THE NICE GUYS) - one of the actors in the 1987 flick!
And...I was disappointed again.
This film fails because it never really got a grip on just what type of film it wanted to be - is it a Sci-Fi film? Is it an Action film? A buddy flick? A gore fest? A look at Autism? Black's script and direction spreads all these items out on the picnic blanket that is this film and then intermittently picks each one of these up to show us - sometimes a couple of them - like a kid trying to decide whether he wants the chips or the hot dogs or the Oreo cookies and just shoves them all in his mouth together.
And that's too bad, for Black has an interesting premise - rival Predators battling on Earth - with a ragtag group of Earthlings thrown in the middle - and what a "ragtag" group they are! Trevante Rhodes (MOONLIGHTING), Thomas Jane (THE MIST), Keegan-Michael Key (KEY & PEELE), Alfie Allen (GAME OF THRONES) and Augusto Aguilera (CHASING LIFE) make an intriguing band of misfit soldiers that easily could have been an equal to Arnold's ragtag group of soldiers from the 1987 original.
Unfortunately, they are the "back-up band" to the boring Boyd Holbrook (NARCOS) and Olivia Munn (X-MEN: APOCALYPSE) as a couple thrown together to defend Holbrook's Autistic son (Jacob Tremblay - so good in ROOM and wasted here) in a by-the-book "they hate each other when they first meet, so - naturally - they'll fall in love by the end" plot contrivance that doesn't work at all.
Add on top of that Sterling K. Brown (THIS IS US) as a "mysterious" Gov't Agent who is so much of a bad guy, all he was missing was a mustache twirl and the missed opportunities of actors such as Yvonne Stahovski (THE HANDMAID'S TALE) and NIall Matter (EUREKA) who both just stand around and do nothing. They even cast Jake Busey (Gary's kid) - who would be the perfect "over-the-top" bad guy for this sort of film, but...he is just misdirection and wasted as well.
What a wasted effort, a wasted opportunity and a waste of my time.
Letter Grade C_+: The ragtag group of soldiers were at least fun to watch (give Thomas Jane and Keegan-Michael Key their own "buddy" picture)!
5 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the BankofMarquis
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) in Movies
Oct 24, 2018 (Updated Oct 24, 2018)
Good ensemble cast (2 more)
Cool set design and use of space
Nice cinematography
Enjoy Your Stay
In this day and age, it is becoming increasingly difficult to go into a movie without already knowing a bunch of information about it. Somehow Bad Times At The El Royale managed that. Even though I was a week late to seeing this movie, I was still able to go into it with very little knowledge about what was going to unfold. That in and of itself is an impressive feat in 2018.
I had a great time with this movie. I loved the cast here, Jeff Bridges and Jon Hamm are among my favourite actors working in Hollywood and I though that Chris Hemsworth did a fantastic job playing the villain for a change. The rest of the cast were fantastic too, other than Dakota Johnson, who was pretty wooden, (as we have come to expect from her.) As an aside, Cynthia Erivo's voice completely blew me away, I know that she has done some Broadway shows in the past, but she sounded incredible in this and I liked the way that her singing was tied in with the plot.
Bad Times is written and directed by Drew Goddard, who was also behind Cabin In The Woods and there are some similarities here, if you swap the horror elements out for mystery. I have also seen multiple reviews compare this to a Tarantino movie. There are obviously similarities in the structure that this film uses and the out-of-chronological-order structure that a Tarantino movie tends to follow, but I'd argue that Bad Times has it's own distinct and unique style.
I also thought that the cinematography was very effective throughout the film. The opening scene was very well shot, as was the scene when Hemsworth's character was introduced. The score also worked well with the plot and the dialogue and script were well written too.
The main negative that affected my enjoyment of the movie, were the decisions made regarding the pacing. The movie is split up so that we see things happen out of sequence or they are seen more than once from a different perspective. We are introduced to each new character and then we are given their backstory via a flashback. The main issue with this structure is that the flashbacks break the momentum of the events happening in the current story. Without spoiling too much, towards the end of the movie, everything comes to a head and an intense fight/shootout breaks out. Then, for some unknown reason, the filmmakers decide to slam on the brakes and give us another arbitrary flashback. It totally broke the immersion and intensity of the shootout sequence for me.
Overall, I had a good time watching Bad Times. I had no expectations going in as I didn't know much about the movie other than what had been shown in the trailers and I enjoyed witnessing what the movie had to offer. If you are looking for an exciting, suspenseful thriller, then you could definitely do worse than spending a stay at The El Royale.
I had a great time with this movie. I loved the cast here, Jeff Bridges and Jon Hamm are among my favourite actors working in Hollywood and I though that Chris Hemsworth did a fantastic job playing the villain for a change. The rest of the cast were fantastic too, other than Dakota Johnson, who was pretty wooden, (as we have come to expect from her.) As an aside, Cynthia Erivo's voice completely blew me away, I know that she has done some Broadway shows in the past, but she sounded incredible in this and I liked the way that her singing was tied in with the plot.
Bad Times is written and directed by Drew Goddard, who was also behind Cabin In The Woods and there are some similarities here, if you swap the horror elements out for mystery. I have also seen multiple reviews compare this to a Tarantino movie. There are obviously similarities in the structure that this film uses and the out-of-chronological-order structure that a Tarantino movie tends to follow, but I'd argue that Bad Times has it's own distinct and unique style.
I also thought that the cinematography was very effective throughout the film. The opening scene was very well shot, as was the scene when Hemsworth's character was introduced. The score also worked well with the plot and the dialogue and script were well written too.
The main negative that affected my enjoyment of the movie, were the decisions made regarding the pacing. The movie is split up so that we see things happen out of sequence or they are seen more than once from a different perspective. We are introduced to each new character and then we are given their backstory via a flashback. The main issue with this structure is that the flashbacks break the momentum of the events happening in the current story. Without spoiling too much, towards the end of the movie, everything comes to a head and an intense fight/shootout breaks out. Then, for some unknown reason, the filmmakers decide to slam on the brakes and give us another arbitrary flashback. It totally broke the immersion and intensity of the shootout sequence for me.
Overall, I had a good time watching Bad Times. I had no expectations going in as I didn't know much about the movie other than what had been shown in the trailers and I enjoyed witnessing what the movie had to offer. If you are looking for an exciting, suspenseful thriller, then you could definitely do worse than spending a stay at The El Royale.