Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Those Who Wish Me Dead (2021) in Movies
May 19, 2021
Disappointing
And…we have the “leader in the clubhouse” for the WORST FILM OF 2021.
As faithful readers of my reviews know, I’m all for a “turn you mind off” action flick, not really caring about plot/characters, but let some competent storytelling and decent action scenes transport me away from the real world for a few hours (or in this case, for 100 minutes) and THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD started off promisingly enough and so I settled into my chair looking to be entertained.
I’m still waiting
THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD stars Angelina Jolie as a “Fire Jumper” who is suffering from a traumatic experience and is shying away from human connection and interaction, looking for cheap, death-defying thrills to feel some sort of emotion. Into her world comes a young boy who has witnessed a murder and the murderers are chasing him, so she must save him.
And…of course…there’s a fire.
I can roll with that flimsy plot (certainly other action flicks have been entertaining with much less plot) but TWWMD (as I will call this from now on) fails to capitalize at all on any of the aspects of the plot and fails to garner much in the way of interest throughout the film.
Director/Writer Taylor Sheridan (the writer on the terrific HELL OR HIGH WATER) was brought on board this film early on as a “script doctor” and then stepped into the Director’s role when the original director (smartly) dropped out and he promised the producer’s that he could get Angelina Jolie to star in it.
To be fair, Jolie brings the necessary star quality to the role of emotionally crippled “Fire Jumper” Hannah, and she looks like she was “game” for whatever Sheridan asked her to do - there just isn’t much for her to do.
And this is unfortunate, for Sheridan starts the movie with an interesting scene where our two hitmen (Aiden Gillen - “Littlefinger” from GAME OF THRONES and Nicholas Hoult - Beast in the X-MEN FIRST CLASS films) take out their first target. This is actually a pretty good scene and one that starts the film out with promise. Little did I know that it was the best scene in the film.
After that, nothing interesting really happens and the other characters (with an exception that I will speak about in a moment) are not interesting at all (I’m looking at you, Tyler Perry, who was clearly doing a favor for Sheridan). As a matter of fact, some of the other characters were just plain annyoing (I’m looking at you, “Fire Jumper” Friends of Hannah).
The exception to this is the work of Jon Bernthal (Shane in the first 2 season of THE WALKING DEAD) and Medina Senghore (an actress I had not seen before) as a local cop and his “survivalist” wife. These two bring some intensity and spark to pretty dull proceedings - I think I would have rather have seen a film that focused on these 2 characters, rather than Jolie’s.
Most of the blame for this must fall to Writer/Director Sheridan. I don’t think he ever figured out what type of film he was making. Is it an action flick? Sort of (and the action scenes are not all that good/interesting). Is it a redemption story? Sure. (But I didn’t buy how Jolie’s character needed redemption). Is it a story of survival? Kind of (but I didn’t really care for the child actor that was being saved).
There was a good idea in here, but this movie wasn’t even close to a good movie on this idea. Skip this one.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
As faithful readers of my reviews know, I’m all for a “turn you mind off” action flick, not really caring about plot/characters, but let some competent storytelling and decent action scenes transport me away from the real world for a few hours (or in this case, for 100 minutes) and THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD started off promisingly enough and so I settled into my chair looking to be entertained.
I’m still waiting
THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD stars Angelina Jolie as a “Fire Jumper” who is suffering from a traumatic experience and is shying away from human connection and interaction, looking for cheap, death-defying thrills to feel some sort of emotion. Into her world comes a young boy who has witnessed a murder and the murderers are chasing him, so she must save him.
And…of course…there’s a fire.
I can roll with that flimsy plot (certainly other action flicks have been entertaining with much less plot) but TWWMD (as I will call this from now on) fails to capitalize at all on any of the aspects of the plot and fails to garner much in the way of interest throughout the film.
Director/Writer Taylor Sheridan (the writer on the terrific HELL OR HIGH WATER) was brought on board this film early on as a “script doctor” and then stepped into the Director’s role when the original director (smartly) dropped out and he promised the producer’s that he could get Angelina Jolie to star in it.
To be fair, Jolie brings the necessary star quality to the role of emotionally crippled “Fire Jumper” Hannah, and she looks like she was “game” for whatever Sheridan asked her to do - there just isn’t much for her to do.
And this is unfortunate, for Sheridan starts the movie with an interesting scene where our two hitmen (Aiden Gillen - “Littlefinger” from GAME OF THRONES and Nicholas Hoult - Beast in the X-MEN FIRST CLASS films) take out their first target. This is actually a pretty good scene and one that starts the film out with promise. Little did I know that it was the best scene in the film.
After that, nothing interesting really happens and the other characters (with an exception that I will speak about in a moment) are not interesting at all (I’m looking at you, Tyler Perry, who was clearly doing a favor for Sheridan). As a matter of fact, some of the other characters were just plain annyoing (I’m looking at you, “Fire Jumper” Friends of Hannah).
The exception to this is the work of Jon Bernthal (Shane in the first 2 season of THE WALKING DEAD) and Medina Senghore (an actress I had not seen before) as a local cop and his “survivalist” wife. These two bring some intensity and spark to pretty dull proceedings - I think I would have rather have seen a film that focused on these 2 characters, rather than Jolie’s.
Most of the blame for this must fall to Writer/Director Sheridan. I don’t think he ever figured out what type of film he was making. Is it an action flick? Sort of (and the action scenes are not all that good/interesting). Is it a redemption story? Sure. (But I didn’t buy how Jolie’s character needed redemption). Is it a story of survival? Kind of (but I didn’t really care for the child actor that was being saved).
There was a good idea in here, but this movie wasn’t even close to a good movie on this idea. Skip this one.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Ava (2020) in Movies
Jan 5, 2021
Dull and unoriginal
Ava is a 2020 spy action thriller directed by Tate Taylor and starring Jessica Chastain. It follows Ava (Chastain), an assassin working for a shadowy organisation who soon becomes hunted by her own, led by the mysterious Simon (Colin Farrell). Between missions and death threats, Ava is aided by her handler Duke (John Malkovich) while she attempts to resolve some long held family issues with her mother (Geena Davis), sister (Jess Weixler) and ex (Common).
From the outset, Ava appears to be like your typical female assassin style film – a loud, stylish electro/techno soundtrack overlaying an assassination featuring wigs, stylish clothes and cars and every other spy cliché you’d come to expect from a film like this. The only truly original and enjoyable thing in this opening scene is Ioan Gruffudd’s shady businessman, who looks like he’s having a whale of a time relishing playing a bad guy for a change. However what you don’t see coming with Ava after this initial scene is that instead of being a full on action film, it turns into a family melodrama with a few fight scenes thrown in almost as an afterthought.
Ava is a characterless film full of clichés, and lacking in any personality whatsoever. The spy and action elements, when we eventually see them that is, are entirely unoriginal and have been done so much better in any other spy film you could think of. The fight scenes are surprisingly dull and the camera work only results in highlighting how staged and choreographed the scenes are, they just don’t look real. It isn’t helped by all of the family drama either, with a large number of conversational dialogue scenes taking over the majority of the short but feels so long run time. It wouldn’t be too bad if these were scripted well but I’m afraid like everything else in this film, the script is lacklustre and clichéd.
Character development is poor and banal too, with the majority of the spy related characters lacking in any form of personality or likability. Ava herself is the worst, she reminded me of a personality-less robot who has no depth or emotions, no matter how much the opening credits scene or family interactions try to tell us otherwise. This film has really done it’s stellar cast a huge injustice and gives them absolutely nothing to work with.
Even the plot suffers from a complete absence of originality and seems to have been kept as vague as possible, whether on purpose or because the writers just couldn’t be bothered I’m not sure. The shadowy organisation that Ava, Duke and Simon all work for is never identified or discussed in any real detail. All we learn about them is that they employ assassins to make hits on possibly shady people, with no further elaboration on why or what these people have done wrong, which Ava herself seems fascinated about as we see her questioning her victims as they’re about to die. I’m all for creating a mysterious atmosphere giving away just enough to keep us intrigued, but I’m afraid this doesn’t work for Ava as it just comes across as lazy and complacent with sloppy writing.
I couldn’t help but compare Ava to Atomic Blonde, another female led assassin film that is worlds apart from this. Ava is lacking in everything that made Atomic Blonde - a fun watch, with style, substance and some brutal (but well executed) fight scenes - and I really wish Ava had followed the same formula as at least this would have made it watchable. As it is, it’s a completely dull and clichéd spy film lacking in pretty much everything.
From the outset, Ava appears to be like your typical female assassin style film – a loud, stylish electro/techno soundtrack overlaying an assassination featuring wigs, stylish clothes and cars and every other spy cliché you’d come to expect from a film like this. The only truly original and enjoyable thing in this opening scene is Ioan Gruffudd’s shady businessman, who looks like he’s having a whale of a time relishing playing a bad guy for a change. However what you don’t see coming with Ava after this initial scene is that instead of being a full on action film, it turns into a family melodrama with a few fight scenes thrown in almost as an afterthought.
Ava is a characterless film full of clichés, and lacking in any personality whatsoever. The spy and action elements, when we eventually see them that is, are entirely unoriginal and have been done so much better in any other spy film you could think of. The fight scenes are surprisingly dull and the camera work only results in highlighting how staged and choreographed the scenes are, they just don’t look real. It isn’t helped by all of the family drama either, with a large number of conversational dialogue scenes taking over the majority of the short but feels so long run time. It wouldn’t be too bad if these were scripted well but I’m afraid like everything else in this film, the script is lacklustre and clichéd.
Character development is poor and banal too, with the majority of the spy related characters lacking in any form of personality or likability. Ava herself is the worst, she reminded me of a personality-less robot who has no depth or emotions, no matter how much the opening credits scene or family interactions try to tell us otherwise. This film has really done it’s stellar cast a huge injustice and gives them absolutely nothing to work with.
Even the plot suffers from a complete absence of originality and seems to have been kept as vague as possible, whether on purpose or because the writers just couldn’t be bothered I’m not sure. The shadowy organisation that Ava, Duke and Simon all work for is never identified or discussed in any real detail. All we learn about them is that they employ assassins to make hits on possibly shady people, with no further elaboration on why or what these people have done wrong, which Ava herself seems fascinated about as we see her questioning her victims as they’re about to die. I’m all for creating a mysterious atmosphere giving away just enough to keep us intrigued, but I’m afraid this doesn’t work for Ava as it just comes across as lazy and complacent with sloppy writing.
I couldn’t help but compare Ava to Atomic Blonde, another female led assassin film that is worlds apart from this. Ava is lacking in everything that made Atomic Blonde - a fun watch, with style, substance and some brutal (but well executed) fight scenes - and I really wish Ava had followed the same formula as at least this would have made it watchable. As it is, it’s a completely dull and clichéd spy film lacking in pretty much everything.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Lost At Christmas (2020) in Movies
Nov 24, 2020
Lacking in Christmas spirit
Lost at Christmas is a Scottish romantic comedy following two strangers that team up to try and get home for Christmas after finding themselves stranded in the Scottish highlands on Christmas Eve.
As a disclaimer, I am a major cynic when it comes to Christmas films and rarely ever find myself getting into the Christmas spirit, unless it’s in the company of a bonafide Christmas classic (think Home Alone or Muppets Christmas Carol). And I’m afraid to say that Lost at Christmas is definitely not a Christmas classic.
Rob (Kenny Boyle) and Jen (Natalie Clark) have a horrific time on Christmas Eve as their respective relationships come to a rather unexpected end, and find themselves stranded at a train station in the Scottish highlands. One of the few things this film does well is the setting. It is without a doubt a beautiful looking film set in some amazing Scottish scenery and director Ryan Hendrick knows how to showcase the sheer beauty that’s on offer and does this very well. It’s just a shame the rest of the film doesn’t match up this. There are some (thankfully infrequent) attempts at CGI that are very poor, and there are some unusually shot scenes, the most notably being the bathroom scene and from outside of a car windscreen, that don’t really work. In addition to the landscapes, Hendrick seems to love arty closeups on the actors faces and I’m afraid these don’t work either.
The plot is your stereotypical Christmas romantic film – it is the only time of year where strangers would happily travel together through the middle of nowhere. Any other time of year and this would be a horror film. This isn’t the only unfathomable action either, there’s a lot of things that happen that seem completely bizarre and out of place. This may be because this is obviously a home grown low budget offering that doesn’t have the Hollywood finances to make the bizarre seem a lot more believable. In Scotland, two strangers hating each other one minute and liking each other the next seems very out of place. Although the bickering between them in the first half an hour gets very tiresome very quickly, so it may have been for the best that they started liking each other quickly! There are at least a few laughs, although nowhere near what you’d expect from a film categorised as a romantic comedy.
One of the biggest issues with Lost at Christmas is the acting. I hate to be so cruel when it’s obviously a Scottish made film with local talent, but the acting on offer here is quite poor. There are some fairly heartwarming moments that are spoilt by a cliched script and some horrific acting. It seems to vary between overly exaggerated to having no feeling or emotion whatsoever, and it leaves you feeling unconvinced about any of the relationships that evolve. Sylvester McCoy is the only one who does well, as even Clare Grogan is hindered by some ridiculously overlarge glasses that are far too prominent in nearly every scene that she’s in.
Sadly though, Lost at Christmas’s biggest flaw is that for a Christmas film, it doesn’t feel very Christmassy. Despite being set at Christmas, with snow and mentions of Christmas at every opportunity, it is severely lacking in any Christmas spirit or emotions. Christmas films are meant to be overall a rather happy and festive experience, but Lost at Christmas feels rather dull and quite low spirited. And the music, whilst good, only serves to exacerbate the lack of Christmas spirit.
Anyone who likes Christmas films no matter what will likely find Lost at Christmas fairly enjoyable. However to me it was just a bit lost.
As a disclaimer, I am a major cynic when it comes to Christmas films and rarely ever find myself getting into the Christmas spirit, unless it’s in the company of a bonafide Christmas classic (think Home Alone or Muppets Christmas Carol). And I’m afraid to say that Lost at Christmas is definitely not a Christmas classic.
Rob (Kenny Boyle) and Jen (Natalie Clark) have a horrific time on Christmas Eve as their respective relationships come to a rather unexpected end, and find themselves stranded at a train station in the Scottish highlands. One of the few things this film does well is the setting. It is without a doubt a beautiful looking film set in some amazing Scottish scenery and director Ryan Hendrick knows how to showcase the sheer beauty that’s on offer and does this very well. It’s just a shame the rest of the film doesn’t match up this. There are some (thankfully infrequent) attempts at CGI that are very poor, and there are some unusually shot scenes, the most notably being the bathroom scene and from outside of a car windscreen, that don’t really work. In addition to the landscapes, Hendrick seems to love arty closeups on the actors faces and I’m afraid these don’t work either.
The plot is your stereotypical Christmas romantic film – it is the only time of year where strangers would happily travel together through the middle of nowhere. Any other time of year and this would be a horror film. This isn’t the only unfathomable action either, there’s a lot of things that happen that seem completely bizarre and out of place. This may be because this is obviously a home grown low budget offering that doesn’t have the Hollywood finances to make the bizarre seem a lot more believable. In Scotland, two strangers hating each other one minute and liking each other the next seems very out of place. Although the bickering between them in the first half an hour gets very tiresome very quickly, so it may have been for the best that they started liking each other quickly! There are at least a few laughs, although nowhere near what you’d expect from a film categorised as a romantic comedy.
One of the biggest issues with Lost at Christmas is the acting. I hate to be so cruel when it’s obviously a Scottish made film with local talent, but the acting on offer here is quite poor. There are some fairly heartwarming moments that are spoilt by a cliched script and some horrific acting. It seems to vary between overly exaggerated to having no feeling or emotion whatsoever, and it leaves you feeling unconvinced about any of the relationships that evolve. Sylvester McCoy is the only one who does well, as even Clare Grogan is hindered by some ridiculously overlarge glasses that are far too prominent in nearly every scene that she’s in.
Sadly though, Lost at Christmas’s biggest flaw is that for a Christmas film, it doesn’t feel very Christmassy. Despite being set at Christmas, with snow and mentions of Christmas at every opportunity, it is severely lacking in any Christmas spirit or emotions. Christmas films are meant to be overall a rather happy and festive experience, but Lost at Christmas feels rather dull and quite low spirited. And the music, whilst good, only serves to exacerbate the lack of Christmas spirit.
Anyone who likes Christmas films no matter what will likely find Lost at Christmas fairly enjoyable. However to me it was just a bit lost.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Supernova (2020) in Movies
Jun 24, 2021
Tucci and Firth - an acting masterclass (1 more)
A slow and very moving study of a difficult subject
“You’re not supposed to mourn someone before they die.”
Sam (Colin Firth) is a famous concert pianist. Tusker (Stanley Tucci) a famous author. But Tusker has Alzheimer's, and is starting to go downhill. The loving couple take their battered motorhome on a last great adventure round England's Lake District, taking in a visit with Sam's sister Lil while there.
Positives:
- "Love is a many splendored thing" as the song goes, and seldom has it been expressed so poignantly as in "Supernova". Harry Macqueen's script builds up a truly loving relationship between the two men. Any homophobes should be strapped into chairs and forced to watch this movie: perhaps that would cause some semblance of understanding to emerge in their petrified brains. (Who am I kidding?)
- Supporting the story brilliantly are Colin Firth and Stanley Tucci. Tucci has been in so many great movies over the years that it's no surprise to me that his acting moved me to tears. But when I think of Colin Firth (Hampshire's own! He went to my daughter's college!) my mind tends to skip over his dramatic roles in films like "The King's Speech" and "A Single Man". Instead, I tend to dwell on his lighter, fluffier roles, like "Bridget Jones" and "Mamma Mia". As such, I forget what a truly great actor he is. And here, he hits it out of the park! With all the Covid release confusion, I'm not sure whether "Supernova" is up for awards next year, or whether it has been cruelly overlooked from last year's awards. I truly hope it's the former, since both men are at the peak of their craft here.
- The cinematography by Dick Pope is beautiful. To be fair, you could put a Super 8 camera in the Lake District on a sunny day and it would look great. But the camera work here makes it look its best.
Negatives:
- Not really a negative for me, but it's about as far away from an "action film" as you can get. "Fast and Furious 9" is showing next door! This is an extremely slow, character-led piece that won't be for everyone.
- I wasn't totally convinced by the symptoms shown. Early in the film, Tusker wanders off in a daze, but seems comparatively compos mentis for most of the rest of the film. Perhaps this is just my ignorance of the randomness and unpredictability of the disease (anyone in the know - please enlighten me).
Summary Thoughts on "Supernova": As is often the way with cinema, genre films can come along like London buses. First this month we had Anthony Hopkin's Oscar-winning turn as a dementia sufferer in "The Father", and now "Supernova" appears. This takes a different approach to the subject. Not as flashy or clever. But no less effective at portraying the tragedy that this wretched disease wreaks with relationships, often making them a living hell.
Having straight actors play gay characters will no doubt provoke the usual outcry from the cancel culture. But if it's good acting - and it is a masterclass from the two leads in my book - such that you BELIEVE the story, then that's the whole point of the craft.
Like "The Father", this is a tough watch. I felt pretty well emotionally wrung-out by the end of it. But, it was well worth the wait in my book.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "One Mann's Movies" review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/24/supernova-youre-not-supposed-to-mourn-someone-before-they-die/. Thanks.)
Positives:
- "Love is a many splendored thing" as the song goes, and seldom has it been expressed so poignantly as in "Supernova". Harry Macqueen's script builds up a truly loving relationship between the two men. Any homophobes should be strapped into chairs and forced to watch this movie: perhaps that would cause some semblance of understanding to emerge in their petrified brains. (Who am I kidding?)
- Supporting the story brilliantly are Colin Firth and Stanley Tucci. Tucci has been in so many great movies over the years that it's no surprise to me that his acting moved me to tears. But when I think of Colin Firth (Hampshire's own! He went to my daughter's college!) my mind tends to skip over his dramatic roles in films like "The King's Speech" and "A Single Man". Instead, I tend to dwell on his lighter, fluffier roles, like "Bridget Jones" and "Mamma Mia". As such, I forget what a truly great actor he is. And here, he hits it out of the park! With all the Covid release confusion, I'm not sure whether "Supernova" is up for awards next year, or whether it has been cruelly overlooked from last year's awards. I truly hope it's the former, since both men are at the peak of their craft here.
- The cinematography by Dick Pope is beautiful. To be fair, you could put a Super 8 camera in the Lake District on a sunny day and it would look great. But the camera work here makes it look its best.
Negatives:
- Not really a negative for me, but it's about as far away from an "action film" as you can get. "Fast and Furious 9" is showing next door! This is an extremely slow, character-led piece that won't be for everyone.
- I wasn't totally convinced by the symptoms shown. Early in the film, Tusker wanders off in a daze, but seems comparatively compos mentis for most of the rest of the film. Perhaps this is just my ignorance of the randomness and unpredictability of the disease (anyone in the know - please enlighten me).
Summary Thoughts on "Supernova": As is often the way with cinema, genre films can come along like London buses. First this month we had Anthony Hopkin's Oscar-winning turn as a dementia sufferer in "The Father", and now "Supernova" appears. This takes a different approach to the subject. Not as flashy or clever. But no less effective at portraying the tragedy that this wretched disease wreaks with relationships, often making them a living hell.
Having straight actors play gay characters will no doubt provoke the usual outcry from the cancel culture. But if it's good acting - and it is a masterclass from the two leads in my book - such that you BELIEVE the story, then that's the whole point of the craft.
Like "The Father", this is a tough watch. I felt pretty well emotionally wrung-out by the end of it. But, it was well worth the wait in my book.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "One Mann's Movies" review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/24/supernova-youre-not-supposed-to-mourn-someone-before-they-die/. Thanks.)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Max Winslow and the House of Secrets (2019) in Movies
Oct 13, 2020
Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is a family film, very much in the vein of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Maxine Winslow (Sydne Mikelle), or Max for short, is our Charlie Bucket, coming from a single-parent family and living with a mother who is struggling with debt. Tech-savvy Max is also a skilled hacker, demonstrating this by taking control of her neighbours video doorbell and making it ring so that he comes running outside. Kind of like a modern-day Knock-Down Ginger.
Max heads into school, where we’re introduced to some more teens who are set to join her later on, including a social-media obsessed girl, a boy addicted to gaming and a boy who enjoys trolling people online. As they settle down at their desks, the face of eccentric billionaire Atticus Virtue (Chad Michael Murray) takes over all of the TV screens throughout the school. He tells them that five students are to be selected to spend the night in his high tech mansion, and undertake a series of games, with the winner becoming the new owner of the mansion. When the confirmation text messages start coming through to the student phones later that day, we already know most of those that receive the big green tick on their screens, so they head off to the mansion, ready to spend the night.
Atticus himself isn’t at the mansion to greet the group. Instead, an AI named Haven (voiced by Marina Sirtis) opens the door for them, orders a takeaway delivery and gives them their instructions for the night. Basically, whoever solves the most puzzles and earns the highest score wins the mansion!
The puzzles start off ridiculously hard, with a locked door requiring a six-digit code to open, and only three attempts allowed. Max spots three jars of candy in the room and automatically decides that the total pieces of candy in each jar can be combined into a six-digit number, obviously. And you’re not supposed to think about how she managed to get them in the right order, or why the plate of cookies on the table wasn’t included in the code…
From there, the points come a lot easier for the team, such as simply putting on a pair of sunglasses(!), before turning slightly sinister as the group separates and everyone heads off on their own. Haven begins to go a little bit rogue, although with her monotone delivery of thinly veiled threats, she never really comes across as scary as I think she is meant to be. The games become a way of showing each individual the error of their ways - narcissistic Sophia is trapped in a bathroom talking to her mirror reflection, which has now turned into a nastier version of herself, while others are trapped in VR scenarios designed to show them where they’ve gone wrong in life.
It’s at this point that the movie struggles. The VR recreations are mostly dull, while other scenes utilise some pretty dodgy VFX and there’s never any real feeling of peril or threat. The young cast, for the most part, give some pretty good performances. However, with a mediocre script, none of them is really given very much to work with. Consequently, some of them, particularly the character of Max, feel a little wasted, not fleshed out enough.
While entertaining at times, Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is too scary for young children and not dramatic or scary enough for adults to really enjoy. Hopefully, though, the teen audience that this is squarely aimed at will pick up on the strong moral messages at the heart of the movie and will manage to gain some enjoyment from it.
Max heads into school, where we’re introduced to some more teens who are set to join her later on, including a social-media obsessed girl, a boy addicted to gaming and a boy who enjoys trolling people online. As they settle down at their desks, the face of eccentric billionaire Atticus Virtue (Chad Michael Murray) takes over all of the TV screens throughout the school. He tells them that five students are to be selected to spend the night in his high tech mansion, and undertake a series of games, with the winner becoming the new owner of the mansion. When the confirmation text messages start coming through to the student phones later that day, we already know most of those that receive the big green tick on their screens, so they head off to the mansion, ready to spend the night.
Atticus himself isn’t at the mansion to greet the group. Instead, an AI named Haven (voiced by Marina Sirtis) opens the door for them, orders a takeaway delivery and gives them their instructions for the night. Basically, whoever solves the most puzzles and earns the highest score wins the mansion!
The puzzles start off ridiculously hard, with a locked door requiring a six-digit code to open, and only three attempts allowed. Max spots three jars of candy in the room and automatically decides that the total pieces of candy in each jar can be combined into a six-digit number, obviously. And you’re not supposed to think about how she managed to get them in the right order, or why the plate of cookies on the table wasn’t included in the code…
From there, the points come a lot easier for the team, such as simply putting on a pair of sunglasses(!), before turning slightly sinister as the group separates and everyone heads off on their own. Haven begins to go a little bit rogue, although with her monotone delivery of thinly veiled threats, she never really comes across as scary as I think she is meant to be. The games become a way of showing each individual the error of their ways - narcissistic Sophia is trapped in a bathroom talking to her mirror reflection, which has now turned into a nastier version of herself, while others are trapped in VR scenarios designed to show them where they’ve gone wrong in life.
It’s at this point that the movie struggles. The VR recreations are mostly dull, while other scenes utilise some pretty dodgy VFX and there’s never any real feeling of peril or threat. The young cast, for the most part, give some pretty good performances. However, with a mediocre script, none of them is really given very much to work with. Consequently, some of them, particularly the character of Max, feel a little wasted, not fleshed out enough.
While entertaining at times, Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is too scary for young children and not dramatic or scary enough for adults to really enjoy. Hopefully, though, the teen audience that this is squarely aimed at will pick up on the strong moral messages at the heart of the movie and will manage to gain some enjoyment from it.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Max Winslow and the House of Secrets (2019) in Movies
Oct 23, 2020
An out of the blue watch here, I had my fingers crossed for something a little lighthearted... and that's sort of what I received.
A challenge is issued, a competition that will see the mansion of tech billionaire Atticus Virtue gifted to the lucky winner. Chosen from his old school, five pupils enter to compete for the prize. As the evening goes on the games become increasingly dangerous and they find themselves fighting back against an advanced AI who's out to get them.
Max Winslow And The House Of Secrets feels like the kind of hybrid you'd get from crossing Willy Wonka with Ready Player One. All three films have the same sort of idea to them but convey it in their own quirky ways.
The story isn't the only classic idea the film capitalises on, we've also got your stereotypical group of teens thrown together end up having to work together to solve their problems. As they're introduced to us there was a little eye-roll on my part... we've got the computer nerd, the jock/musician, the social media icon, the gamer and the bully... but despite that eye-roll I quickly got over it as we progressed further in.
All these characters actually give us quite a well-balanced film, their introductions were handled quickly and clearly so it doesn't feel like a slog meeting them all, and jumping between characters/scene helps move the action along and keep you interested.
The acting from the younger members of the cast is pretty good when they're thrown in together, they all work well together and in scenes that could quite easily have become a little cheesy they manage to keep it quite sensible. We're treated to Marina Sirtis playing the AI running the mansion, I was amused by this casting, I don't think my brain could quite comprehend her in this role. The mansion's eccentric owner is played by Chad Michael Murray, I wish I could be a little more excited about him in this film but his brief appearances didn't rate highly with me. There weren't many moments when he was on screen where his performances weren't slightly awkward, at one point it felt like a script issue, but either way I was pleased that the main focus was one the younger actors.
Eye-rolling early on felt like it was becoming a habit, as the main storyline began it happened again. A moment occurs and you know that the information is going to be relevant later, you don't have to wait too long for an initial pay off to it either. I was worried that this would mean the ending of the film would be ruined but the pace from switching up between characters helps to drag you away from it.
Something I was a little surprised about was the tone of some of the scenes. When you start to watch the film it feels very much like a made for TV (that's not a negative comment, you know I love my made for TV movies!) family adventure affair, but some scenes are actually a little darker than would happily fit in that sort of film. Sitting at a 12A seems like the right level, had it been sanitised for younger viewers I think we'd have been left with something too tame to be good. (You could have pushed it further into the 15 and up area, but that would have put it in Escape Room territory and I'm not entirely sure we need more of that.)
Despite my eye-rolling and (many) unanswered questions that come from an adult watching a film not entirely made for them, I really enjoyed Max Winslow And The House Of Secrets. It's a fun watch, with some surprising little additions.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/max-winslow-and-house-of-secrets-movie.html
A challenge is issued, a competition that will see the mansion of tech billionaire Atticus Virtue gifted to the lucky winner. Chosen from his old school, five pupils enter to compete for the prize. As the evening goes on the games become increasingly dangerous and they find themselves fighting back against an advanced AI who's out to get them.
Max Winslow And The House Of Secrets feels like the kind of hybrid you'd get from crossing Willy Wonka with Ready Player One. All three films have the same sort of idea to them but convey it in their own quirky ways.
The story isn't the only classic idea the film capitalises on, we've also got your stereotypical group of teens thrown together end up having to work together to solve their problems. As they're introduced to us there was a little eye-roll on my part... we've got the computer nerd, the jock/musician, the social media icon, the gamer and the bully... but despite that eye-roll I quickly got over it as we progressed further in.
All these characters actually give us quite a well-balanced film, their introductions were handled quickly and clearly so it doesn't feel like a slog meeting them all, and jumping between characters/scene helps move the action along and keep you interested.
The acting from the younger members of the cast is pretty good when they're thrown in together, they all work well together and in scenes that could quite easily have become a little cheesy they manage to keep it quite sensible. We're treated to Marina Sirtis playing the AI running the mansion, I was amused by this casting, I don't think my brain could quite comprehend her in this role. The mansion's eccentric owner is played by Chad Michael Murray, I wish I could be a little more excited about him in this film but his brief appearances didn't rate highly with me. There weren't many moments when he was on screen where his performances weren't slightly awkward, at one point it felt like a script issue, but either way I was pleased that the main focus was one the younger actors.
Eye-rolling early on felt like it was becoming a habit, as the main storyline began it happened again. A moment occurs and you know that the information is going to be relevant later, you don't have to wait too long for an initial pay off to it either. I was worried that this would mean the ending of the film would be ruined but the pace from switching up between characters helps to drag you away from it.
Something I was a little surprised about was the tone of some of the scenes. When you start to watch the film it feels very much like a made for TV (that's not a negative comment, you know I love my made for TV movies!) family adventure affair, but some scenes are actually a little darker than would happily fit in that sort of film. Sitting at a 12A seems like the right level, had it been sanitised for younger viewers I think we'd have been left with something too tame to be good. (You could have pushed it further into the 15 and up area, but that would have put it in Escape Room territory and I'm not entirely sure we need more of that.)
Despite my eye-rolling and (many) unanswered questions that come from an adult watching a film not entirely made for them, I really enjoyed Max Winslow And The House Of Secrets. It's a fun watch, with some surprising little additions.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/max-winslow-and-house-of-secrets-movie.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Jan 10, 2021
Misses more than it hits
The first Gal Gadot-led WONDER WOMAN film (2017) is generally regarded by most (myself included) as the finest film in the DCEU and Gal Gadot’s portrayal of Diana Prince/Wonder Woman is the highlight of any DCEU film that she appears in, so it was with much (delayed) anticipation that a viewing of WONDER WOMAN 1984 (finally) took place.
It’s too bad that the filmmakers couldn’t take the time in the delay of this movie’s release to craft a better film.
WONDER WOMAN 1984 takes the titular character and places this ageless Supehero in the titular timeframe. What Director Patty Jenkins (who so wonderfully brought us the first Wonder Woman film) and the her co-script writer Geoff Johns and all of the others who crafted this film failed to do was to capitalize on their hero and this timeline.
After an opening scene that flashbacks to Diana Prince’s youth on her isolated island of Themyscira (a scene who’s sole purpose, it seems, is to shoehorn favorites Robin Wright and Connie Nielsen from the first film into this one). We then go to a fight in a 1980’s mall (in a clear homage to such fights as the ones in COMMANDO and TRUE LIES - action sequences, that I might add, that were done better by Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Cameron). So back-to-back, this film starts off on unsure footing.
Enter Pedro Pascal’s main villain Maxwell Lord with the ability of a truly wonderful, memorable, villain to elevate the proceedings.
He does not.
Plain and simple, Pascal’s Maxwell Lord just doesn’t work as as a villain. He would have been a nice “secondary villain”.
Which is how I would recommend that Jenkins and Johns approach this character and film, for the secondary villain, Barbara Minerva/Cheetah worked better for me.
As portrayed by Kristen Wiig, we first encounter Minerva as a mousey, insecure co-worker of Diana Prince but slowly - over the course of the film - Minerva becomes stronger and more self-assured and when her transformation into Cheetah is complete, she is a viable opponent for Wonder Woman. And with Gadot’s strong (expected) portrayal of Diana/Wonder Woman the scenes of these 2 playing off each other - both physically and verbally - elevates this film above mediocrity.
As does the chemistry between Gadot and Chris Pine as Steve Trevor (from the first film). This relationship was one of the best parts of the first film, so the filmmakers had to figure out how to bring him back - and how they decided to do it was “fine” (with one issue I have that I can’t reveal but I also think a simple “tweak” in the storyline would have fixed). Because these 2 have such tremendous character - and because Pascal’s villain character is weak - this movie spends way too much time on Diana and Steve and this film loses it’s focus multiple times.
But…a few good action scenes would have saved things - but there aren’t really any. Certainly none that are as visually interesting, and emotionally satisfying, as the “no man’s land” scene in the first film.
This movie is “fine” and with the performances of Gadot, Pine and Wiig, they elevate the needle a little above “fine”. So I will give this movie about a point more than I (probably) should - which puts this film as one of the better films of the DCEU - which says more about the state of the DCEU than it does about this movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It’s too bad that the filmmakers couldn’t take the time in the delay of this movie’s release to craft a better film.
WONDER WOMAN 1984 takes the titular character and places this ageless Supehero in the titular timeframe. What Director Patty Jenkins (who so wonderfully brought us the first Wonder Woman film) and the her co-script writer Geoff Johns and all of the others who crafted this film failed to do was to capitalize on their hero and this timeline.
After an opening scene that flashbacks to Diana Prince’s youth on her isolated island of Themyscira (a scene who’s sole purpose, it seems, is to shoehorn favorites Robin Wright and Connie Nielsen from the first film into this one). We then go to a fight in a 1980’s mall (in a clear homage to such fights as the ones in COMMANDO and TRUE LIES - action sequences, that I might add, that were done better by Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Cameron). So back-to-back, this film starts off on unsure footing.
Enter Pedro Pascal’s main villain Maxwell Lord with the ability of a truly wonderful, memorable, villain to elevate the proceedings.
He does not.
Plain and simple, Pascal’s Maxwell Lord just doesn’t work as as a villain. He would have been a nice “secondary villain”.
Which is how I would recommend that Jenkins and Johns approach this character and film, for the secondary villain, Barbara Minerva/Cheetah worked better for me.
As portrayed by Kristen Wiig, we first encounter Minerva as a mousey, insecure co-worker of Diana Prince but slowly - over the course of the film - Minerva becomes stronger and more self-assured and when her transformation into Cheetah is complete, she is a viable opponent for Wonder Woman. And with Gadot’s strong (expected) portrayal of Diana/Wonder Woman the scenes of these 2 playing off each other - both physically and verbally - elevates this film above mediocrity.
As does the chemistry between Gadot and Chris Pine as Steve Trevor (from the first film). This relationship was one of the best parts of the first film, so the filmmakers had to figure out how to bring him back - and how they decided to do it was “fine” (with one issue I have that I can’t reveal but I also think a simple “tweak” in the storyline would have fixed). Because these 2 have such tremendous character - and because Pascal’s villain character is weak - this movie spends way too much time on Diana and Steve and this film loses it’s focus multiple times.
But…a few good action scenes would have saved things - but there aren’t really any. Certainly none that are as visually interesting, and emotionally satisfying, as the “no man’s land” scene in the first film.
This movie is “fine” and with the performances of Gadot, Pine and Wiig, they elevate the needle a little above “fine”. So I will give this movie about a point more than I (probably) should - which puts this film as one of the better films of the DCEU - which says more about the state of the DCEU than it does about this movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mile 22 (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
With a run time of 1 hour 34 minutes, and such a fast flowing story line, you certainly don't feel like you're bored at any point during Mile 22. There were plenty of times where I was confused, and a couple where I was amused, but never bored.
Overall the story is a good one and I felt like the twists and turns come in just the right places. But there's no denying that this could have been a 4/5 star film for me had there been some differences.
The opening titles set about cataloging Silva's (Mark Wahlberg) personal history so that we know what sort of person he is and how he's ended up at the head of this team. While it actually worked well I'm unsure of why it was needed at all. Most of the traits that were being shown are ones that frequently pop up in movies in the stereotypical spec ops/military characters, they needed no explanation. Similarly, the back story for Alice seemed surplus to requirements and shoe-horned in so she could have something for Silva to get angry about. Although later in the film she uses the back story to manipulate a baddie when she's cornered and that was quite amusing so I'm willing to let it slide.
By far the best thing about this movie is Iko Uwais. At all times he's consistent to character and his fight scenes were incredible. So it's a little sad that they were marred by some terrible editing. Many of the scenes would flow nicely and you were just becoming engrossed in them when they would cut abruptly to another angle. The only thing it seemed to achieve was speeding up the action, which was already fast and going along very nicely on it's own in the first place. The cuts were chaotic and difficult to watch and ruined what could have been the redeeming feature of this film.
During the film you see Silva talking about the events at some kind of briefing. Although short, they felt like ramblings and didn't make much sense. Placing one "present day" scene at either end of the main events would have achieved a much better job and covered up what felt like a script that had gone awry.
The ending felt like a bit of a cop out to me. Not answering the main question that we were all looking for left me with a deeply unsatisfying feeling and some annoyance at what felt like an obvious attempt to set up for a sequel.
I was surprised to see that this was an 18 certificate. After sitting through the whole thing I feel like it could have quite happily sat at the 15 level. All it would have needed was the removal of a lot of unnecessary language and to have some of the more graphic scenes shot from a different angle/cut better to not show so much of the brutality. That being said though, I didn't find the violence particularly bad compared to other things I've seen.
As an after thought having just rewatched the trailer again before putting it into this post... it's a shame that there weren't some of the computer erasure effects from the trailer in the film. There were certainly opportunities and with the level of technology that they're using it seems to be down played at almost all points.
What should you do?
Watch it for Iko Uwais. His action sequences were so good that they hold up the rest of the film.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I could really do with the Hand of God when I'm out and about driving.
Overall the story is a good one and I felt like the twists and turns come in just the right places. But there's no denying that this could have been a 4/5 star film for me had there been some differences.
The opening titles set about cataloging Silva's (Mark Wahlberg) personal history so that we know what sort of person he is and how he's ended up at the head of this team. While it actually worked well I'm unsure of why it was needed at all. Most of the traits that were being shown are ones that frequently pop up in movies in the stereotypical spec ops/military characters, they needed no explanation. Similarly, the back story for Alice seemed surplus to requirements and shoe-horned in so she could have something for Silva to get angry about. Although later in the film she uses the back story to manipulate a baddie when she's cornered and that was quite amusing so I'm willing to let it slide.
By far the best thing about this movie is Iko Uwais. At all times he's consistent to character and his fight scenes were incredible. So it's a little sad that they were marred by some terrible editing. Many of the scenes would flow nicely and you were just becoming engrossed in them when they would cut abruptly to another angle. The only thing it seemed to achieve was speeding up the action, which was already fast and going along very nicely on it's own in the first place. The cuts were chaotic and difficult to watch and ruined what could have been the redeeming feature of this film.
During the film you see Silva talking about the events at some kind of briefing. Although short, they felt like ramblings and didn't make much sense. Placing one "present day" scene at either end of the main events would have achieved a much better job and covered up what felt like a script that had gone awry.
The ending felt like a bit of a cop out to me. Not answering the main question that we were all looking for left me with a deeply unsatisfying feeling and some annoyance at what felt like an obvious attempt to set up for a sequel.
I was surprised to see that this was an 18 certificate. After sitting through the whole thing I feel like it could have quite happily sat at the 15 level. All it would have needed was the removal of a lot of unnecessary language and to have some of the more graphic scenes shot from a different angle/cut better to not show so much of the brutality. That being said though, I didn't find the violence particularly bad compared to other things I've seen.
As an after thought having just rewatched the trailer again before putting it into this post... it's a shame that there weren't some of the computer erasure effects from the trailer in the film. There were certainly opportunities and with the level of technology that they're using it seems to be down played at almost all points.
What should you do?
Watch it for Iko Uwais. His action sequences were so good that they hold up the rest of the film.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I could really do with the Hand of God when I'm out and about driving.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Inception (2010) in Movies
Sep 13, 2019 (Updated Sep 13, 2019)
Brief Synopsis – A group of experts are hired to infiltrate the mind of an executive in order to implant a thought into his mind that will change the way he runs his company.
My Take on it – This is an amazing film that once again is able to prove the genius of writer/director Christopher Nolan.
This story works on so many levels and stays intriguing, interesting and thrilling from start to finish.
The story is presented as an existential one yet they expertly use special effects and dialogue to make things seem even more tangible and relatable which works superbly throughout.
The cats is unbelievable and they all are able to work so well together as a team that it helps make the story move forward at a great pace that moves so fluidly throughout.
Nolan does a splendid job directing this film and is able to create a world that is a mixture of reality and fantasy yet still comes across as plausible and realistic throughout.
The story itself is multi layered and this helps make the story feel even more interesting and intriguing as things seem to get more and more complex as they move forward.
It’s imperative to pay close attention to the story because of the fact that it jumps around within the various story levels and if you get distracted, you might miss something quite important because nothing is truly ever as it seems.
Nolan is an amazing writer and this film is further proof of his ability to create unique and original stories for us to savor for all time.
It’s a pity that most films that are made these days aren’t filled with original ideas like this one is.
The story is quite mind blowing and manages to keep surprising the viewer over and over as things move along.
This is one of the very best thrillers ever made and that has much to do with the fact that they are able to create a thriller that actually fits “outside of the box” instead of being something that just recycles old ideas.
Bottom Line – Amazing film that is able to work on so many levels. The story is quite existential yet they use effects and dialogue to help make it feel even more tangible. The cast is superb and they all work so well together as a team in order to help the story constantly move forward. Nolan directs this film amazingly and is able to create a world that is both real and fantasy for us to grasp all that is happening throughout. The story itself is quite layered and that helps make things so much more intriguing and interesting since one needs to constantly try and keep track of what’s going on the entire time because nothing is ever as it truly seems. With this film, Nolan once again proves how adept a writer he can be and is able to give us a very unique and original story that is mind blowing over and over. One of the best thrillers ever made especially since it is truly a story that fits “outside of the box”. Highly Highly Recommended!
MovieRob’s Favorite Trivia – Writer, producer, and director Christopher Nolan first pitched this movie to Warner Brothers after the completion of his third movie, Insomnia (2002), and was met with approval from the studio. However, it was not yet written at the time, and Nolan determined that rather than writing it as an assignment, it would be more suitable to his working style if he wrote it as a speculation script, and then presented it to the studio whenever it was completed. So he went off to write it, thinking it would take “a couple of months”, but it ultimately took nearly eight years. (From IMDB)
My Take on it – This is an amazing film that once again is able to prove the genius of writer/director Christopher Nolan.
This story works on so many levels and stays intriguing, interesting and thrilling from start to finish.
The story is presented as an existential one yet they expertly use special effects and dialogue to make things seem even more tangible and relatable which works superbly throughout.
The cats is unbelievable and they all are able to work so well together as a team that it helps make the story move forward at a great pace that moves so fluidly throughout.
Nolan does a splendid job directing this film and is able to create a world that is a mixture of reality and fantasy yet still comes across as plausible and realistic throughout.
The story itself is multi layered and this helps make the story feel even more interesting and intriguing as things seem to get more and more complex as they move forward.
It’s imperative to pay close attention to the story because of the fact that it jumps around within the various story levels and if you get distracted, you might miss something quite important because nothing is truly ever as it seems.
Nolan is an amazing writer and this film is further proof of his ability to create unique and original stories for us to savor for all time.
It’s a pity that most films that are made these days aren’t filled with original ideas like this one is.
The story is quite mind blowing and manages to keep surprising the viewer over and over as things move along.
This is one of the very best thrillers ever made and that has much to do with the fact that they are able to create a thriller that actually fits “outside of the box” instead of being something that just recycles old ideas.
Bottom Line – Amazing film that is able to work on so many levels. The story is quite existential yet they use effects and dialogue to help make it feel even more tangible. The cast is superb and they all work so well together as a team in order to help the story constantly move forward. Nolan directs this film amazingly and is able to create a world that is both real and fantasy for us to grasp all that is happening throughout. The story itself is quite layered and that helps make things so much more intriguing and interesting since one needs to constantly try and keep track of what’s going on the entire time because nothing is ever as it truly seems. With this film, Nolan once again proves how adept a writer he can be and is able to give us a very unique and original story that is mind blowing over and over. One of the best thrillers ever made especially since it is truly a story that fits “outside of the box”. Highly Highly Recommended!
MovieRob’s Favorite Trivia – Writer, producer, and director Christopher Nolan first pitched this movie to Warner Brothers after the completion of his third movie, Insomnia (2002), and was met with approval from the studio. However, it was not yet written at the time, and Nolan determined that rather than writing it as an assignment, it would be more suitable to his working style if he wrote it as a speculation script, and then presented it to the studio whenever it was completed. So he went off to write it, thinking it would take “a couple of months”, but it ultimately took nearly eight years. (From IMDB)