Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Gerald's Game (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
When I first heard about the Stephen King book called Gerald’s Game I was about 16 years old, and it scared the shit out of me! Just the concept and the idea of it happening to you. So I never read the book. In my mind, I had imagined the worst already and did not want to go there.
It was with some trepidation, then, that I stepped into this Netflix production, and may never have done so at all, were it not for some interesting reviews suggesting this was not normal horror fare, but more of a psychological exploration. Carla Gugino I barely knew. I have always liked Bruce Greenwood as an actor, however, so in I plunged…
For the next hour or so I was transfixed! The simplicity of the premise, the economy of the direction, and an innovative way of telling the story visually, had me hooked. It always felt like not a lot of money had been spent, but in a good way – no fancy tricks and gimmicks, just storytelling. And a few well placed shocks to the system that left me gasping out loud! (One moment in particular that had me jump to my feet shouting FFS involuntarily)
It isn’t a horror film in the way that genre has become in the last 20 years. No real jump shocks or manipulation, but some stomach churning moments of discomfort that genuinely disturb and make you want to look away! And all because we are invited to imagine ourselves in this situation. What would we do? How would we feel. And I always felt that was the power of this particular idea.
Psychologically, the notion that we may never truly know anyone, even ourselves, until the very worst happens is a compelling theme. The secrets we hide; the traumas that build our personalities, and just how strong would we be in a survival situation. And that is where this film is at its best. Gugino is never less than believable and occasionally incredible in achieving this. Greenwood is fine, and plays his part, but it is her film, no doubt at all.
Sadly, where this film fails is the last 15 minutes, when inexplicably the entire mood shifts and we find ourselves watching a completely different film, with a different message, and some of the worst backward facing exposition I have even seen! I won’t go into details here for spoilers sake… but, anything good achieved to that point was ruined by the ending.
Perhaps in the book the twist end makes sense this way, somehow. Here it is laughable. So much so that I need to know why they chose to do it? 30 years on from first hearing about it, I am going to be brave and read the book, because I can only believe loyalty to the source material could have led this production to such a preposterous ant-climax.
It was with some trepidation, then, that I stepped into this Netflix production, and may never have done so at all, were it not for some interesting reviews suggesting this was not normal horror fare, but more of a psychological exploration. Carla Gugino I barely knew. I have always liked Bruce Greenwood as an actor, however, so in I plunged…
For the next hour or so I was transfixed! The simplicity of the premise, the economy of the direction, and an innovative way of telling the story visually, had me hooked. It always felt like not a lot of money had been spent, but in a good way – no fancy tricks and gimmicks, just storytelling. And a few well placed shocks to the system that left me gasping out loud! (One moment in particular that had me jump to my feet shouting FFS involuntarily)
It isn’t a horror film in the way that genre has become in the last 20 years. No real jump shocks or manipulation, but some stomach churning moments of discomfort that genuinely disturb and make you want to look away! And all because we are invited to imagine ourselves in this situation. What would we do? How would we feel. And I always felt that was the power of this particular idea.
Psychologically, the notion that we may never truly know anyone, even ourselves, until the very worst happens is a compelling theme. The secrets we hide; the traumas that build our personalities, and just how strong would we be in a survival situation. And that is where this film is at its best. Gugino is never less than believable and occasionally incredible in achieving this. Greenwood is fine, and plays his part, but it is her film, no doubt at all.
Sadly, where this film fails is the last 15 minutes, when inexplicably the entire mood shifts and we find ourselves watching a completely different film, with a different message, and some of the worst backward facing exposition I have even seen! I won’t go into details here for spoilers sake… but, anything good achieved to that point was ruined by the ending.
Perhaps in the book the twist end makes sense this way, somehow. Here it is laughable. So much so that I need to know why they chose to do it? 30 years on from first hearing about it, I am going to be brave and read the book, because I can only believe loyalty to the source material could have led this production to such a preposterous ant-climax.
Tom Stringer: A Global View
Book
Tom Stringer is a prolific and highly regarded United States based interior designer whose work...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jun 27, 2020
Clever and Inventive
Ever since he burst onto the film scene with back-to-back interesting British Mob movies LOCK, STOCK & TWO SMOKING BARRELS and SNATCH, Director Guy Ritchie has had a "hit and miss" track record (including the Madonna-starring, Razzie-Award "winner" SWEPT AWAY). Fortunately, for us, we seem to be in a Guy Ritchie "peak" a this moment.
Following up to his surprise strong Directing turn in the live action ALADDIN remake (if you haven't seen this film, the BankofMarquis strongly recommends you do), Ritchie returns to his "British Gangster" roots with the violent, funny and original THE GENTLEMEN.
Starring Matthew McConaughey as a U.S. born and bred, Cambridge educated hustler who becomes king of the British Marijuana scene who is looking to get out of the business, THE GENTLEMEN tells the tale of the...ahem...gentlemen that are pursuing (both legitimately and illegitimately) his empire.
The way that this film is constructed, the most essential casting of this film is that of the central character of Michael Pearson. He is billed as an enigmatic, charismatic, violent and brilliant legend of the British drug trade, so Ritchie needed someone with all these qualities to inhabit that role. Fortunately, with McConaughey, Ritchie finds his man (I'm sure the backstory of this character needed to be tweaked a bit upon this casting to explain why an American is the king of British Weed). McConaughey is at his laconic best in this role, bringing star quality - and star power - that holds the center of this film together well.
He is joined by a strong cast that understands the type of film they are in and are game to join in on the (violent) fun. Michelle Dockery (DOWNTON ABBEY), Henry Golding (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) , Jeremy Strong (THE BIG SHORT) and the always watchable Eddie Marsan (THE WORLD'S END, amongst others) all are strong in the limited moments that their characters are allowed to shine, but with McConaughey and 3 other actors I will speak to in a moment, they are relegated mostly to the background.
This is because Hugh Grant (4 WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL), Colin Farrell (PHONE BOOTH) and (surpisingly) Charlie Hunnam IPACIFIC RIM) almost steal the film from McConaughey, Each one of these characters could have easily been the centerpiece of their own film and I would be happy if Ritchie would spin one of these characters off.
Credit, of course, for all of this has to go to Ritchie who wrote and directed this film I was pleasantly surprised by the cleverness and inventiveness in storytelling and style as well as the restraint that Ritchie shows in the violence. He uses it (somewhat) sparingly and well, so the violence punctuates the action.
All-in-all a fun (though violent) time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Following up to his surprise strong Directing turn in the live action ALADDIN remake (if you haven't seen this film, the BankofMarquis strongly recommends you do), Ritchie returns to his "British Gangster" roots with the violent, funny and original THE GENTLEMEN.
Starring Matthew McConaughey as a U.S. born and bred, Cambridge educated hustler who becomes king of the British Marijuana scene who is looking to get out of the business, THE GENTLEMEN tells the tale of the...ahem...gentlemen that are pursuing (both legitimately and illegitimately) his empire.
The way that this film is constructed, the most essential casting of this film is that of the central character of Michael Pearson. He is billed as an enigmatic, charismatic, violent and brilliant legend of the British drug trade, so Ritchie needed someone with all these qualities to inhabit that role. Fortunately, with McConaughey, Ritchie finds his man (I'm sure the backstory of this character needed to be tweaked a bit upon this casting to explain why an American is the king of British Weed). McConaughey is at his laconic best in this role, bringing star quality - and star power - that holds the center of this film together well.
He is joined by a strong cast that understands the type of film they are in and are game to join in on the (violent) fun. Michelle Dockery (DOWNTON ABBEY), Henry Golding (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) , Jeremy Strong (THE BIG SHORT) and the always watchable Eddie Marsan (THE WORLD'S END, amongst others) all are strong in the limited moments that their characters are allowed to shine, but with McConaughey and 3 other actors I will speak to in a moment, they are relegated mostly to the background.
This is because Hugh Grant (4 WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL), Colin Farrell (PHONE BOOTH) and (surpisingly) Charlie Hunnam IPACIFIC RIM) almost steal the film from McConaughey, Each one of these characters could have easily been the centerpiece of their own film and I would be happy if Ritchie would spin one of these characters off.
Credit, of course, for all of this has to go to Ritchie who wrote and directed this film I was pleasantly surprised by the cleverness and inventiveness in storytelling and style as well as the restraint that Ritchie shows in the violence. He uses it (somewhat) sparingly and well, so the violence punctuates the action.
All-in-all a fun (though violent) time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stowaway (2021) in Movies
Apr 30, 2021
Good physics but otherwise bland and forgettable
In "Stowaway", three astronauts - Commander Marina Bartlett (Toni Collette), doctor and scientist Zoe Levensen (Anna Kendrick) and scientist David Kim (Daniel Dae Kim) - have left earth on a mission to Mars. Bartlett is a bit surprised when she removes an overhead panel and technician Michael Adams (Shamier Anderson) falls out on her, injuring her arm.
This is problematic. The ship was designed for two (with the specs pushed for three - - ed: really???!). With oxygen levels depleting, the crew are left with some difficult decisions to make.
Positives:
- For once, I have no issues with the physics of this sci-fi movie! As a PhD physicist by training, you will generally hear me huffing and puffing in sci-fi movies about loud noises in space; implausible decompressions; and the like. But here, I really liked the design of the spaceship and its implementation of artificial gravity. No massive and wasteful 'wheel' construction as in "2001: A Space Odyssey" here. Just units on the ends of a sufficiently long tether to get the right G.
- Equally - again physics related - the 'climb' and 'descent' scenes are nicely executed.
- Toni Collette adds gravitas to the (otherwise OK) cast. Shamier Anderson is also good in his emotional scenes. And the ensemble works well enough together.
Negatives:
- The screenplay is so vanilla and linear in its storytelling that you could ask me what happened in this movie in six months time and I think I would struggle to answer. When the 'stowaway' was discovered, my mind went crazy with options: was he there by accident? (which I don't think can strictly be defined as a "stowaway"); had he smuggled himself on-board deliberately?; did he have nefarious intentions towards the crew or the mission?; when push came to shove, would the 'short-straw' candidate fight back? Literally NONE of this was explored. True that we have a "will they survive" story, as the oxygen depletes, but this has been done much better in films like "Apollo 13" (with CO2 instead of O2).
- Sorry. I've never been a fan of Anna Kendrick. She's fine in fluffier fare like "Pitch Perfect" and "A Simple Favor". But as the brave and all action heroine here, I didn't buy it.
- Why have Toni Collette in a movie if you are going to give her so little to do?
Summary Thoughts on "Stowaway":
I've seen a number of extremely positive reviews of this one, which I've found a bit mystifying. I really like Sci-fi films, and particularly space-based sci-fi flicks. But this was all very "meh" for me. The premise was full of potential, but failed to deliver on much of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/30/stowaway-bland-and-forgettable-sci-fi-fare/. Thanks.).
This is problematic. The ship was designed for two (with the specs pushed for three - - ed: really???!). With oxygen levels depleting, the crew are left with some difficult decisions to make.
Positives:
- For once, I have no issues with the physics of this sci-fi movie! As a PhD physicist by training, you will generally hear me huffing and puffing in sci-fi movies about loud noises in space; implausible decompressions; and the like. But here, I really liked the design of the spaceship and its implementation of artificial gravity. No massive and wasteful 'wheel' construction as in "2001: A Space Odyssey" here. Just units on the ends of a sufficiently long tether to get the right G.
- Equally - again physics related - the 'climb' and 'descent' scenes are nicely executed.
- Toni Collette adds gravitas to the (otherwise OK) cast. Shamier Anderson is also good in his emotional scenes. And the ensemble works well enough together.
Negatives:
- The screenplay is so vanilla and linear in its storytelling that you could ask me what happened in this movie in six months time and I think I would struggle to answer. When the 'stowaway' was discovered, my mind went crazy with options: was he there by accident? (which I don't think can strictly be defined as a "stowaway"); had he smuggled himself on-board deliberately?; did he have nefarious intentions towards the crew or the mission?; when push came to shove, would the 'short-straw' candidate fight back? Literally NONE of this was explored. True that we have a "will they survive" story, as the oxygen depletes, but this has been done much better in films like "Apollo 13" (with CO2 instead of O2).
- Sorry. I've never been a fan of Anna Kendrick. She's fine in fluffier fare like "Pitch Perfect" and "A Simple Favor". But as the brave and all action heroine here, I didn't buy it.
- Why have Toni Collette in a movie if you are going to give her so little to do?
Summary Thoughts on "Stowaway":
I've seen a number of extremely positive reviews of this one, which I've found a bit mystifying. I really like Sci-fi films, and particularly space-based sci-fi flicks. But this was all very "meh" for me. The premise was full of potential, but failed to deliver on much of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/30/stowaway-bland-and-forgettable-sci-fi-fare/. Thanks.).
Bully: Anniversary Edition
Games
App
***PLEASE NOTE: This game is officially supported on the following devices only: iPhone 5, 5s, 5c,...
Dora and Friends HD
Education and Games
App
Get ready to create big adventures with Dora and Friends, Nick Jr.’s newest show! It’s time to...
Troublemakers: How a Generation of Silicon Valley Upstarts Invented the Future
Book
THE GRIPPING TALE OF THE EARLY FRONTIER DAYS OF SILICON VALLEY FROM ACCLAIMED HISTORIAN LESLIE...
Eddie's Bastard
Book
In this rich, deeply resonant literary debut, twenty-eight-year-old William Kowalski explores the...
fiction literary fiction contemporary American
A film with dodgy voices.
Catching up here with a review of a film I saw a couple of weeks ago.
What a great film “Get Out” was. Jordan Peele’s classic which unpeeled (sic) race relations in a wholly novel and horrifying way. Yes, the story was a bit ‘out there’ and unbelievable, but he pulled it off with great chutzpah.
With his follow-up film – “Us”…. sorry but, for me, it just didn’t work.
From great beginnings
It all starts so promisingly. Young Adelaide Wilson (a fine debut performance by Madison Curry) is on a seaside holiday with her mother and careless father when she wanders onto the deserted Santa Cruz beach at night. There sits, like some gothic horror ghost train, the Hall of Mirrors. “Find Yourself” it taunts. She makes the mistake of entering and changes her life forever.
Spin forwards 30 years and Adelaide, now a married mother of two, is back in Santa Cruz with a terrifying feeling that things are about to go pear-shaped. And of course they do!
Why oh why oh why those voices?
This film had me gripped until a particular point. Having people stand still and silent at the end of your drive is an incredibly spooky thing to show. But then, for me, the wheels came off big time. The “reveal” of who these people were I could take. But the manner of their behaviour and – particularly – how they talked was horrifying; and not in a good way. When “Red” started speaking I couldn’t believe my ears: Joe Pasquale after swallowing Donald Duck.
From there, the film became farcical for me, descending in progressive stages to a tunnel-based apocalypse: a plot element that was just so paper thin it bore no scrutiny at all.
This was, no doubt, an attempt at a satirical dig at the class structure of America (“We are Americans” adding a double meaning to the name of the film). If it had been played as a deliberate comedy farce it might have worked. But otherwise no.
Flashes of Peele brilliance
This is not to say that there are not positives in the film. The excellent Lupita Nyong’o gives the whacky material her all, and the other adult female lead – Elisabeth Moss (from TV’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”) – is good value as Kitty Tyler: a diabolical incarnation in either form!
Peele also delivers flashes of directorial brilliance. The “hands across America”, disappearing into the sea, is a sight that stays with you. I also liked the twist at the end, although in retrospect it’s difficult to relate it to the rest of the story and strikes of desperation in the storytelling.
Overall, a big disappointment
I know there are some who really like this movie. Each to their own, but I was not one of them. After “Get Out” I was hoping for something much better. I hope that was just Jordan Peele’s “difficult second album”.
What a great film “Get Out” was. Jordan Peele’s classic which unpeeled (sic) race relations in a wholly novel and horrifying way. Yes, the story was a bit ‘out there’ and unbelievable, but he pulled it off with great chutzpah.
With his follow-up film – “Us”…. sorry but, for me, it just didn’t work.
From great beginnings
It all starts so promisingly. Young Adelaide Wilson (a fine debut performance by Madison Curry) is on a seaside holiday with her mother and careless father when she wanders onto the deserted Santa Cruz beach at night. There sits, like some gothic horror ghost train, the Hall of Mirrors. “Find Yourself” it taunts. She makes the mistake of entering and changes her life forever.
Spin forwards 30 years and Adelaide, now a married mother of two, is back in Santa Cruz with a terrifying feeling that things are about to go pear-shaped. And of course they do!
Why oh why oh why those voices?
This film had me gripped until a particular point. Having people stand still and silent at the end of your drive is an incredibly spooky thing to show. But then, for me, the wheels came off big time. The “reveal” of who these people were I could take. But the manner of their behaviour and – particularly – how they talked was horrifying; and not in a good way. When “Red” started speaking I couldn’t believe my ears: Joe Pasquale after swallowing Donald Duck.
From there, the film became farcical for me, descending in progressive stages to a tunnel-based apocalypse: a plot element that was just so paper thin it bore no scrutiny at all.
This was, no doubt, an attempt at a satirical dig at the class structure of America (“We are Americans” adding a double meaning to the name of the film). If it had been played as a deliberate comedy farce it might have worked. But otherwise no.
Flashes of Peele brilliance
This is not to say that there are not positives in the film. The excellent Lupita Nyong’o gives the whacky material her all, and the other adult female lead – Elisabeth Moss (from TV’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”) – is good value as Kitty Tyler: a diabolical incarnation in either form!
Peele also delivers flashes of directorial brilliance. The “hands across America”, disappearing into the sea, is a sight that stays with you. I also liked the twist at the end, although in retrospect it’s difficult to relate it to the rest of the story and strikes of desperation in the storytelling.
Overall, a big disappointment
I know there are some who really like this movie. Each to their own, but I was not one of them. After “Get Out” I was hoping for something much better. I hope that was just Jordan Peele’s “difficult second album”.