Search
Search results
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A Surprisingly Disappointing Heist Film
Upon seeing King of Thieves listed as a Limitless preview screening, I immediately snapped up the opportunity to see it because I had been looking forward to it since the first trailer I saw. With a well-known cast, an iconic real life heist story, and a classic ‘British crime’ aura, I was anticipating something great. I really can’t understand how they managed to mess that combo up, but here we are. Out of all the reviews I’ve ever written, this one is probably the hardest because of how disappointed I feel. As a film fan it’s difficult when you get yourself hyped up, only to be let down by the finished result.
For me, King of Thieves started off promising then rapidly declined into a bit of a mess. If it weren’t for a few redeeming features, I would’ve rated it even lower. One of the positives to come out of this film is the performances; it’s no surprise to any of you that these are actors at the top of their game, and I believe they worked as hard as they could with what they had. I don’t have a problem with any of the actors, my main problem lies with how utterly awful and cringe-worthy the screenplay was. They had an opportunity to work with some brilliant talent, but even they couldn’t save this film.
I appreciate the script was trying to encapsulate the ‘tough, working class London’ stereotype through these characters, but for me there was too much swearing and casual racism/homophobia than actual exposition. We learn barely anything about these characters, with the exception of Michael Caine’s, so all we see for almost two hours is a bunch of old men arguing and swearing constantly. We aren’t encouraged to connect or sympathise with any of them, none of them are particularly three dimensional, so you find yourself hating everyone on screen. Even a little emotional moment here and there would’ve been nice. With no chemistry between characters, the heist becomes very dull indeed.
If the weak script wasn’t bad enough, I wasn’t impressed with the cinematography either. The film seems confused throughout, not really sure what visual styles it wants to settle on so it jumps about here and there. As a result, this is very jarring and I found it hard to watch. The camera is all over the place, it doesn’t seem to have any fixed techniques, and it becomes a nuisance more than anything. That being said, the heist scenes themselves were very well-shot which is even more frustrating for me. How can you shoot certain things brilliantly, then mess up others? It doesn’t make any sense. If anything, it’s proven that the people involved did have the potential to create something great, but somehow managed to throw it all away.
King of Thieves feels a lot like a straight-to-DVD crime film that you might watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon when you’re a bit tired or hungover. It’s certainly not the kind of cinematic, high-quality film I would expect to see on the big screen. It’s mildly entertaining and delivered a few laughs, but ultimately it’s forgettable. My advice for this film would be: don’t let them rob you of a ticket, catch it on TV instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/09/08/king-of-thieves-a-surprisingly-disappointing-heist-film/
For me, King of Thieves started off promising then rapidly declined into a bit of a mess. If it weren’t for a few redeeming features, I would’ve rated it even lower. One of the positives to come out of this film is the performances; it’s no surprise to any of you that these are actors at the top of their game, and I believe they worked as hard as they could with what they had. I don’t have a problem with any of the actors, my main problem lies with how utterly awful and cringe-worthy the screenplay was. They had an opportunity to work with some brilliant talent, but even they couldn’t save this film.
I appreciate the script was trying to encapsulate the ‘tough, working class London’ stereotype through these characters, but for me there was too much swearing and casual racism/homophobia than actual exposition. We learn barely anything about these characters, with the exception of Michael Caine’s, so all we see for almost two hours is a bunch of old men arguing and swearing constantly. We aren’t encouraged to connect or sympathise with any of them, none of them are particularly three dimensional, so you find yourself hating everyone on screen. Even a little emotional moment here and there would’ve been nice. With no chemistry between characters, the heist becomes very dull indeed.
If the weak script wasn’t bad enough, I wasn’t impressed with the cinematography either. The film seems confused throughout, not really sure what visual styles it wants to settle on so it jumps about here and there. As a result, this is very jarring and I found it hard to watch. The camera is all over the place, it doesn’t seem to have any fixed techniques, and it becomes a nuisance more than anything. That being said, the heist scenes themselves were very well-shot which is even more frustrating for me. How can you shoot certain things brilliantly, then mess up others? It doesn’t make any sense. If anything, it’s proven that the people involved did have the potential to create something great, but somehow managed to throw it all away.
King of Thieves feels a lot like a straight-to-DVD crime film that you might watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon when you’re a bit tired or hungover. It’s certainly not the kind of cinematic, high-quality film I would expect to see on the big screen. It’s mildly entertaining and delivered a few laughs, but ultimately it’s forgettable. My advice for this film would be: don’t let them rob you of a ticket, catch it on TV instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/09/08/king-of-thieves-a-surprisingly-disappointing-heist-film/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alex Cross (2012) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Alex Cross starts with homicide detective Alex Cross (Perry) and his team Thomas (Burns) and Monica (Nichols) needing to show their skills when a new hired killer nicknamed Picasso (Fox) uses his torture and pain techniques while eliminating people.
When the team learns of the targets they must work with who they think is the main target Giles Mercier (Reno), but this has made his team the newest targets for Picasso, who makes the killings personal.
Thoughts on Alex Cross
Characters – Dr Alex Cross is a homicide detective, we have seen this character before, but this time we meet a younger version of him, before he becomes the FBI agent we know. Alex has a family and is on the way to making his big career decision, when Picasso comes into his life, Alex will need to balance his skills and rage to stop him. Picasso is a hired gun, he is one of the very best in the world, he enjoys the pain he gives and receives, he makes his mission personal and drives Alex to limits he has never been pushed before. Thomas is the partner of Alex, he is shorter tempered, but loyal to Alex. Giles Mercier seems to be the main target of Picasso mission, he is the rich man that gets what he wants.
Performances – Tyler Perry was considered a strange choice for the leading role in this movie, known mostly for comedy and taking over from Morgan Freeman, he just doesn’t reach his levels, but is good through the film. it is Matthew Fox that shines the most as the cold calculated killer that enjoys the pain. The commitment Fox showed to this role needs to be praised because of the physical change he put his body through makes him an unlikely looking threat. Edward Burn is good as the partner while not being anything special and Jean Reno will always be good in the role he takes.
Story – To step into another Alex Cross story is always going to be interesting, picking up before he became an FBI agent helps us understand what drove him to be the determined man we know. Making the story personal for Cross shows how he can balance the law and revenge in his attempts to solve the crime. The story might not reach the level of intensity is could have for a personal story, it does everything we need for an entertaining crime mystery thriller.
Action/Crime/Mystery – The action involved in the film is good, even if moments of the effects used are weak. The crime is an interesting one to watch unfold, but it takes away from the mystery because we are always on the same level of the cops, we are not feed anything to solve.
Settings – Detroit makes for a good setting, it always feels like it is a place known for the crime rates.
Scene of the Movie – Picasso introduction fight.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The Rocket effects.
Final Thoughts – This is an easy to watch crime thriller, it does everything it needs to do and is carried by a wonderful villain performance from Fox.
Overall: Crime fans watch.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/07/15/matthew-fox-weekend-alex-cross-2012/
When the team learns of the targets they must work with who they think is the main target Giles Mercier (Reno), but this has made his team the newest targets for Picasso, who makes the killings personal.
Thoughts on Alex Cross
Characters – Dr Alex Cross is a homicide detective, we have seen this character before, but this time we meet a younger version of him, before he becomes the FBI agent we know. Alex has a family and is on the way to making his big career decision, when Picasso comes into his life, Alex will need to balance his skills and rage to stop him. Picasso is a hired gun, he is one of the very best in the world, he enjoys the pain he gives and receives, he makes his mission personal and drives Alex to limits he has never been pushed before. Thomas is the partner of Alex, he is shorter tempered, but loyal to Alex. Giles Mercier seems to be the main target of Picasso mission, he is the rich man that gets what he wants.
Performances – Tyler Perry was considered a strange choice for the leading role in this movie, known mostly for comedy and taking over from Morgan Freeman, he just doesn’t reach his levels, but is good through the film. it is Matthew Fox that shines the most as the cold calculated killer that enjoys the pain. The commitment Fox showed to this role needs to be praised because of the physical change he put his body through makes him an unlikely looking threat. Edward Burn is good as the partner while not being anything special and Jean Reno will always be good in the role he takes.
Story – To step into another Alex Cross story is always going to be interesting, picking up before he became an FBI agent helps us understand what drove him to be the determined man we know. Making the story personal for Cross shows how he can balance the law and revenge in his attempts to solve the crime. The story might not reach the level of intensity is could have for a personal story, it does everything we need for an entertaining crime mystery thriller.
Action/Crime/Mystery – The action involved in the film is good, even if moments of the effects used are weak. The crime is an interesting one to watch unfold, but it takes away from the mystery because we are always on the same level of the cops, we are not feed anything to solve.
Settings – Detroit makes for a good setting, it always feels like it is a place known for the crime rates.
Scene of the Movie – Picasso introduction fight.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The Rocket effects.
Final Thoughts – This is an easy to watch crime thriller, it does everything it needs to do and is carried by a wonderful villain performance from Fox.
Overall: Crime fans watch.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/07/15/matthew-fox-weekend-alex-cross-2012/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Making A Murderer - Season 1 in TV
Mar 3, 2020
The phenomenon of “true crime” as entertainment is disturbing. What we are saying when we subscribe to watch these compellingly morbid shows is that, of course, we don’t “enjoy” or condone the crimes themselves. But, we do increasingly expect that without the grotesque detail of primary crime scene evidence, documented visually, we can switch over to another show that will give us our macabre kick. So, it is a dangerous precedent to say that without that factor we won’t engage.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about it…
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of “reality” show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no don’t do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesn’t want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding “truth” for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about it…
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of “reality” show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no don’t do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesn’t want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding “truth” for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
After being shipped from New York to Madagascar and then leaving Madagascar only to end up stranded in Africa, our four favorite zoo animals are back and causing a ruckus once again, but this time in Europe.
Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted starts off where Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa left off, with Alex the lion(Ben Stiller), Marty the zebra(Chris Rock), Gloria the hippo (Jada Pinkett Smith) and Melman the giraffe (David Schwimmer) are stranded in Africa longing to get back to their beloved zoo in New York City. They realize the only way they will be able to return home is by relying on their super competent penguin buddies who have made their way to Monte Carlo with their chimp powered plane and the loot of jewels and money they squandered upon in Africa during the second movie.
So the quartet of four legged lovable characters along with a few familiar lemurs, King Julien (Sacha Baron Cohen), the self proclaimed King of Madagascar and his assistants Maurice (Cedric the Entertainer) and Mort (Andy Richter), decide to make their way to Monte Carlo, find the penguins, the chimpanzees, and head to New York.
Once the gang arrives in Monte Carlo it doesn’t take long for them to incite panic. Enter Captain Chantal Dubois (Francis McDormand), an impassive, somewhat indestructible animal control officer, who wants nothing more than to add a lion to her already impressive collection of animal heads mounted on her office wall. Due to her relentless pursuit and unconventional hunting techniques the animals are forced to take refuge aboard a circus train where they are welcomed by a simple-minded sea lion named Stefano (Martin Short). Stefano introduces the group to the rest of the animal circus performers and they each demonstrate their amazing tricks. The train is on its way to London and the circus crew hopes their show will garner the attention of a big time U.S. circus promoter looking to bring a show to New York. This was Alex and company’s ticket home! But would they be up to the challenge of putting on the greatest show anyone has ever seen AND evade Dubois who is hot on their tails every step of the way?
The simple storyline of animals wanting to get home has been the common thread in all three Madagascar movies. Dreamworks Animation rarely reaches the emotional expertise of Pixar, but they always manage to create movies that are still very much engaging, humorous and visually stunning. Eric Darnell and Tom McGrath, who directed the first two movies, come together once again and steer clear from the choppy, thrown together sequence of events that have plagued some sequels and trilogies. I truly believe that keeping with the same directoral chemistry plays a big part in this movie’s well-paced and entertaining storyline.
This movie is definitely geared toward the kindergarten and preschool aged audience with much of the action in the movie involving the circus performance and its Cirque du Soleil-type entertainment. Let’s add the 3D component and voila! An amazing, kaleidoscope of lights and pyrotechnics along with wonderful performances of acrobats, seal shot from cannon, high wire dancing giraffe and hippo, and flying penguins. It’s like a box of animal crackers come to life!
Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted starts off where Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa left off, with Alex the lion(Ben Stiller), Marty the zebra(Chris Rock), Gloria the hippo (Jada Pinkett Smith) and Melman the giraffe (David Schwimmer) are stranded in Africa longing to get back to their beloved zoo in New York City. They realize the only way they will be able to return home is by relying on their super competent penguin buddies who have made their way to Monte Carlo with their chimp powered plane and the loot of jewels and money they squandered upon in Africa during the second movie.
So the quartet of four legged lovable characters along with a few familiar lemurs, King Julien (Sacha Baron Cohen), the self proclaimed King of Madagascar and his assistants Maurice (Cedric the Entertainer) and Mort (Andy Richter), decide to make their way to Monte Carlo, find the penguins, the chimpanzees, and head to New York.
Once the gang arrives in Monte Carlo it doesn’t take long for them to incite panic. Enter Captain Chantal Dubois (Francis McDormand), an impassive, somewhat indestructible animal control officer, who wants nothing more than to add a lion to her already impressive collection of animal heads mounted on her office wall. Due to her relentless pursuit and unconventional hunting techniques the animals are forced to take refuge aboard a circus train where they are welcomed by a simple-minded sea lion named Stefano (Martin Short). Stefano introduces the group to the rest of the animal circus performers and they each demonstrate their amazing tricks. The train is on its way to London and the circus crew hopes their show will garner the attention of a big time U.S. circus promoter looking to bring a show to New York. This was Alex and company’s ticket home! But would they be up to the challenge of putting on the greatest show anyone has ever seen AND evade Dubois who is hot on their tails every step of the way?
The simple storyline of animals wanting to get home has been the common thread in all three Madagascar movies. Dreamworks Animation rarely reaches the emotional expertise of Pixar, but they always manage to create movies that are still very much engaging, humorous and visually stunning. Eric Darnell and Tom McGrath, who directed the first two movies, come together once again and steer clear from the choppy, thrown together sequence of events that have plagued some sequels and trilogies. I truly believe that keeping with the same directoral chemistry plays a big part in this movie’s well-paced and entertaining storyline.
This movie is definitely geared toward the kindergarten and preschool aged audience with much of the action in the movie involving the circus performance and its Cirque du Soleil-type entertainment. Let’s add the 3D component and voila! An amazing, kaleidoscope of lights and pyrotechnics along with wonderful performances of acrobats, seal shot from cannon, high wire dancing giraffe and hippo, and flying penguins. It’s like a box of animal crackers come to life!
James Bagshaw recommended track Telstar by The Tornados in Ridin' the Wind: The Anthology by The Tornados in Music (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Rise of the Triad in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
Back in 1993 The Internet was mainly confined to college campuses and would not start to arrive in homes for another year. Those who went online used dial up modems to access local bulletin boards to share pictures, play social games, and use chat programs in the early precursors to social networks.
With the success of the Doom games, First Person Shooters were all the rage and numerous companies cranked out games in this genre trying to appeal to a consumer base eager for games of this type and who wanted to experience to get in on the fairly new concepts of online play with their friends.
One such game was Rise of the Triad. Originally planned as a Wolfenstein sequel by Apogee Software the game cast players as a member of a United Nations special forces team who is dispatched to an island to take down a dangerous cult that has arisen.
Gameplay was frantic and fast as players had to mow down as many bad guys as they could with all manner of weapons and gear. The game was innovative in that there were all sorts of traps and objects that players could bounce from and they could even become a dog during power ups as they took the fight to the bad guys in both offline and online modes.
Jump forward to 2013, Rise of the Triad is back with a slick makeover that while looking more contemporary is still very much a retro game loaded with throwback elements.
The plot is essentially the same and aside from the improved graphics and physics, the game looks and plays very much like the original. The graphics are not eye popping examples of modern technology, rather they are improved and take advantage of graphic cards which were not widely in use back in 1993.
My first reaction was how much it played like a game of old. Aside from being faster and smoother than games of that era, the combat mechanics and techniques were very much as they were back in games of the day.
I enjoyed the nostalgia as I took down enemies and used the bounce pads to ascend to upper levels of buildings and collect power up coins that were littered throughout the map. I also enjoyed the over the top gore and humor of the game such as being rewarded with a pair of eyeballs splattered on the screen after I dispatched an enemy with a rocket launcher.
My biggest frustration was with the check point save system as having to replay elements of a game over and over when you die is not my favorite thing. Many times I would make solid progress only to be killed and forced to replay the previous segments over and over.
Enemies still come at you fairly directly when they attack but they can be very effective and deadly so players will need to be on their toes art all times.
The amount of firepower you can deploy is great from dual pistols to machines guns and rocket launchers, carnage is the way of the game.
I also had some issues getting matched online during my earlier attempts but as time went on, this became easier and I was able to enjoy the online nostalgia.
Rise of the Triad is great for those who remember the original and that era of gaming but for those who are accustomed to the mechanics and polish of modern shooters, they may find elements of the game frustrating and best left in the past.
For the rest of us, it was a welcome trip to the past that helped illustrate just how far games have evolved in the last twenty years.
http://sknr.net/2013/09/22/rise-of-the-triad/
With the success of the Doom games, First Person Shooters were all the rage and numerous companies cranked out games in this genre trying to appeal to a consumer base eager for games of this type and who wanted to experience to get in on the fairly new concepts of online play with their friends.
One such game was Rise of the Triad. Originally planned as a Wolfenstein sequel by Apogee Software the game cast players as a member of a United Nations special forces team who is dispatched to an island to take down a dangerous cult that has arisen.
Gameplay was frantic and fast as players had to mow down as many bad guys as they could with all manner of weapons and gear. The game was innovative in that there were all sorts of traps and objects that players could bounce from and they could even become a dog during power ups as they took the fight to the bad guys in both offline and online modes.
Jump forward to 2013, Rise of the Triad is back with a slick makeover that while looking more contemporary is still very much a retro game loaded with throwback elements.
The plot is essentially the same and aside from the improved graphics and physics, the game looks and plays very much like the original. The graphics are not eye popping examples of modern technology, rather they are improved and take advantage of graphic cards which were not widely in use back in 1993.
My first reaction was how much it played like a game of old. Aside from being faster and smoother than games of that era, the combat mechanics and techniques were very much as they were back in games of the day.
I enjoyed the nostalgia as I took down enemies and used the bounce pads to ascend to upper levels of buildings and collect power up coins that were littered throughout the map. I also enjoyed the over the top gore and humor of the game such as being rewarded with a pair of eyeballs splattered on the screen after I dispatched an enemy with a rocket launcher.
My biggest frustration was with the check point save system as having to replay elements of a game over and over when you die is not my favorite thing. Many times I would make solid progress only to be killed and forced to replay the previous segments over and over.
Enemies still come at you fairly directly when they attack but they can be very effective and deadly so players will need to be on their toes art all times.
The amount of firepower you can deploy is great from dual pistols to machines guns and rocket launchers, carnage is the way of the game.
I also had some issues getting matched online during my earlier attempts but as time went on, this became easier and I was able to enjoy the online nostalgia.
Rise of the Triad is great for those who remember the original and that era of gaming but for those who are accustomed to the mechanics and polish of modern shooters, they may find elements of the game frustrating and best left in the past.
For the rest of us, it was a welcome trip to the past that helped illustrate just how far games have evolved in the last twenty years.
http://sknr.net/2013/09/22/rise-of-the-triad/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
Verdict: Stylish Crime Story
Story: Hustlers starts as we follow a young stripper Destiny (Wu) who is working to make sure her Grandmother (Ho0 is supported, she sees the more successful dancers in the club as she is trying to find her own place in the club, looking up to the most popular dancer Ramona (Lopez).
Ramona takes Destiny under her wing to teacher her more techniques, which should give her a chance to get more money, let alone showing her about the extra tricks she has been working on for years, getting the credit cards and taking their money, showing the money flying in, taking advantage of the Wall Street clients.
Thoughts on Hustlers
Characters – Destiny is the young woman who just wants to make enough money in her life for her Grandmother who has always supported her. She has a job as a stripper which sees her start small before learning how to bring in the big money, while her life might not go to plan after she has a kid, she returns to the life as a dancer which sees her take advantage of the wall street bankers. Ramona is the experience dancer, she gets most of the attention in the club and takes Destiny under her wing in a mentor role, they have one brilliant year before things change. Once they are out the club, she leads a bigger scheme which takes thousands from the clients bringing the girls together. Elizabeth is a journalist hearing the story from Destiny about what happened with the women, she wants to hear everything to see whether they knew and thought what they did was right. We do meet plenty of the fellow girls that joined in the plan, each has different motivations and different skill levels to be part of it.
Performances – Constance Wu in the leading role is wonderful and such a big change from last years Crazy Rich Asians, proving herself as an actress that can play both sides of the acting range. Jennifer Lopez shines as the confident seductive dancer, she looks the part with ease and steals every scene she is in. Julia Stiles brings the calm reporter that is asking most of the questions that we would be asking. The rest of the cast including the dancers do a great job too.
Story – The story here follows two strippers that start their own business where they look to make massive amounts of money by drugging wall street banks and using their cards to fill their financial needs. The story here shows how the plan starts off small, but soon leads to them going for bigger scores which leads to them taking bigger risks which they didn’t need to be getting involved in. while this is based on a true story, it does show that there wasn’t much of a punishment for the women either. The mentor friendship between Destiny and Ramona is great to see as we can see how they both need each other to get through the problems they might the facing.
Comedy/Crime – The crime side of the film mixes with the comedy which shows how the women were getting away with the crime for so long without being caught in the middle of being a full-blown comedy.
Settings – The film is set in New York which shows where the targets will have too much money for their own good, which makes them an easy target.
Scene of the Movie – The bad party.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The time jump does take away something from the story.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun crime comedy that showed how a group of hustlers swindled money out of wall street bankers who would spend anything.
Overall: Fun throughout.
Story: Hustlers starts as we follow a young stripper Destiny (Wu) who is working to make sure her Grandmother (Ho0 is supported, she sees the more successful dancers in the club as she is trying to find her own place in the club, looking up to the most popular dancer Ramona (Lopez).
Ramona takes Destiny under her wing to teacher her more techniques, which should give her a chance to get more money, let alone showing her about the extra tricks she has been working on for years, getting the credit cards and taking their money, showing the money flying in, taking advantage of the Wall Street clients.
Thoughts on Hustlers
Characters – Destiny is the young woman who just wants to make enough money in her life for her Grandmother who has always supported her. She has a job as a stripper which sees her start small before learning how to bring in the big money, while her life might not go to plan after she has a kid, she returns to the life as a dancer which sees her take advantage of the wall street bankers. Ramona is the experience dancer, she gets most of the attention in the club and takes Destiny under her wing in a mentor role, they have one brilliant year before things change. Once they are out the club, she leads a bigger scheme which takes thousands from the clients bringing the girls together. Elizabeth is a journalist hearing the story from Destiny about what happened with the women, she wants to hear everything to see whether they knew and thought what they did was right. We do meet plenty of the fellow girls that joined in the plan, each has different motivations and different skill levels to be part of it.
Performances – Constance Wu in the leading role is wonderful and such a big change from last years Crazy Rich Asians, proving herself as an actress that can play both sides of the acting range. Jennifer Lopez shines as the confident seductive dancer, she looks the part with ease and steals every scene she is in. Julia Stiles brings the calm reporter that is asking most of the questions that we would be asking. The rest of the cast including the dancers do a great job too.
Story – The story here follows two strippers that start their own business where they look to make massive amounts of money by drugging wall street banks and using their cards to fill their financial needs. The story here shows how the plan starts off small, but soon leads to them going for bigger scores which leads to them taking bigger risks which they didn’t need to be getting involved in. while this is based on a true story, it does show that there wasn’t much of a punishment for the women either. The mentor friendship between Destiny and Ramona is great to see as we can see how they both need each other to get through the problems they might the facing.
Comedy/Crime – The crime side of the film mixes with the comedy which shows how the women were getting away with the crime for so long without being caught in the middle of being a full-blown comedy.
Settings – The film is set in New York which shows where the targets will have too much money for their own good, which makes them an easy target.
Scene of the Movie – The bad party.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The time jump does take away something from the story.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun crime comedy that showed how a group of hustlers swindled money out of wall street bankers who would spend anything.
Overall: Fun throughout.
Amanda (96 KP) rated What To Say Next in Books
May 29, 2019
“It turns out cliches are cliches for a reason – they are true.”
This is the first novel I read by Julie Buxbaum and oddly enough, this isn’t the book that is sitting on my TBR list. I have another book of hers that I haven’t even cracked open yet, and I find this one instead. I think my favorite trope is the abundantly smart, socially awkward person (like Sheldon Cooper) meets someone who essentially completes them. Corny, I know, but you know what? I don’t care.
The story is of David, whom is incredibly smart but lacks some social skills and doesn’t always pick up on his surroundings. He likes his headphones and recites Pi in stressful situations (I loved him from the first chapter). Then there is Kit “Katherine”. She just lost her father in a car accident and she sits with David in the cafeteria one day because she just doesn’t want to be the one who is asked how they are feeling. I can understand that. I can appreciate the sympathy for a loved one pass, but sometimes not talking or just silence is the best for me.
David has an older sister, whom he calls Miney, and she’s sort of his guide to knowing when to react and knowing when not to do or say something. Their sibling bond is so cute. Kit has her two friends and only her mother (still in mourning of course) and along the way, Kit finds out some rather disturbing things that have been kept from her, including the accident that killed her dad.
David thinks and does things differently, which obviously, makes him an outcast at school. I loved that Buxbaum didn’t make David to be this stereotypical socially awkward guy who doesn’t know how to defend himself physically (I loved Big Bang Theory, but they could have learned to fight, just saying). So, not only is David wicked smart, but he’s also trained in techniques like Karate and Krav Maga.
“Homo is a pejorative term for a gay person, and even if my classmates are mistaken about my sexual orientation, they should know better than to use that word.”
Who ever decided that calling someone Homo was a great insult to your sexuality was highly idiotic. Homo simply means same, so how the hell is that even an insult? Who decides to redefine a word to make it negative?
One more rant…
I HATE when I see the song You Are My Sunshine used as a happy song. IT’S NOT A HAPPY SONG. Don’t let the title fool you. Read the lyrics and see that it is not happy at all. As annoyed as I was to see this song referenced in this book, the context of how it was used was a bit better than the norm. It was used to recall a memory, a particularly sad memory. I’ll definitely give props to the author for that. Thank you.
Rant over.
I wanted to read more books centering on characters with mental health/illness and I saw this book on the list. Even though David makes some bad choices, I still loved him. I loved him from the very first page of his POV. Kit was a great character and although I do question some of the things she does, like her fight with her mother going on for a long time, I loved the bond that her David eventually formed.
“All I can think is Kit kissed me, over and over until I stop thinking all together.”
It’s always so nice in that one moment where you’re not thinking at all, you’re just there in the moment.
Some things happened with the two, however, and of course it was bound to happen, but I also really liked and felt satisfied with how the story ended. I could love these two characters for a long time.
“Good-weird is what I’ve been telling myself I am for years, when just being plain weird was too much of a burden to carry.”
This is the first novel I read by Julie Buxbaum and oddly enough, this isn’t the book that is sitting on my TBR list. I have another book of hers that I haven’t even cracked open yet, and I find this one instead. I think my favorite trope is the abundantly smart, socially awkward person (like Sheldon Cooper) meets someone who essentially completes them. Corny, I know, but you know what? I don’t care.
The story is of David, whom is incredibly smart but lacks some social skills and doesn’t always pick up on his surroundings. He likes his headphones and recites Pi in stressful situations (I loved him from the first chapter). Then there is Kit “Katherine”. She just lost her father in a car accident and she sits with David in the cafeteria one day because she just doesn’t want to be the one who is asked how they are feeling. I can understand that. I can appreciate the sympathy for a loved one pass, but sometimes not talking or just silence is the best for me.
David has an older sister, whom he calls Miney, and she’s sort of his guide to knowing when to react and knowing when not to do or say something. Their sibling bond is so cute. Kit has her two friends and only her mother (still in mourning of course) and along the way, Kit finds out some rather disturbing things that have been kept from her, including the accident that killed her dad.
David thinks and does things differently, which obviously, makes him an outcast at school. I loved that Buxbaum didn’t make David to be this stereotypical socially awkward guy who doesn’t know how to defend himself physically (I loved Big Bang Theory, but they could have learned to fight, just saying). So, not only is David wicked smart, but he’s also trained in techniques like Karate and Krav Maga.
“Homo is a pejorative term for a gay person, and even if my classmates are mistaken about my sexual orientation, they should know better than to use that word.”
Who ever decided that calling someone Homo was a great insult to your sexuality was highly idiotic. Homo simply means same, so how the hell is that even an insult? Who decides to redefine a word to make it negative?
One more rant…
I HATE when I see the song You Are My Sunshine used as a happy song. IT’S NOT A HAPPY SONG. Don’t let the title fool you. Read the lyrics and see that it is not happy at all. As annoyed as I was to see this song referenced in this book, the context of how it was used was a bit better than the norm. It was used to recall a memory, a particularly sad memory. I’ll definitely give props to the author for that. Thank you.
Rant over.
I wanted to read more books centering on characters with mental health/illness and I saw this book on the list. Even though David makes some bad choices, I still loved him. I loved him from the very first page of his POV. Kit was a great character and although I do question some of the things she does, like her fight with her mother going on for a long time, I loved the bond that her David eventually formed.
“All I can think is Kit kissed me, over and over until I stop thinking all together.”
It’s always so nice in that one moment where you’re not thinking at all, you’re just there in the moment.
Some things happened with the two, however, and of course it was bound to happen, but I also really liked and felt satisfied with how the story ended. I could love these two characters for a long time.
“Good-weird is what I’ve been telling myself I am for years, when just being plain weird was too much of a burden to carry.”
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Widows (2018) in Movies
Nov 14, 2018 (Updated Nov 14, 2018)
Outstanding performances from the entire cast (3 more)
Phenomenal Direction
Clever Cinematography
A Brilliant Script With Sharp Dialogue
The Best Movie I Have Seen This Year
Widows is an outstanding thriller from Steve McQueen. It stars a brilliant Viola Davis as Veronica Rawlings at the top of her game as a widow of her criminal husband. He and his crew died during the heist and now she and the other widows of the recently deceased crew decide to complete the heist and take the money for themselves. That is the basic plot outline, but it is actually a lot more in depth and layered than that, embroiled in politics and gang rivalries, amongst even more complex elements. However, although there are a lot of moving parts in the film, it never seems confused or messy. It doesn't treat it's audience like idiots either, as long as you are paying attention.
The cast are astonishing in the movie and I truly believe that is the sign of a great director getting the best out of his actors. Viola Davis is an acting powerhouse, making you want to cry one moment and then stand up and jump into battle with her the next. That woman could read the phonebook and make it sound convincingly intense. She is supported by a fantastic turn from Michelle Rodrigez, an actress who I have been a fan of for years, but can sometimes be known to come across fairly wooden. Not here, she is convincing and passionate in every scene she appears in. I also really liked seeing Elizabeth Debecki playing against type here. She is usually cast as a 'perfect,' type of character, such as Tom Hiddleston's love interest in Night Manager or as a member of the perfect alien race in Guardians of The Galaxy. Here she is a much more realistic, down to earth character. Cynthia Erivo, who came out of nowhere and blew me away in Bad Times At The El Royale, also appears here as the crew's driver and gives a genuine, energetic performance who is also the first one to stand up to Veronica's hard-ass attitude. Carrie Coon appears briefly as another widow, but her role is more of a cameo than anything else, it is still important to the story though towards the film's conclusion.
The male actors in the film are equally as brilliant as their female counterparts. I don't want to give too much away about Liam Neeson's Henry Rawlings, but he is convincing and engaging in every part of his performance. Jon Bernthal is slowly becoming the king of appearing in small impactful roles in big ensemble movies. He has already done this in Wolf Of Wall Street, Baby Driver, Sicario and Wind River and he does it here too appearing in a small but memorable role as one of Henry's crew. Colin Farrell and Robert Duvall are great as usual here, as a believable father and son duo. Daniel Kaluuya deserves a special shout out as the movie's main antagonist. This role really gives Kaluuya a chance to flex his more cruel acting skills and show off his versatility as a performer.
The script written by McQueen and Gillian Flynn is full of razor sharp wit and electrifying moments. This is the type of golden material that most actors dream of getting to work with. The movie is shot by Sean Bobbitt who uses an array of clever camera angles and techniques to help convey the mood of each scene. Bobbit also shot Hunger, Shame and 12 Years a Slave and there is a reason that McQueen continues to use him to shoot his films. The score and audio mixing was also effective and helped to amplify the atmosphere throughout the movie.
Overall, Widows is a perfect storm of extremely high quality technical aspects and exquisite performances from an exceptionally talented ensemble of actors. If you didn't get what you wanted out of a female led heist thriller from Ocean's 8, then go out and see this masterpiece asap.
The cast are astonishing in the movie and I truly believe that is the sign of a great director getting the best out of his actors. Viola Davis is an acting powerhouse, making you want to cry one moment and then stand up and jump into battle with her the next. That woman could read the phonebook and make it sound convincingly intense. She is supported by a fantastic turn from Michelle Rodrigez, an actress who I have been a fan of for years, but can sometimes be known to come across fairly wooden. Not here, she is convincing and passionate in every scene she appears in. I also really liked seeing Elizabeth Debecki playing against type here. She is usually cast as a 'perfect,' type of character, such as Tom Hiddleston's love interest in Night Manager or as a member of the perfect alien race in Guardians of The Galaxy. Here she is a much more realistic, down to earth character. Cynthia Erivo, who came out of nowhere and blew me away in Bad Times At The El Royale, also appears here as the crew's driver and gives a genuine, energetic performance who is also the first one to stand up to Veronica's hard-ass attitude. Carrie Coon appears briefly as another widow, but her role is more of a cameo than anything else, it is still important to the story though towards the film's conclusion.
The male actors in the film are equally as brilliant as their female counterparts. I don't want to give too much away about Liam Neeson's Henry Rawlings, but he is convincing and engaging in every part of his performance. Jon Bernthal is slowly becoming the king of appearing in small impactful roles in big ensemble movies. He has already done this in Wolf Of Wall Street, Baby Driver, Sicario and Wind River and he does it here too appearing in a small but memorable role as one of Henry's crew. Colin Farrell and Robert Duvall are great as usual here, as a believable father and son duo. Daniel Kaluuya deserves a special shout out as the movie's main antagonist. This role really gives Kaluuya a chance to flex his more cruel acting skills and show off his versatility as a performer.
The script written by McQueen and Gillian Flynn is full of razor sharp wit and electrifying moments. This is the type of golden material that most actors dream of getting to work with. The movie is shot by Sean Bobbitt who uses an array of clever camera angles and techniques to help convey the mood of each scene. Bobbit also shot Hunger, Shame and 12 Years a Slave and there is a reason that McQueen continues to use him to shoot his films. The score and audio mixing was also effective and helped to amplify the atmosphere throughout the movie.
Overall, Widows is a perfect storm of extremely high quality technical aspects and exquisite performances from an exceptionally talented ensemble of actors. If you didn't get what you wanted out of a female led heist thriller from Ocean's 8, then go out and see this masterpiece asap.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Ghost Stories (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
For years, mankind has pondered over the existence of ghosts, demons and the paranormal. Many have claimed to have experienced it firsthand, while others dedicate their lives and careers to debunking those experiences. It seems to be a question that no one has been able to answer or prove one way or the other, and this fear of the unknown has been the basis of a number of popular horror stories.
Based on the stage play of the same name, ‘Ghost Stories’ follows skeptic Professor Phillip Goodman’s (Nyman) investigation of three unsolved cases, each one detailing a different haunting. After meeting with his idol and fellow skeptic Charles Cameron, and feeling deflated when he begins to question his lifelong skepticism, Goodman meets with former night watchman Tony Matthews (Whitehouse), teenager Simon Rifkind (Lawther), and businessman Mike Priddle (Freeman) to learn about their firsthand experiences with the supernatural. The film is split into three segments, allowing each character to explain their case through the use of flashbacks where we get to see exactly what happened to the characters.
Throughout these flashbacks, Nyman and Dyson have utilised a number of popular horror techniques that will make you jump out of your seat, or hide behind your hands. There’s a serious feeling of unease throughout the entire film, and you have no idea what’s going to happen next. Even as an avid fan of the genre, I found myself genuinely terrified during a large portion of the film. ‘Ghost Stories’ knows exactly how to pace a horror film, and how to leave an audience uncomfortable yet unable to look away from the screen. Whilst the jump scare is inevitable, the film doesn’t overuse these and instead finds ways to build tension and fear, which actually heightens the experience because you find yourself trying to predict when something’s going to pop out at you. It leaves you on edge for the entire ninety minutes, which in my mind, is exactly what a horror film should do.
The stories told by each of the men are gripping, and the actors all do exceptional jobs of portraying their characters. Each of the men interviewed by Goodman are very different in their class backgrounds, beliefs and personalities, but are united in their adamancy that they did experience hauntings and that they left them completely shaken up afterwards. This reinforces the idea that the supernatural can target anyone, and leave anyone feeling helpless. Particular praise has to be given to Alex Lawther; after seeing him in season 3 of ‘Black Mirror’ I had high hopes, and he delivered. He’s certainly one to watch and I look forward to seeing what he gets up to next.
‘Ghost Stories’ is incredibly British in nature, mixing the right amount of dry humour and satire into what is an utterly terrifying experience overall. Other critics have said it’s the best British horror film in years, and I couldn’t agree more. It’s an incredibly gripping story that has a lot of twists and turns, and tugs at all of your heartstrings. Alongside the characters, I went through a number of emotions and felt fully invested in their lives. These are all characters that feel familiar, they’re your average human, which throws realism into the mix. Being able to identify with characters in a horror film makes your fear 100 times worse.
This film is best experienced with as little context as possible, if you walk into it completely blind, I believe you’ll get maximum enjoyment out of it. The trailers have done a great job at keeping it as vague as possible, which was a bonus. There’s nothing worse than trailers giving everything away in a few seconds. ‘Ghost Stories’ does have a twist ending, but I thought this was done brilliantly and I personally was unable to predict it. Nyman and Dyson have put so much effort into crafting an intense, thrilling, mysterious story and it’s seriously paid off. I’m now hoping ‘Ghost Stories’ will be returning to the stage soon, because I’ll be first in line for a ticket!
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/ghost-stories/
Based on the stage play of the same name, ‘Ghost Stories’ follows skeptic Professor Phillip Goodman’s (Nyman) investigation of three unsolved cases, each one detailing a different haunting. After meeting with his idol and fellow skeptic Charles Cameron, and feeling deflated when he begins to question his lifelong skepticism, Goodman meets with former night watchman Tony Matthews (Whitehouse), teenager Simon Rifkind (Lawther), and businessman Mike Priddle (Freeman) to learn about their firsthand experiences with the supernatural. The film is split into three segments, allowing each character to explain their case through the use of flashbacks where we get to see exactly what happened to the characters.
Throughout these flashbacks, Nyman and Dyson have utilised a number of popular horror techniques that will make you jump out of your seat, or hide behind your hands. There’s a serious feeling of unease throughout the entire film, and you have no idea what’s going to happen next. Even as an avid fan of the genre, I found myself genuinely terrified during a large portion of the film. ‘Ghost Stories’ knows exactly how to pace a horror film, and how to leave an audience uncomfortable yet unable to look away from the screen. Whilst the jump scare is inevitable, the film doesn’t overuse these and instead finds ways to build tension and fear, which actually heightens the experience because you find yourself trying to predict when something’s going to pop out at you. It leaves you on edge for the entire ninety minutes, which in my mind, is exactly what a horror film should do.
The stories told by each of the men are gripping, and the actors all do exceptional jobs of portraying their characters. Each of the men interviewed by Goodman are very different in their class backgrounds, beliefs and personalities, but are united in their adamancy that they did experience hauntings and that they left them completely shaken up afterwards. This reinforces the idea that the supernatural can target anyone, and leave anyone feeling helpless. Particular praise has to be given to Alex Lawther; after seeing him in season 3 of ‘Black Mirror’ I had high hopes, and he delivered. He’s certainly one to watch and I look forward to seeing what he gets up to next.
‘Ghost Stories’ is incredibly British in nature, mixing the right amount of dry humour and satire into what is an utterly terrifying experience overall. Other critics have said it’s the best British horror film in years, and I couldn’t agree more. It’s an incredibly gripping story that has a lot of twists and turns, and tugs at all of your heartstrings. Alongside the characters, I went through a number of emotions and felt fully invested in their lives. These are all characters that feel familiar, they’re your average human, which throws realism into the mix. Being able to identify with characters in a horror film makes your fear 100 times worse.
This film is best experienced with as little context as possible, if you walk into it completely blind, I believe you’ll get maximum enjoyment out of it. The trailers have done a great job at keeping it as vague as possible, which was a bonus. There’s nothing worse than trailers giving everything away in a few seconds. ‘Ghost Stories’ does have a twist ending, but I thought this was done brilliantly and I personally was unable to predict it. Nyman and Dyson have put so much effort into crafting an intense, thrilling, mysterious story and it’s seriously paid off. I’m now hoping ‘Ghost Stories’ will be returning to the stage soon, because I’ll be first in line for a ticket!
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/ghost-stories/
