Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
The long anticipated “Justice League” has finally arrived finally combining the biggest stars of the DC universe into one film. The proposed film has faced many obstacles on the way to the big screen ranging from script issues, massive reshoots and a change of Director for said reshoots due to a family tragedy that Director Zack Snyder suffered.
The film follows Batman (Ben Affleck) and Wonder Woman (Gal Godot), as they look to assemble a team of other gifted individuals to help fight off a pending invasion.
The death of Superman has left a void on the Earth, and this has paved the way for an ancient evil to return as he attempts to conquer the planet after he collects the three needed artifacts that his plan requires.
In a race against time, Batman and Wonder Woman recruit Aquaman (Jason Momoa), The Flash (Ezra Miller), and Cyborg (Ray Fisher), to battle to save the planet. Naturally they battle amongst themselves as well as their massing enemies but ultimately decide on a dangerous plan that can tip the odds in their favor and save the day.
The action in the film is good but it often plays out like a video game. With so many blatantly obvious CGI backgrounds, the movie looked like a video game. There were numerous scenes that looked like they were lifted from Injustice and Injustice 2 that I mused to myself that someone must have used their Power Up for the shot.
Affleck and Gadot are good and work well with one another, but there are some serious casting issues with the film. The biggest for me was Ezra Miller as The Flash. I did not like his effeminate, nerdy, socially awkward, and neurotic and at times cowardly take on the character. This is not the Barry Allen I grew up reading in comics or the one that has been portrayed twice in a much better fashion on television. His comic relief status grew old fast and his character really offered little to the film.
It has been well-documented that Joss Whedon not only handled the rewrites for the film but took over directing duties to complete the film. You can see elements of his humor scattered throughout and the film does move along at a steady pace without dragging.
The biggest issue is that so many of the characters are just stiff and one-dimensional. They really are not overly interesting so it is hard to really connect with them and the tasks they are facing. Unlike Marvel who have excelled with dysfunctional groups who fight amongst themselves as well as the forces of evil, this group seems to be going through the paces rather than being fully engaged with the task at hand and each other.
In the end “Justice League” is better than I expected, and the two bonus scenes in the credits show some interesting potential down the road. As it is, it is flawed entertainment that requires audiences to overlook a lot of issues.
http://sknr.net/2017/11/15/justice-league/
The film follows Batman (Ben Affleck) and Wonder Woman (Gal Godot), as they look to assemble a team of other gifted individuals to help fight off a pending invasion.
The death of Superman has left a void on the Earth, and this has paved the way for an ancient evil to return as he attempts to conquer the planet after he collects the three needed artifacts that his plan requires.
In a race against time, Batman and Wonder Woman recruit Aquaman (Jason Momoa), The Flash (Ezra Miller), and Cyborg (Ray Fisher), to battle to save the planet. Naturally they battle amongst themselves as well as their massing enemies but ultimately decide on a dangerous plan that can tip the odds in their favor and save the day.
The action in the film is good but it often plays out like a video game. With so many blatantly obvious CGI backgrounds, the movie looked like a video game. There were numerous scenes that looked like they were lifted from Injustice and Injustice 2 that I mused to myself that someone must have used their Power Up for the shot.
Affleck and Gadot are good and work well with one another, but there are some serious casting issues with the film. The biggest for me was Ezra Miller as The Flash. I did not like his effeminate, nerdy, socially awkward, and neurotic and at times cowardly take on the character. This is not the Barry Allen I grew up reading in comics or the one that has been portrayed twice in a much better fashion on television. His comic relief status grew old fast and his character really offered little to the film.
It has been well-documented that Joss Whedon not only handled the rewrites for the film but took over directing duties to complete the film. You can see elements of his humor scattered throughout and the film does move along at a steady pace without dragging.
The biggest issue is that so many of the characters are just stiff and one-dimensional. They really are not overly interesting so it is hard to really connect with them and the tasks they are facing. Unlike Marvel who have excelled with dysfunctional groups who fight amongst themselves as well as the forces of evil, this group seems to be going through the paces rather than being fully engaged with the task at hand and each other.
In the end “Justice League” is better than I expected, and the two bonus scenes in the credits show some interesting potential down the road. As it is, it is flawed entertainment that requires audiences to overlook a lot of issues.
http://sknr.net/2017/11/15/justice-league/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 6 Days (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 20, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: 6 Days starts on the 30th April 1980 when Iranian terrorists storm the Iranian Embassy in Princes Gate taking hostages and demanding the release of 91 prisoners back in Iran. We follow the negotiator Max Vernon (Strong), reporter Kate Adie (Cornish) and the specialist SAS unit with rookie Rusty Firmin (Bell) planning their ideas of for entering the embassy.
England faces the idea of negotiating with terrorists or being strong and taking them down from the within showing the strength to deal with terrorist situations. As the tensions rise, Max tries to find a peaceful solution to everything while Rusty and his team are preparing for any chance of taking the embassy by force.
Thoughts on 6 Days
Characters – Rusty Firmin is the lead on a SAS team that are called to try and solve the hostage situation, they have only ever done training never being able to get their hands-on experience before. Rusty is desperate to show they are ready to protect their country. Max Vernon is the negotiator that keeps the terrorists calm, trying to make their demands happen, he stays calm through the whole situation even when the pressure to make something happen is getting to him. Kate Adie gives updates from outside for the watching television public to see how everything unfolds, in all honesty, we don’t need to be following this character.
Performances – When you look at the performances you can’t fault them because they are give good performances, Mark Strong shines like he always does, Jamie Bell is good too, the limited scenes Abbie Cornish is in she does well to. The problem is the characters are not the most interesting.
Story – The story is based on the real Iranian terrorist hostage situation in 1980 which last the 6 Days. It shows how England didn’t want a copy of what happened in Munich, didn’t want to give into terrorism and wanted to remain strong in the eyes of the world. It also shows how while being trained to deal with the situation, the SAS had never had to tackle things in reality. This should be an interesting watch but in the end, we don’t focus on enough of the negotiation process or the tactical side leaving us feeling like we haven’t learnt enough by the end.
Action/History – The get tactical action, the most part is training ideas before one main shot, but it doesn’t feel like it was shot the best way. We learn moments from the historical events, but most comes from the reading over the storytelling.
Settings – The film is set instantly around the Embassy, which puts us into the action from the start which is all we want to see.
Scene of the Movie – The practise sieges
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I feel we should have followed one side more instead of trying to cover three angles.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid enough history lesson, we learn what we need to, but not enough from the action unfolding before us.
Overall: Disappointing historical drama.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/11/26/6-days-2017/
England faces the idea of negotiating with terrorists or being strong and taking them down from the within showing the strength to deal with terrorist situations. As the tensions rise, Max tries to find a peaceful solution to everything while Rusty and his team are preparing for any chance of taking the embassy by force.
Thoughts on 6 Days
Characters – Rusty Firmin is the lead on a SAS team that are called to try and solve the hostage situation, they have only ever done training never being able to get their hands-on experience before. Rusty is desperate to show they are ready to protect their country. Max Vernon is the negotiator that keeps the terrorists calm, trying to make their demands happen, he stays calm through the whole situation even when the pressure to make something happen is getting to him. Kate Adie gives updates from outside for the watching television public to see how everything unfolds, in all honesty, we don’t need to be following this character.
Performances – When you look at the performances you can’t fault them because they are give good performances, Mark Strong shines like he always does, Jamie Bell is good too, the limited scenes Abbie Cornish is in she does well to. The problem is the characters are not the most interesting.
Story – The story is based on the real Iranian terrorist hostage situation in 1980 which last the 6 Days. It shows how England didn’t want a copy of what happened in Munich, didn’t want to give into terrorism and wanted to remain strong in the eyes of the world. It also shows how while being trained to deal with the situation, the SAS had never had to tackle things in reality. This should be an interesting watch but in the end, we don’t focus on enough of the negotiation process or the tactical side leaving us feeling like we haven’t learnt enough by the end.
Action/History – The get tactical action, the most part is training ideas before one main shot, but it doesn’t feel like it was shot the best way. We learn moments from the historical events, but most comes from the reading over the storytelling.
Settings – The film is set instantly around the Embassy, which puts us into the action from the start which is all we want to see.
Scene of the Movie – The practise sieges
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I feel we should have followed one side more instead of trying to cover three angles.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid enough history lesson, we learn what we need to, but not enough from the action unfolding before us.
Overall: Disappointing historical drama.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/11/26/6-days-2017/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Nov 6, 2019
Good (enough) conclusion to the Franchise
After a few attempts at resurrecting this franchise, James Cameron has (wisely) decided to bury the franchise with one last TERMINATOR film starring the original Terminator himself, Arnold Schwarzenegger. TERMINATOR: DARK FATE is a direct sequel to T2: JUDGEMENT DAY (or so says Producer/Writer Cameron) as it ignores the 3rd and 4th movies in this series (as well as the television show THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES).
And that is a wise move as it simplifies things and just lets us get on to what a Terminator movie does best - fantastic action sequences, state of the art CGI, a killer robot that will stop at nothing to accomplish it's mission, and a plucky hero or 2 to battle said killer robot.
Oh...did I mention that they recruit a Terminator to help them stop the Terminator?
And it all works well...enough. Set in this year (2019), TERMINATOR: DARK FATE tells the tale of what happens next after Sarah and John Connor stopped Judgement Day in the 2nd Terminator film. A deadly - even more dangerous - Terminator (version 9!) returns to 2019 to kill a single woman (Natalie Reyes). This time she is helped by an augmented human from the future (Mackenzie Davis) and...Sarah Connor! Returning to this film, all buffed up and aging, is a craggy voiced Linda Hamilton as Sarah, who brings an adequate amount of world-weary, "been there, done that" attitude to the proceedings that pretty much carry the first half of the film.
And...just as the film was beginning to sag in the middle, along comes Arnold.
Playing an aging Terminator (which is explained, well enough, in the plot), Arnold plays the Terminator (who has been living with humans for over 20 years) with a wink in his eye and a sense of humor about him. Yep...this is a Terminator with a funny bone. And - I'll be darned - it works! Thanks to the performance of Mr. Schwarzenegger. He knows exactly what kind of film he is in and brings the right amount of energy, muscle and humor to the proceedings. He pretty much carries this film on his broad shoulders for the 2nd half - and he carries it with ease.
Credit Director Tim Miller (DEADPOOL) for keeping things light, simple and moving along crisply. He, too, understands the type of film he is making (and the audience that will go see this type of film) so he keeps the dialogue light and snappy, the plot at it's simplest and the action as high as he can go - blowing things up at a moment's notice. It's not sublte art by any stretch of the imagination, but it is art - in a way - and art that he does well.
If this is the last Terminator film (and I hope it is), then it is going out on a high (enough) note. I was surprisingly entertained (and not preached to) and, I think that is all I could have hoped for in a Terminator flick.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that is a wise move as it simplifies things and just lets us get on to what a Terminator movie does best - fantastic action sequences, state of the art CGI, a killer robot that will stop at nothing to accomplish it's mission, and a plucky hero or 2 to battle said killer robot.
Oh...did I mention that they recruit a Terminator to help them stop the Terminator?
And it all works well...enough. Set in this year (2019), TERMINATOR: DARK FATE tells the tale of what happens next after Sarah and John Connor stopped Judgement Day in the 2nd Terminator film. A deadly - even more dangerous - Terminator (version 9!) returns to 2019 to kill a single woman (Natalie Reyes). This time she is helped by an augmented human from the future (Mackenzie Davis) and...Sarah Connor! Returning to this film, all buffed up and aging, is a craggy voiced Linda Hamilton as Sarah, who brings an adequate amount of world-weary, "been there, done that" attitude to the proceedings that pretty much carry the first half of the film.
And...just as the film was beginning to sag in the middle, along comes Arnold.
Playing an aging Terminator (which is explained, well enough, in the plot), Arnold plays the Terminator (who has been living with humans for over 20 years) with a wink in his eye and a sense of humor about him. Yep...this is a Terminator with a funny bone. And - I'll be darned - it works! Thanks to the performance of Mr. Schwarzenegger. He knows exactly what kind of film he is in and brings the right amount of energy, muscle and humor to the proceedings. He pretty much carries this film on his broad shoulders for the 2nd half - and he carries it with ease.
Credit Director Tim Miller (DEADPOOL) for keeping things light, simple and moving along crisply. He, too, understands the type of film he is making (and the audience that will go see this type of film) so he keeps the dialogue light and snappy, the plot at it's simplest and the action as high as he can go - blowing things up at a moment's notice. It's not sublte art by any stretch of the imagination, but it is art - in a way - and art that he does well.
If this is the last Terminator film (and I hope it is), then it is going out on a high (enough) note. I was surprisingly entertained (and not preached to) and, I think that is all I could have hoped for in a Terminator flick.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Game Of Thrones - Season 8 in TV
Aug 7, 2019
And now our watch has ended
Contains spoilers, click to show
From the moment Game of Thrones first graced our screens, whenever it was going to come to and end, the last season was going to have to be special to land properly.
Not only that, but the decision to wrap up the show after 8 seasons, a decision made after the conclusion of season 6, piled even more unessecary pressure to get it right.
And the landing was pretty bumpy to say the least.
I will make this clear from the outset, I like the last season no more, and no less that season 7. It became very cool to hate on Game of Thrones during it's final run, and I would have no problem with that, but a lot of the people complaining were acting like season 7 was fantastic, where in reality, the final season suffers from the same issues of it's predecessor - the hasty sprint towards the finish line.
I have absolutely no issue with any of the events that took place. I have no issue with any of the character arcs. The issue I have is how it was executed.
Two examples spring to mind - The Battle of Winterfell - for me probably the lowpoint of season 8. I have no issue with the White Walkers threat being dealt with before the end, or that Arya was the one to deal the killing blow. However, if GoT had had another season or two, then this battle could have taken place over couple of episodes. This episode was so thick with plot armour, it was laughable at times and it felt like there were no real stakes.
Another example - Jaime and Cersei.
I have no problem with how they were killed in the penultimate episode - it was actually quite poetic watching Cersei get crushed under a kingdom that wasn't rightfully hers to rule - however, Tyrion finding their corpses so easily in the finale, in a room that didn't actually seem to damaged turned it into something stupid.
Elsewhere, the spectacle of it all still impresses. The penultimate episode where Danaerys lays waste to King's Landing is a shining example of what makes Game of Thrones such a good show, as we watch helplessly as horror unfolds before us. However, such and important event is marred by the thought of what could have been - had the series had longer to run, it wouldnt have felt so sudden - hints of her turn to madness had been woven so finely throughout earlier seasons, and the result was rightfully horrifying, but not built up as effectively as storylines from earlier seasons.
I had made my peace with the fact that Game of Thrones wasn't the same show I fell in love with at somepoint during season 7, so I wasn't even a fraction as angry or surprised as a lot of other people. It is what it is.
The final season is very up and down, but as a whole, Game of Thrones has been a behemoth of television that I'm happy to have watched.
The cast were great from start to finish, as was the the music score.
I doubt we'll see anything quite like it again.
Not only that, but the decision to wrap up the show after 8 seasons, a decision made after the conclusion of season 6, piled even more unessecary pressure to get it right.
And the landing was pretty bumpy to say the least.
I will make this clear from the outset, I like the last season no more, and no less that season 7. It became very cool to hate on Game of Thrones during it's final run, and I would have no problem with that, but a lot of the people complaining were acting like season 7 was fantastic, where in reality, the final season suffers from the same issues of it's predecessor - the hasty sprint towards the finish line.
I have absolutely no issue with any of the events that took place. I have no issue with any of the character arcs. The issue I have is how it was executed.
Two examples spring to mind - The Battle of Winterfell - for me probably the lowpoint of season 8. I have no issue with the White Walkers threat being dealt with before the end, or that Arya was the one to deal the killing blow. However, if GoT had had another season or two, then this battle could have taken place over couple of episodes. This episode was so thick with plot armour, it was laughable at times and it felt like there were no real stakes.
Another example - Jaime and Cersei.
I have no problem with how they were killed in the penultimate episode - it was actually quite poetic watching Cersei get crushed under a kingdom that wasn't rightfully hers to rule - however, Tyrion finding their corpses so easily in the finale, in a room that didn't actually seem to damaged turned it into something stupid.
Elsewhere, the spectacle of it all still impresses. The penultimate episode where Danaerys lays waste to King's Landing is a shining example of what makes Game of Thrones such a good show, as we watch helplessly as horror unfolds before us. However, such and important event is marred by the thought of what could have been - had the series had longer to run, it wouldnt have felt so sudden - hints of her turn to madness had been woven so finely throughout earlier seasons, and the result was rightfully horrifying, but not built up as effectively as storylines from earlier seasons.
I had made my peace with the fact that Game of Thrones wasn't the same show I fell in love with at somepoint during season 7, so I wasn't even a fraction as angry or surprised as a lot of other people. It is what it is.
The final season is very up and down, but as a whole, Game of Thrones has been a behemoth of television that I'm happy to have watched.
The cast were great from start to finish, as was the the music score.
I doubt we'll see anything quite like it again.
Ian Anderson recommended Alabama Blues/Passionate Blues by JB Lenoir in Music (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Chaos Walking (2021) in Movies
Mar 3, 2021
Adapting a series of books into a movie is often a daunting task. As anyone who has seen many Stephen King adaptations can attest; plot complexity, characters, and depth are removed in order to condense the story into a two-hour or less run time.
The rise of streaming services has allowed many books to be adapted into series without having to cut much of the adult content in the books which would make it difficult for network television.
As such it makes adaptations such as “Chaos Walking” a delicate undertaking. The film is based on a series of books and stars Tom Holland as Todd; a young ma living on a distant world where there are no women and people can hear and see each other’s thoughts by a process known as “Noise”.
Their rustic colony is run with a firm hand by their Mayor (Mads Mikkelsen); who keeps those around him from seeing his thoughts which gives him a big advantage over those who rule.
When a landing craft from a mothership filled with a new wave of colonists crashes on the planet; Todd is shocked to find that the only survivor is a woman named Viola (Daisy Ridley) whose arrival disrupts the community.
The Mayor wishes to keep her from contacting her ship so they can seize it when it lands to maintain control of his empire as he sees the arrival of new individuals as a threat to his power.
Todd and Viola escape trying to reach a distant colony where she hopes to find a way to warn her ship about the danger the Mayor and his men present and they pursue the duo to keep this from happening.
The film lightly touches on the native race that Todd believes killed all the women of their colony but they are not visited save for a brief appearance. It is clear that the Mayor is hiding something and the reveal of what and why is fairly underwhelming which reduces him and most of his followers as thinly developed stock characters.
There is also the mystery as to why the Mothership does not bother to do any sort of follow up when they did not hear from their lander and like many aspects of the film; require the audience to simply go along with things and not ask too many questions to make things work.
Thankfully the two leads are interesting enough and they hold attention even when the story is slowly moving along with scene after scene of rivers, woods, and a little conversation.
One big issue with the film is the Noise as the visualization of thoughts as well as hearing them mixed in with verbal communication can get very confusing as it is like multiple voices in a crowded room.
Despite the issues, the potential is there and I found myself wondering what was next for the characters and hope that they do adapt future books in the series. While the film on its own does not work as a fully developed story’ as an introduction to the series it does enough to peak the interests for more.
3.5 out of 5
The rise of streaming services has allowed many books to be adapted into series without having to cut much of the adult content in the books which would make it difficult for network television.
As such it makes adaptations such as “Chaos Walking” a delicate undertaking. The film is based on a series of books and stars Tom Holland as Todd; a young ma living on a distant world where there are no women and people can hear and see each other’s thoughts by a process known as “Noise”.
Their rustic colony is run with a firm hand by their Mayor (Mads Mikkelsen); who keeps those around him from seeing his thoughts which gives him a big advantage over those who rule.
When a landing craft from a mothership filled with a new wave of colonists crashes on the planet; Todd is shocked to find that the only survivor is a woman named Viola (Daisy Ridley) whose arrival disrupts the community.
The Mayor wishes to keep her from contacting her ship so they can seize it when it lands to maintain control of his empire as he sees the arrival of new individuals as a threat to his power.
Todd and Viola escape trying to reach a distant colony where she hopes to find a way to warn her ship about the danger the Mayor and his men present and they pursue the duo to keep this from happening.
The film lightly touches on the native race that Todd believes killed all the women of their colony but they are not visited save for a brief appearance. It is clear that the Mayor is hiding something and the reveal of what and why is fairly underwhelming which reduces him and most of his followers as thinly developed stock characters.
There is also the mystery as to why the Mothership does not bother to do any sort of follow up when they did not hear from their lander and like many aspects of the film; require the audience to simply go along with things and not ask too many questions to make things work.
Thankfully the two leads are interesting enough and they hold attention even when the story is slowly moving along with scene after scene of rivers, woods, and a little conversation.
One big issue with the film is the Noise as the visualization of thoughts as well as hearing them mixed in with verbal communication can get very confusing as it is like multiple voices in a crowded room.
Despite the issues, the potential is there and I found myself wondering what was next for the characters and hope that they do adapt future books in the series. While the film on its own does not work as a fully developed story’ as an introduction to the series it does enough to peak the interests for more.
3.5 out of 5
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Haunting in Connecticut: 2 Ghosts of Georgia (2013) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – Lisa is the wife and mother of the family, she does have an ability to see spirits with her mother helping her through these experiences. In her new home she starts to see more spirits that has trying to send her messages and must use her skills to figure out how to save her child. Andy is the husband and father, he is the only one that doesn’t have the ability to see the spirits which shows him taking on the situation as if there would need to be a logical reason behind it all. Heidi is the daughter of the family, that can also see the spirits and it is her visits which guide us to where the story goes this time, she is encouraged by her Auntie and discouraged by her mum. Joyce is the free-spirited Auntie that joins the family, she tries to embrace the idea of the spirits needing help and will guide Heide unlike her sister.
Performances – This is a sequel with no returning cast members, no connection to the original, so the cast is brand new. We do have a couple of known actors from television, Abigail Spencer, Chad Michael Murray and Katee Sackhoff, they do what they can with the material, but the poor decisions they are forced to make doesn’t help. Emily Alyn Lind does well for a child star put in horror situation.
Story – The story is based on real events or sold on this idea anyway. We have the events of the story taking place over short amount of time, as we see how everything seems to escalate, which is fine for a horror story. the idea the sisters and daughter can see spirits naturally is a good spin on the idea where only one can usually see the ghosts. The problems do some into this too as the one person who can’t see the spirits still sees them and most of the decisions being made are poor throughout. For the mystery behind everything it does keep us interested throughout and does give us shocks along the way.
Horror/Mystery – When it comes to the horror in this film we get plenty of the normal jump scares, most of which just play out like you would imagine, the casual fan will jump along the way. The highlight is the mystery behind what is causing the hauntings because history is always filled with surprises.
Settings – The setting for the film is good because it is an old house that is bound to be filled with history that could be a terrifying as what we learn as the film unfolds.
Special Effects – The effects in this film are mixed because the way the flashbacks are shot does look do and feels different to current events, the negatives come from how the injuries can look while inflicted to the modern characters.
Scene of the Movie – Cut the cord.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The moments Andy saw a ghost.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid enough sequel even though it has no connection to the actual first film, it does have smart ideas but terrible character decisions.
Overall: Horror fans should enjoy.
Performances – This is a sequel with no returning cast members, no connection to the original, so the cast is brand new. We do have a couple of known actors from television, Abigail Spencer, Chad Michael Murray and Katee Sackhoff, they do what they can with the material, but the poor decisions they are forced to make doesn’t help. Emily Alyn Lind does well for a child star put in horror situation.
Story – The story is based on real events or sold on this idea anyway. We have the events of the story taking place over short amount of time, as we see how everything seems to escalate, which is fine for a horror story. the idea the sisters and daughter can see spirits naturally is a good spin on the idea where only one can usually see the ghosts. The problems do some into this too as the one person who can’t see the spirits still sees them and most of the decisions being made are poor throughout. For the mystery behind everything it does keep us interested throughout and does give us shocks along the way.
Horror/Mystery – When it comes to the horror in this film we get plenty of the normal jump scares, most of which just play out like you would imagine, the casual fan will jump along the way. The highlight is the mystery behind what is causing the hauntings because history is always filled with surprises.
Settings – The setting for the film is good because it is an old house that is bound to be filled with history that could be a terrifying as what we learn as the film unfolds.
Special Effects – The effects in this film are mixed because the way the flashbacks are shot does look do and feels different to current events, the negatives come from how the injuries can look while inflicted to the modern characters.
Scene of the Movie – Cut the cord.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The moments Andy saw a ghost.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid enough sequel even though it has no connection to the actual first film, it does have smart ideas but terrible character decisions.
Overall: Horror fans should enjoy.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated See how they run (2022) in Movies
Dec 8, 2022
Despite a miscast Sam Rockwell - it works well...enough
The British Comedy/Murder Mystery SEE HOW THEY RUN came and went in movie theaters (at least in the U.S.) pretty quickly last fall and, consequently, most folks missed that this was even a thing.
The good news is that it is now streaming on multiple streaming services so as people gather for the Holidays there is a fun, family friendly (but good for adults) film that young and old alike could gather around the TV to watch together.
Written by Mark Chappell and Directed by Tom George (both of whom who have quite a few BBC TV Series under their belts, but it looks like this is the Major Motion Picture debut for them both), SEE HOW THEY RUN is a comedic look at the British Murder Mystery with a frumpy detective, a victim who “deserved it” and a plethora of potential suspects who are all brought into a room by the Detective on a “dark and stormy” night to reveal “whodunnit”.
Normally, with these types of films, it comes down to the casting and while there are some very good - and fun - actors in many of the roles, one of the roles is terribly miscast and that brings down the quality of this film quite a bit.
So, let’s start with what works - the central murder mystery is clever…enough…(for this sort of thing) and is wonderfully constructed around the London Stage debut of the long-running Agatha Christie murder mystery play THE MOUSETRAP in the 1950’s and, thus, this film is a period piece and that atmosphere adds - in a positive way - to the look and feel of this movie.
Saoirse Ronan, as always, is very good as the young Policewoman who is brought in to aide the main detective and proves out to be quite the Detective herself. She really holds this film together tightly in the middle. Adrien Brody, Ruth Wilson, David Oyelowo and Harris Dickinson all bring something to the film in their characters (and suspects) that add color and life to the central mystery.
Unfortunately, the usually good Sam Rockwell is miscast as the lead sleuth on this case. His frumpy, disheveled Detective was reminiscent of Columbo and just didn’t fit in this British Murder Mystery. While this performance is not a distraction to this film, it doesn’t elevate or lift this movie either, and - in a murder mystery - the detective solving the mystery is a major cog in the movie machine and this cog just isn’t that interesting.
Rockwell is not helped by a green Director and Writer who are looking to make the leap from television to film and this film feels more like a made for TV film, than a major motion picture.
Which is why this film is a good one to catch on one of the streaming services it is currently on. It is a fun enough film that will entertain young and old alike over the Holidays.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The good news is that it is now streaming on multiple streaming services so as people gather for the Holidays there is a fun, family friendly (but good for adults) film that young and old alike could gather around the TV to watch together.
Written by Mark Chappell and Directed by Tom George (both of whom who have quite a few BBC TV Series under their belts, but it looks like this is the Major Motion Picture debut for them both), SEE HOW THEY RUN is a comedic look at the British Murder Mystery with a frumpy detective, a victim who “deserved it” and a plethora of potential suspects who are all brought into a room by the Detective on a “dark and stormy” night to reveal “whodunnit”.
Normally, with these types of films, it comes down to the casting and while there are some very good - and fun - actors in many of the roles, one of the roles is terribly miscast and that brings down the quality of this film quite a bit.
So, let’s start with what works - the central murder mystery is clever…enough…(for this sort of thing) and is wonderfully constructed around the London Stage debut of the long-running Agatha Christie murder mystery play THE MOUSETRAP in the 1950’s and, thus, this film is a period piece and that atmosphere adds - in a positive way - to the look and feel of this movie.
Saoirse Ronan, as always, is very good as the young Policewoman who is brought in to aide the main detective and proves out to be quite the Detective herself. She really holds this film together tightly in the middle. Adrien Brody, Ruth Wilson, David Oyelowo and Harris Dickinson all bring something to the film in their characters (and suspects) that add color and life to the central mystery.
Unfortunately, the usually good Sam Rockwell is miscast as the lead sleuth on this case. His frumpy, disheveled Detective was reminiscent of Columbo and just didn’t fit in this British Murder Mystery. While this performance is not a distraction to this film, it doesn’t elevate or lift this movie either, and - in a murder mystery - the detective solving the mystery is a major cog in the movie machine and this cog just isn’t that interesting.
Rockwell is not helped by a green Director and Writer who are looking to make the leap from television to film and this film feels more like a made for TV film, than a major motion picture.
Which is why this film is a good one to catch on one of the streaming services it is currently on. It is a fun enough film that will entertain young and old alike over the Holidays.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Sidney Chambers and the Shadow of Death in Books
Jul 27, 2017
A unique series of crime
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads
In 2014, ITV broadcasted the first episode of Grantchester, a drama series based on books by British novelist, James Runcie. Although written during the twenty-first century, the story is set in the 1950s in a village on the outskirts of Cambridge. Sidney Chambers, a young Canon in charge of the Church of St Andrew and Mary, is a polite and friendly character who, despite his reluctance, ends up acting as a detective in a variety of crimes.
Sidney Chambers and the Shadow of Death is the first book of six in The Grantchester Mysteries. Split into six individual baffling cases, the background story of Sidney’s private life continues to develop throughout. Each crime is committed and swiftly solved by the Canon and his friend, Inspector Geordie Keating, although it is Sidney who ultimately resolves the case.
Murder, jewellery theft and art forgery and just some of the felonies Sidney grudgingly gets involved with. In fact, unresolved crimes tend to land in his lap rather than offering his assistance willingly. Up at dawn to work on sermons before rushing off to capture criminals, Sidney is never off duty.
A vicar may seem like an unlikely candidate for a detective, however, people tend to open up to him and unintentionally reveal delitescent information. Listening to suspects and witnesses without pre-judgement allows Sidney to think things through carefully rather than jumping to conclusions. From the moment the crime is committed right up until the story’s denouement, Sidney passionately does everything he can to make sure the correct culprit is discovered.
What makes this series different from other crime novels is the focus on Sidney Chambers’ own life. James Runcie emphasises the loneliness of a bachelor living in a vicarage with only a curate and crotchety housekeeper for company. Readers are drawn into Sidney’s stories and hold onto the hope that his dalliances with the beautiful Amanda turn out to be something more concrete.
Those who have watched the ITV series will be familiar with the stories in this book because the producer has stuck to the exact storyline, not missing a single thing out or adding anything extra. The fact that there were only two years between publishing and screen production goes to show how well written and thought out these stories are. Unlike famous detective novels such as Sherlock Holmes or those by Agatha Christie, The Grantchester Mysteries are not set at the time of writing, so, although they are historically accurate, the prose is suitable for present day readers.
Each story is quick to read and is easy going, making it a relaxing and enjoyable book. It is not a thriller or horror, although some of the crimes are quite terrible. Instead, it is entertaining and often humorous. It is suitable for crime fiction fans as well as those new to the genre.
Regardless of whether you have watched the television series or not, Sidney Chambers and the Shadow of Death is a delight to read. Of course, ITV has given away all the endings, but it is a different experience to read it in print rather than seeing it acted out on screen. Featuring the face of James Norton on the cover so as to work as a TV tie-in, the series will be easy to spot in prime position on bookshelves both in shops and personal collections.
In 2014, ITV broadcasted the first episode of Grantchester, a drama series based on books by British novelist, James Runcie. Although written during the twenty-first century, the story is set in the 1950s in a village on the outskirts of Cambridge. Sidney Chambers, a young Canon in charge of the Church of St Andrew and Mary, is a polite and friendly character who, despite his reluctance, ends up acting as a detective in a variety of crimes.
Sidney Chambers and the Shadow of Death is the first book of six in The Grantchester Mysteries. Split into six individual baffling cases, the background story of Sidney’s private life continues to develop throughout. Each crime is committed and swiftly solved by the Canon and his friend, Inspector Geordie Keating, although it is Sidney who ultimately resolves the case.
Murder, jewellery theft and art forgery and just some of the felonies Sidney grudgingly gets involved with. In fact, unresolved crimes tend to land in his lap rather than offering his assistance willingly. Up at dawn to work on sermons before rushing off to capture criminals, Sidney is never off duty.
A vicar may seem like an unlikely candidate for a detective, however, people tend to open up to him and unintentionally reveal delitescent information. Listening to suspects and witnesses without pre-judgement allows Sidney to think things through carefully rather than jumping to conclusions. From the moment the crime is committed right up until the story’s denouement, Sidney passionately does everything he can to make sure the correct culprit is discovered.
What makes this series different from other crime novels is the focus on Sidney Chambers’ own life. James Runcie emphasises the loneliness of a bachelor living in a vicarage with only a curate and crotchety housekeeper for company. Readers are drawn into Sidney’s stories and hold onto the hope that his dalliances with the beautiful Amanda turn out to be something more concrete.
Those who have watched the ITV series will be familiar with the stories in this book because the producer has stuck to the exact storyline, not missing a single thing out or adding anything extra. The fact that there were only two years between publishing and screen production goes to show how well written and thought out these stories are. Unlike famous detective novels such as Sherlock Holmes or those by Agatha Christie, The Grantchester Mysteries are not set at the time of writing, so, although they are historically accurate, the prose is suitable for present day readers.
Each story is quick to read and is easy going, making it a relaxing and enjoyable book. It is not a thriller or horror, although some of the crimes are quite terrible. Instead, it is entertaining and often humorous. It is suitable for crime fiction fans as well as those new to the genre.
Regardless of whether you have watched the television series or not, Sidney Chambers and the Shadow of Death is a delight to read. Of course, ITV has given away all the endings, but it is a different experience to read it in print rather than seeing it acted out on screen. Featuring the face of James Norton on the cover so as to work as a TV tie-in, the series will be easy to spot in prime position on bookshelves both in shops and personal collections.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Wife (2017) in Movies
Feb 11, 2019
Well acted by Close AND Pryce
The buzz is getting louder and louder for Glenn Close, her Oscar chances and her work in Bjorn Runge's adaption of Meg Wolitzer's novel, THE WIFE. So, as an Oscar completest, I knew I needed to catch this film, and I'm glad I did.
But not for the performance we've all heard about.
Close stars as Joan Castleman the wife of Best-Selling Author Joe Castleman (Jonathan Pryce) who, early in the film, is notified that he has won the Pulitzer Prize for Literature. The film spans the time that the Castleman's head to Stockholm for the Pulitzer celebration and long held secrets come out.
Glenn Close will win the Best Lead Actress Oscar for her work as Joan Castleman, and it is a wonderful performance, not so much for what she says and does, but more so for what she doesn't say and reacts to. There is a lot of emotion and power going on in her facial and physical performance and she is, rightfully, being hailed for this work as the culmination of her career. And, make no mistake about it, her Oscar win will be a "Lifetime Achievement Award" capping Oscar, but as far as these types of Oscar awards go, this performance is deserving enough of the recognition, that if her lifetime of work is what lifts Close to this Oscar, I am fine with that.
What I am not fine with is the omission of Jonathan Pryce's performance at Awards time for portraying the author, Joe Castleman. It takes two to tango and Pryce and Close tango very well together. They spend 85% of the film on screen together and, while I stated that Close's performance was mostly reaction and facial, she had to react to something - and that something is Pryce. His author is pretentious, loud, self-serving and egotistical and is played strongly and surely by Pryce - never overplaying his hand to make his character a caricature, but trods the fine line between these two things well and is just as strong as Close in what, could be argued, is the lead role in this film (though, I get it, the movie is called THE WIFE not THE AUTHOR).
Also showing up in this film is Christian Slater as a would-be Biographer for Castleman, who threatens to expose the secret that this couple is sharing. I know Slater has been doing television (most notably MR. ROBOT) but his was a welcome presence and I would love to see more of him on the big screen.
It is good that the acting performances are so good in this film, for there really is not that much more to it. It is a slow, plodding, serious tome of a film, one that takes itself VERY seriously, so prepare yourself for that. This film could easily be converted into a stage play - and I would bet that it will be at some point. Fortunately, the run time if thee film is fairly short, 1 hour 40 minutes - but the pacing and the lingering shots on Close's facial expressions will make it seem closer to 2 hours. I'll let you decide whether or not it's a good thing.
Come to THE WIFE to catch Glenn Close's Oscar winning performance, but stay for Jonathan Pryce's under-rated, just as good performance.
Letter Grade: B (A for the acting, C for the pacing)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
But not for the performance we've all heard about.
Close stars as Joan Castleman the wife of Best-Selling Author Joe Castleman (Jonathan Pryce) who, early in the film, is notified that he has won the Pulitzer Prize for Literature. The film spans the time that the Castleman's head to Stockholm for the Pulitzer celebration and long held secrets come out.
Glenn Close will win the Best Lead Actress Oscar for her work as Joan Castleman, and it is a wonderful performance, not so much for what she says and does, but more so for what she doesn't say and reacts to. There is a lot of emotion and power going on in her facial and physical performance and she is, rightfully, being hailed for this work as the culmination of her career. And, make no mistake about it, her Oscar win will be a "Lifetime Achievement Award" capping Oscar, but as far as these types of Oscar awards go, this performance is deserving enough of the recognition, that if her lifetime of work is what lifts Close to this Oscar, I am fine with that.
What I am not fine with is the omission of Jonathan Pryce's performance at Awards time for portraying the author, Joe Castleman. It takes two to tango and Pryce and Close tango very well together. They spend 85% of the film on screen together and, while I stated that Close's performance was mostly reaction and facial, she had to react to something - and that something is Pryce. His author is pretentious, loud, self-serving and egotistical and is played strongly and surely by Pryce - never overplaying his hand to make his character a caricature, but trods the fine line between these two things well and is just as strong as Close in what, could be argued, is the lead role in this film (though, I get it, the movie is called THE WIFE not THE AUTHOR).
Also showing up in this film is Christian Slater as a would-be Biographer for Castleman, who threatens to expose the secret that this couple is sharing. I know Slater has been doing television (most notably MR. ROBOT) but his was a welcome presence and I would love to see more of him on the big screen.
It is good that the acting performances are so good in this film, for there really is not that much more to it. It is a slow, plodding, serious tome of a film, one that takes itself VERY seriously, so prepare yourself for that. This film could easily be converted into a stage play - and I would bet that it will be at some point. Fortunately, the run time if thee film is fairly short, 1 hour 40 minutes - but the pacing and the lingering shots on Close's facial expressions will make it seem closer to 2 hours. I'll let you decide whether or not it's a good thing.
Come to THE WIFE to catch Glenn Close's Oscar winning performance, but stay for Jonathan Pryce's under-rated, just as good performance.
Letter Grade: B (A for the acting, C for the pacing)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
