Search
Search results
<a href="https://bookingwayreads.wordpress.com">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://https://www.instagram.com/ernest.bookingway/">Bookstagram</a>; | <a href="https://https://twitter.com/bookingwayreads">Twitter</a>;
4.5 stars
TRIGGER WARNINGS: murder, hostage situation, violence, alcoholism, loss of a loved one, starvation, terminal illness, executions, gunshots, trauma
“The bond of our hearts spans miles, memory, and time.”
Main Characters:
Anastasia "Nastya" Romanov - the mischievous and cunning main character. Narration is told from her POV and the development she receives throughout the novel is a breath of fresh air. The emotions she feels leaps out to the reader on every page and is honestly the most relatable character in the entire novel.
Zash - at first he was a hardhearted Bolshevik but eventually warms to Nastya's mischievousness. He does a full 180 after a certain scene and it was really nice to see him and Nastya become close.
Alexei - Nastya's brother who has a terminal illness that weakens his body. He's sassy, stubborn (but not as much as Nastya), and calms the wildness within Nastya. Alexei is the yin to Nastya's yang.
The Romanov family - the first half of the book revolves around the family as a whole, but they all had equal parts throughout the storyline compared to the two that outshown everyone: Alexei and Nastya.
The Bolsheviks - the soldiers in charge of keeping the Romanov's in order. They're all stone and ice and everything but warmth and friendliness (besides Ivan and Zash of course.)
Ivan - oh my dear Ivan... (let's just leave it at that)
“It is if you separate the two- old life and new life. But once you learn that it's all one life and each day is a new page, it gets a bit easier to let your story take an unexpected path.”
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
Romanov starts with the Romanov's in a house that is their base of exile, they have been taken into custody and are awaiting their execution trial. The family lives life to the best of their ability but then the dreadful day comes when half of the family is moved further away to be questioned. This only brings even more heartbreaking scenes until the moment when Nastya saves herself and Alexei.
Romanov is a historical retelling with a magical aspect that combines into a wonderfully executed novel. Family is the central focus, this ends up not only being the Romanov's greatest strength, but also their biggest burden. How the family is portrayed adds a sympathetic nature to the novel, and the relationship between Alexei and Nastya is not only sweet but also a strength that keeps them fighting together until the very end.
One thing that I really loved about Romanov, was that the Romanov's themselves were kind and forgiving to the Bolshevik's. They believed that they could prove their innocence to them by being friendly, plus it was just second nature to be friendly. The tension between the two was felt by everyone though, especially Nastya. Throughout the novel, you can see everything that she has to worry about but she still holds onto that little spark that makes her who she is, even despite the predicament she's in.
Nastya is a mischievous, cunning, and lovable young woman and her emotions leap out at the reader. When Zash enters the picture, he's nothing but harsh words and hostility. Nastya though, senses a kindness lurking underneath that stone wall and she becomes determined to release it.
As the story progresses, readers can sense the chemistry between the two of them and it makes you crave more of this heartbreaking story.
Story background and development –
The connections that are built with the reader and the narrator is beautiful and well crafted. And oh man! Was there a TON of background and development on more than just the main character. Romanov is a historical retelling of what the real Romanov family experienced, with a little bit of a fantasy twist to it of course. Nadine does an amazing job at giving the facts yet keeping it light enough to be read like a fantasy novel.
Plot –
History of fact and fiction with magic interwoven brings a tale that's not only intriguing but fascinating as well. Every page brings a few more steps into the build-up, causing this novel to be a pivoting story to be read by all.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors –
I did notice a few grammatical and spelling errors that took away from the scene but overall, Nadine's writing style is gripping and crafted in a way that allows nothing to pass you by.
Overall –
Romanov is a breathtaking and heart-wrenching story that will make the reader feel every tragedy, heartbreak, and moment of love that is seeped into every page.
Enjoyment –
I enjoyed every second of this novel and even stayed up late to devour it! All because I couldn't put it down. Nadine grabbed my attention and kept it until the very last page, leaving me in a ball of agony, mourning the pain that I felt.
Do I recommend?
H to the E to the L to the L to the Y to the E to the S, what does that spell? HELL YES! Everyone needs to pick this novel up and give it a read!!
“Let no one call you tame.”
4.5 stars
TRIGGER WARNINGS: murder, hostage situation, violence, alcoholism, loss of a loved one, starvation, terminal illness, executions, gunshots, trauma
“The bond of our hearts spans miles, memory, and time.”
Main Characters:
Anastasia "Nastya" Romanov - the mischievous and cunning main character. Narration is told from her POV and the development she receives throughout the novel is a breath of fresh air. The emotions she feels leaps out to the reader on every page and is honestly the most relatable character in the entire novel.
Zash - at first he was a hardhearted Bolshevik but eventually warms to Nastya's mischievousness. He does a full 180 after a certain scene and it was really nice to see him and Nastya become close.
Alexei - Nastya's brother who has a terminal illness that weakens his body. He's sassy, stubborn (but not as much as Nastya), and calms the wildness within Nastya. Alexei is the yin to Nastya's yang.
The Romanov family - the first half of the book revolves around the family as a whole, but they all had equal parts throughout the storyline compared to the two that outshown everyone: Alexei and Nastya.
The Bolsheviks - the soldiers in charge of keeping the Romanov's in order. They're all stone and ice and everything but warmth and friendliness (besides Ivan and Zash of course.)
Ivan - oh my dear Ivan... (let's just leave it at that)
“It is if you separate the two- old life and new life. But once you learn that it's all one life and each day is a new page, it gets a bit easier to let your story take an unexpected path.”
Review:
**Possible spoilers ahead**
Romanov starts with the Romanov's in a house that is their base of exile, they have been taken into custody and are awaiting their execution trial. The family lives life to the best of their ability but then the dreadful day comes when half of the family is moved further away to be questioned. This only brings even more heartbreaking scenes until the moment when Nastya saves herself and Alexei.
Romanov is a historical retelling with a magical aspect that combines into a wonderfully executed novel. Family is the central focus, this ends up not only being the Romanov's greatest strength, but also their biggest burden. How the family is portrayed adds a sympathetic nature to the novel, and the relationship between Alexei and Nastya is not only sweet but also a strength that keeps them fighting together until the very end.
One thing that I really loved about Romanov, was that the Romanov's themselves were kind and forgiving to the Bolshevik's. They believed that they could prove their innocence to them by being friendly, plus it was just second nature to be friendly. The tension between the two was felt by everyone though, especially Nastya. Throughout the novel, you can see everything that she has to worry about but she still holds onto that little spark that makes her who she is, even despite the predicament she's in.
Nastya is a mischievous, cunning, and lovable young woman and her emotions leap out at the reader. When Zash enters the picture, he's nothing but harsh words and hostility. Nastya though, senses a kindness lurking underneath that stone wall and she becomes determined to release it.
As the story progresses, readers can sense the chemistry between the two of them and it makes you crave more of this heartbreaking story.
Story background and development –
The connections that are built with the reader and the narrator is beautiful and well crafted. And oh man! Was there a TON of background and development on more than just the main character. Romanov is a historical retelling of what the real Romanov family experienced, with a little bit of a fantasy twist to it of course. Nadine does an amazing job at giving the facts yet keeping it light enough to be read like a fantasy novel.
Plot –
History of fact and fiction with magic interwoven brings a tale that's not only intriguing but fascinating as well. Every page brings a few more steps into the build-up, causing this novel to be a pivoting story to be read by all.
Spelling/ Grammatical errors –
I did notice a few grammatical and spelling errors that took away from the scene but overall, Nadine's writing style is gripping and crafted in a way that allows nothing to pass you by.
Overall –
Romanov is a breathtaking and heart-wrenching story that will make the reader feel every tragedy, heartbreak, and moment of love that is seeped into every page.
Enjoyment –
I enjoyed every second of this novel and even stayed up late to devour it! All because I couldn't put it down. Nadine grabbed my attention and kept it until the very last page, leaving me in a ball of agony, mourning the pain that I felt.
Do I recommend?
H to the E to the L to the L to the Y to the E to the S, what does that spell? HELL YES! Everyone needs to pick this novel up and give it a read!!
“Let no one call you tame.”
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Houses of Knowledge in Tabletop Games
Mar 26, 2020 (Updated Mar 26, 2020)
Museums. You know, the places you go with your family for, “fun bonding and learning experiences.” I have always been a big fan of museums. Art, Science & History, Aquariums, all of them! I like to stop and read the plaques too, but many times I am rushed along because EVERYTHING has to be seen. But did you know that museum curation could be interesting and cutthroat? I did not. Not until I played Houses of Knowledge, that is.
Houses of Knowledge pits 2-4 players against each other as museum curators desperately trying to fill their museums with interesting rooms and curious artifacts. In fact, a curator can end the competition once they are able to display eight lovely pieces in their halls. Beware, however, as the competition is also trying to gather the best gallery and may even attempt to pilfer your displayed items!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, but the final components will be exactly the same as these shown, if the pending Kickstarter campaign is successful. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but to give our readers a general feel for how the game plays. You can back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, order from your FLGS, or purchase through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
Setting up a game of Houses of Knowledge is quite a feat, as different decks need to be assembled according to player count. Refer to the rules to setup each deck. Once the decks are prepared and starting cards dealt to each player, create the Items and Actions markets by revealing six cards from each deck and assigning cost discs in decending order from the draw decks. Furthest away from the two draw decks will be placed the deck of Room cards, with two visible and available for purchase. These rooms will receive the leftover 5-value cost disc. Set the monicash aside to be used as a central bank. Determine the starting player and you are ready to begin!
Luckily, the game furnishes the players with reference cards so that all players have access to all options they are afforded on their turns. The first thing that happens on a turn is collecting income. Each turn a player earns 3 monicash (MC) plus the amounts earned from Rooms in their tableau. From here a turn has several options: buying Items or Actions from the market to your hand, paying 2 MC to play a card from your hand to your tableau, selling two cards for 2 MC, and buying Room cards.
When a player buys an Item or Action card from the market the new card is taken in hand, paying the cost shown on the cost disc either above or below the card taken. To play a card from hand, the player pays 2 MC to the bank and places an Item onto a corresponding Room card, or plays an Action card either on their own tableau or against an opponent.
Play continues in this fashion until one player is displaying eight Items in their Rooms or the draw decks are depleted. The round finishes completely so all players have an equal amount of turns, and then points are tallied and summed to determine the greatest curator and winner of Houses of Knowledge!
Components. As I mentioned in my disclaimer, we were provided a copy of this game for this preview. All components we were provided are finalized, so everything you see pictured here is how it will be upon a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, the components are fantastic! The cards are good quality, the cost discs are good cardboard chips, and the money is the faux-paper money we are starting to see in games nowadays – and thank heavens for that! No more cheap Monopoly money! Oh by the way, the art on this one is superb and very chic. I love it!
So the game looks and feels great, but does it play well? YES. This one is excellent! At first it feels too simple because it is relatively easy to collect Rooms and Items to fit on those Rooms, so you think, “Heck, I can get eight Items in like four rounds!” That is, until your opponents hit you with some of the Action cards they’ve been hoarding unseen by you. One “friend” maybe steals one of your Items because you neglected to assign Guards to it, or the “pal” just before you in initiative order rearranges the Item cards so that the ones you wanted are now much more expensive, thus throwing your carefully-planned tactics down the drain. Ooh, it’s great tension! My one gripe: I wish it was longer so that I could really stick it to my enem- uhh, friends.
If you are a fan of card games that pack more of a punch than it first seems, and games that keep you wanting more, whilst giving you a grand feeling of quirky opulence, then you should certainly check out Houses of Knowledge. We are happy to recommend this one. Go back it on Kickstarter when the campaign begins!
Houses of Knowledge pits 2-4 players against each other as museum curators desperately trying to fill their museums with interesting rooms and curious artifacts. In fact, a curator can end the competition once they are able to display eight lovely pieces in their halls. Beware, however, as the competition is also trying to gather the best gallery and may even attempt to pilfer your displayed items!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, but the final components will be exactly the same as these shown, if the pending Kickstarter campaign is successful. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but to give our readers a general feel for how the game plays. You can back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, order from your FLGS, or purchase through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
Setting up a game of Houses of Knowledge is quite a feat, as different decks need to be assembled according to player count. Refer to the rules to setup each deck. Once the decks are prepared and starting cards dealt to each player, create the Items and Actions markets by revealing six cards from each deck and assigning cost discs in decending order from the draw decks. Furthest away from the two draw decks will be placed the deck of Room cards, with two visible and available for purchase. These rooms will receive the leftover 5-value cost disc. Set the monicash aside to be used as a central bank. Determine the starting player and you are ready to begin!
Luckily, the game furnishes the players with reference cards so that all players have access to all options they are afforded on their turns. The first thing that happens on a turn is collecting income. Each turn a player earns 3 monicash (MC) plus the amounts earned from Rooms in their tableau. From here a turn has several options: buying Items or Actions from the market to your hand, paying 2 MC to play a card from your hand to your tableau, selling two cards for 2 MC, and buying Room cards.
When a player buys an Item or Action card from the market the new card is taken in hand, paying the cost shown on the cost disc either above or below the card taken. To play a card from hand, the player pays 2 MC to the bank and places an Item onto a corresponding Room card, or plays an Action card either on their own tableau or against an opponent.
Play continues in this fashion until one player is displaying eight Items in their Rooms or the draw decks are depleted. The round finishes completely so all players have an equal amount of turns, and then points are tallied and summed to determine the greatest curator and winner of Houses of Knowledge!
Components. As I mentioned in my disclaimer, we were provided a copy of this game for this preview. All components we were provided are finalized, so everything you see pictured here is how it will be upon a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, the components are fantastic! The cards are good quality, the cost discs are good cardboard chips, and the money is the faux-paper money we are starting to see in games nowadays – and thank heavens for that! No more cheap Monopoly money! Oh by the way, the art on this one is superb and very chic. I love it!
So the game looks and feels great, but does it play well? YES. This one is excellent! At first it feels too simple because it is relatively easy to collect Rooms and Items to fit on those Rooms, so you think, “Heck, I can get eight Items in like four rounds!” That is, until your opponents hit you with some of the Action cards they’ve been hoarding unseen by you. One “friend” maybe steals one of your Items because you neglected to assign Guards to it, or the “pal” just before you in initiative order rearranges the Item cards so that the ones you wanted are now much more expensive, thus throwing your carefully-planned tactics down the drain. Ooh, it’s great tension! My one gripe: I wish it was longer so that I could really stick it to my enem- uhh, friends.
If you are a fan of card games that pack more of a punch than it first seems, and games that keep you wanting more, whilst giving you a grand feeling of quirky opulence, then you should certainly check out Houses of Knowledge. We are happy to recommend this one. Go back it on Kickstarter when the campaign begins!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Following the very successful adaptation of Stieg Larssons millennium trilogy into three very successful Swedish language films, it came as no surprise when Hollywood announced that it would be making an English-language version of the series. Director David Fincher was announced to craft the first book in the series, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. The new version follows very close to the original material with one fairly big exception which I will detail later in the review.
Daniel Craig stars as Mikael Blomkvist, who at the opening of the film has recently lost a court case for which he was being sued for libel by a prominent business figure. His career is in ruins and virtually all of his savings gone as a result of the trial and punitive damages. So when he is contacted by an attorney representing the wealthy and powerful Vanger family, he agrees to meet. Although highly reluctant to take a meeting, Mikael takes the four hour train ride north of Stockholm to a cold and remote island to meet with Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer). Henrik wishes Mikael to investigate the disappearance of his niece some 40 years earlier, a niece vanished under the families’ very noses and not a trace of her has been discovered since. Henrik is convinced that she has met with foul play, yet every year on his birthday, he continues to receive a gift of ornate pressed flowers in an anonymous package.
Henrik believes that the killer is haunting him by sending the gifts and that a member of his family may be to blame. Although skeptical of being able to find anything 40 years later, Mikael accepts the case and soon sets up residence in a small cabin on the island and begins his investigation by combing through police reports, conducting interviews, and examining photographs and newspaper clippings. Mikael had been warned that the other members of the Vanger family may not be too thrilled with his presence as not only is the family fractured, they all have their share of secrets.
At the same time, a very Goth punk girl named Lisabeth (Rooney Mara), is fighting her own demons. Lisabeth is an extremely gifted computer and surveillance expert who specializes in gathering background information on individuals. As such, her skills have made her in high demand with her employer. Unfortunately, Lisabeth is also a deeply antisocial person who is prone to lash out violently if provoked. Much of this stems from an extremely traumatic childhood spent in institutions which resulted in Lisabeth being placed as a ward of the state, not deemed competent to care for herself. This arrangement requires her to check in on a regular basis with a representative who, unfortunately for her, has recently suffered a stroke and places her in the care of the new guardian.
The new guardian subjects Lisabeth to horrific demands just so Lisabeth can access her money. The traumatized Lisabeth does not play victim long and in a twist of fate, is assigned by Henrik’s attorney to assist Mikael since she did the background check on him prior to Mikael being approached by Henrik for the investigation. The unlikely duo combined to form a highly efficient pair as they start to piece together the clues which indicate a brutal string of murders leading back for decades. As they work together, the relationship deepens and the reserved Lisabeth starts to come out of her shell. Tension mounts as danger surrounds them in an epic race against time to solve the case that certain members of the family do not want solved.
The film runs approximately 2 hours and 45 min and does take a little while to get started as the landscape and back story of the characters is established. The film has some very dark and brutal moments, which are hard to watch, yet were not as graphic as those in the Swedish language version. Craig and Mara work very well with one another and props to Craig for being willing to put on weight and occasionally looked disheveled to enhance his character.
Mara gives a masterful performance as the complicated Lisabeth, the anti-damsel-in-distress heroine, who subtly shows the many complicated sides to the character. Noomi Rapace first portrayed the character and has gone on to prominent success in Hollywood with a slew of upcoming high profile films. I would expect nothing less for Mara with two other sequels in this series to film. I am sure this breakout performance will not go unnoticed as it is an extremely difficult and daring role that few in Hollywood would want to tackle, much less be able to pull off as convincingly as she did.
I was extremely happy to see that the character names, settings, and situations were not changed in the new version, and it was refreshing to see the film set in Sweden and not relocated to London or New York. The biggest issue I had with the film was with the ending, which deviated from the previous versions. I will not provide spoilers, suffice it to say the resolution was a bit too tidy of a Hollywood ending and in my opinion greatly undermined one of the central characters of the film. That being said the film is a bold and dynamic vision from Fincher and is a deeply dark and disturbing story that is difficult to forget.
Daniel Craig stars as Mikael Blomkvist, who at the opening of the film has recently lost a court case for which he was being sued for libel by a prominent business figure. His career is in ruins and virtually all of his savings gone as a result of the trial and punitive damages. So when he is contacted by an attorney representing the wealthy and powerful Vanger family, he agrees to meet. Although highly reluctant to take a meeting, Mikael takes the four hour train ride north of Stockholm to a cold and remote island to meet with Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer). Henrik wishes Mikael to investigate the disappearance of his niece some 40 years earlier, a niece vanished under the families’ very noses and not a trace of her has been discovered since. Henrik is convinced that she has met with foul play, yet every year on his birthday, he continues to receive a gift of ornate pressed flowers in an anonymous package.
Henrik believes that the killer is haunting him by sending the gifts and that a member of his family may be to blame. Although skeptical of being able to find anything 40 years later, Mikael accepts the case and soon sets up residence in a small cabin on the island and begins his investigation by combing through police reports, conducting interviews, and examining photographs and newspaper clippings. Mikael had been warned that the other members of the Vanger family may not be too thrilled with his presence as not only is the family fractured, they all have their share of secrets.
At the same time, a very Goth punk girl named Lisabeth (Rooney Mara), is fighting her own demons. Lisabeth is an extremely gifted computer and surveillance expert who specializes in gathering background information on individuals. As such, her skills have made her in high demand with her employer. Unfortunately, Lisabeth is also a deeply antisocial person who is prone to lash out violently if provoked. Much of this stems from an extremely traumatic childhood spent in institutions which resulted in Lisabeth being placed as a ward of the state, not deemed competent to care for herself. This arrangement requires her to check in on a regular basis with a representative who, unfortunately for her, has recently suffered a stroke and places her in the care of the new guardian.
The new guardian subjects Lisabeth to horrific demands just so Lisabeth can access her money. The traumatized Lisabeth does not play victim long and in a twist of fate, is assigned by Henrik’s attorney to assist Mikael since she did the background check on him prior to Mikael being approached by Henrik for the investigation. The unlikely duo combined to form a highly efficient pair as they start to piece together the clues which indicate a brutal string of murders leading back for decades. As they work together, the relationship deepens and the reserved Lisabeth starts to come out of her shell. Tension mounts as danger surrounds them in an epic race against time to solve the case that certain members of the family do not want solved.
The film runs approximately 2 hours and 45 min and does take a little while to get started as the landscape and back story of the characters is established. The film has some very dark and brutal moments, which are hard to watch, yet were not as graphic as those in the Swedish language version. Craig and Mara work very well with one another and props to Craig for being willing to put on weight and occasionally looked disheveled to enhance his character.
Mara gives a masterful performance as the complicated Lisabeth, the anti-damsel-in-distress heroine, who subtly shows the many complicated sides to the character. Noomi Rapace first portrayed the character and has gone on to prominent success in Hollywood with a slew of upcoming high profile films. I would expect nothing less for Mara with two other sequels in this series to film. I am sure this breakout performance will not go unnoticed as it is an extremely difficult and daring role that few in Hollywood would want to tackle, much less be able to pull off as convincingly as she did.
I was extremely happy to see that the character names, settings, and situations were not changed in the new version, and it was refreshing to see the film set in Sweden and not relocated to London or New York. The biggest issue I had with the film was with the ending, which deviated from the previous versions. I will not provide spoilers, suffice it to say the resolution was a bit too tidy of a Hollywood ending and in my opinion greatly undermined one of the central characters of the film. That being said the film is a bold and dynamic vision from Fincher and is a deeply dark and disturbing story that is difficult to forget.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in Movies
Jul 3, 2020
Introduce a horror icon (3 more)
Robert Englund
Freddy
Wes Craven
Whatever you do, don’t fall asleep!
Contains spoilers, click to show
A Nightmare on Elm Street- is one of my all time favorite horror films. Its also one of the greatest horror movies of all time. That being said, the ending sucks and i will get to that, but first lets talk more about the film.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Sweet Tooth in TV
Jun 23, 2021
Story/Plot (2 more)
Actors/acting
Music/Soundtrack
For some the rating being TV-14 (1 more)
Some of the CGI
A Lot of Heart and A Great Story, That Lives Up To The Hype
https://youtu.be/3vw5Un4qmU8
Sweet Tooth is an awesome show. I was pretty excited for this show when I saw the trailer and what it was going to be about. That's because shows and cartoons that have to do with anthropomorphic animal people have a special place in my heart. I think it's because of my love of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles growing up and also because of all the Disney cartoons with talking animals I watched as a kid. Anyways, I really dug this show and thought that it was excellent. I though the casting was pretty spot on for what they were trying to go with and there was some really good acting in this series. I for one, couldn't really see Will Forte as a father before this movie, but he did such a great job as Pubba/Richard Fox Gus's father. I also liked Adeel Akhtar who played Dr. Singh. His performance was really good and I liked his character more than I thought I would. He brought a lot of emotion to his character and his facial expressions really said a lot without having to say it in words. The cinematography was excellent, and there were a lot of this epic shots. Some of the ones I remember the most are these ones from the beginning of episodes showing the scenery like the forest and mountains and others of the cities and just ones where they were really zoomed out showing how big the world is. The plot for me was very interesting because of the whole mystery to it and it being two-fold with the mystery of the virus and then the one of the hybrids. There was the whole speculation on whether the two were related or not and what they had to do with each other if anything. I also liked how even though Gus is the main character, the plot turned into three main storylines following the characters of Gus, Dr. Singh and then Aimee Eden/Dania Ramirez. Aimee Eden is a lady who takes in abandoned hybrids to her sanctuary/orphanage that she creates. I love Dania Ramirez as an actress and you've probably seen her in the shows and movies she's been in like one of my all time favorites, the show Heroes and movies like X-Men: Last Stand, Premium Rush and American Reunion. The soundtrack for the show was really good and very fitting in setting the mood and there were a couple of good songs that stuck out for me like the songs "Dirty Paws" by Of Monsters and Men and "Dancing in the Moonlight" by King Harvest. It seems like the show has a few different themes and they are pretty powerful and universal. One of them is how society shows prejudice, hatred, and fear to those who are different. The series has a generally good atmosphere and mood but I like how the vibe changes in key moments and they do a good job of setting tension in certain spots like when the man approaches the fence near Gus' home in the first episode. The special effects and CGI were decent but nothing spectacular in my opinion from what I remember. There were a couple that could have been better but nothing terribly horrible. The dialogue seemed pretty natural and nothing that stuck out as unusual or something that seemed better on paper or unnatural being said for most of the characters. It was rated TV-14 so for a show that had some mature themes it kind of shies away from the more extreme actions of the plot which I know some people will criticize but I thought it had enough things going on action wise and didn't need to be overly violent or graphic. That being said, I've never read the comic and don't know how it compares to the source material. I thought the editing was rather good and the scenes transitioned well. I especially liked the narration that comes out in the episodes which took me until the end of the season to find out it was actually the voice of Josh Brolin. The pacing was good as well and I liked the way this show places the flashbacks and scenes of the past while still going forward plot wise in the story. I have to say that my favorite character so far is probably the girl called Bear. She's really interesting and has a really cool introduction to the show when she appears. Well that's going to do it for this review, Sweet Tooth is a an awesome show and I give it a 9/10 and it definitely gets my "Must See Seal of Approval". It's on Netflix, so if you haven't seen it yet, you need to give this show a watch.
If you want to read the spoiler review section for my review, check it out on my website by clicking on the link below.
https://cobracharliecr.wixsite.com/charliecobrareviews/post/sweet-tooth-tv-series-review-9-10-a-lot-of-heart-and-a-great-story-that-lives-up-to-the-hype
Sweet Tooth is an awesome show. I was pretty excited for this show when I saw the trailer and what it was going to be about. That's because shows and cartoons that have to do with anthropomorphic animal people have a special place in my heart. I think it's because of my love of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles growing up and also because of all the Disney cartoons with talking animals I watched as a kid. Anyways, I really dug this show and thought that it was excellent. I though the casting was pretty spot on for what they were trying to go with and there was some really good acting in this series. I for one, couldn't really see Will Forte as a father before this movie, but he did such a great job as Pubba/Richard Fox Gus's father. I also liked Adeel Akhtar who played Dr. Singh. His performance was really good and I liked his character more than I thought I would. He brought a lot of emotion to his character and his facial expressions really said a lot without having to say it in words. The cinematography was excellent, and there were a lot of this epic shots. Some of the ones I remember the most are these ones from the beginning of episodes showing the scenery like the forest and mountains and others of the cities and just ones where they were really zoomed out showing how big the world is. The plot for me was very interesting because of the whole mystery to it and it being two-fold with the mystery of the virus and then the one of the hybrids. There was the whole speculation on whether the two were related or not and what they had to do with each other if anything. I also liked how even though Gus is the main character, the plot turned into three main storylines following the characters of Gus, Dr. Singh and then Aimee Eden/Dania Ramirez. Aimee Eden is a lady who takes in abandoned hybrids to her sanctuary/orphanage that she creates. I love Dania Ramirez as an actress and you've probably seen her in the shows and movies she's been in like one of my all time favorites, the show Heroes and movies like X-Men: Last Stand, Premium Rush and American Reunion. The soundtrack for the show was really good and very fitting in setting the mood and there were a couple of good songs that stuck out for me like the songs "Dirty Paws" by Of Monsters and Men and "Dancing in the Moonlight" by King Harvest. It seems like the show has a few different themes and they are pretty powerful and universal. One of them is how society shows prejudice, hatred, and fear to those who are different. The series has a generally good atmosphere and mood but I like how the vibe changes in key moments and they do a good job of setting tension in certain spots like when the man approaches the fence near Gus' home in the first episode. The special effects and CGI were decent but nothing spectacular in my opinion from what I remember. There were a couple that could have been better but nothing terribly horrible. The dialogue seemed pretty natural and nothing that stuck out as unusual or something that seemed better on paper or unnatural being said for most of the characters. It was rated TV-14 so for a show that had some mature themes it kind of shies away from the more extreme actions of the plot which I know some people will criticize but I thought it had enough things going on action wise and didn't need to be overly violent or graphic. That being said, I've never read the comic and don't know how it compares to the source material. I thought the editing was rather good and the scenes transitioned well. I especially liked the narration that comes out in the episodes which took me until the end of the season to find out it was actually the voice of Josh Brolin. The pacing was good as well and I liked the way this show places the flashbacks and scenes of the past while still going forward plot wise in the story. I have to say that my favorite character so far is probably the girl called Bear. She's really interesting and has a really cool introduction to the show when she appears. Well that's going to do it for this review, Sweet Tooth is a an awesome show and I give it a 9/10 and it definitely gets my "Must See Seal of Approval". It's on Netflix, so if you haven't seen it yet, you need to give this show a watch.
If you want to read the spoiler review section for my review, check it out on my website by clicking on the link below.
https://cobracharliecr.wixsite.com/charliecobrareviews/post/sweet-tooth-tv-series-review-9-10-a-lot-of-heart-and-a-great-story-that-lives-up-to-the-hype
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
If you check back in the archives of The Wasteland you will see that from time to time I do find myself down the dark, fascinating yet morbid rabbit hole of true crime documentary. I do find the majority of them a little ghoulish, but when done particularly well they can become incredible insights into the human condition at its worst, and the state of the legal and punitive systems that deal with the most extreme cases. How these systems fail, and why, is more of a draw for me than any attempt to understand the person behind the evil crimes. Although I must admit to some curiosity in that regard on a certain level.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Women: Be the Best Version of Yourselves!
So, after much brouhaha and trolling – probably mostly from woman-hating teenage nerds who can’t get laid – Brie Larson‘s hyper-hero barrels onto our cinema screens.
Stan Lee tribute.
First off, what a Marvel-lous idea to pay tribute to Stan Lee in the Marvel production logo for this film. Michael Giacchino‘s rousing Marvel anthem leads to a simple title card: “Thanks Stan”. Poignant and touching.
Lee makes another cameo in this film. I wonder how many more of these they have in the can? Will they “do a Princess Leia” in future films and CGI in his cameos? I’m not a great fan of this, but he’s such a staple part of the show that – with his family’s permission of course – I would actually welcome having that happen in this specific case.
The Plot.
The movie opens on the Kree home world of Hala where Vers, a member of Starforce (“a race of noble warrior heroes”), is being put through her paces by her mentor Yon-Rogg (Jude Law). But she is one mixed up lady, having some exceptional powers but no memory of her past. As an example of this, when she communes with the ‘Supreme Intelligence’ (who looks different to everyone) she sees a woman (Annette Bening) who she clearly admires but she has no idea why.
The Kree are at war against the race of terrorist thugs known as the Skrulls. (Their name reminds me of a classic Mitchell and Webb Nazi SS sketch – “We have skulls on our caps…. does that mean we’re the baddies?”). After a Skrull ambush and some judicious brain-delving, Vers surfaces memories that leads her back to the Terran home world and a past that is set to redefine her future.
What’s good.
A lot. I really enjoyed this Marvel outing. With all the nay-sayers, I went in with low expectations, but the story actually built well and Brie Larson makes the role her own. It goes without saying that she looks gorgeous and fills out that costume very nicely! (The zero gravity ‘hair scene’ is spectacular). But she manages to convey with that style superhero grit with an essence of quirky humour running underneath it. In doing so she holds the whole film together.
Also spectacular were the ‘youngified’ Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) and Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg). The effect could have been ‘uncanny valley’ with knobs on, but is actually done so well I didn’t even notice. The chemistry between Jackson and Larson is great.
In the strong supporting cast Annette Bening is pure class, and a well-toned Jude Law seems to be having enormous fun. Elsewhere, Ben Mendelsohn (of “Rogue One” fame) is the leader of the Krulls and “Goose” is played by Reggie, Gonzo, Archie and Rizzo! (Flerkin hell!)
The Marvel/DC Laff-ometer.
A key characteristic of the Marvel/DC films is the humour injected (more it has to be said in Marvel than DC), and in terms of the Marvel/DC-laffometer, this film probably lies fairly in the middle of the range. It’s not the snort-fest of Ragnarok or GotG, but neither is it at the po-faced Man of Steel end. Much fun is made of the 1995 setting with gags from Arnie in “True Lies” to computer loading times being well-exploited.
There are also lots of great Marvel in-jokes, not least of which is the story behind Fury losing his eye: hilarious!
What’s not so good.
The problem I have with “Transformers” films is that there is little tension for me in seeing robots hitting ten-bells out of each other. I’ve similarly commented that many superhero movies have the same flaw that (Thanos aside, as things stand) they are pretty much indestructible and there is little threat implied. Captain Marvel however takes this to entirely different levels: the Hulk smash is a mere gnat-bite compared to what Carol Danvers can deliver; storming through planet-busting nuclear weapons and starships without a scratch. It’s so over-the-top that a showdown scene in the finale, although played for a laugh, also becomes laughable in the wrong way.
The film also ladles on female empowerment as if it was gravy in an Australian chip shop! (I bet Theresa May has the film on permanent loop in the Downing Street home cinema). Don’t get me wrong, I am a big supporter of #MeToo (and indeed #SheDo), but the film is a bit too heavy handed in its messaging in this area.
A troop of monkeys.
There are two extra scenes in the end titles (“monkeys“) and they are both corkers. The first bridges directly from “Infinity War” to “Endgame”, picking up (literally) that pager that Nick Fury was no longer able to hang onto; the second a nice sight gag featuring Goose that links the end of this film to the “monkey” at the end of Thor! Well worth waiting for!
Final Thoughts.
This was a Marvel film I really enjoyed, and which I would definitely re-watch. It’s been written and directed by ‘indie’ writing duo Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck (with Geneva Robertson-Dworet also contributing to the screenplay), and very well done it is in my view. Not everyone seems to have liked it: but I did!
On April 25th, the Danvers vs Thanos match is going to be a bout that will be worth buying tickets to see!
Stan Lee tribute.
First off, what a Marvel-lous idea to pay tribute to Stan Lee in the Marvel production logo for this film. Michael Giacchino‘s rousing Marvel anthem leads to a simple title card: “Thanks Stan”. Poignant and touching.
Lee makes another cameo in this film. I wonder how many more of these they have in the can? Will they “do a Princess Leia” in future films and CGI in his cameos? I’m not a great fan of this, but he’s such a staple part of the show that – with his family’s permission of course – I would actually welcome having that happen in this specific case.
The Plot.
The movie opens on the Kree home world of Hala where Vers, a member of Starforce (“a race of noble warrior heroes”), is being put through her paces by her mentor Yon-Rogg (Jude Law). But she is one mixed up lady, having some exceptional powers but no memory of her past. As an example of this, when she communes with the ‘Supreme Intelligence’ (who looks different to everyone) she sees a woman (Annette Bening) who she clearly admires but she has no idea why.
The Kree are at war against the race of terrorist thugs known as the Skrulls. (Their name reminds me of a classic Mitchell and Webb Nazi SS sketch – “We have skulls on our caps…. does that mean we’re the baddies?”). After a Skrull ambush and some judicious brain-delving, Vers surfaces memories that leads her back to the Terran home world and a past that is set to redefine her future.
What’s good.
A lot. I really enjoyed this Marvel outing. With all the nay-sayers, I went in with low expectations, but the story actually built well and Brie Larson makes the role her own. It goes without saying that she looks gorgeous and fills out that costume very nicely! (The zero gravity ‘hair scene’ is spectacular). But she manages to convey with that style superhero grit with an essence of quirky humour running underneath it. In doing so she holds the whole film together.
Also spectacular were the ‘youngified’ Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) and Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg). The effect could have been ‘uncanny valley’ with knobs on, but is actually done so well I didn’t even notice. The chemistry between Jackson and Larson is great.
In the strong supporting cast Annette Bening is pure class, and a well-toned Jude Law seems to be having enormous fun. Elsewhere, Ben Mendelsohn (of “Rogue One” fame) is the leader of the Krulls and “Goose” is played by Reggie, Gonzo, Archie and Rizzo! (Flerkin hell!)
The Marvel/DC Laff-ometer.
A key characteristic of the Marvel/DC films is the humour injected (more it has to be said in Marvel than DC), and in terms of the Marvel/DC-laffometer, this film probably lies fairly in the middle of the range. It’s not the snort-fest of Ragnarok or GotG, but neither is it at the po-faced Man of Steel end. Much fun is made of the 1995 setting with gags from Arnie in “True Lies” to computer loading times being well-exploited.
There are also lots of great Marvel in-jokes, not least of which is the story behind Fury losing his eye: hilarious!
What’s not so good.
The problem I have with “Transformers” films is that there is little tension for me in seeing robots hitting ten-bells out of each other. I’ve similarly commented that many superhero movies have the same flaw that (Thanos aside, as things stand) they are pretty much indestructible and there is little threat implied. Captain Marvel however takes this to entirely different levels: the Hulk smash is a mere gnat-bite compared to what Carol Danvers can deliver; storming through planet-busting nuclear weapons and starships without a scratch. It’s so over-the-top that a showdown scene in the finale, although played for a laugh, also becomes laughable in the wrong way.
The film also ladles on female empowerment as if it was gravy in an Australian chip shop! (I bet Theresa May has the film on permanent loop in the Downing Street home cinema). Don’t get me wrong, I am a big supporter of #MeToo (and indeed #SheDo), but the film is a bit too heavy handed in its messaging in this area.
A troop of monkeys.
There are two extra scenes in the end titles (“monkeys“) and they are both corkers. The first bridges directly from “Infinity War” to “Endgame”, picking up (literally) that pager that Nick Fury was no longer able to hang onto; the second a nice sight gag featuring Goose that links the end of this film to the “monkey” at the end of Thor! Well worth waiting for!
Final Thoughts.
This was a Marvel film I really enjoyed, and which I would definitely re-watch. It’s been written and directed by ‘indie’ writing duo Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck (with Geneva Robertson-Dworet also contributing to the screenplay), and very well done it is in my view. Not everyone seems to have liked it: but I did!
On April 25th, the Danvers vs Thanos match is going to be a bout that will be worth buying tickets to see!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
When I heard the news last year that Spider-Man was going to be rebooted yet again, I was like “are you freaking serious”? After the successful Toby Maguire trilogy (though the less said about “Spider-Man 3” the better) and the mildly successful “Amazing Spider-Man” duo with Andrew Garfield only finishing in 2014, did we REALLY need another reboot? More dramatic spider biting? More Uncle Ben spouting then dying? The same old – same old, rewarmed in a pan with a bit of red wine added just to stop it feeling so dry and tasteless.
And I still feel the same way. I understand that its more to do with rights ownership between Sony, Marvel and Disney that this got made so quickly…. but in the words of Ian Malcolm “they didn’t stop to think if they should”.
But actually, although I still don’t really approve of it, they’ve done a pretty good job in rebooting in a different manner. I commented in my review for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” that that first reboot was “much less earnest and quirkier than the original Tobey Maguire series, and reveling more in the fun to be had around a superhero’s schooldays.” This latest reboot moves even further along that scale, being very much more of a high-school comedy that a pure superhero flick.
Wearing the suit this time is a far more age-appropriate Tom Holland, winner of last year’s BAFTA Rising Star award. And very personable he is too. The suit in question has been jizzed up by Iron Man (Robert Downey Jnr) – perhaps I could have rephrased that better! Because here the Spider-Man story carries on from the brief cameo in “Captain America: Civil War” that crossed Spidey into the mainstream Marvel timeline.
Within the high-school setting, Peter Parker’s geeky, and almost too deliberately multi-racial, gang includes his pal Ned (Jacob Batalon), very funny with a “chair guy” sequence, the unattainable Liz (Laura Harrier) as the love-interest, Betty (the excellent Angourie Rice who made such a great impression in “The Nice Guys” but didn’t really move the meter for me here I’m afraid), Flash (Tony Revolori) and best of all for me the almost horizontally laconic Michelle (Zendaya, of Shoshone heritage) – uber-cool but harbouring a secret crush on Peter.
Chris Evans pops up for comic relief as Captain America doing motivational high-school videos. And older viewers might want to have fun watching out for Tyne Daly: Lacey in the old cop show “Cagney and Lacey”.
But stealing the show in the acting stakes is Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes (aka “The Vulture”) who could for all the world be auditioning for “Birdman 2”. The well-judged thing about this villain is that he is no hyper-galactic being with superpowers, or a typical “rule the world” Bond villain, but just an ordinary Joe in search of financial profit to keep his family in the manner to which they are accustomed. I really liked that. The script (an army of people, but led by Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley, who also wrote the story) also nicely counterpoints the thin-line between the “good arms dealer” (Tony Stark) and the “bad arms dealer” (Toomes).
The script also very wisely leaps several months into where the reboot could have started. None of the tedious spider biting. No Uncle Ben – just a sly reference to “what Aunt May’s been through”. Now this might confuse anyone not familiar with the Spider-Man story, but the percentage of people in the Western world in that segment must be less than 2%.
There are however also significant character changes that may annoy Spider-Man devotees. Aunt May herself is no longer the frail old lady of previous depictions, but a hot and attractive middle-aged woman (AILF?) played by Marisa Tomei (who does indeed look ‘Mila Kunis‘).
Many of the action scenes are well done, with a scene at the Washington Monument being particularly exciting. It all gets rather overblown though with a later scene aboard the Avenger’s plane. And this scene sums up my problem with many of these films: the superhero characters are pretty well indestructible. You know they are. So the scenes of peril, that might thrill in an Indiana Jones, an M.I. or a Bond film, lack any sort of tension. Even when the protagonist does have a superhero on the ropes, they don’t carry on kicking the proverbial c**p out of them until they are “dead”…. they lay off so the superhero can recover and kick their ass in a few minutes time!
The director is Jon Watts in only his third directorial outing (with only the much praised “Cop Car” to pretty up his CV). With such a lot on his shoulders he does a good job.
At 133 minutes its a tad over-long (I watched this in a double bill with “War for the Planet of the Apes” so my eyes afterwards were 16:9!). But it’s a fun summer flick that both amuses and entertains. If you have the choice between this and Planet of the Apes though for your Saturday night at the movies, I would personally choose the latter.
By the way, in terms of “monkeys” – yep, it’s a Marvel film, of course there are monkeys! One early on in the credits and another one at the end… which is actually very funny indeed.
And I still feel the same way. I understand that its more to do with rights ownership between Sony, Marvel and Disney that this got made so quickly…. but in the words of Ian Malcolm “they didn’t stop to think if they should”.
But actually, although I still don’t really approve of it, they’ve done a pretty good job in rebooting in a different manner. I commented in my review for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” that that first reboot was “much less earnest and quirkier than the original Tobey Maguire series, and reveling more in the fun to be had around a superhero’s schooldays.” This latest reboot moves even further along that scale, being very much more of a high-school comedy that a pure superhero flick.
Wearing the suit this time is a far more age-appropriate Tom Holland, winner of last year’s BAFTA Rising Star award. And very personable he is too. The suit in question has been jizzed up by Iron Man (Robert Downey Jnr) – perhaps I could have rephrased that better! Because here the Spider-Man story carries on from the brief cameo in “Captain America: Civil War” that crossed Spidey into the mainstream Marvel timeline.
Within the high-school setting, Peter Parker’s geeky, and almost too deliberately multi-racial, gang includes his pal Ned (Jacob Batalon), very funny with a “chair guy” sequence, the unattainable Liz (Laura Harrier) as the love-interest, Betty (the excellent Angourie Rice who made such a great impression in “The Nice Guys” but didn’t really move the meter for me here I’m afraid), Flash (Tony Revolori) and best of all for me the almost horizontally laconic Michelle (Zendaya, of Shoshone heritage) – uber-cool but harbouring a secret crush on Peter.
Chris Evans pops up for comic relief as Captain America doing motivational high-school videos. And older viewers might want to have fun watching out for Tyne Daly: Lacey in the old cop show “Cagney and Lacey”.
But stealing the show in the acting stakes is Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes (aka “The Vulture”) who could for all the world be auditioning for “Birdman 2”. The well-judged thing about this villain is that he is no hyper-galactic being with superpowers, or a typical “rule the world” Bond villain, but just an ordinary Joe in search of financial profit to keep his family in the manner to which they are accustomed. I really liked that. The script (an army of people, but led by Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley, who also wrote the story) also nicely counterpoints the thin-line between the “good arms dealer” (Tony Stark) and the “bad arms dealer” (Toomes).
The script also very wisely leaps several months into where the reboot could have started. None of the tedious spider biting. No Uncle Ben – just a sly reference to “what Aunt May’s been through”. Now this might confuse anyone not familiar with the Spider-Man story, but the percentage of people in the Western world in that segment must be less than 2%.
There are however also significant character changes that may annoy Spider-Man devotees. Aunt May herself is no longer the frail old lady of previous depictions, but a hot and attractive middle-aged woman (AILF?) played by Marisa Tomei (who does indeed look ‘Mila Kunis‘).
Many of the action scenes are well done, with a scene at the Washington Monument being particularly exciting. It all gets rather overblown though with a later scene aboard the Avenger’s plane. And this scene sums up my problem with many of these films: the superhero characters are pretty well indestructible. You know they are. So the scenes of peril, that might thrill in an Indiana Jones, an M.I. or a Bond film, lack any sort of tension. Even when the protagonist does have a superhero on the ropes, they don’t carry on kicking the proverbial c**p out of them until they are “dead”…. they lay off so the superhero can recover and kick their ass in a few minutes time!
The director is Jon Watts in only his third directorial outing (with only the much praised “Cop Car” to pretty up his CV). With such a lot on his shoulders he does a good job.
At 133 minutes its a tad over-long (I watched this in a double bill with “War for the Planet of the Apes” so my eyes afterwards were 16:9!). But it’s a fun summer flick that both amuses and entertains. If you have the choice between this and Planet of the Apes though for your Saturday night at the movies, I would personally choose the latter.
By the way, in terms of “monkeys” – yep, it’s a Marvel film, of course there are monkeys! One early on in the credits and another one at the end… which is actually very funny indeed.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Miss Sloane (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I never know where the line is”.
In a roller-coaster year for political intrigue on both sides of the Atlantic, and with all hell breaking loose again between Trump and ‘The Hill’, here comes “Miss Sloane”.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Mission: Impossible III (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The summer movie season of 2006 is underway with the release of Mission Impossible 3 which once again stars Tome Cruise as agent Ethan Hunt. The film opens with a tense interrogation scene with an icily cold Philip Seymour Hoffman threatening to shoot a woman unless Ethan reveals the location of something called “The Rabbits Foot”.
The film then goes back in time where Ethan is busy entertaining at a party for his pending marriage where it is learned that he has put his days in the field behind him to be a training instructor as well as his pending marriage to Julia (Michelle Monaghan).
No sooner does the party get info full swing when Ethan is summed to a meeting by a phone call. During the meeting he is given a secret message and learns that one of his prize pupils, Lindsey (Keri Russell), has been captured by a known arms dealer named Owen Davian (Hoffman).
Normal policy is should an agent be captured, they are disavowed and on their own, but for this case, an exception is made and a plan is put into place to retrieve Lindsey. Despite his misgivings, Ethan is drawn back into the fray and joins the rescue team in Berlin.
What at first seems to be a text book rescue takes an unexpected twist and lands Ethan and his team afoul of the company director Brassel (Lawrence Fishburne). This sets the stage for a future operation to obtain Davian at the Vatican as it is hoped they can learn to whom he intends to deliver an item known as “The Rabbits Foot” and exactly what it is.
While things at first seem to go as planned, before long, Ethan and his team must deal with forces outside of their mission plan and are soon caught up in a situation that has grown larger than anyone could have predicted, and with dire consequences.
Sadly, despite the good setup, the film goes very wrong and very fast. One issue that arises is a plot so filled with holes and complications it makes even the most hackneyed summer movie plot seem like a Shakespearean wannabe in comparison. The film goes from one scenario to another with all sorts of new complications many of which are never fully explained, or worse yet left hanging.
Characters act a certain way only to change pace in the film without any explanation. One such scenario involves a character who helps Ethan only to later be revealed as a bad guy, yet the how, where, and why of their actions are never explained, as is one of the key plot devices that drives the film.
While I am willing to expect a certain amount of non-sequitors for a summer movie, the number that M.I. 3” tosses out is ludicrous.
Another glaring issue with the film is the action sequences. Yes, there are a few well planned sequences such as a helicopter chase and a daring battle on a bridge, but they all seem surprisingly flat and lack any real tension or drama. They just simply unfold without fully engaging the viewer.
Another issue is that Director J.J. Abrams uses very close camera angles for some of the action sequences which when combined with the shaky camera style, results in sequences that are very hard to watch due to the frantic motion. I am all for realism, but when I cannot fully understand what is going on as the camera is bouncing all over the scene, then this is a problem.
The final frustration I had with the film falls solely with Cruise himself. Yes I can separate all of the recent off camera exploits that have been well documented the past year, but what I do have an issue with is how unfit Cruise seems for the part. The man is a very good performer with a long history of box office success. Yet, his diminutive size does not make me believe him as an action star. It is hard to believe that he is capable of doing such daring acts of strength as well as dispatching all manner of imposing bad guys. In a very underwhelming finale, Hoffman seemed much more suited as a character of menace as his look and the way he carried himself was one of power. With Cruise, I kept seeing a person trying to make me believe his character was tough guy, and I simply was not buying it. The same was also true for his relationship with Julia. The utter lack of chemistry between them and the awkward and stiff love scenes did nothing to make me believe that this is a person whom Ethan is willing to risk everything for.
Hoffman fresh off his Oscar win for “Capote” does the best he can with what is at best a stock character but he like the supporting Ving Rhames are not given much to work with.
The locales of the film are amazing but sadly they alone cannot carry the film. During the approximately Two Hour and 10 minute run time, there were about 40 minutes of real entertainment for me and much of this came at the start of the film.
While it is better than the last film in the series, the issues I documented above really hamper what could have been, and should have been not only the best film in the series, but is instead another hollow Summer Film that looks flashy, just as long as you do not remove the bumper sticker to see all the dents underneath.
The film then goes back in time where Ethan is busy entertaining at a party for his pending marriage where it is learned that he has put his days in the field behind him to be a training instructor as well as his pending marriage to Julia (Michelle Monaghan).
No sooner does the party get info full swing when Ethan is summed to a meeting by a phone call. During the meeting he is given a secret message and learns that one of his prize pupils, Lindsey (Keri Russell), has been captured by a known arms dealer named Owen Davian (Hoffman).
Normal policy is should an agent be captured, they are disavowed and on their own, but for this case, an exception is made and a plan is put into place to retrieve Lindsey. Despite his misgivings, Ethan is drawn back into the fray and joins the rescue team in Berlin.
What at first seems to be a text book rescue takes an unexpected twist and lands Ethan and his team afoul of the company director Brassel (Lawrence Fishburne). This sets the stage for a future operation to obtain Davian at the Vatican as it is hoped they can learn to whom he intends to deliver an item known as “The Rabbits Foot” and exactly what it is.
While things at first seem to go as planned, before long, Ethan and his team must deal with forces outside of their mission plan and are soon caught up in a situation that has grown larger than anyone could have predicted, and with dire consequences.
Sadly, despite the good setup, the film goes very wrong and very fast. One issue that arises is a plot so filled with holes and complications it makes even the most hackneyed summer movie plot seem like a Shakespearean wannabe in comparison. The film goes from one scenario to another with all sorts of new complications many of which are never fully explained, or worse yet left hanging.
Characters act a certain way only to change pace in the film without any explanation. One such scenario involves a character who helps Ethan only to later be revealed as a bad guy, yet the how, where, and why of their actions are never explained, as is one of the key plot devices that drives the film.
While I am willing to expect a certain amount of non-sequitors for a summer movie, the number that M.I. 3” tosses out is ludicrous.
Another glaring issue with the film is the action sequences. Yes, there are a few well planned sequences such as a helicopter chase and a daring battle on a bridge, but they all seem surprisingly flat and lack any real tension or drama. They just simply unfold without fully engaging the viewer.
Another issue is that Director J.J. Abrams uses very close camera angles for some of the action sequences which when combined with the shaky camera style, results in sequences that are very hard to watch due to the frantic motion. I am all for realism, but when I cannot fully understand what is going on as the camera is bouncing all over the scene, then this is a problem.
The final frustration I had with the film falls solely with Cruise himself. Yes I can separate all of the recent off camera exploits that have been well documented the past year, but what I do have an issue with is how unfit Cruise seems for the part. The man is a very good performer with a long history of box office success. Yet, his diminutive size does not make me believe him as an action star. It is hard to believe that he is capable of doing such daring acts of strength as well as dispatching all manner of imposing bad guys. In a very underwhelming finale, Hoffman seemed much more suited as a character of menace as his look and the way he carried himself was one of power. With Cruise, I kept seeing a person trying to make me believe his character was tough guy, and I simply was not buying it. The same was also true for his relationship with Julia. The utter lack of chemistry between them and the awkward and stiff love scenes did nothing to make me believe that this is a person whom Ethan is willing to risk everything for.
Hoffman fresh off his Oscar win for “Capote” does the best he can with what is at best a stock character but he like the supporting Ving Rhames are not given much to work with.
The locales of the film are amazing but sadly they alone cannot carry the film. During the approximately Two Hour and 10 minute run time, there were about 40 minutes of real entertainment for me and much of this came at the start of the film.
While it is better than the last film in the series, the issues I documented above really hamper what could have been, and should have been not only the best film in the series, but is instead another hollow Summer Film that looks flashy, just as long as you do not remove the bumper sticker to see all the dents underneath.