Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Creed II (2018) in Movies
Dec 7, 2018
Good Enough
By my count, this is the 8th time that Sylvester Stallone has put on the character of Rocky Balboa. This time it comes after the resurgence of this character (and franchise) with the introduction of Adonis Creed (Michael B. Jordan) and a script that allowed Stallone to explore the character in a way that he had not previously been able to - and garnered him a well-deserved Oscar nomination for his efforts.
In CREED II we are back to an above average by-the-numbers boxing picture with Jordan's Adonis Creed character starting the picture on top, losing it all when he loses himself (and stops listening to Rocky) in his success only to go on a journey of redemption (by following Rocky's advice) at the end. This is, in essence, a regurgitation of ROCKY III and I was somewhat bored by it.
That is, until the final bout, then (gosh darnnit) I was drawn right into the melodrama, pomp and pageantry of the fight and was cheering along with the rest of the audience at all the appropriate moments.
In Creed II, Apollo Creed's son battles Ivan Drago's son. For those of you not up on your Rocky history, Drago (Dolph Lundgren, reprising his role) was the boxer that killed Apollo Creed (Adonis' father) in the ring all those years ago.
Jordan is properly cocky, arrogant, stubborn, shell-shocked, morose, repentant and cocky (again) as the script would indicate. Tessa Thompson (as his wife) deserves better material than what she is given as does Stallone, who falls back to "being Rocky" without anything really new here. Surprisingly, Dolph Lundgren does a nice job as the washed-up boxer who's life was "ruined" when he lost to Rocky at the end of Rocky IV (not a spoiler). Finally, Russel Horsnby (as the "I just want to earn money" promoter of the fight) and Phylicia Rashad (as Adonis' mother/Apollo's wife) are both really good in roles that deserved to be much bigger - and more fleshed out - than they were.
My biggest disappointment from this film is the ommision of Director Ryan Coogler. He brought a visceral attitude to the series in the first CREED film and I felt that this spark of energy was just missing throughout this film with Steven Caple, Jr at the helm. It seemed, to me, that this series is quickly devolving into "paycheck" movies for Stallone and that really saddens me.
All-in-all a rather above average "by-the-numbers" boxing flick with a really good fight at the end of the film that is well worth sticking around for.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
In CREED II we are back to an above average by-the-numbers boxing picture with Jordan's Adonis Creed character starting the picture on top, losing it all when he loses himself (and stops listening to Rocky) in his success only to go on a journey of redemption (by following Rocky's advice) at the end. This is, in essence, a regurgitation of ROCKY III and I was somewhat bored by it.
That is, until the final bout, then (gosh darnnit) I was drawn right into the melodrama, pomp and pageantry of the fight and was cheering along with the rest of the audience at all the appropriate moments.
In Creed II, Apollo Creed's son battles Ivan Drago's son. For those of you not up on your Rocky history, Drago (Dolph Lundgren, reprising his role) was the boxer that killed Apollo Creed (Adonis' father) in the ring all those years ago.
Jordan is properly cocky, arrogant, stubborn, shell-shocked, morose, repentant and cocky (again) as the script would indicate. Tessa Thompson (as his wife) deserves better material than what she is given as does Stallone, who falls back to "being Rocky" without anything really new here. Surprisingly, Dolph Lundgren does a nice job as the washed-up boxer who's life was "ruined" when he lost to Rocky at the end of Rocky IV (not a spoiler). Finally, Russel Horsnby (as the "I just want to earn money" promoter of the fight) and Phylicia Rashad (as Adonis' mother/Apollo's wife) are both really good in roles that deserved to be much bigger - and more fleshed out - than they were.
My biggest disappointment from this film is the ommision of Director Ryan Coogler. He brought a visceral attitude to the series in the first CREED film and I felt that this spark of energy was just missing throughout this film with Steven Caple, Jr at the helm. It seemed, to me, that this series is quickly devolving into "paycheck" movies for Stallone and that really saddens me.
All-in-all a rather above average "by-the-numbers" boxing flick with a really good fight at the end of the film that is well worth sticking around for.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Miles Ahead (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
If you’ve ever found yourself in a coffee shop, bookstore, or perhaps even a jazz club in the 21st century you can’t NOT have heard either the name ‘Miles Davis’, his music, or perhaps both. If you’ve been living under a rock your whole life and by some miracle you have a smartphone, computer, or a radio find a jazz station and it’s almost a sure thing you’ll here his music within minutes. The man is no myth although the man and his music are so legendary there is almost a mythical presence to him. He is one of the greats. No question. No argument.
‘Miles Ahead’ is a biopic about the legendary jazz musician directed by and staring Don Cheadle who also co-wrote the film with Steven Baigelman, Christopher Wilkinson, and Steven J. Rivele.
Emayatzy Corinealdi, Ewan McGregor, Michael Stuhlbarg, and Keith Stanfield. Rather than focus on the entire life of the great jazz musician which could encompass several films and take up an entire archive, the film focuses mainly on a period in Davis’s life where he is living in relative seclusion in his home in New York City after having retreated from the public spotlight five years previously. Miles endeavors to begin recording and playing music once again after combating addictions to alcohol and cocaine which he indulged in to deal with his wife leaving him and the heavy stress brought upon him by a loss of inspiration to compose music. At about this same time ‘Rolling Stone’ reporter Dave Braden (McGregor), a borderline paparazzi of the time but not quite, calls upon Davis begging him to let him write about Davis’s great comeback. After several futile attempts on the part of Braden, Davis reluctantly agrees after Braden introduces him to a new dealer willing to supply him with high-grade cocaine. What follows is something thats almost out of a Hunter S. Thompson book as the two attempt to recover a demo tape of Davis’s most recent recordings from a low level gangster/manager/agent who stole the from Davis’s home. Amongst the drugs and the booze and the gun fights and car chases there are brief flashbacks into Miles’s past where he relives times good and bad with his wife Frances (Corinealdi). How they met, how they lived, and how she inspired some of his greatest works through her graceful dancing and their mutual love for classical music like Eric Satie, Chopin, and Stravinsky and how he eventually lost her due to his addictions and indulgences.
For such a brief glimpse into the life of one of music’s greatest, the movie was quite well done. It was clearly a labor of love for Mr. Cheadle who had his hands in nearly every aspect of the movie and went so far as to learn to play the trumpet so he could actually play the music himself in the movie. The actor, who is amongst the best and most underrated of our time, reportedly spent six years making this film. The background music is mostly comprised of tracks from arguably one of Davis’s best albums ‘Sketches Of Spain’ and selections of his work is played by Cheadle himself. It’s sometimes difficult to tell whether the movie is more about the music or the man himself. Does it honestly matter though? In many ways, they’re one in the same are they not? The movie is rated R for scenes with violence, adult language, and intimate scenes. I’d give it 4 out of 5 stars. The only negative thing I have to say about is that I wish there had been more about the life of the man. His beginnings. Like when he was accepted into the Juilliard School of Music in New York only to drop out. His days spent jamming with Charlie Parker. Again, that would encompass far more time than one would consider ‘feasible’ for a movie.
‘Miles Ahead’ is a biopic about the legendary jazz musician directed by and staring Don Cheadle who also co-wrote the film with Steven Baigelman, Christopher Wilkinson, and Steven J. Rivele.
Emayatzy Corinealdi, Ewan McGregor, Michael Stuhlbarg, and Keith Stanfield. Rather than focus on the entire life of the great jazz musician which could encompass several films and take up an entire archive, the film focuses mainly on a period in Davis’s life where he is living in relative seclusion in his home in New York City after having retreated from the public spotlight five years previously. Miles endeavors to begin recording and playing music once again after combating addictions to alcohol and cocaine which he indulged in to deal with his wife leaving him and the heavy stress brought upon him by a loss of inspiration to compose music. At about this same time ‘Rolling Stone’ reporter Dave Braden (McGregor), a borderline paparazzi of the time but not quite, calls upon Davis begging him to let him write about Davis’s great comeback. After several futile attempts on the part of Braden, Davis reluctantly agrees after Braden introduces him to a new dealer willing to supply him with high-grade cocaine. What follows is something thats almost out of a Hunter S. Thompson book as the two attempt to recover a demo tape of Davis’s most recent recordings from a low level gangster/manager/agent who stole the from Davis’s home. Amongst the drugs and the booze and the gun fights and car chases there are brief flashbacks into Miles’s past where he relives times good and bad with his wife Frances (Corinealdi). How they met, how they lived, and how she inspired some of his greatest works through her graceful dancing and their mutual love for classical music like Eric Satie, Chopin, and Stravinsky and how he eventually lost her due to his addictions and indulgences.
For such a brief glimpse into the life of one of music’s greatest, the movie was quite well done. It was clearly a labor of love for Mr. Cheadle who had his hands in nearly every aspect of the movie and went so far as to learn to play the trumpet so he could actually play the music himself in the movie. The actor, who is amongst the best and most underrated of our time, reportedly spent six years making this film. The background music is mostly comprised of tracks from arguably one of Davis’s best albums ‘Sketches Of Spain’ and selections of his work is played by Cheadle himself. It’s sometimes difficult to tell whether the movie is more about the music or the man himself. Does it honestly matter though? In many ways, they’re one in the same are they not? The movie is rated R for scenes with violence, adult language, and intimate scenes. I’d give it 4 out of 5 stars. The only negative thing I have to say about is that I wish there had been more about the life of the man. His beginnings. Like when he was accepted into the Juilliard School of Music in New York only to drop out. His days spent jamming with Charlie Parker. Again, that would encompass far more time than one would consider ‘feasible’ for a movie.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Schrodinger's Film
There is a thought experiment that is used to help make sense of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Say you have a cat, a box and a fragile vial of poison. You put the cat and the poison in the box knowing that the vial may break, you lunatic.
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
Dean (6925 KP) rated Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
Shine on
So I recently watched The Shining again to prepare for this. I've not read the book so can't compare it to that. It's mainly set some 30 years after the events of The Shining with Danny now a grown man and struggling in life. He finally finds a calling and seems to settle in a small town where he can use his Shine in a positive way. He discovers a new child with a great power and also of a group who want to hunt her down exploit her power.
For a long film it did whizz by as the story was very interesting. It's a different type of horror film to the original. Although it's still dark and disturbing in its content. We learn more about those with this power and the evil group who hunt down those with the power. It's good to see the overlook hotel again but in some ways this film didn't really need visit the old location. I guess it does give it more of a connection to the original. Although a couple of scenes there really would have been better cut out.
Overall it's a very interesting, entertaining film that might not be scary as such. It is very dark and menacing. A great expansion on the Shining universe.
For a long film it did whizz by as the story was very interesting. It's a different type of horror film to the original. Although it's still dark and disturbing in its content. We learn more about those with this power and the evil group who hunt down those with the power. It's good to see the overlook hotel again but in some ways this film didn't really need visit the old location. I guess it does give it more of a connection to the original. Although a couple of scenes there really would have been better cut out.
Overall it's a very interesting, entertaining film that might not be scary as such. It is very dark and menacing. A great expansion on the Shining universe.
The Hamilton Collection: The Wisdom and Writings of the Founding Father
Book
The smash-hit musical Hamilton presents its central character as a truth-telling immigrant...
Christina Aguilera
Book
Talks of an abusive, violent childhood at the hands of her father a strict and sadistic soldier in...
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Dead Don't Die (2019) in Movies
Jun 15, 2020
The dead should die...
I wanted to like this film so badly, but when I wanted to turn it off less than an hour in, i had to admit it wasn't for me. Although I did at least persevere until the end, even if it wasn't worth it.
I'm all for off beat and dark humour and wit, but I'm afraid for me this film was just too far in the left field. I liked the deadpan aspects and humour and also how it surpassed the fourth wall, the problem was the laughs were still few and far between. I like how this poked fun at today's society and there was a lot of social commentary, it was just so deadpan that a lot of the witty remarks were lost. The plot development too was so slow. The film was virtually over by the time it felt like it was going anywhere, and even when the zombies emerged in full they couldn't breathe any life (ha) into this. Strangely such a stellar cast were wasted too. Tilde Swinton's wacky funeral director was by far the most fun but even she got on my nerves by the end.
I'm all for your non-typical comedy, but sadly this film just wasn't for me. There are some good ideas in this but they feel wasted
I'm all for off beat and dark humour and wit, but I'm afraid for me this film was just too far in the left field. I liked the deadpan aspects and humour and also how it surpassed the fourth wall, the problem was the laughs were still few and far between. I like how this poked fun at today's society and there was a lot of social commentary, it was just so deadpan that a lot of the witty remarks were lost. The plot development too was so slow. The film was virtually over by the time it felt like it was going anywhere, and even when the zombies emerged in full they couldn't breathe any life (ha) into this. Strangely such a stellar cast were wasted too. Tilde Swinton's wacky funeral director was by far the most fun but even she got on my nerves by the end.
I'm all for your non-typical comedy, but sadly this film just wasn't for me. There are some good ideas in this but they feel wasted
Lindsay (1717 KP) rated What You Said To Me (Tree of Life #4) in Books
Nov 3, 2020
What you Said to me is a little dry in finding out about the families. This one is good. Though I do not know if the story is more about the girl that looking for her family or just helping in find out about herself.
This story is mostly about the girl that might just need the help to find out what happens in the past to find out why the broken things happen. Where is all went wrong? Will Jillian be able to help her find herself and understand where her mother and her family when wrong in the first place.
This book may have you looking for your family history. We do get past the story point of view as well as the present. Will it be sliver help to find out whatever happened to the Bangt woman and why it ended or how Trisha Crower family got to Cayon Mines?
Why did some leave and only one stay in Cayon Mines? To find out that you will need to read this book. Olivia does a wonderful job of weaving history and family together. Another thing she does is bring the family stories to life. Whatever happens with St. Louis Projects that she working on. Will be that this might not be the last book in the series.
This story is mostly about the girl that might just need the help to find out what happens in the past to find out why the broken things happen. Where is all went wrong? Will Jillian be able to help her find herself and understand where her mother and her family when wrong in the first place.
This book may have you looking for your family history. We do get past the story point of view as well as the present. Will it be sliver help to find out whatever happened to the Bangt woman and why it ended or how Trisha Crower family got to Cayon Mines?
Why did some leave and only one stay in Cayon Mines? To find out that you will need to read this book. Olivia does a wonderful job of weaving history and family together. Another thing she does is bring the family stories to life. Whatever happens with St. Louis Projects that she working on. Will be that this might not be the last book in the series.
Neil Hannon recommended Architecture & Morality by Orchestral Manoeuvres In The Dark in Music (curated)
Kate (493 KP) rated Has Anyone Seen My Sex Life in Books
Aug 19, 2020
This was such a feel good book and felt like a real story. It felt like a family you could meet in real life.
It make me laugh and the characters were so relatable (mostly). The mums at the school were definitely the stereotypical types of mums every school seems to have.
Although the story started with a bang it took my a chapter or two to get into but once I did I really enjoyed the book and it was not what I was expecting at all. The blurb didn't give anything away and it was so unexpected. It made the story even better as it wasn't the typical thing that could crop up in a marriage. No-one could guess what the twist is.
There were a few spelling mistakes but this is expected in any book.
I tried to put myself in the main character (Meg) shoes and tried to see how I would feel in her position and I came to the conclusion I would feel exactly the same way and would handle it the same way too.
This book is one if you are looking for a story that you can laugh at with a bit of a surprise and is definitely for early 20s upwards.
I would read other books by this author.
It make me laugh and the characters were so relatable (mostly). The mums at the school were definitely the stereotypical types of mums every school seems to have.
Although the story started with a bang it took my a chapter or two to get into but once I did I really enjoyed the book and it was not what I was expecting at all. The blurb didn't give anything away and it was so unexpected. It made the story even better as it wasn't the typical thing that could crop up in a marriage. No-one could guess what the twist is.
There were a few spelling mistakes but this is expected in any book.
I tried to put myself in the main character (Meg) shoes and tried to see how I would feel in her position and I came to the conclusion I would feel exactly the same way and would handle it the same way too.
This book is one if you are looking for a story that you can laugh at with a bit of a surprise and is definitely for early 20s upwards.
I would read other books by this author.