Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
This doesn’t need to be a long review; the film itself doesn’t merit a lot of reflection. But, I have set myself the task of recording every piece of cultural media I consume, and there is already a backlog. So, here come a few quickfire bits on things that I found less than impressive. There is some value in identifying why something failed. Especially, as in the case of Glass, when there was an expectation it might be quite exciting.
I am not the biggest M. Night Shyamalan fan, to be honest. I will give you The Sixth Sense and Signs (to an extent), but even those contain some dodgy direction, plotting and unforgivable dialogue that hasn’t weathered the test of time well. 75% of his output is so bad it becomes funny; I mean, The Happening and Lady in the Water – WTF!? And the less said about The Last Airbender the better. My favourite of his works would have to be Unbreakable, from 2000. At least there is a satisfying story arc and the “twist” makes sense. Often with him it is so preposterous or an non-event, it makes you wonder why he bothered.
Sixteen years later, and Split sprung a surprise by being not bad at all, largely thanks to James McAvoy’s performance as a man with multiple personality disorder – a striking, terrifying, turn that showcased his abilities as an actor superbly. So there was some anticipation that bringing those two film worlds together would yield something very interesting and at least fun. So, it is sad to say that, once again, he pretty much botched it.
Don’t get me wrong, it is watchable and entertaining, up to a point – that point being when the story tries to gel all its strands together in a cohesive new twist, and fails utterly to do so. McAvoy is yet again the standout. Here he pushes the split personalities at his command to a brain spinning degree, switching from one to the other effortlessly – I would much rather just have watched him talking and twitching for two hours, to be fair. Bruce Willis has little to do but brood, and Samuel L. Jackson becomes totally laughable as he strains with the script to find any grounding in real character, and descends into cartoon / pantomime villain very quickly, losing all validity carried over from Unbreakable.
It’s a shame, because there is an idea in there somewhere; this just wasn’t it. No doubt, he has left it open for further exploration with these characters, and will in time return to them. I just hope he takes his time to consider the script properly before diving headlong into another disappointment of cliche and bad plotting. I just feel sorry for McAvoy, who deserved much better.
I am not the biggest M. Night Shyamalan fan, to be honest. I will give you The Sixth Sense and Signs (to an extent), but even those contain some dodgy direction, plotting and unforgivable dialogue that hasn’t weathered the test of time well. 75% of his output is so bad it becomes funny; I mean, The Happening and Lady in the Water – WTF!? And the less said about The Last Airbender the better. My favourite of his works would have to be Unbreakable, from 2000. At least there is a satisfying story arc and the “twist” makes sense. Often with him it is so preposterous or an non-event, it makes you wonder why he bothered.
Sixteen years later, and Split sprung a surprise by being not bad at all, largely thanks to James McAvoy’s performance as a man with multiple personality disorder – a striking, terrifying, turn that showcased his abilities as an actor superbly. So there was some anticipation that bringing those two film worlds together would yield something very interesting and at least fun. So, it is sad to say that, once again, he pretty much botched it.
Don’t get me wrong, it is watchable and entertaining, up to a point – that point being when the story tries to gel all its strands together in a cohesive new twist, and fails utterly to do so. McAvoy is yet again the standout. Here he pushes the split personalities at his command to a brain spinning degree, switching from one to the other effortlessly – I would much rather just have watched him talking and twitching for two hours, to be fair. Bruce Willis has little to do but brood, and Samuel L. Jackson becomes totally laughable as he strains with the script to find any grounding in real character, and descends into cartoon / pantomime villain very quickly, losing all validity carried over from Unbreakable.
It’s a shame, because there is an idea in there somewhere; this just wasn’t it. No doubt, he has left it open for further exploration with these characters, and will in time return to them. I just hope he takes his time to consider the script properly before diving headlong into another disappointment of cliche and bad plotting. I just feel sorry for McAvoy, who deserved much better.
Kaz (232 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2019 (Updated Jul 31, 2019)
A film which I can't figure out.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I read the novel 'Pet Semetary' last year and, although there are some questionable elements to the story, I thought that generally, it was a good, creepy read.
Having just watched the 2019 remake, (I must point out that I haven't watched the original film) I'm not sure what to make of it.
For me, the novel 'Pet Semetary' is really dark and creepy. What this film version does, is add to that atmosphere and made it even more sinister, which I really liked.
Another good thing about this adaptation, was that it stayed pretty close to the original text, for the most part. Usually I don't like changes when a book is being made into a film, but actually, thinking about it, some of the changes in 'Pet Semetary' were wise, due to practicalities,
For example, in the novel, Gage is the one that dies and not Ellie. I would imagine the producers of this film, might have thought that it would either be too extreme to show a 2-3 year old running around with a knife and also it would be difficult to direct a child in this type of scene. So I understand why this was changed.
I thought that the acting was ok, but nothing special. I think John Lithgow was underused as Judd and actually, I thought his character was much less likable, than Judd in the book. I would give a special mention to the child actor who plays Ellie, as I thought she played her role well.
Now, let's talk about the ending. Whilst I thought the ending of the book was rather questionable, I could understand the thinking behind it. This book's general theme is grief and so Louis' decision to resurrect his wife, illustrates that his grief was so powerful, that he would do almost anything to bring his loved on,e back from the dead.
The ending to the film version though, was very disappointing. For me, Stephen King, not only writes books which satisfy a reader's enjoyment for being scared, but also has other themes and messages running through them too. So, by changing the ending to this film, it kind of took away that sad, powerful message of grief and replaced it with a conventional, 'horror film' ending. This was really disappointing for me, because by putting in that ending, it kind of demeaned everything that the book was trying to do.
This film was ok and had some positive points, but I don't think it does the original book, sufficient justice.
Having just watched the 2019 remake, (I must point out that I haven't watched the original film) I'm not sure what to make of it.
For me, the novel 'Pet Semetary' is really dark and creepy. What this film version does, is add to that atmosphere and made it even more sinister, which I really liked.
Another good thing about this adaptation, was that it stayed pretty close to the original text, for the most part. Usually I don't like changes when a book is being made into a film, but actually, thinking about it, some of the changes in 'Pet Semetary' were wise, due to practicalities,
For example, in the novel, Gage is the one that dies and not Ellie. I would imagine the producers of this film, might have thought that it would either be too extreme to show a 2-3 year old running around with a knife and also it would be difficult to direct a child in this type of scene. So I understand why this was changed.
I thought that the acting was ok, but nothing special. I think John Lithgow was underused as Judd and actually, I thought his character was much less likable, than Judd in the book. I would give a special mention to the child actor who plays Ellie, as I thought she played her role well.
Now, let's talk about the ending. Whilst I thought the ending of the book was rather questionable, I could understand the thinking behind it. This book's general theme is grief and so Louis' decision to resurrect his wife, illustrates that his grief was so powerful, that he would do almost anything to bring his loved on,e back from the dead.
The ending to the film version though, was very disappointing. For me, Stephen King, not only writes books which satisfy a reader's enjoyment for being scared, but also has other themes and messages running through them too. So, by changing the ending to this film, it kind of took away that sad, powerful message of grief and replaced it with a conventional, 'horror film' ending. This was really disappointing for me, because by putting in that ending, it kind of demeaned everything that the book was trying to do.
This film was ok and had some positive points, but I don't think it does the original book, sufficient justice.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Larry Crowne (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
“Larry Crowne” is a movie (in the works since 2006) that stars Tom Hanks in the lead as Larry Crown and Julia Roberts as Mercedes Tainot, a disenchanted community college speech professor.
“Larry Crowne” tells the tale of a Navy veteran and recent divorce’ whom, after many years of tirelessly and loyally working at the same big-box store, is fired on the spot supposedly because of the fact that he does not have a college degree. Coincidentally at the same time the bank demands the money from the mortgage taken out on his home. With no options and on the advice of his next door neighbor Lamar (who tries to sell him a “free” college degree for 20 cents at his garage sale) Larry decides to enroll in community college From there the movie follows Larry as falls in love with his speech professor Dr. Mercedes Tainot (who is still married to some Internet businessman obsessed with large breasted women) while at the same time, being befriended by a “gang” of motor-scooter/vespa enthusiasts.
Now ….. normally I’m not the one to go see the stereotypical “feel good movie” of the season. Plus, I’m honestly not that big a fan of Julia Roberts. But come on ….. Personally, I cannot ever recall Tom Hanks in a bad movie and I have to admit it Julia Roberts had me laughing the minute she started talking. After the first 15 minutes of the movie, you have a pretty good idea of the general direction the movie will go in and how it will end. However, this is one of those movies where it’s more entertaining to see how the whole movie plays out despite that fact. The ensemble cast that Tom Hanks put together does an excellent job of keeping you on your seat laughing (including a hilarious performance by the great George Takei as a militant economics professor who is trying to pimp his new book very two minutes in his class). Plus, the movie does a great job keeping you focused on the story. Especially when the gang of motor-scooter enthusiasts seemingly appear out of nowhere to show him how NOT to dress like a cop and to explain the concept of “Fung Shui”.
The ensemble cast that includes Bryan Cranstson, Pam Grier, Cedric The Entertainer, Rob Riggle, Wilmer Valderama, and George Takei amongst many others supports the lead characters well.
All in all, I’d say this movie deserves 4 out of 5 stars. Not a movie you’d want to take the kids to due some sexual content and alcohol use in the movie. Definitely a great “Date Movie” though. Besides being slow at some points and it’s “predictability” I’d say it’s definitely worth your hard earned money. Go to a matinee showing or get it “on demand”.
“Larry Crowne” tells the tale of a Navy veteran and recent divorce’ whom, after many years of tirelessly and loyally working at the same big-box store, is fired on the spot supposedly because of the fact that he does not have a college degree. Coincidentally at the same time the bank demands the money from the mortgage taken out on his home. With no options and on the advice of his next door neighbor Lamar (who tries to sell him a “free” college degree for 20 cents at his garage sale) Larry decides to enroll in community college From there the movie follows Larry as falls in love with his speech professor Dr. Mercedes Tainot (who is still married to some Internet businessman obsessed with large breasted women) while at the same time, being befriended by a “gang” of motor-scooter/vespa enthusiasts.
Now ….. normally I’m not the one to go see the stereotypical “feel good movie” of the season. Plus, I’m honestly not that big a fan of Julia Roberts. But come on ….. Personally, I cannot ever recall Tom Hanks in a bad movie and I have to admit it Julia Roberts had me laughing the minute she started talking. After the first 15 minutes of the movie, you have a pretty good idea of the general direction the movie will go in and how it will end. However, this is one of those movies where it’s more entertaining to see how the whole movie plays out despite that fact. The ensemble cast that Tom Hanks put together does an excellent job of keeping you on your seat laughing (including a hilarious performance by the great George Takei as a militant economics professor who is trying to pimp his new book very two minutes in his class). Plus, the movie does a great job keeping you focused on the story. Especially when the gang of motor-scooter enthusiasts seemingly appear out of nowhere to show him how NOT to dress like a cop and to explain the concept of “Fung Shui”.
The ensemble cast that includes Bryan Cranstson, Pam Grier, Cedric The Entertainer, Rob Riggle, Wilmer Valderama, and George Takei amongst many others supports the lead characters well.
All in all, I’d say this movie deserves 4 out of 5 stars. Not a movie you’d want to take the kids to due some sexual content and alcohol use in the movie. Definitely a great “Date Movie” though. Besides being slow at some points and it’s “predictability” I’d say it’s definitely worth your hard earned money. Go to a matinee showing or get it “on demand”.
Cops & Robbers
Games and Entertainment
App
“It would be criminal to pass up the chance to post bail for this arresting blend of platforming...
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Umbrella Academy in TV
Jul 5, 2020
A Gamble That Pays Off - 8/10
The Umbrella Academy is a 2019 dark comedy sci-fi/drama superhero tv show developed by Steve Blackman and Jeremy Slater for Netflix. It's an adaptation of the comic book series created by Gerard Way and Gabriel Ba and published by Dark Horse Comics. The series was produced by Borderline Entertainment, Dark Horse Entertainment, and Universal Cable Productions. Starring Ellen Page, Tom Hopper, David Castaneda, and Kate Walsh.
On October 1st, 1989, 43 women around the world give birth although none of them were pregnant that morning. Eccentric billionaire Sir Reginald Hargreeves (Colman Feore) adopts 7 of the children and turns them into a superhero team called, "The Umbrella Academy. The children are given numbers instead of names and even though 6 of them fight crime, 1 of them, Vanya/#7 (Ellen Page) is kept apart for not having any powers. Present day, the estranged siblings reunite when they learn their father has died. At the funeral, #5 (Aidan Gallagher), which has been missing for over a decade, reappears from the future out of a blue portal and reveals to the others, that the world will end in a matter of days.
This show is stellar. It's a ride that you shouldn't miss. It's good to see a comic book series adaptation that is not from Marvel or DC and you can feel that it's a fresh take and different. I think the writers for the show did a good job on making it very three-dimensional. It's rated TV-14 so it's for teenagers and adults but also for comic book fans and sci-fi fans. That being said it does get pretty weird and far out there, so might not be for everybody but it's definitely better than what the critics are saying. Yes it does have some issues; like the dialogue might not be the best, there being some plot holes possibly, and some complaints of other comic book shows or movies having done that before. But it does have plenty of pluses; the soundtrack is phenomenal, the CGI is on par with that of big-budget movies, and the casting is very good. They were able to pull off the whole dysfunctional family vibe very well. I wanted to give it a point higher but I did understand some of the other points that other critics made about it. I give it a 8/10 but I also give it my "Must See" seal of approval. So if you haven't seen it yet what are you waiting for.
On October 1st, 1989, 43 women around the world give birth although none of them were pregnant that morning. Eccentric billionaire Sir Reginald Hargreeves (Colman Feore) adopts 7 of the children and turns them into a superhero team called, "The Umbrella Academy. The children are given numbers instead of names and even though 6 of them fight crime, 1 of them, Vanya/#7 (Ellen Page) is kept apart for not having any powers. Present day, the estranged siblings reunite when they learn their father has died. At the funeral, #5 (Aidan Gallagher), which has been missing for over a decade, reappears from the future out of a blue portal and reveals to the others, that the world will end in a matter of days.
This show is stellar. It's a ride that you shouldn't miss. It's good to see a comic book series adaptation that is not from Marvel or DC and you can feel that it's a fresh take and different. I think the writers for the show did a good job on making it very three-dimensional. It's rated TV-14 so it's for teenagers and adults but also for comic book fans and sci-fi fans. That being said it does get pretty weird and far out there, so might not be for everybody but it's definitely better than what the critics are saying. Yes it does have some issues; like the dialogue might not be the best, there being some plot holes possibly, and some complaints of other comic book shows or movies having done that before. But it does have plenty of pluses; the soundtrack is phenomenal, the CGI is on par with that of big-budget movies, and the casting is very good. They were able to pull off the whole dysfunctional family vibe very well. I wanted to give it a point higher but I did understand some of the other points that other critics made about it. I give it a 8/10 but I also give it my "Must See" seal of approval. So if you haven't seen it yet what are you waiting for.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Fast and Furious Johnson/Statham Style
Fast And Furious Presents Hobbs & Shaw is a 2019 action movie directed by David Leitch and written by Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce from a story by Morgan. It was produced by Seven Bucks Productions and Chris Morgan Productions and distributed by Universal Pictures. The film also had Jason Statham, Dwayne Johnson, Chris Morgan and Hiram Garcia as producers. The movie stars Dwayne Johnson, Jason Statham, Idris Elba, Vanessa Kirby and Ryan Reynolds.
When a team of MI6 agents try to retrieve a virus called "Snowflake", which could kill millions, from terrorist organization Eteon; Brixton Lore (Idris Elba), a cybernetically enhanced member of Eteon, arrives killing all the agents except Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby). She is able to inject herself with the virus and escape but Brixton forces her to go on the run by framing her as a traitor who killed her team and stole "Snowflake". Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) are both recruited by the CIA, to work together to track it down and recover it.
This movie definitely fit in with the Fast and Furious series and was what you expected from a spin-off of the main franchise. That being said, it also didn't feel like a good fit in a lot of ways. Dwayne Johnson's character Hobbs felt diminished in a way because of how they tried to humanize him and make him more relatable by introducing family like his daughter. Also Deckard Shaw, Statham's character was given the same treatment by introducing family characters as well. Since the Fast and Furious franchise is all about family, I guess this was to be expected but it came off as contrived and "trope-ish". Vanessa Kirby did an awesome job as kick ass Hattie Shaw and delivered a strong performance as did Idris Elba although his character felt like a stereo-typed villain. The stunts and action sequences of course were crazy as hell but if you like the Fast and Furious movies than you will like this film. For me though, I'm with most fans and feel that the team up with Shaw is a stab in the back to Han since he was killed by Shaw in the franchise. But I guess the movie makers didn't really care or maybe they'll do something else about it later and he'll wind up being alive. All in all, it's a decent movie but just didn't do it for me, even with the great action, the funny dialogue/banter between Statham and Johnson and solid performances from some of the actors. I give this movie a 6/10.
When a team of MI6 agents try to retrieve a virus called "Snowflake", which could kill millions, from terrorist organization Eteon; Brixton Lore (Idris Elba), a cybernetically enhanced member of Eteon, arrives killing all the agents except Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby). She is able to inject herself with the virus and escape but Brixton forces her to go on the run by framing her as a traitor who killed her team and stole "Snowflake". Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) are both recruited by the CIA, to work together to track it down and recover it.
This movie definitely fit in with the Fast and Furious series and was what you expected from a spin-off of the main franchise. That being said, it also didn't feel like a good fit in a lot of ways. Dwayne Johnson's character Hobbs felt diminished in a way because of how they tried to humanize him and make him more relatable by introducing family like his daughter. Also Deckard Shaw, Statham's character was given the same treatment by introducing family characters as well. Since the Fast and Furious franchise is all about family, I guess this was to be expected but it came off as contrived and "trope-ish". Vanessa Kirby did an awesome job as kick ass Hattie Shaw and delivered a strong performance as did Idris Elba although his character felt like a stereo-typed villain. The stunts and action sequences of course were crazy as hell but if you like the Fast and Furious movies than you will like this film. For me though, I'm with most fans and feel that the team up with Shaw is a stab in the back to Han since he was killed by Shaw in the franchise. But I guess the movie makers didn't really care or maybe they'll do something else about it later and he'll wind up being alive. All in all, it's a decent movie but just didn't do it for me, even with the great action, the funny dialogue/banter between Statham and Johnson and solid performances from some of the actors. I give this movie a 6/10.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated I Have Life: Alison's Journey in Books
May 13, 2021
I first heard about Alison Botha on a true crime podcast. What happened to Alison and her will to survive really piqued my interest. When I discovered her biography, I Have Life, I knew I had to read it right away. While what happened to Alison was beyond horrific, her will to survive and her outlook on life afterwards were inspirational.
Reading about Alison's abduction, rape, and attempted murder will definitely leave you with your jaw on the floor. Alison holds nothing back about anything throughout her biography whether it is the horrific events that happened to her or her will to survive emotionally after her wounds have healed. Marianne Thamm, the journalist that Alison told her story to in order to write her biography does a wonderful job of tying everything together for the most part. About halfway through though, I felt like I Have Life stopped being a biography and started becoming a self-help book with Alison writing (speaking to Thamm) about how to become a happier person. Luckily, this only lasts for a few chapters, but I felt like maybe the chapters about being happier and such should be in a self-help book. (Alison gives talks around the world about her ordeal, so perhaps that's why these chapters were included?) Otherwise Marianne Thamm's writing of Alison Botha's biography was flawless. I was immersed the whole time. I felt like I was right besides Alison the whole time. I kept wanting there to be a different outcome when Alison was abducted by Frans even though I knew there wouldn't be. I felt like Alison really wants the stigma for rape survivors to be no more (and she's right as there shouldn't be any stigma attached). I felt like everything I wanted to know about Alison was answered in I Have Life - from what happened to Alison at the point of her abduction, the rape, the brutal attempted to murder, to the trial of her rapists and attacker to how her life was like at the writing of the book. Like I said, Thamm and Alison don't really leave anything to the imagination of which I was grateful.
All in all, I Have Life is a deeply disturbing book to read, but it does have a great outcome. It is well put together, and Alison Botha comes across as such a strong inspirational woman. Alison's story is full of hope and wisdom throughout. I would definitely recommend I Have Life: Alison's Journey as told to Marianne Thamm for those ages 18+ who are into true crime or for those that just want to see how strong the human will is to survive.
Reading about Alison's abduction, rape, and attempted murder will definitely leave you with your jaw on the floor. Alison holds nothing back about anything throughout her biography whether it is the horrific events that happened to her or her will to survive emotionally after her wounds have healed. Marianne Thamm, the journalist that Alison told her story to in order to write her biography does a wonderful job of tying everything together for the most part. About halfway through though, I felt like I Have Life stopped being a biography and started becoming a self-help book with Alison writing (speaking to Thamm) about how to become a happier person. Luckily, this only lasts for a few chapters, but I felt like maybe the chapters about being happier and such should be in a self-help book. (Alison gives talks around the world about her ordeal, so perhaps that's why these chapters were included?) Otherwise Marianne Thamm's writing of Alison Botha's biography was flawless. I was immersed the whole time. I felt like I was right besides Alison the whole time. I kept wanting there to be a different outcome when Alison was abducted by Frans even though I knew there wouldn't be. I felt like Alison really wants the stigma for rape survivors to be no more (and she's right as there shouldn't be any stigma attached). I felt like everything I wanted to know about Alison was answered in I Have Life - from what happened to Alison at the point of her abduction, the rape, the brutal attempted to murder, to the trial of her rapists and attacker to how her life was like at the writing of the book. Like I said, Thamm and Alison don't really leave anything to the imagination of which I was grateful.
All in all, I Have Life is a deeply disturbing book to read, but it does have a great outcome. It is well put together, and Alison Botha comes across as such a strong inspirational woman. Alison's story is full of hope and wisdom throughout. I would definitely recommend I Have Life: Alison's Journey as told to Marianne Thamm for those ages 18+ who are into true crime or for those that just want to see how strong the human will is to survive.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Little Things (2021) in Movies
Apr 5, 2021
New movies this year feel like both a treat and a torture, but Denzel? Gimme!
Deputy Joe Deacon is forced into confronting his past when he's sent to LA to collect some evidence. But his reluctant trip takes a turn as he gets involved in the investigation into a spate of murders. The obsession for a solution can sometimes be too much for even the most seasoned professional.
We open in 1990 in a situation that feels like it could be any time. The period doesn't feel like it holds any importance over the tale that's being told. It's almost a distraction as the opening feels like a flashback rather than just an introduction.
It has the look of a gritty crime drama/thriller. It's got the right tone, the right sort of actors, and definitely the right subject matter, but it somehow fails to engage on that level.
I love a Denzel performance, and he has this sort of genre deep in his back catalogue, it should be an easy win putting them together. It should. This one was disappointing. There doesn't seem to be much to Joe Deacon, lots gets revealed but it's never quite enough to see anything below the surface.
Rami Malek plays Jim Baker, the "new" Joe Deacon. I'm not a fan, of Malek or his character. I felt like Baker needed to be more charismatic and likeable, I found that particularly evident when I saw the press conference scene. I'm willing to admit that this is me saying the film should stick with the more traditional stereotypes of these roles, and they absolutely don't have to, but I found myself not being able to like/dislike him for the "right" reasons.
In the bad guy role we have Jared Leto, and he does creepy very well here. Out of our three main actors I would say that his performance is the best. With the other two I can see things that the characters are missing that would make an improvement (in my opinion), but here I think the thing that let him down was the films around him.
It's difficult to really point a finger at the exact issues I had with The Little Things, it may just be a combination of... the little things. (Sorry, I had to put it in somewhere.) There's character development, tense moments to make it more of a thriller, and in general, atmosphere... all missing... and while some parts of the ending were good, I don't think it gives a satisfying ending to make up for anything that came before.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-little-things-movie-review.html
Deputy Joe Deacon is forced into confronting his past when he's sent to LA to collect some evidence. But his reluctant trip takes a turn as he gets involved in the investigation into a spate of murders. The obsession for a solution can sometimes be too much for even the most seasoned professional.
We open in 1990 in a situation that feels like it could be any time. The period doesn't feel like it holds any importance over the tale that's being told. It's almost a distraction as the opening feels like a flashback rather than just an introduction.
It has the look of a gritty crime drama/thriller. It's got the right tone, the right sort of actors, and definitely the right subject matter, but it somehow fails to engage on that level.
I love a Denzel performance, and he has this sort of genre deep in his back catalogue, it should be an easy win putting them together. It should. This one was disappointing. There doesn't seem to be much to Joe Deacon, lots gets revealed but it's never quite enough to see anything below the surface.
Rami Malek plays Jim Baker, the "new" Joe Deacon. I'm not a fan, of Malek or his character. I felt like Baker needed to be more charismatic and likeable, I found that particularly evident when I saw the press conference scene. I'm willing to admit that this is me saying the film should stick with the more traditional stereotypes of these roles, and they absolutely don't have to, but I found myself not being able to like/dislike him for the "right" reasons.
In the bad guy role we have Jared Leto, and he does creepy very well here. Out of our three main actors I would say that his performance is the best. With the other two I can see things that the characters are missing that would make an improvement (in my opinion), but here I think the thing that let him down was the films around him.
It's difficult to really point a finger at the exact issues I had with The Little Things, it may just be a combination of... the little things. (Sorry, I had to put it in somewhere.) There's character development, tense moments to make it more of a thriller, and in general, atmosphere... all missing... and while some parts of the ending were good, I don't think it gives a satisfying ending to make up for anything that came before.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-little-things-movie-review.html
Darren (1599 KP) rated Viking (2016) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Story: Viking starts as three brothers rule different kingdoms under the Russia we follow the youngest Vladimir (Kozlovsky) who is trying to end the war between them after being exiled to the frozen land of Novgorod. Completing his quest, he will need to come across new enemies, while old enemies are waiting in the wings for his weaknesses to be exposed.
Thoughts on Viking
Characters – Vladimir is the youngster son of the king, he gets the weakest area to rule, but isn’t going to let that stop him taking control of the area, he proves to be a strong leader one that is fair and will look after his people. When it comes to the rest of the characters it was hard to figure out who to focus on, because as soon as one looked like they were going to be important, they seemed to get killed.
Performances – The performances suffer because of the issues with the characters not being given the focus they require in the film, it is too hard for the audience to know who they should be following in this film.
Story – The story seems to focus on Vladimir the youngest son of the rule of Russia, whom after his death gets given part of the land to defend, we watch his rise to try and claim his crown as the rule of Russia as he takes on enemies from all over the land including his own blood. The story telling process is difficult to keep up with as we do seem to meet group one get slightly invested in these character, but nope they get killed leaving us wondering just who we are meant to be supporting through the film.
Action/History/War – The action is plenty of battle sequences, each one getting bigger, bloodier and deadlier as the film unfolds. The history, well I don’t know how accurate any of it is, most of that would involve research and the war side of the film shows us the different strategies adopted during the 10th century.
Settings – The film shows us the settings that will keep us believing we are in the time the film is set, it keeps the battles feeling down and dirty which is how you would imagine them happening.
Scene of the Movie – The hiding escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too many characters introduced for nothing.
Final Thoughts – This is an overly complicated movie that is trying to tell a massive story only for it to end up not given enough time for most of the characters to develop or unfold.
Overall: Too long and dull
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/22/abc-film-challenge-world-cinema-v-viking-2016/
Thoughts on Viking
Characters – Vladimir is the youngster son of the king, he gets the weakest area to rule, but isn’t going to let that stop him taking control of the area, he proves to be a strong leader one that is fair and will look after his people. When it comes to the rest of the characters it was hard to figure out who to focus on, because as soon as one looked like they were going to be important, they seemed to get killed.
Performances – The performances suffer because of the issues with the characters not being given the focus they require in the film, it is too hard for the audience to know who they should be following in this film.
Story – The story seems to focus on Vladimir the youngest son of the rule of Russia, whom after his death gets given part of the land to defend, we watch his rise to try and claim his crown as the rule of Russia as he takes on enemies from all over the land including his own blood. The story telling process is difficult to keep up with as we do seem to meet group one get slightly invested in these character, but nope they get killed leaving us wondering just who we are meant to be supporting through the film.
Action/History/War – The action is plenty of battle sequences, each one getting bigger, bloodier and deadlier as the film unfolds. The history, well I don’t know how accurate any of it is, most of that would involve research and the war side of the film shows us the different strategies adopted during the 10th century.
Settings – The film shows us the settings that will keep us believing we are in the time the film is set, it keeps the battles feeling down and dirty which is how you would imagine them happening.
Scene of the Movie – The hiding escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too many characters introduced for nothing.
Final Thoughts – This is an overly complicated movie that is trying to tell a massive story only for it to end up not given enough time for most of the characters to develop or unfold.
Overall: Too long and dull
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/22/abc-film-challenge-world-cinema-v-viking-2016/
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Sep 24, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
When their mobster husbands are all sent to prison, three women decide that the only way they can survive is to take over their criminal enterprise’s, the quest is can their friendship last.
The Kitchen is based on comics released by DC Vertigo and is set in ‘Hell’s Kitchen’, New York during the 1970’s and focus’ on the lives of the wives of an Irish/American mob and their struggle to maintain a basic life style once their husbands have been arrested. Each of the women have a different type of relationship with their husbands; Kathy is in a seemingly normal, loving relationship, Claire is in an abusive relationship and Ruby is in a mixed marriage which is looked down on by alto for the other characters. One of the threads of the film is how each woman reacts to their husbands being away and what will happen when they return.
First off, this is not a comedy, I have seen some reviews where people seem to have been expecting a few laughs, mainly because of the casting of Melissa McCarthy and Tiffany Haddish. The Kitchen has violence, abuse, attempted rape, bad language, lots of guns, prostitutes and shootings but no humour. I think there was only one time anyone laughed (in the cinema audience) and that was when the characters were being shown how to dispose of a dead body.
I have to say that this is a good, well written female lead film, the premise is not forced and there is a reason the characters are female and in a situation that women would not normally be in, especially for the time it is set. Even though the characters are slightly stereotyped (The beaten woman trying to get stronger, the loving wife trying to keep things together) they are not turned into a joke or overly exaggerated and is a big step up from the Ghostbuster’s remake which also had McCarthy as part of an all-female team. Like Ghostbusters there is also a male character who helps the team, Gabriel, but the Kitchen avoids turning him into a joke unlike Chris Hemsworth in ghostbusters.
It could be said that the way the male characters are portrayed is bad, most of them are either thugs, stupid or crazy but this not due to any kind of feminism agenda but is a slightly stereotyped view of how a segment of people were seen, most of the people they deal with are the Irish/American mobsters. This is also shown by the Italians; they are not portrayed in the same way.
I do get the feeling that The Kitchen will be remembered more for scenes and its characters than for the overall movie as there are some bits that seem to drag but, overall it is a film worth watching.
The Kitchen is based on comics released by DC Vertigo and is set in ‘Hell’s Kitchen’, New York during the 1970’s and focus’ on the lives of the wives of an Irish/American mob and their struggle to maintain a basic life style once their husbands have been arrested. Each of the women have a different type of relationship with their husbands; Kathy is in a seemingly normal, loving relationship, Claire is in an abusive relationship and Ruby is in a mixed marriage which is looked down on by alto for the other characters. One of the threads of the film is how each woman reacts to their husbands being away and what will happen when they return.
First off, this is not a comedy, I have seen some reviews where people seem to have been expecting a few laughs, mainly because of the casting of Melissa McCarthy and Tiffany Haddish. The Kitchen has violence, abuse, attempted rape, bad language, lots of guns, prostitutes and shootings but no humour. I think there was only one time anyone laughed (in the cinema audience) and that was when the characters were being shown how to dispose of a dead body.
I have to say that this is a good, well written female lead film, the premise is not forced and there is a reason the characters are female and in a situation that women would not normally be in, especially for the time it is set. Even though the characters are slightly stereotyped (The beaten woman trying to get stronger, the loving wife trying to keep things together) they are not turned into a joke or overly exaggerated and is a big step up from the Ghostbuster’s remake which also had McCarthy as part of an all-female team. Like Ghostbusters there is also a male character who helps the team, Gabriel, but the Kitchen avoids turning him into a joke unlike Chris Hemsworth in ghostbusters.
It could be said that the way the male characters are portrayed is bad, most of them are either thugs, stupid or crazy but this not due to any kind of feminism agenda but is a slightly stereotyped view of how a segment of people were seen, most of the people they deal with are the Irish/American mobsters. This is also shown by the Italians; they are not portrayed in the same way.
I do get the feeling that The Kitchen will be remembered more for scenes and its characters than for the overall movie as there are some bits that seem to drag but, overall it is a film worth watching.