This currently one season series follows a professional assassin "aka the Jackal" (played by Eddie Redmayne) and the law enforcement personnel out to get him. There's a good amount of killing here and an OK story to boot. I especially enjoy the "random NPCs" (or small part characters) being so on the ball for a change, keeping the Jackal constantly off balance.
In this telling the Jackal is also not "flawless" (in this version) as he gets caught up in day dreams, worrying about his family and the like which is fine as it puts him in action sequences more frequently. I did not like the main cop pursuer though. Not sure if it was the acting or if they part should have been written better, but I was backing the Jackal the whole way. I'm looking forward to what season two has to offer!
Showing posts with label Eddie Redmayne. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eddie Redmayne. Show all posts
Monday, 14 July 2025
Day of the Jackal
Tuesday, 11 December 2018
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald
Now I want a big cat.
When the dangerous revolutionary Grindelwald (now Johnny Depp) escapes from prison, it falls to the timid Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) to recapture him, much like he does with his other magical pokemon. This second installment of Fantastic Beasts fixes many of the issues I had with the last one.
First, there are less hijinks with the creatures which is a plus as there were some really silly moments in the last movie. This leads to more appreciation to the bits that do focus on the creatures and more importantly gives people (namely Newt) more character development time (finally)!
The villain is more compelling this time around and having segments at Hogwarts is a great addition to the plot. As usual, the music and effects are great which overall makes for a superior movie to its predecessor. I give it 3.5 Dumbledores out of of 5 and would watch it again.
When the dangerous revolutionary Grindelwald (now Johnny Depp) escapes from prison, it falls to the timid Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) to recapture him, much like he does with his other magical pokemon. This second installment of Fantastic Beasts fixes many of the issues I had with the last one.
First, there are less hijinks with the creatures which is a plus as there were some really silly moments in the last movie. This leads to more appreciation to the bits that do focus on the creatures and more importantly gives people (namely Newt) more character development time (finally)!
That's a strange looking cat! I want one!
The villain is more compelling this time around and having segments at Hogwarts is a great addition to the plot. As usual, the music and effects are great which overall makes for a superior movie to its predecessor. I give it 3.5 Dumbledores out of of 5 and would watch it again.
Wednesday, 8 February 2017
Fantastic Beasts and where to find them
Muggles are better than wizards.
A movie set in the Harry Potter universe, Fantastic Beasts does a decent job of standing on it's own with very few active call backs to Hogwarts etc. Eddie Redmayne plays a likeable enough lead who loves his fantastic animals, and this gets him into all sorts of humorous problems.
I did find some of his lines a little hard to understand though and the female lead was quite plain (though that's probably the instruction given to her). Also watching Eddie do a pig dance midway through has kinda cringe worthy.
Fortunately Dan Fogler's non-mag (aka muggle) makes everything much better and turned out to be my favorite character in the whole thing! Effects wise, it's very good seeing all the cute, scary, icky creatures (to make toys of no doubt) though for some reason I felt the stage design, especially outdoor scenes, could have used some work.
While most of the problems in the movie are actually caused by the protagonists, there is a bad guy who rates a "meh" on the "ho hum" meter. Maybe he was put in after the fact to give the movie a darker shade? Who knows. The ending bit was also a little too drawn out. Just saying.
Still I quite enjoyed this film, and give it 3 magic suitcases out of 5.
A movie set in the Harry Potter universe, Fantastic Beasts does a decent job of standing on it's own with very few active call backs to Hogwarts etc. Eddie Redmayne plays a likeable enough lead who loves his fantastic animals, and this gets him into all sorts of humorous problems.
I did find some of his lines a little hard to understand though and the female lead was quite plain (though that's probably the instruction given to her). Also watching Eddie do a pig dance midway through has kinda cringe worthy.
Party assembled!
Fortunately Dan Fogler's non-mag (aka muggle) makes everything much better and turned out to be my favorite character in the whole thing! Effects wise, it's very good seeing all the cute, scary, icky creatures (to make toys of no doubt) though for some reason I felt the stage design, especially outdoor scenes, could have used some work.
While most of the problems in the movie are actually caused by the protagonists, there is a bad guy who rates a "meh" on the "ho hum" meter. Maybe he was put in after the fact to give the movie a darker shade? Who knows. The ending bit was also a little too drawn out. Just saying.
Still I quite enjoyed this film, and give it 3 magic suitcases out of 5.
Monday, 27 July 2015
Jupiter Ascending
Time is the most valuable commodity there is.
Jupiter (Mila Kunis) is Sci-Fi Cinderella. Being an illegal immigrant, she and her Russian relatives work as maids and are struggling financially. This changes when various aliens arrive to try kidnap and/or kill her as it becomes apparent that she is the reincarnation of someone important and related to the space villains of this film, House Harkonnen. Oh wait. Wrong movie. Eddie Redmayne does make an interesting soft spoken villain though, very different from his Pillars of the Earth character.
There's a LOT of action in this movie and most is done with very cool, high budget CG. Mila goes through a whole bunch of outfits in the course of the film so kudos to the costume designers too. There are a number of plot things I'd question though, like how one dude can breathe space in one part but not in another, and why don't more people use hover skates as they clearly come in handy and must be affordable to all the bad guys if they are that "rich".
The most annoying one for me though is that Jupiter is basically a passenger for most of the film. She really has no say in what's going on with her for almost the whole movie. Not sure if it was intentional, but that's how I perceived it. Still, it's a fun watch so I give it two and a half gravity skates out of five and yes, I wouldn't mind seeing it again.
Jupiter (Mila Kunis) is Sci-Fi Cinderella. Being an illegal immigrant, she and her Russian relatives work as maids and are struggling financially. This changes when various aliens arrive to try kidnap and/or kill her as it becomes apparent that she is the reincarnation of someone important and related to the space villains of this film, House Harkonnen. Oh wait. Wrong movie. Eddie Redmayne does make an interesting soft spoken villain though, very different from his Pillars of the Earth character.
Can you hear me now!?
There's a LOT of action in this movie and most is done with very cool, high budget CG. Mila goes through a whole bunch of outfits in the course of the film so kudos to the costume designers too. There are a number of plot things I'd question though, like how one dude can breathe space in one part but not in another, and why don't more people use hover skates as they clearly come in handy and must be affordable to all the bad guys if they are that "rich".
The most annoying one for me though is that Jupiter is basically a passenger for most of the film. She really has no say in what's going on with her for almost the whole movie. Not sure if it was intentional, but that's how I perceived it. Still, it's a fun watch so I give it two and a half gravity skates out of five and yes, I wouldn't mind seeing it again.
Tuesday, 21 July 2015
The Pillars of the Earth
Wait, this isn't a movie...
I'm bucking the trend today be reviewing a mini-series which basically follows the construction of a cathedral and quite rightfully spans many, many years. At first it might feel a little bit involved (unless you are a Game of Thrones fan) with following the stories of the builder's family, the priory monks, the noble families fighting for the crown, the lesser nobles vying for Shiring Castle, and one masterfully manipulative and ambitious priest played by Ian McShane. He does a really fantastic job and every scene he is in is great, which is pretty good for the villain! It's also the first time I recall seeing Eddie Redmayne, who also does a decent job in his role.
There are a few "weaker" actors but for the most part they can be overlooked, and I can't really complain about the wonderful sets they had there despite some "stones" seemingly being made of lighter material. Really the only two negatives for me were some of the very plain names for main characters (such as "Tom Builder" and "Jack Jackson") and that some characters age and some don't.
Also "aging" to some of the cast also just involves putting on a ludicrous looking wig so they get a little funny to look at but all in all it's a decent story which manages to tie up all the threads a little too cleanly at the end. Regardless I highly recommend it and give it four stones out of five. I also wouldn't mind seeing it again.
I'm bucking the trend today be reviewing a mini-series which basically follows the construction of a cathedral and quite rightfully spans many, many years. At first it might feel a little bit involved (unless you are a Game of Thrones fan) with following the stories of the builder's family, the priory monks, the noble families fighting for the crown, the lesser nobles vying for Shiring Castle, and one masterfully manipulative and ambitious priest played by Ian McShane. He does a really fantastic job and every scene he is in is great, which is pretty good for the villain! It's also the first time I recall seeing Eddie Redmayne, who also does a decent job in his role.
All the people. :)
There are a few "weaker" actors but for the most part they can be overlooked, and I can't really complain about the wonderful sets they had there despite some "stones" seemingly being made of lighter material. Really the only two negatives for me were some of the very plain names for main characters (such as "Tom Builder" and "Jack Jackson") and that some characters age and some don't.
Also "aging" to some of the cast also just involves putting on a ludicrous looking wig so they get a little funny to look at but all in all it's a decent story which manages to tie up all the threads a little too cleanly at the end. Regardless I highly recommend it and give it four stones out of five. I also wouldn't mind seeing it again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)