Author Archives: theswitz
I used to only buy one type/brand/colour of socks so I would have an easier (or lazier) time matching them when I did my laundry. A few months back though my feet were killing me so I bought these fancy-dancy, ergonomic, no sweat, padded, fitted, super comfortable, bamboo-rayon blended socks and really liked them, so a few weeks ago I treated myself to 6 more pairs of socks. The only drawback to these socks is that they are knit in such a way that they are labelled for the left and right foot. At first I felt a little insulted that my socks were telling me what feet to put them on, but soon I took it in stride.
Sunday night was laundry night of course, and I knew I would have to take extra time and special effort when putting away my socks to make sure I had all the lefts and rights in proper order. It reminded me though of a logic puzzle I was given way back in high school (or possibly even grade school). The puzzle is this: you are in the dark and have to get dressed. In your bag are 5 pairs of black socks and 5 pairs of white socks. What is the minimum number of socks you need to pull to ensure a matching set?
The answer is obviously three. I wondered if the same theory could be applied to my current left and right sock situation, but realized it wouldn’t work like that because it’s possible (though rather unlikely) that I could pull 5 “lefts” in a row before pulling a “right”, so the minimum in my situation with 7 clean pairs of socks would be 8 socks to ensure at least one set of the correct pairings. Well when I was putting my laundry away and matching my socks up from the pile I dumped on my bed, I did just what I predicted. I pulled 5 lefts before the first right…
Saoirse Ronan is one of my favourite actresses, in Lady Bird she plays Christine “Lady Bird” McPherson, a teen about to graduate high school and move on to college.
Okay, I’m really struggling to write these reviews lately. I saw Lady Bird in March, and it’s now November. I’m hitting a wall, and don’t know how to get through it. I used to find reviewing and blogging therapeutic and relaxing, but life has really beaten me up for the past few months. I haven’t had time to watch a movie in months, let alone review one, and I haven’t even had the desire to watch one. There are things I want to see. I want to see Life of the Party, I want to see Ant Man and the Wasp, and probably a lot of others too. Hopefully I’ll get to them. Hopefully I’ll review them too.
Here we go then, I’m going to struggle and try to get through this review. This is going to be tough for a while, because I don’t remember a lot of the key points anymore. Maybe point form is the way to go for a while…
- Enjoyed the movie, but thought it was really about nothing, but that’s not a bad thing. Well, it can be. I’ve found the last few movies Saoirse Ronan did to have been about nothing. Brooklyn, Lady Bird, and from what I can tell by the trailers On Chesil Beach too, all are movies just about life. There doesn’t seem to be a villain to defeat, or a big bad antagonist, the characters all just have to get through every day life. My only complaint is because I like Ronan so much, that I want to see her doing different things. Maybe I should just watch Hanna again…
- Laurie Metcalf was excellent as the mother, and I think was very deserving of her Best Supporting Actress nomination. I would have liked her to win, but that’s because I haven’t seen I, Tonya. I really like Allison Janney too, so I’m not upset that she won over Metcalf.
- Quite a bit of humour, quite a bit of drama. Relatable, and fun.
- Good dialogue and situations. The cast really worked well together, especially Ronan and Metcalf who delivered an excellent and very believable mother-daughter dynamic.
- Greta Gerwig wrote and directed and was nominated for an Oscar as Director and for the screenplay. I don’t know if the direction of the film was really Oscar worthy or not. I don’t know if her nomination was part of a movement to make the Oscars more diverse. To me the direction was nothing special. I guess when two of your cast are nominated for acting awards, you are either doing something right, or they just made it easier for the director.
If you’re a fan, or if you’re just looking for something good to watch, I’d say give Lady Bird a try.
Bottom Line: I got nothing right now.
Okay, I know what you’re thinking. Iron Wolf looks terrible, how can it get a three moustache rating? Well, first, it was terrible. It probably should be about a two, maybe a two and a half, but that’s probably stretching things. It earned three moustaches from me because of the entire movie watching experience.
This movie is so cheesy already, I feel I need to go back to the start and live tweet it… #IronWolf
— Greg Switzer (@G_Switzer) March 2, 2018
So I did live Tweet the movie… A few days later, the director noticed! Click the various links to see my full thoughts (and jokes) about Iron Wolf!
You are THE MAN! 😀 So funny. Loved it! ❤ pic.twitter.com/lzozEpECNO
— David Brückner 📹@GamesCom (@ghostpictures) March 6, 2018
I had a great time watching it, even though it was bad… and very flawed at times. The silver lining here is that the director, cast and crew were all genuinely involved in the film and tried their best. I applaud the effort despite the fact that the final product fell a bit short of the mark. The whole idea of a werewolf as a military weapon isn’t that crazy…. okay, maybe it is, but it’s a fun idea to launch a story. Aren’t all stories really just “what ifs?”
Bottom Line: Iron Wolf has a 2.5/10 rating on IMDb, but director David Brückner’s 2018 film Paranormal Demons has an 8.1/10 rating. I’m not really a big fan of horror, but I’m curious to pick it up and see his craft five years later.
Darkest Hour tells the story of how Winston Churchill came to be British Prime Minister at the height of WWII. I found the story quite fascinating as it’s not one that I had ever heard. I don’t think that British politics and British history were really taught in Canadian high schools, so it was interesting to learn of Churchill’s path to the Prime Minister’s office.
Darkest Hour was up for several Oscars, winning for Best Achievement in Makeup and Hairstyling and Gary Oldman took home the Lead Actor award, the film was nominated for Best Picture, Cinematography, Costume Design and Production design. Oldman certainly delivered an excellent performance, while heavily made-up to look hauntingly like Churchill. That Makeup and Hairstyling award was very well earned, but sometimes I’m torn when someone wins an award for playing the part of a real person, especially a famous historical figure. When the audience is familiar with the person there is an expectation of what the performance should bring. We know what Churchill is supposed to look like, how he should walk and how he should talk. Is there much room for interpretation by the artist? We would cry foul if Churchill all of a sudden spoke with a French accent or only spoke in rhyme or something else completely and ridiculously “non-Churchill”. When playing a figure like that, does the artist just have to follow the template? Oldman’s Churchill was believable to me, and he brought great emotion to the role, and I suppose that’s what any award is recognizing in a way.
The rest of the cast was very good as well, though I didn’t really know the significance or the true roles played by some of the political figures. I don’t know if Lily James’ secretary character was real, a combination of several real people who surrounded Churchill, or completely fabricated for the film, but I felt she gave an excellent performance as well. Overall the film was good, and I enjoyed the story. It was obviously quite serious but it managed to mix in some humour, and at the end some fairly emotional and heartfelt scenes. The pace was a little slow, which is kind of to be expected with the dry subject matter it was covering, but the end result was worth the wait.
Bottom Line: Spoiler alert: WWII? We win.
This may have been the quirkiest film I’ve seen in quite a while. It wasn’t exactly as advertised, but it paid off in the end.
Gunther is the world’s greatest assassin, so to make a name for themselves, a group of assassins sets out to assassinate him, but their plans turn into a series of bungled encounters as Gunther seems to always be one step ahead. The story is told as a mockumentary, which wasn’t exactly what I expected, but the format helped to cleverly mask the low budget of the film.
Killing Gunther was funny enough, and there was enough light action to carry the story but it didn’t really get going until Gunther (Schwarzenegger) made his eventual appearance. This is the value a true star can bring to your film. He wasn’t wasted, and his performance did elevate that of the entire cast, but it took a bit too long to get to him. I liked Schwarzenegger in this one because it seemed like he was there to have fun, and just make a fun little film…with assassinations. Unfortunately the shooting style can turn off some, and the fact that Arnold isn’t seen until the last third of the movie makes the wait a little tedious at times.
Bottom Line: As long as you don’t go into this thinking it’s a Schwarzenegger film, you should be okay. Don’t have super high expectations and you can enjoy a quirky little bit of cinema.
I love Noomi Rapace, and will watch anything with her in it. When I heard about 7 Sisters, it immediately piqued my interest.
7 Sisters was very good, but immediately comparisons were made to Orphan Black, simply because you have one actress playing multiple roles. In Orphan Black, Tatiana Maslany played more than 10 different characters/clones over the show’s run, in 7 Sisters, Noomi Rapace plays septuplets in a mild dystopian future. The planet was getting overpopulated, so a one child policy was put in place. When anyone has more than one child, the extra siblings are taken by the government and put into a deep sleep until a time that the planet can sustain the population. When his daughter dies giving birth to septuplets, Terrence Settman (Willem Dafoe) hides the children in his apartment, constructing hidden rooms and false walls to conceal the girls in case of government searches. When they are old enough, he allows the girls to go outside, one day a week. Though they are all registered under the name of Karen Settman, they each are named after a different day of the week, and that is the day they can go out, and live the life of “Karen”. All goes well until of course one day “Monday” doesn’t come home from work. Now the sisters have to work together to find their sister while avoiding detection…
Rapace makes the film with her multiple performances, but everyone shone. Willem DaFoe who was shown mostly in flashbacks was a treat and gave the film an extra sense of validation. Glenn Close played the government official who instituted the one child policy and ran the department that dealt with “extra” children. She was deliciously evil as the antagonist because she didn’t think what she was doing was evil. As I said though, Noomi Rapace was the best part of this film. Each sister had a very distinct personality and it was fun to watch her bring each “day” to life.
This was an exciting, thrilling film. There was lots of action; with fights and chases mixed in throughout the film all while the sisters got closer and closer to Monday. I really enjoyed the movie, mostly because of the cast, but also because the story was an excellent little taste of sci-fi. The only thing that disappointed me was that the Blu Ray didn’t have any special features. I thought that a film as ambitious as this; having one actress play seven characters, often sharing screen time; would have had some very interesting “behind the scenes” story, and I wanted more once the film was done.
Bottom Line: If you’re as big a fan of Noomie Rapace as I am, may I also highly recommend the original Girl With The Dragon Tattoo films and Unlocked? Also, the original title for 7 Sisters was What Happened to Monday. While I like the sound of that title a lot more, I guess it could be a little spoiler-ish, so I can see why they changed it.
An excellent action-thriller that hit all the right notes.
Jackie Chan plays Quan, a father whose daughter is killed in an terrorist explosion in London. A faction of the IRA is claiming responsibility, but the authorities are having no luck tracking them down. When Chan learns that the Northern Ireland deputy First Minister, Liam Hennessy (Pierce Brosnan), had past ties to the IRA and might know how to catch the bombers, he presses the man relentlessly for information about the killers, information he insists he doesn’t have. Quan doesn’t believe him, and for good reason. Hennessy is busy tracking down the bombers himself because he doesn’t just have past ties to the IRA, he has active ties too that actually didn’t seem to have anything to do with this particular bombing.
I think I first saw the trailer for The Foreigner in October last year, and was rather upset that it didn’t play in cinemas around my home. Though this isn’t necessarily one of the huge blockbusters that I usually deem theatre worthy, I really did want to see it and would have gone to see it in theatres. Several months later it came out on DVD and I watched it (and yes, I know, several more months later I’m actually reviewing it).
Jackie Chan was absolutely excellent. He played the role very seriously, as did everyone else, but there was no comedy on his part in this performance, which is something he is know for bringing into his films. Even in the most serious action scene there is usually some funny spot in his films, but this time he played the part of a 65 year old man, who was mourning the loss of his daughter and he wanted to do something about it. Chan played serious as I said, but he also “acted his age”. Quan is a seasoned former black-ops type soldier, so he clearly has lethal skills but they aren’t as polished as they once were. He now fights like a older man, he is not as fast, not as strong, but his training makes him just as effective and I thought made the film more believable. Yes, Chan still got in a few of his “signature moves”; in most of his movies that I’ve seen when someone attacks him with a knife, he pulls off his jacket or grabs a towel or something and twists and ties up the attacker’s arms, dodging the attack and looking pretty cool at the same time. He does that in The Foreigner too, but he does it slower, and clumsier than in his other films. Pierce Brosnan was also excellent and at times just as brutal, taking his own brand of justice into his own hands, on the good guys, on the bad guys, on his friends and even on his own family. A very clever thriller, and at times a brutally honest revenge film.
Bottom Line: I like the serious Jackie Chan.
Wow, I haven’t posted anything since February? Okay, I get it, I’m really behind in my reviews, and I did see Thor in theatres… back in probably December… It was great! I loved it. There was maybe a bit too much humour to it for some, but I still loved it.
Now, there were lots of trailers, and lots of clips, I have to say that Marvel knows how to put those together. The trailers left me wanting more and put more questions in my mind as to how things got to where they were, even though the trailer pretty much plays out the same order of events as they happen in the film.
Thor returns to Asgard with the helm/skull of Surtur, a fire demon who according to prophecy will bring about Ragnarok, the Asgardian apocalypse. With Surtur defeated, Thor sets about finding his father Odin, who Loki hypnotized and left on Earth at the end of Thor 2: The Dark World. At least that’s what I think happened, I can’t honestly remember, as it’s been quite a while since I saw that one. All I know is that Loki (Tom Hiddleston) took the throne, impersonating Odin (Anthony Hopkins). Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has figured this out, and once he publicly unmasks Loki, the two brothers set off to find their father, making a side trip to the Sanctum Sanctorum where Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) sends Thor and Loki to Odin. Nice bits of comedy here, and nice to see Doctor Strange, but the scene really just seemed like an extension of the “after the credits scene” from his own movie. The sons of Odin meet up with Odin in Norway one last time, as he surrenders his life force and moves on, freeing his trapped first born child, Hela, the Goddess of Death (Cate Blanchett) who breaks Thor’s hammer (as we saw in the trailers) and sends he and Loki through space via the Bifrost, where they become trapped on a planet run by the Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum). Loki arrived several weeks earlier than Thor and has aligned himself with the Grandmaster, leaving to be captured by a woman known as “Scrapper 142” (Tessa Thompson) to be thrown into the arena to fight for the Grandmaster’s amusement. Thor’s first opponent is the reigning champion, the incredible… Hulk (Mark Ruffalo). Fighting and fun, the two heroes eventually bury their differences and escape the planet with Loki and Scrapper 142, who is in fact an Asgardian Valkyrie. Returning to Asgard to stop Hela who has killed and enslaved much of the population, Thor and his team set out to free their people, but can the Prince of Asgard win without his hammer?
Okay, that was a rather long-winded summary, and I left out a lot of key things. The story was great fun, and it was full of great comic-book action. It worked in a lot of great new characters from the comics, and I think it laid some very important groundwork for Avengers Infinity War, and the future of the entire MCU. The scene after the credits leads directly to the opening scene of Infinity War (I know because I saw it the other day).
As I mentioned earlier, there was a lot of humour in the film. I personally loved it, but I can see where some fans of comic book movies might be a little put off by it. Thor Ragnarok still had some rather serious plot points and undertones, but I think director Taika Waititi (What We Do In The Shadows, Flight of the Conchords) balanced the humour and the darkness masterfully. I think that is something that Marvel does better than DC does in their movies, and that can be very divisive in the comic book and comic book movie fandoms. I like my heroes to be powerful and fun, not dark and brooding all the time, but that’s just me. To each their own. Check it out, it was fun.
Bottom Line: My favourite Marvel movie was the first Thor for the longest time, but then Doctor Strange came out quickly becoming my favourite, but now….Ragnarok may have put Thor back into first place again….at least until there’s a Doctor Strange 2…
I think Atomic Blonde was a little over-hyped, and that was the beginning of its downfall for me. I thought it was too stylish, and too concerned with the perfect “cool” shot than advancing the story. It is entirely possible that I’m a little jaded though. To me it was built up to be the next great spy film, and the titular Atomic Blonde was to be a “female James Bond”, but it just seemed too artsy to be a great spy film. It was entertaining, and there were things I enjoyed, but there were things that just frustrated me and kept me from loving this film the way I thought I was told to.
Set in the Cold War against the backdrop of the Berlin Wall, Charlize Theron plays Lorraine Broughton, an undercover MI6 agent sent to investigate the murder of a fellow agent named Gascione and recover a missing list of double agents. In Berlin she meets up with David Percival (James McAvoy), the lead field agent to try and recover the list of agents, and to discover the mole or double agent (code named “Satchel”) in their midst. The film is sort of told in reverse, which is a style I don’t really like for these sorts of stories. We open on Lorraine in London, being brought in for debriefing by MI6 after the mission in Berlin. After we’re quickly introduced to the principal players, we know that Satchel is going to be A or B, but I did have doubts for a minute that it may have been C….literally “C”, as in Chief “C” played by James Faulkner. Then we get the debriefing and the main story is told essentially in flashback. My problem with this style of storytelling for this sort of movie is that we now know Lorraine will not die during the course of the adventure. Sure, enjoyment can be found in the ride but the element of surprise and suspense is kind of ruined.
For a film that was touted as being a great and revolutionary action film, I didn’t really find it to have that much action. Sure there were fight scenes and they were fairly realistic; in so much that people got hurt and weren’t invincible; but there were great lulls too and the great action sequences I thought I was promised took far too long to be realized. There was a “long cut” fight, as those have become really popular all of a sudden, and it was cool, but I couldn’t help but think that it was just there to force the “coolness” and the style of the film.
There were positives and it was entertaining, but there were just too many clichés for me by the time the film ended, like the French spy. She was way too cliché as the love struck, doe eyed rookie, who’s in over her head. The film did do a decent job with it’s switchero, but it was still a little obvious who Satchel was. I suppose the worst thing was that the film wasn’t overly original for something that was seemingly being hyped up as a new leader in the genre. I didn’t really care about Lorraine’s character, partially because she didn’t seem developed or overly interesting, and partially because I knew she’d make to the end of the film.
I don’t know if I’m the only one who does this, but when I get frustrated with a movie I start to look for plot holes and more ways to not the film. I started to get that way with Atomic Blonde. My biggest problem was that with this flurry of agents from all sides trying to get the mythical “list” and figure out who Satchel is, they overlook that there are people who know who Satchel is. Gascione, Percivale, and Spyglass have all had the list at some point. Percivale has definitely read it, Spyglass has it memorized, so logically, all three of them know who Satchel is, but none of them call it in? Anyway, the movie was entertaining, it was actually pretty good, but it wasn’t great like I was led to believe it would have been.
Bottom Line: The most disgusting part of the movie happens in the very beginning. Lorraine is soaking her injuries in a bathtub full of ice before going to her debriefing. She gets out of the tub, pours a drink and adds some icecubes to it before drinking. THOSE ICECUBES CAME FROM THE DIRTY TUB WATER SHE WAS SOAKING HER BLOODY, DIRTY BRUISES IN!
Wind River was written and directed by Taylor Sheridan who also wrote Sicario and Hell or High Water and was a very enjoyable movie. I was about to say it was a good mystery thriller, but it really isn’t a mystery. True, we don’t know “whodunit” but we’re led there through the course of the investigation step by step. It was a good crime thriller. I liked the cast, and I liked the story behind it all. It had the “fish out of water” idea, the rookie cop, the guy who helps the cops who can act outside the law. Lots of tropes, but still everything clicked.
I really liked the cast, and that was what initially drew me to Wind River. I’ve been an Elizabeth Olsen fan for some time now and again was quite impressed. The story was excellent hitting emotional and suspenseful notes equally well. Jeremy Renner was also good, and it was interesting to see the two interact with each other while not playing their MCU characters (Scarlet Witch and Hawkeye if you will).
When a young woman is found dead (and probably murdered) on the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming, young FBI Agent Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen) from the Las Vegas field office is sent to investigate. Not familiar with the territory or the people she asks Fish and Wildlife Service agent and game tracker Cory Lambert (Jeremy Renner), who is accepted by the locals, to help her navigate the snowy terrain and the distrust of the locals. Banner also works closely with the local sheriff Ben (Graham Greene). The plot unfolds and we learn how the girl met her fate, and that she was best friends with Lambert’s own daughter who also died. The film shines a light on many of the darker aspects of reservation life, such as rampant violence, drug use, depression and of course the many, many unsolved cases of missing women. It is a sobering look, and one that draws you into the film at every turn.
I enjoyed the way the film played out, how the case was solved, who did it, and how they paid for their crime. At first I thought they were going to go a much different way with that payment…. I really thought Lambert was going to leave him to the mountain lion, but the way they did it was definitely satisfying. …A very good film all around, and even though it is full of tragedy it has a satisfying payoff.
Bottom Line: Graham Greene is a great actor, he’s been in such works as Green Mile, Dances With Wolves, and he played Mr. Crabby Tree on The Adventures of Dudley the Dragon…