IonicBreezeMachine
Joined May 2020
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings3.9K
IonicBreezeMachine's rating
Reviews1.8K
IonicBreezeMachine's rating
Joanna "Joey" Locke (Daisy Ridley) is a window cleaner working at the tower headquarters of Birtish energy conglomerate Agnian Energy having struggled holding down a stable life after washing out of the army. After her autistic brother Michael (Matthew Tuck) is kicked out of yet another care home, Joey brings him with her to work on the day Agnian CEOs Geoffrey (Rufus Jones) and Gerald Milton (Lee Boardman) are hosting a shareholders meeting highlighting their latest eco initiatives. Joey becomes stranded on a suspended scaffold when eco terrorists led by Marcus Blake (Clive Owen) take over the event with the intention of forcing confessions out of all the high profile Agnian members. As Joey hangs precariously from the edge she has to find a way to save her brother as the already tense situation conceals even more horrifying intentions.
Cleaner comes to us from noted action veteran Martin Campbell and is another entry in Die Hard mold of action films wherein a "blank is seized by an all-star team of terrorists and only one blank can stop them." Despite a time tested setup that's usually reliable for high concept genre fun and a director with a strong pedigree, I'll admit I approached the film with some skepticism as Campbell's had a run of misfires since his last genuinely good film The Foreigner in 2017 (especially with Dirty Angels arguably replacing Campbell's terrible 70s sex comedies as the nadir of his career). While Cleaner is perfectly watchable, it's also a not particularly well written movie where most of the goodwill comes from the acting and directing than from the screenplay.
In terms of leads, Daisy Ridley is more than up to the challenge of doing a movie like this and Joey as a likable hardscrabble protagonist just trying to get by before being thrust into this extraordinary situation. The movie also employees relatively limited CGI (very welcome as anyone who saw Dirty Angels can attest) and with Campbell's gritty and grounded direction there's actually pretty solid impact during the action beats. Honestly it seems like all the pieces are in place for a fun Die Hard clone, but unfortunately the script and its execution of the tropes is where we see some stumbling points. While the trailer implies very heavily that a certain actor will serve as the primary antagonist, the role in actuality is more of an extended cameo and the total screen-time is maybe 10 minutes at most. Admittedly there's a good idea behind the rug pull and the actor who becomes the big bad is pretty decent (you'll most likely recognize him from the live-action One Piece series), but it also feels like a massive waste of one of main actors used to sell it to the audience. But aside from the issue of who isn't in this movie, that's not as grating as who is in the movie.
Joey's brother Michael played by Matthew Tuck is a massively irritating and feels like a remnant of how you'd write neurodivergant characters 15 or 20 years ago in things like Mercury Rising. The exaggerated performance and character isn't helped by some massively misguided dialogue referencing Piers Morgan (in a way that reminded me of John Bradley from Moonfall) or The Avengers because of the character's "quirk" of carrying a plastic Thor hammer. But I think the biggest issue probably comes from the pacing of the movie with the building takeover happening about 30 minutes into the movie while Joey doesn't actually enter the building until the 60 minute mark in an 88 minute movie not including credits.
Cleaner has the feeling of disposable action fodder but its direction and the majority of its cast help elevate it to watchable. While there have been better Die Hard clones, I've also seen worse ones such as SAS: Red Notice, The Doorman, or Skyscraper this at least feels like it has some resources and craft it can boast even if it's in service of not particularly good material.
Cleaner comes to us from noted action veteran Martin Campbell and is another entry in Die Hard mold of action films wherein a "blank is seized by an all-star team of terrorists and only one blank can stop them." Despite a time tested setup that's usually reliable for high concept genre fun and a director with a strong pedigree, I'll admit I approached the film with some skepticism as Campbell's had a run of misfires since his last genuinely good film The Foreigner in 2017 (especially with Dirty Angels arguably replacing Campbell's terrible 70s sex comedies as the nadir of his career). While Cleaner is perfectly watchable, it's also a not particularly well written movie where most of the goodwill comes from the acting and directing than from the screenplay.
In terms of leads, Daisy Ridley is more than up to the challenge of doing a movie like this and Joey as a likable hardscrabble protagonist just trying to get by before being thrust into this extraordinary situation. The movie also employees relatively limited CGI (very welcome as anyone who saw Dirty Angels can attest) and with Campbell's gritty and grounded direction there's actually pretty solid impact during the action beats. Honestly it seems like all the pieces are in place for a fun Die Hard clone, but unfortunately the script and its execution of the tropes is where we see some stumbling points. While the trailer implies very heavily that a certain actor will serve as the primary antagonist, the role in actuality is more of an extended cameo and the total screen-time is maybe 10 minutes at most. Admittedly there's a good idea behind the rug pull and the actor who becomes the big bad is pretty decent (you'll most likely recognize him from the live-action One Piece series), but it also feels like a massive waste of one of main actors used to sell it to the audience. But aside from the issue of who isn't in this movie, that's not as grating as who is in the movie.
Joey's brother Michael played by Matthew Tuck is a massively irritating and feels like a remnant of how you'd write neurodivergant characters 15 or 20 years ago in things like Mercury Rising. The exaggerated performance and character isn't helped by some massively misguided dialogue referencing Piers Morgan (in a way that reminded me of John Bradley from Moonfall) or The Avengers because of the character's "quirk" of carrying a plastic Thor hammer. But I think the biggest issue probably comes from the pacing of the movie with the building takeover happening about 30 minutes into the movie while Joey doesn't actually enter the building until the 60 minute mark in an 88 minute movie not including credits.
Cleaner has the feeling of disposable action fodder but its direction and the majority of its cast help elevate it to watchable. While there have been better Die Hard clones, I've also seen worse ones such as SAS: Red Notice, The Doorman, or Skyscraper this at least feels like it has some resources and craft it can boast even if it's in service of not particularly good material.
Set in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Marvin Gable (Ke Huy Quan) is seemingly a successful realtor who will help you find your dream home. However, following an encounter with an assassin known as the Raven (Mustafa Shakir), Marvin finds his new life under threat from his old one as the re-emergence of his last kill, Rose (Ariana DeBose), whom he didn't actually kill puts him on a collision course with his estranged gangster brother Alvin "Knuckles" Gable (Daniel Wu).
Love Hurts is the latest genre film from 87North Productions, better known for their production of the John Wick series of films that helped redefine modern action cinema. The film marks Ke Huy Quan's first lead role following his Oscar winning comeback in Everything Everywhere All at Once and while I think Quan is perfectly capable of headlining a film like this, I just wish it were a more interesting one.
While Quan doesn't have the richest role as Marvin, I will say that there is sort of a meek charm at watching this small unassuming realtor unleash martial arts fury upon hoards of would be assassins. If Jackie Chan (at his peak anyway) could be described as Buster Keaton with martial arts, Quan's style is more akin to Harold Lloyd where there's a bit more of an edge to the disaster prone hi-jinks. Honestly during the opening 20 minutes I didn't really understand why the movie had been so panned by critics as some of the physical comedy seemed on point and the fight scenes had the typical 87North quality....but then the movie started to lose me. Running at only 87 minutes long the movie isn't unaware of what it is and gets right to the point, but that's kind of part of the problem as there isn't a lot of time spent developing character or setting up the circumstances.
When you compare Love Hurts to 87North's other comedic action film Nobody which had a solid and efficient first act establishing the mid-life stagnation of Bob Odenkirk's character that set up effective contrast to the more outlandish elements later on, Love Hurts dives in way too fast and we don't really get a chance to know the characters beyond the surface level. The movie encounters further issues with Ariana DeBose' Rose and the actions taken by her character which the movie tries to frame as being for Marvin's benefit but because we never took time to establish Marvin's life we don't know that and it seems like she's nuking his new life because "why not?". The movie per its title also tries to paint itself as a romantic unconventional Valentine's Day film clunkily establishing a romance between Marvin and Rose along with Marshawn Lynch's King and Andre Erisken's Otis discussing marital problems or Marvin secretary Ashley played by Lio Tipton falling for poetic assassin Raven played by Mustafa Shakir and while occasionally there's a sequence that works, most of it just feels limp especially in comparison to 87North's The Fall Guy which mixed action and romantic comedy much more effectively. Even the usually reliable fight work loses integrity in the final act as there's a disappointing number of cuts and close-up shots that make the final fight so underwhelming.
Love Hurts isn't without some charms (most of them courtesy of Quan), but the film never fully comes together in alive in a way the marketing promises and it feels like a half-hearted remix of prior 87North productions that did similar things much more successfully. Quan's more than capable of headlining a film like this, I just wish the film itself were better.
Love Hurts is the latest genre film from 87North Productions, better known for their production of the John Wick series of films that helped redefine modern action cinema. The film marks Ke Huy Quan's first lead role following his Oscar winning comeback in Everything Everywhere All at Once and while I think Quan is perfectly capable of headlining a film like this, I just wish it were a more interesting one.
While Quan doesn't have the richest role as Marvin, I will say that there is sort of a meek charm at watching this small unassuming realtor unleash martial arts fury upon hoards of would be assassins. If Jackie Chan (at his peak anyway) could be described as Buster Keaton with martial arts, Quan's style is more akin to Harold Lloyd where there's a bit more of an edge to the disaster prone hi-jinks. Honestly during the opening 20 minutes I didn't really understand why the movie had been so panned by critics as some of the physical comedy seemed on point and the fight scenes had the typical 87North quality....but then the movie started to lose me. Running at only 87 minutes long the movie isn't unaware of what it is and gets right to the point, but that's kind of part of the problem as there isn't a lot of time spent developing character or setting up the circumstances.
When you compare Love Hurts to 87North's other comedic action film Nobody which had a solid and efficient first act establishing the mid-life stagnation of Bob Odenkirk's character that set up effective contrast to the more outlandish elements later on, Love Hurts dives in way too fast and we don't really get a chance to know the characters beyond the surface level. The movie encounters further issues with Ariana DeBose' Rose and the actions taken by her character which the movie tries to frame as being for Marvin's benefit but because we never took time to establish Marvin's life we don't know that and it seems like she's nuking his new life because "why not?". The movie per its title also tries to paint itself as a romantic unconventional Valentine's Day film clunkily establishing a romance between Marvin and Rose along with Marshawn Lynch's King and Andre Erisken's Otis discussing marital problems or Marvin secretary Ashley played by Lio Tipton falling for poetic assassin Raven played by Mustafa Shakir and while occasionally there's a sequence that works, most of it just feels limp especially in comparison to 87North's The Fall Guy which mixed action and romantic comedy much more effectively. Even the usually reliable fight work loses integrity in the final act as there's a disappointing number of cuts and close-up shots that make the final fight so underwhelming.
Love Hurts isn't without some charms (most of them courtesy of Quan), but the film never fully comes together in alive in a way the marketing promises and it feels like a half-hearted remix of prior 87North productions that did similar things much more successfully. Quan's more than capable of headlining a film like this, I just wish the film itself were better.
In 1862, widowed English schoolteacher Anna Leonowens (Miranda Richardson)and her son Louis (Adam Wylie) move to Siam where Anna has accepted a position with King Mongkut (Martin Vidnovic) to educate his children. Anna maintains a steadfast composure always bluntly delivering the truth as Mongkut despite voicing his intentions to modernize Siam on the world stage adheres to the notion that he as King be absolute in his authority and position. Meanwhile, Kralahome (Ian Richardson), the King's Prime Minister and his diminutive assistant Master Little (Darrell Hammond) conspire to use Anna's arrival to paint the King as a barbarian and entice the British government to remove him from power turning Siam into a protectorate with Kralahome as the new king. As this is happening Prince Chulalongkorn (Allen D. Hong) falls in love with Tuptim (Armi Arabe), a servant girl gifted from Burma despite such love being forbidden.
The King and I is a 1999 animated musical loosely adapted from the Rodgers and Hammerstein 1951 stage musical of the same name, which itself had been previously adapted to critical and commercial success in 1956. Following a successful revival of the musical on Broadway fronted by Lou Diamond Phillips, this led Arthur Rankin to approach Warner Bros. About adapting the story to animation. As Warner Bros. Was busy with their own projects Morgan Creek ended up taking on the project and hired Nest Entertainment and director Richard Rich to do the animation as the two had been behind the theatrically unsuccessful but home video hit The Swan Princess. Quest for Camelot writers David Seidler and Jacqueline Feather were hired to write the film and make changes for accessibility and "family viewing" with the Rodgers and Hammerstein estate signing off on the changes believing that despite the risk it could potentially introduce a new generation of children to the show who otherwise might not be interested. Upon release the film was panned by critics who negatively compared it to the 1956 original and felt the new additions shaped after trends in modern animated films served as a hindrance rather than an asset. The film was also a financial failure earning $12 million against a $25 million budget. There's certainly room for discussion on whether an animated adaptation of The King and I would've worked, but regardless of your thoughts on either the Broadway show or 1956 film the 1999 version is a mess (albeit one with fleeting moments of craft).
From the opening sequence that features Louis on the side of a clumsily 3D rendered boat trying to rescue his pet monkey sidekick in a storm (as you do) it becomes rather painfully clear that something has gone horribly wrong in the translation process to animation. Featuring a ridiculous sequence where Kralahome (who's now a crude mixture of Scar and Jaffar) summons an illusion of a dragon that prompts the entire crew into "I Whistle a Happy Tune" to chase the illusion away, it very much feels like the staff were given a directive to take as many Disney Renaissance tropes as they could find and clumsily shoehorn them into place regardless of whether or not they actually fit. Often times, it feels like the new additions overshadow the original material with an inordinate amount of focus given to Louis' pet monkey, the king's Pet panther Rama, Tuptim's baby elephant, or Kralahome's obnoxious (and borderline racist) sidekick master little who has a bizarre running gag of his teeth falling out. The movie does a poorer job of establishing its characters this time around as they often feel pushed to the background because the movie wants to focus more on its obnoxious side characters. The movie also massively downplays elements of the original story like Mongkut being a polygamist and the number of children he has seems to have been reduced for that point as well and it just feels like a lot of work to downplay something for no logical reason. As fanciful as Anastasia got with its story at least it didn't shy away from the details (albeit with some fast/loose additions like the Rasputin thing) and had an internal logic to its story. I will at least say the animation can sometimes be reasonably impressive, strange coloring and poorly integrating 3D assets notwithstanding and it's just a shame it's in service of such a stupid story.
If you didn't like the original King and I this will do nothing for you as it adds in a whole host of ill adivsed additions and reductions that are just baffling. If you however did like The King and I you may get a cheap laugh at seeing how butchered and nonsensical it's been rendered by going through the dumbest machine of executives and marketing hacks in the industry who thought "how can we make this appeal to today's youth?" rather than "how can we make this good?".
The King and I is a 1999 animated musical loosely adapted from the Rodgers and Hammerstein 1951 stage musical of the same name, which itself had been previously adapted to critical and commercial success in 1956. Following a successful revival of the musical on Broadway fronted by Lou Diamond Phillips, this led Arthur Rankin to approach Warner Bros. About adapting the story to animation. As Warner Bros. Was busy with their own projects Morgan Creek ended up taking on the project and hired Nest Entertainment and director Richard Rich to do the animation as the two had been behind the theatrically unsuccessful but home video hit The Swan Princess. Quest for Camelot writers David Seidler and Jacqueline Feather were hired to write the film and make changes for accessibility and "family viewing" with the Rodgers and Hammerstein estate signing off on the changes believing that despite the risk it could potentially introduce a new generation of children to the show who otherwise might not be interested. Upon release the film was panned by critics who negatively compared it to the 1956 original and felt the new additions shaped after trends in modern animated films served as a hindrance rather than an asset. The film was also a financial failure earning $12 million against a $25 million budget. There's certainly room for discussion on whether an animated adaptation of The King and I would've worked, but regardless of your thoughts on either the Broadway show or 1956 film the 1999 version is a mess (albeit one with fleeting moments of craft).
From the opening sequence that features Louis on the side of a clumsily 3D rendered boat trying to rescue his pet monkey sidekick in a storm (as you do) it becomes rather painfully clear that something has gone horribly wrong in the translation process to animation. Featuring a ridiculous sequence where Kralahome (who's now a crude mixture of Scar and Jaffar) summons an illusion of a dragon that prompts the entire crew into "I Whistle a Happy Tune" to chase the illusion away, it very much feels like the staff were given a directive to take as many Disney Renaissance tropes as they could find and clumsily shoehorn them into place regardless of whether or not they actually fit. Often times, it feels like the new additions overshadow the original material with an inordinate amount of focus given to Louis' pet monkey, the king's Pet panther Rama, Tuptim's baby elephant, or Kralahome's obnoxious (and borderline racist) sidekick master little who has a bizarre running gag of his teeth falling out. The movie does a poorer job of establishing its characters this time around as they often feel pushed to the background because the movie wants to focus more on its obnoxious side characters. The movie also massively downplays elements of the original story like Mongkut being a polygamist and the number of children he has seems to have been reduced for that point as well and it just feels like a lot of work to downplay something for no logical reason. As fanciful as Anastasia got with its story at least it didn't shy away from the details (albeit with some fast/loose additions like the Rasputin thing) and had an internal logic to its story. I will at least say the animation can sometimes be reasonably impressive, strange coloring and poorly integrating 3D assets notwithstanding and it's just a shame it's in service of such a stupid story.
If you didn't like the original King and I this will do nothing for you as it adds in a whole host of ill adivsed additions and reductions that are just baffling. If you however did like The King and I you may get a cheap laugh at seeing how butchered and nonsensical it's been rendered by going through the dumbest machine of executives and marketing hacks in the industry who thought "how can we make this appeal to today's youth?" rather than "how can we make this good?".