James P. Sumner

TV and Movie Lover, Bestselling Author

Male

Stockport, United Kingdom

04. July

Joined: Jun 4, 2019

*International bestselling author
*Movie buff
*TV lover
*Comic book geek

http://www.jamespsumner.com

Interests

Comics & Graphic Novels

Last Rated Items

Badge collection

Movie Reviewer

Earned at Jun 5, 2019, 12:53:31 AM
Active

Smashbomb Expert

Earned at Oct 10, 2019, 9:41:33 PM

Movie Reporter

Earned at Aug 7, 2019, 9:58:48 PM

TV Reviewer

Earned at Jul 1, 2019, 5:32:49 PM

Lists

Kudos (1)
Movie Reviews

Updated 21 Oct, 2019 11:45 AM

17 items
Movies

Show Filters Filter Applied Reset Filter

Post Type

Posts only

Reviews only

Questions only

Videos only

Favorites only

Hidden Post

Archived Post

James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Zombieland: Double Tap (2019) in Movies

Oct 21, 2019

Zombieland: Double Tap (2019)

2019 | Action, Comedy, Horror

7.5

(50 Ratings)

Movie Rating Watch

The best Zom-com since its predecessor!

When "Zombieland (2009)" first came out, I was sceptical about it, as it looked like it would be nothing but a gore-fest packed with silly and cringe-worthy cheap laughs. But then it started and 'For Whom The Bell Tolls' began playing and I knew I was in for a treat!

Fast-forward a decade, and I entered "Zombieland: Double Tap (2019)" with similar scepticism. I was concerned the studios were going to take what had become a modern classic and simply rehash it in a poor attempt to cash in on its previous success. But then it started and 'Master of Puppets' began playing and I knew I was in for a treat!

Picking up seamlessly where the first one left off, both in terms of story and tone, Double Tap begins with the our group of heroes approaching the White House, which they decide is a good place to lay down some roots in the post-apocalyptic, zombie-infested world they find themselves in.

It isn't long before the youngest member of the group, Little Rock, tires of their attempt at normality, desperate for interaction with any survivors her own age. After Wichita and Columbus fall out, the sisters take off, prompting a road trip for Tallahassee and Columbus to bring them back.

This is a masterclass in how a comedy movie should be executed. Laughs are frequent but not forced. The script is well-written and packed with the same sharp, witty dialogue found in its predecessor. And it manages to maintain its pacing for the duration - something few films can pull off. Too often, comedy films start off with an hilarious first act, but then runs out of steam by Act 2 before ruining the final act by trying to be too serious.

Yes, I'm looking at you "Baywatch (2017)"!

But Double Tap doesn't suffer from any of that. It retains the heart that made it stand out the first time around, whilst building on the laughs and relationships between the characters.

I found this film a little more meta than I remember the first one being. Lots of references to Zombie pop culture, like "The Walking Dead" and "Dawn of the Dead" - both of which Columbus refers to as unrealistic, which is ironically funny.

Of course, being a sequel, you need to introduce some new faces. The first one is Madison, played brilliantly by the beautiful Zoey Deutch. When the airhead blonde stereotype first appears, you immediately cringe and worry she's going to be the annoying tag-along that hopefully dies... yet the character is written in such a way that she effortlessly fits into the group and quickly becomes a likeable addition.

Next is Nevada, portrayed by the ever-reliable Rosario Dawson. She's a hard-hitting, Zombie-killing, Elvis-loving beauty who is an immediate and obvious match for Tallahassee.

And speaking of him, Woody Harrelson again steals the show with his incredibly funny, heart-warming and cringe-inducing turn as the violent Redneck. His lines are hilarious, even when they're not meant to be, and they're delivered inch-perfect every time.

The soundtrack is spot-on, and the visuals fit the type of movie this is trying to be. Overall, this film is a real treat. It flies by, provides many, many laughs, and also tugs on the heart strings just a little bit. It has everything that made the first one great, and it adds just enough to make this feel like more than just a remake.

Oh, and without spoiling things, it ain't over 'til the credits stop rolling... just saying! :-)

Not to be missed!

Kudos (1)

James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Official Secrets (2019) in Movies

Oct 16, 2019

Official Secrets (2019)

2019 | Biography, Drama, Thriller

8.0

(5 Ratings)

Movie Rating

Should this tense, dramatic thriller remain a Secret?

I was lucky enough to be invited to an advanced screening of this film, ahead of it's general release.

"Official Secrets (2019)" is a tense and clever thriller based on real events that occurred during the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003. Keira Knightley plays Katherine Gun, a British spy-turned-whistleblower who worked for GCHQ at the time. She leaked confidential information to the press, exposing illegal activities at the highest levels of government intended to falsely justify the invasion of Iraq. Backed by a high-calibre support cast, which includes Matt Smith and Ralph Fiennes, this film serves to show you the true story of what happened during this shadowy and questionable chapter in our history.

The film uses actual news footage from the time to great effect, making you feel as if you're watching a biographical documentary on the History Channel. Knightley is captivating as the Robin Hood-esque lead, delivering a truly believable and heartfelt performance throughout. It wasn't until the credits began to roll and they showed you footage of the real Katherine Gun from news reels at the time that you realise just how good Knightley's performance really was. From the way she dressed to the tone in which she spoke and the small mannerisms of her personality, it was a very, very good portrayal.

As with most films like this, I imagine certain events and aspects of the story were dramatised or exaggerated for the purposes of cinema, but at no point did it ever feel like it. Any changes to real events were subtle enough that you couldn't spot them without detailed knowledge of what really happened at the time - something, it turns out, very few people actually had.

Matt Smith is both charming and uncompromising as the stubborn reporter who champions Gun's crusade for the truth, giving her support and a platform to get her message out to the world. Similarly, Ralph Fiennes looks right at home as the lawyer who defends her in the public eye.

I admit that certain aspects and legalities within the plot felt, at times, a little far-fetched, but honestly, the film did such a good job of telling this story, I'm inclined to think that's still how things actually happened.

Spoilers aren't as much of an issue for films like this, as you already know the outcome. But this film isn't about the destination, it's about the journey. It shines a spotlight on the down-and-dirty world of global politics, as well as how difficult it can sometimes be to choose to do the right thing.

The film moves along at a slow yet perfect pace. It doesn't look or feel like a Hollywood movie, which I think is a very good thing. Instead, it feels like a BBC drama, similar to Line of Duty or Luther or Spooks, and that's exactly the kind of approach this film needed to work.

I went into this admittedly understanding very little of what went on back in 2003. I was much younger and wasn't interested in geopolitics, or even the news in general. But seeing this film piqued my interest, and after a few hours of Googling the events depicted in the film, I'm even more in awe of just how well made this was. Kudos to everyone involved.

My only criticism, if I had to give one, would be the number of times people had to say "Official Secrets Act"... I get that's what the film is about, but it seemed like every character had a quota for the number of times they had to mention it! But that's just nit-picking for nit-picking's sake. This truly is a cracking film. One of the gems of the year that's not to be missed!

Kudos (1)

James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies

Oct 11, 2019

Gemini Man (2019)

2019 | Action, Drama, Sci-Fi

5.8

(33 Ratings)

Movie Rating Watch

Not even two Will Smiths can save it.

"Gemini Man (2019)" is a blend of action, drama, crime and sci-fi, and tells the story of Henry Brogan (portrayed by Will Smith), the world's most renowned assassin who is looking to retire from the government agency he's been working for.

When he finds out his last job wasn't all it seemed, he starts asking questions, which quickly prompts the agency to try and retire him themselves. We know from the trailers that a younger clone of himself is sent to kill him, and so begins a typical cat-and-mouse gunfight across the globe.

*sigh*

I was really disappointed with this film. It had so much potential - a strong lead with great support from Clive Owen (in fine antagonistic form), Benedict Wong (playing another Wong-esque character) and Mary Elizabeth Winstead (in a commanding, if at times a little bland, outing). But even a good turn from Mr. Smith can't stop it from ultimately becoming a victim of its own ambition.

The plot isn't especially original, but has a nice twist to it that sets it apart. However, it loses itself halfway through, becoming convoluted and indecipherable, seemingly even for the cast. Nothing feels like it has any meaning, and the promising start was soon forgotten in favour of one set piece after another.

And speaking of the set pieces, whilst the action and choreography is really good, the scenes with Will Smith vs. Will Smith (both fighting and talking) are ruined by poor CGI. It's too obviously computer-generated. To me, good CGI looks integrated into the real life scenes, but this stands out like a video game. The action scenes in particular are way too fast and unrealistic. It's like they're trying to recreate the gritty, hard-hitting pace and tone of the Bourne films, but end up with The Matrix being playing on fast forward.

Ang Lee is the kind of director who either wins big (see "Life Of Pi (2012)") or loses big (see "Hulk (2003)"). I don't know where the blame lies here. The script wasn't particularly bad. The direction was... okay. But nothing seemed to gel. It had all the right ingredients and should've been great, yet it fails in every aspect.

This could've been one of the year's best blockbusters... sadly, it's a forgettable tale that Will Smith will likely want wiping from his IMDB profile.

Kudos (2)

James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies

Oct 7, 2019

Joker (2019)

2019 | Crime, Drama

8.5

(147 Ratings)

Movie Rating Watch

An unapologetic masterpiece.

I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.

I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.

The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.

A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.

In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".

The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.

Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.

The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.

There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.

However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.

If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.

Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.

So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.

The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.

I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.

For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.

10/10

A quick side note:

The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.