Search
Search results
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020 (Updated Nov 1, 2020)
A Really Good Remake
Pet Semetary is a 2019 supernatural horror movie directed by Kevin Kolsch and Dennis Widmyer. The movie was written by Jeff Buhler with screen story by Matt Greenberg. It is a remake/reboot of the original 1989 film adaptation of the 1983 Stephen King novel. Starring Jason Clarke, Amy Seimetz, and John Lithgow.
Moving to the small town of Ludlow, Maine with his family: wife, Rachel (Amy Seimetz), children, Ellie (Jete Laurence) and Gage (Hugo & Lucas Lavoie), and Church, Ellie's cat, Louis Creed takes a job at the university's hospital. Ellie stumbles upon a procession of children, while exploring the nearby woods of their new home, who are taking a dead dog to a pet cemetery. Their neighbor, Jud Crandall (John Lithgow), finds Ellie climbing a large stack of branches forming a wall and warns Rachel and Ellie not to venture out alone as the woods can be dangerous.. The following day, Louis fails to save a student Victor Pascow (Obssa Ahmed) fatally injured from a car accident, and is left shaken. That night Louis meets Pascow in a vivid dream, where he is lead to the pet cemetery and warned not to "venture beyond". When Louis awakens he is disturbed to find his bed sheets and feet, muddy and dirty suggesting his "vision" could be more than just a bad dream.
As far as remakes go this one was really good. Especially for the horror genre. I mean I can't tell you how many remakes/reboots I've seen that just bomb and don't do the original justice. This one however seemed to keep the original in mind, while still making changes to keep it fresh and relatively different. That being said I do feel it was a bit over-hyped and didn't live up to certain expectations. To me it was a very creepy movie and had me wanting to cover my eyes in one part as memories from the original played back in my head. The sounds of the character Rachel's sister calling out to her got goosebumps on my forearms. Those parts were very unsettling to me but I didn't feel enough was "scary". I really enjoyed the twists and changes or differences from the original. They were welcome and kept it from being an exact replica and a copy of the original. As another critic stated, Jeffrey M. Anderson-Common Sense Media, the film was "...effectively unsettling, focusing on the characters and their understandable emotions rather than on overt gore and FX." I give it a 7/10.
Moving to the small town of Ludlow, Maine with his family: wife, Rachel (Amy Seimetz), children, Ellie (Jete Laurence) and Gage (Hugo & Lucas Lavoie), and Church, Ellie's cat, Louis Creed takes a job at the university's hospital. Ellie stumbles upon a procession of children, while exploring the nearby woods of their new home, who are taking a dead dog to a pet cemetery. Their neighbor, Jud Crandall (John Lithgow), finds Ellie climbing a large stack of branches forming a wall and warns Rachel and Ellie not to venture out alone as the woods can be dangerous.. The following day, Louis fails to save a student Victor Pascow (Obssa Ahmed) fatally injured from a car accident, and is left shaken. That night Louis meets Pascow in a vivid dream, where he is lead to the pet cemetery and warned not to "venture beyond". When Louis awakens he is disturbed to find his bed sheets and feet, muddy and dirty suggesting his "vision" could be more than just a bad dream.
As far as remakes go this one was really good. Especially for the horror genre. I mean I can't tell you how many remakes/reboots I've seen that just bomb and don't do the original justice. This one however seemed to keep the original in mind, while still making changes to keep it fresh and relatively different. That being said I do feel it was a bit over-hyped and didn't live up to certain expectations. To me it was a very creepy movie and had me wanting to cover my eyes in one part as memories from the original played back in my head. The sounds of the character Rachel's sister calling out to her got goosebumps on my forearms. Those parts were very unsettling to me but I didn't feel enough was "scary". I really enjoyed the twists and changes or differences from the original. They were welcome and kept it from being an exact replica and a copy of the original. As another critic stated, Jeffrey M. Anderson-Common Sense Media, the film was "...effectively unsettling, focusing on the characters and their understandable emotions rather than on overt gore and FX." I give it a 7/10.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Spies in Disguise (2019) in Movies
Dec 7, 2020
Strong chemistry between Smith and Holland
Blue Sky Animation Studios has often been seen as the "poor little sister" in the animation game - behind Disney/Pixar and Dreamworks - and is often listed as the "Ice Age" studio. But, if you look into their filmography, you will see a solid mark of quality throughout.
This studio has delivered solid animated outings with such fare as ROBOTS, HORTON HEARS A WHO, RIO and FERDINAND (along with the myriad of ICE AGE films) and their latest feature - 2019's SPIES IN DISGUISE - is no exception. I was pleasantly surprised by the fun, action, comedy and suspense of this film and was entertained throughout.
Blue Sky, of course, IS the "poor little sister" to the "Big 2" and it shows in some of their casting choices. Where I thought vocal work was being done by Tina Fey and Holly Hunter, I soon discovered that it is Rachel Brosnahan and Reba Mcintyre - not shabby at all, but not quite the "A" team either (it's like you are listening to the Broadway replacement actors for the Original Cast).
That is probably because they spent all of their casting money on the 2 leads - Will Smith and Tom Holland - and they are TERRIFIC together. Unlike Holland's lackluster (and lack of chemistry) turn with Chris Pratt in the PIXAR film ONWARD, Holland and Smith work well together in this film and I enjoyed their interactions with each other. Of course, Will Smith is in a league of his own when it comes to charming, cocky adventure hero with raw emotions and a soul - and that is EXACTLY what his character is and it works very, very well. Add to that Holland's riff on his Spiderman Peter Parker character - a scientific genius who is socially awkward and we have a fun duo to root for throughout this film.
Other outstanding voice talents in this cast include Masi Oka (who's voice would be terrific in just about ANY animation film), Rashida Jones, Karen Gillen and the always good Ben Mendelsohn as the villain.
Directors Nick Bruno (in his Directorial debut) and Troy Quane (in only his 2nd Animated outing) do a professional job keeping the plot moving, the fun brewing and the plot and action scenes simple and easy to follow (an easy thing to screw up) and this makes SPIES IN DISGUISE a very fun escape for an hour and 42 minutes.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This studio has delivered solid animated outings with such fare as ROBOTS, HORTON HEARS A WHO, RIO and FERDINAND (along with the myriad of ICE AGE films) and their latest feature - 2019's SPIES IN DISGUISE - is no exception. I was pleasantly surprised by the fun, action, comedy and suspense of this film and was entertained throughout.
Blue Sky, of course, IS the "poor little sister" to the "Big 2" and it shows in some of their casting choices. Where I thought vocal work was being done by Tina Fey and Holly Hunter, I soon discovered that it is Rachel Brosnahan and Reba Mcintyre - not shabby at all, but not quite the "A" team either (it's like you are listening to the Broadway replacement actors for the Original Cast).
That is probably because they spent all of their casting money on the 2 leads - Will Smith and Tom Holland - and they are TERRIFIC together. Unlike Holland's lackluster (and lack of chemistry) turn with Chris Pratt in the PIXAR film ONWARD, Holland and Smith work well together in this film and I enjoyed their interactions with each other. Of course, Will Smith is in a league of his own when it comes to charming, cocky adventure hero with raw emotions and a soul - and that is EXACTLY what his character is and it works very, very well. Add to that Holland's riff on his Spiderman Peter Parker character - a scientific genius who is socially awkward and we have a fun duo to root for throughout this film.
Other outstanding voice talents in this cast include Masi Oka (who's voice would be terrific in just about ANY animation film), Rashida Jones, Karen Gillen and the always good Ben Mendelsohn as the villain.
Directors Nick Bruno (in his Directorial debut) and Troy Quane (in only his 2nd Animated outing) do a professional job keeping the plot moving, the fun brewing and the plot and action scenes simple and easy to follow (an easy thing to screw up) and this makes SPIES IN DISGUISE a very fun escape for an hour and 42 minutes.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 8, 2019 (Updated Oct 8, 2019)
Hmm...
A couple of years ago Joaquin Phoenix starred in a movie called You Were Never Really Here. It was directed by Lynne Ramsay and from the trailers looked like it could be something pretty great. Unfortunately when I saw the movie, I felt that it was nothing more than a poor man's Taxi Driver, with the same regurgitated ideas and not much more to say.
Then I saw 2019's Joker.
Let's forget about the incredibly engaging performances and solid technical filmmaking elements in this movie for a minute. And let's forget all of the baggage and background lore that comes with the huge pop culture characters of the Joker, the Wayne family and Gotham City.
Instead, ask yourself this; if this you removed all of the DC elements from this movie, for example Gotham is just NYC, Thomas Wayne is just a rich powerful man running for office and Arthur Fleck is just a random loner with a screw loose, would this movie be remarkable in any way?
Like, overall I enjoyed this movie, but I enjoyed it because it was a version of my favourite fictional character that I hadn't seen before, but it wasn't a story that I haven't seen before outside of a Joker story. I liked the movie because it reminded me HEAVILY of Taxi Driver, which is one of my favourite movies of all time, but I still prefer Taxi Driver.
I can't give the movie a bad review because it was clearly well made by a bunch of very talented people and I did enjoy my time with it, but after reading the intensely positive reviews this thing got at the film festivals I was looking for something more than a story I have seen before done better decades ago.
At the same time though, I am definitely going to need a second viewing. I have hardly stopped thinking and talking about the movie since I seen it and it has led to me writing my first review on this website in 5 months, so there is something to be said about that element of it.
My rating may change after a second viewing, but for now this is an enjoyable retread of a story we have seen before told several times over. Just because you throw a popular comic book character's name over the top of it, is that enough to make it more worthwhile than all of the other Taxi Driver homages we have gotten over the years?
Then I saw 2019's Joker.
Let's forget about the incredibly engaging performances and solid technical filmmaking elements in this movie for a minute. And let's forget all of the baggage and background lore that comes with the huge pop culture characters of the Joker, the Wayne family and Gotham City.
Instead, ask yourself this; if this you removed all of the DC elements from this movie, for example Gotham is just NYC, Thomas Wayne is just a rich powerful man running for office and Arthur Fleck is just a random loner with a screw loose, would this movie be remarkable in any way?
Like, overall I enjoyed this movie, but I enjoyed it because it was a version of my favourite fictional character that I hadn't seen before, but it wasn't a story that I haven't seen before outside of a Joker story. I liked the movie because it reminded me HEAVILY of Taxi Driver, which is one of my favourite movies of all time, but I still prefer Taxi Driver.
I can't give the movie a bad review because it was clearly well made by a bunch of very talented people and I did enjoy my time with it, but after reading the intensely positive reviews this thing got at the film festivals I was looking for something more than a story I have seen before done better decades ago.
At the same time though, I am definitely going to need a second viewing. I have hardly stopped thinking and talking about the movie since I seen it and it has led to me writing my first review on this website in 5 months, so there is something to be said about that element of it.
My rating may change after a second viewing, but for now this is an enjoyable retread of a story we have seen before told several times over. Just because you throw a popular comic book character's name over the top of it, is that enough to make it more worthwhile than all of the other Taxi Driver homages we have gotten over the years?
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
May 17, 2020
Thinly written and directed
A rainy weekend is the perfect time to catch up with films that I meant to see in the Cineplex, but just didn't get around to it. So it was with some excitement that I flipped on the "Women Run The Mafia" movie THE KITCHEN from 2019.
I should have watched 21 BRIDGES.
Based on the DC/VERTIGO graphic novel, THE KITCHEN is set in the late 1970's in NYC and offers up the "what if" scenario of 3 women that take over the Mafia. A pretty interesting premise that could have been the GODFATHER or GOODFELLA's of the day (or...at least...another WIDOWS from 2018), but instead THE KITCHEN falls flat like the all female GHOSTBUSTERS from a few year's ago.
A star of that Ghostbuster's film, Melissa McCarthy leads the cast as Kathy Brennan, the wife of a mobster who was sent to jail and becomes the leader of the group. McCarthy has shown that she has the "chops" as an actress to tackle this role, but she never really gets there. There is no real depth or emotional stakes to her character throughout the course of the film. The screenplay (and McCarthy's performance) does pick up at the end, but by then, it is too little, too late. Also not fairing well is comedienne Tiffany Hadish as Ruby O'Carroll - an African-American female trying to dominate in a predominately white male world. Again...this character had potential, but the writing and, quite frankly, Hadish's performance just didn't quite succeed.
What did succeed is the always excellent Elisabeth Moss as the 3rd part of this triumvirate. Her "mousy, abused housewife turned stone cold killer" was interesting to watch - especially when paired with Domhnall Gleeson's assassin about 1/2 way through the movie. I wanted to watch a movie with these 2 criminals on the run.
I've mentioned the weak writing as part the issue here, so I'll have to mention first time Veteran Writer and first-time Director Andrea Berloff as the main culprit here. She wrote STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON so she has it in her, but here, the screenplay and characterizations are "thin". Perhaps, a good Director could have made something out of this, but she also made her Directing debut with this film, so it just didn't work well enough.
This isn't a bad film, it just isn't a very good - or very interesting - one.
Letter Grade B- (for the Moss/Gleeson portion of this film)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I should have watched 21 BRIDGES.
Based on the DC/VERTIGO graphic novel, THE KITCHEN is set in the late 1970's in NYC and offers up the "what if" scenario of 3 women that take over the Mafia. A pretty interesting premise that could have been the GODFATHER or GOODFELLA's of the day (or...at least...another WIDOWS from 2018), but instead THE KITCHEN falls flat like the all female GHOSTBUSTERS from a few year's ago.
A star of that Ghostbuster's film, Melissa McCarthy leads the cast as Kathy Brennan, the wife of a mobster who was sent to jail and becomes the leader of the group. McCarthy has shown that she has the "chops" as an actress to tackle this role, but she never really gets there. There is no real depth or emotional stakes to her character throughout the course of the film. The screenplay (and McCarthy's performance) does pick up at the end, but by then, it is too little, too late. Also not fairing well is comedienne Tiffany Hadish as Ruby O'Carroll - an African-American female trying to dominate in a predominately white male world. Again...this character had potential, but the writing and, quite frankly, Hadish's performance just didn't quite succeed.
What did succeed is the always excellent Elisabeth Moss as the 3rd part of this triumvirate. Her "mousy, abused housewife turned stone cold killer" was interesting to watch - especially when paired with Domhnall Gleeson's assassin about 1/2 way through the movie. I wanted to watch a movie with these 2 criminals on the run.
I've mentioned the weak writing as part the issue here, so I'll have to mention first time Veteran Writer and first-time Director Andrea Berloff as the main culprit here. She wrote STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON so she has it in her, but here, the screenplay and characterizations are "thin". Perhaps, a good Director could have made something out of this, but she also made her Directing debut with this film, so it just didn't work well enough.
This isn't a bad film, it just isn't a very good - or very interesting - one.
Letter Grade B- (for the Moss/Gleeson portion of this film)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Daring Dustbunnies
9.0
Rate It
Tabletop Game
Description from the publisher: You are one of the magical Dustbunnies living under the sofa....
Tiny Epic Tactics
7.0
Rate It
Tabletop Game
Tiny Epic Tactics utilizes a simple combat system with variable player powers and 3-D terrain to...
Orbital Conflict
9.0
Rate It
Tabletop Game
As Earth’s political powers are collapsing and the global economy is on the brink of meltdown,...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Courier (2020) in Movies
Aug 16, 2021
Cumberbatch is brilliant. (1 more)
Great real life history lesson
A peerless Cumberbatch and a miscast Buckley.
It's not to be confused with the Olga Kurylenko / Gary Oldman 2019 movie of the same title. But with a fresh Berlin current-day Russian spy scandal in the news this week, seeing the cold war spy drama "The Courier" is a timely thing to do.
Positives:
- Benedict Cumberbatch is outstandingly good in this. He could have been born to play the slightly bemused English gentlemen of the time. All golf, tweed suits and gentlemen's clubs. No spoilers, but there is a physical transformation as well that's impressive to observe. The film would have been decidedly so-so I think without that core central performance.
- The film is based on a true story. As someone who was born in 1961, it's a good reminder to count our blessings that you, me and everyone else are still around to live our lives at all. The world was on the brink of a precipice and learning the story of Wynne's part in this was insightful history.
- There's a nice catchy Russian-themed score by Abel Korzeniowski.
Negatives:
- I'm a big fan of Jessie Buckley. Really, I am. And to be fair to her, her performance is really good. I particularly liked a scene where she dismissed on the doorstep a local busybody. But I just didn't see her as Wynne's pearl-neckless-wearing wife in this part. Perhaps the problem is that although there's a 13 year age gap between the leads, I always imagine Buckley as being much younger that her 31 years. For whatever reason, the casting didn't work for me.
Summary Thoughts on "The Courier": As a true-life spy story, the movie is interesting and Cumberbatch's performance is brilliant. But I can't say that I was 100% grabbed by it. While having a few moments of high drama and tension - particularly one on a plane - I never felt that to be maintained for enough of the movie. Director Dominic Cooke has a limited filmography (with the Saoirse Ronan movie "On Chesil Beach" being his only other feature) and writer Tom O'Connor is the guy behind the more flippant "Hitman's Bodyguard" films. Perhaps a more experienced writer/director team would have elevated this to a higher level.
So it's eminently watchable but not memorable. Just a marginal hit in my book.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Benedict Cumberbatch is outstandingly good in this. He could have been born to play the slightly bemused English gentlemen of the time. All golf, tweed suits and gentlemen's clubs. No spoilers, but there is a physical transformation as well that's impressive to observe. The film would have been decidedly so-so I think without that core central performance.
- The film is based on a true story. As someone who was born in 1961, it's a good reminder to count our blessings that you, me and everyone else are still around to live our lives at all. The world was on the brink of a precipice and learning the story of Wynne's part in this was insightful history.
- There's a nice catchy Russian-themed score by Abel Korzeniowski.
Negatives:
- I'm a big fan of Jessie Buckley. Really, I am. And to be fair to her, her performance is really good. I particularly liked a scene where she dismissed on the doorstep a local busybody. But I just didn't see her as Wynne's pearl-neckless-wearing wife in this part. Perhaps the problem is that although there's a 13 year age gap between the leads, I always imagine Buckley as being much younger that her 31 years. For whatever reason, the casting didn't work for me.
Summary Thoughts on "The Courier": As a true-life spy story, the movie is interesting and Cumberbatch's performance is brilliant. But I can't say that I was 100% grabbed by it. While having a few moments of high drama and tension - particularly one on a plane - I never felt that to be maintained for enough of the movie. Director Dominic Cooke has a limited filmography (with the Saoirse Ronan movie "On Chesil Beach" being his only other feature) and writer Tom O'Connor is the guy behind the more flippant "Hitman's Bodyguard" films. Perhaps a more experienced writer/director team would have elevated this to a higher level.
So it's eminently watchable but not memorable. Just a marginal hit in my book.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Darren (1599 KP) rated Akira (1988) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: In the aftermath of World War III in 1988 Tokyo has had to build again and 31 years later in the 2019 New-Tokyo is on the edge of the next war. We follow Kaneda and school student the leader of a biker gang including Tetsuo and Kei. When Tetsuo ends up involved in an accident after getting distracted by Takashi a young boy with certain abilities he gets taken by the government.
When Colonel Shikishima is running an operation to find Akira the cause of the previous World War the three children Takashi, Kiyoko and Masaru must prevent this happening while Tetsuo ends up becoming power and a threat to the whole city. Kaneda teams up with the resistance against the government through Kei and we follow as every side comes to a battle that will need to stop a future war.
Akira reaches levels most action films could never imagine with the number of character in the overall battle each having their own motives behind being involved. The look at what a future could have been all looks great and coming from a graphic novel everything works for what the film is trying to achieve. The violence is unlike anything you would have seen in an animated film which helps shows the world we will be entering.
Character Review
Kaneda: Kaneda is the leader of the school aged biker gang who drives the iconic red bike, when one of his gang is kidnapped by the government he joins the resistance against the government movement. Once we see what happens with his friend Tetsuo he must fight his old friend to stop the next World War happen. Kaneda is a great leading character that even after nearly 30 years is still one of the most iconic in all of animated film history.kaneda
Tetsuo: Tetsuo is a member of Kaneda’s biker gang but after he has an accident the government takes his away to use in their latest experiments. What happens to Tetsuo leads him to become a threat to the city as he searches for Akira a threat not just to Neo-Tokyo but the world. Tetsuo starts of as just a member of the gang wanting to become more and once he has the powers he learns he isn’t ready to have the leadership when he ends up turning on the people he once considered friends, a great villainous character without being a true villain.tetsuo
Kei: Kei is a member of the resistance that Kaneda rescues from the police before joining forces Kaneda to stop the government and rescue Tetsuo from bring Akira back from the dead. Kei is the potential romantic angle for Kaneda who is also as tough as they come, she also has a connection to the children with the abilities.kei
Support Characters: Akira has a large amount of supporting characters which include Kaneda’s gang who all stick with him when he needs to fight. We also have the resistance who help Kei and Kaneda achieve the battle. We have the three kids who have to abilities in their own right that together making the deadly but also fighting for the right thing. We also have one last group and that is the government who want to bring the Akira power back as a weapon.
Director Review: Katsuhiro Otomo – Katsuhiro brings us his own graphic novel to the bring screen which offers one of the most entertain and well developed characters in recent film.
Action: Akira has action from start to finish, we have a motorbike chase to open the film, constant chases to either reach someone or escape from them and the final fight oh my god what a brilliant conclusion.
Animation: Akira has simply brilliant looking animation that help bring the action to life and once more I refer to the final scene which is just breathtaking visual moment.
Sci-Fi: Akira brings us into a future world where the world has been through another World War and had to rebuild in a new future with the Neo-Tokyo.
Settings: Akira creates a futuristic looking world that helps us identify just how far into the future we have gone with the story.
Suggestion: Akira is one for all the animated fans to see because it really is a visual treat with a stunning story that will stick with you. (Animated Fans Watch)
Best Part: The final battle which will leave your jaw dropped with how amazing it looks.
Worst Part: I would say this is going to be too violent for certain animated fans.
Action Scene Of The Film: The final battle is easily the best scene in the whole film and could easily be the best one in action animated films.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 2 Hours 4 Minutes
Tagline: Signal Traced to Tokyo!
Trivia: The movie takes place in 2019 and depicts Neo-Tokyo creating a new Olympic stadium. Coincidentally, Tokyo is scheduled to host the 2020 Summer Olympics.
Overall: Akira really is one of the best animated film that ever got made that will still be talked about for years to come.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/09/30/akira-1988/
When Colonel Shikishima is running an operation to find Akira the cause of the previous World War the three children Takashi, Kiyoko and Masaru must prevent this happening while Tetsuo ends up becoming power and a threat to the whole city. Kaneda teams up with the resistance against the government through Kei and we follow as every side comes to a battle that will need to stop a future war.
Akira reaches levels most action films could never imagine with the number of character in the overall battle each having their own motives behind being involved. The look at what a future could have been all looks great and coming from a graphic novel everything works for what the film is trying to achieve. The violence is unlike anything you would have seen in an animated film which helps shows the world we will be entering.
Character Review
Kaneda: Kaneda is the leader of the school aged biker gang who drives the iconic red bike, when one of his gang is kidnapped by the government he joins the resistance against the government movement. Once we see what happens with his friend Tetsuo he must fight his old friend to stop the next World War happen. Kaneda is a great leading character that even after nearly 30 years is still one of the most iconic in all of animated film history.kaneda
Tetsuo: Tetsuo is a member of Kaneda’s biker gang but after he has an accident the government takes his away to use in their latest experiments. What happens to Tetsuo leads him to become a threat to the city as he searches for Akira a threat not just to Neo-Tokyo but the world. Tetsuo starts of as just a member of the gang wanting to become more and once he has the powers he learns he isn’t ready to have the leadership when he ends up turning on the people he once considered friends, a great villainous character without being a true villain.tetsuo
Kei: Kei is a member of the resistance that Kaneda rescues from the police before joining forces Kaneda to stop the government and rescue Tetsuo from bring Akira back from the dead. Kei is the potential romantic angle for Kaneda who is also as tough as they come, she also has a connection to the children with the abilities.kei
Support Characters: Akira has a large amount of supporting characters which include Kaneda’s gang who all stick with him when he needs to fight. We also have the resistance who help Kei and Kaneda achieve the battle. We have the three kids who have to abilities in their own right that together making the deadly but also fighting for the right thing. We also have one last group and that is the government who want to bring the Akira power back as a weapon.
Director Review: Katsuhiro Otomo – Katsuhiro brings us his own graphic novel to the bring screen which offers one of the most entertain and well developed characters in recent film.
Action: Akira has action from start to finish, we have a motorbike chase to open the film, constant chases to either reach someone or escape from them and the final fight oh my god what a brilliant conclusion.
Animation: Akira has simply brilliant looking animation that help bring the action to life and once more I refer to the final scene which is just breathtaking visual moment.
Sci-Fi: Akira brings us into a future world where the world has been through another World War and had to rebuild in a new future with the Neo-Tokyo.
Settings: Akira creates a futuristic looking world that helps us identify just how far into the future we have gone with the story.
Suggestion: Akira is one for all the animated fans to see because it really is a visual treat with a stunning story that will stick with you. (Animated Fans Watch)
Best Part: The final battle which will leave your jaw dropped with how amazing it looks.
Worst Part: I would say this is going to be too violent for certain animated fans.
Action Scene Of The Film: The final battle is easily the best scene in the whole film and could easily be the best one in action animated films.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 2 Hours 4 Minutes
Tagline: Signal Traced to Tokyo!
Trivia: The movie takes place in 2019 and depicts Neo-Tokyo creating a new Olympic stadium. Coincidentally, Tokyo is scheduled to host the 2020 Summer Olympics.
Overall: Akira really is one of the best animated film that ever got made that will still be talked about for years to come.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/09/30/akira-1988/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Damon, Bale and fast cars (1 more)
Epic technical film making - cinematography, editing and sound - Oscar bait
A linear story on a circular track - but beautifully done.
Despite the love affair cinema has had with cars over the years, the sport of motor racing on film has been patchy. Too often the drama on the track has been deluged with melodrama off the track, as in John Frankenheimer's "Grand Prix" from 1966. While recent efforts such as Ron Howard's "Rush" have brought modern filming techniques to better convey the speed and excitement, it is Steve McQueen's "Le Mans" from 1971 that had previously set the bar for realism in the sport. But even there, there were a few off-track love stories to interweave into the action.
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
