Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated American Hustle (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: When you have a con artist film you need to be anticipating some twist in the heroes favour. This has that and you are left to figure out how he will pull it off, what happens between is very familiar with the differences between the hero and the guy he has to complete the job for. What is not familiar is that the hero starts to support the guys he is meant to be conning, mix in a love triangle and you do get something more original. The film never tries to take its self too serious which is what makes it good, but in the end you won’t be left thinking I have to watch this again. (7/10)
Actor Reviews
Christian Bale: Irving the con-man who has to help his partner get off the crimes, keep his wife happy and work with someone he clearly doesn’t like. Good performance from Bale who takes a big step away from many roles he would be more know for. (9/10)
bale
Bradley Cooper: Richie the FBI agent who wants to take as many people down as he could, stepping on whoever tries to stop him. Good cocky performance showing he doesn’t always have to play the good guy. (8/10)
cooper
Amy Adams: Sydney the partner in crime of Irving who gets caught, but will work with her partner to take down enough people to get off the crime, smart, sexy she has to put up with being Irving’s piece on the side due to his marriage commitments. Good performance as always from Adams showing she can fit in any role given to her. (9/10)
adams
Jeremy Renner: Mayor Carmine the man they are all trying to catch, along with all his fellow big names who take money under the table. Good performance from Jeremy showing he can step into less serious roles after a string of action based films. (8/10)
renner
Jennifer Lawrence: Rosalyn, Irving’s estranged wife, they both don’t like each other but stay together for her child, and she is clumsy and never follows instructions, the complete opposite of Irving. Good performance from Jennifer who shows she can fill smaller roles and still steal the scene.(8/10)
jenny
Director Review: David O. Russell – Good direction throughout showing how each character is currently feeling and letting us know how they think about what is going on. (8/10)
Crime: Good con artist themes throughout. (8/10)
Settings: Very good authentic settings for the time period. (9/10)
Suggestion: I think this is only one to try, I feel some people will not enjoy it due to its unoriginal con artist themes but they may enjoy the characters. (Try It)
Best Part: De Niro cameo
Worst Part: It is kind of slow.
Believability: The corruption involved is real, but the characters are all made up. (5/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Nominated for TEN Oscars, but didn’t win any.
Box Office: $251,171,807
Budget: $40 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 18 Minutes
Tagline: Everyone Hustles To Survive
Overall: Con Artist time machine to the 70s
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/04/28/american-hustle-2013/
Actor Reviews
Christian Bale: Irving the con-man who has to help his partner get off the crimes, keep his wife happy and work with someone he clearly doesn’t like. Good performance from Bale who takes a big step away from many roles he would be more know for. (9/10)
bale
Bradley Cooper: Richie the FBI agent who wants to take as many people down as he could, stepping on whoever tries to stop him. Good cocky performance showing he doesn’t always have to play the good guy. (8/10)
cooper
Amy Adams: Sydney the partner in crime of Irving who gets caught, but will work with her partner to take down enough people to get off the crime, smart, sexy she has to put up with being Irving’s piece on the side due to his marriage commitments. Good performance as always from Adams showing she can fit in any role given to her. (9/10)
adams
Jeremy Renner: Mayor Carmine the man they are all trying to catch, along with all his fellow big names who take money under the table. Good performance from Jeremy showing he can step into less serious roles after a string of action based films. (8/10)
renner
Jennifer Lawrence: Rosalyn, Irving’s estranged wife, they both don’t like each other but stay together for her child, and she is clumsy and never follows instructions, the complete opposite of Irving. Good performance from Jennifer who shows she can fill smaller roles and still steal the scene.(8/10)
jenny
Director Review: David O. Russell – Good direction throughout showing how each character is currently feeling and letting us know how they think about what is going on. (8/10)
Crime: Good con artist themes throughout. (8/10)
Settings: Very good authentic settings for the time period. (9/10)
Suggestion: I think this is only one to try, I feel some people will not enjoy it due to its unoriginal con artist themes but they may enjoy the characters. (Try It)
Best Part: De Niro cameo
Worst Part: It is kind of slow.
Believability: The corruption involved is real, but the characters are all made up. (5/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Nominated for TEN Oscars, but didn’t win any.
Box Office: $251,171,807
Budget: $40 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 18 Minutes
Tagline: Everyone Hustles To Survive
Overall: Con Artist time machine to the 70s
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/04/28/american-hustle-2013/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Fighter (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Based on a true story, The Fighter tells the tale of two brother boxers. Retired and addicted to drugs, Dicky Eklund (Christian Bale) lives life as the town hero while dreaming of a comeback career. Meanwhile his talented younger brother Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) is reaching his fighting apex. That is, if he can choose to move past family ties that are holding him from success.
The surprising sibling chemistry of actors Bale and Wahlberg is the successful binding force in the The Fighter. The skill of these two brings relevance to the film for an audience that might otherwise step past a sports story by giving it heart.
Also leading the cast is Amy Adams as Charlene Fleming, a bartender and the love interest of Micky. Charlene threatens to challenge Micky’s already rocky relationship with his family and while this is not Adam’s most impressive role it does display a stretch from her previous body of work.
The supporting cast, consisting of the Micky and Dicky’s sisters and a number of coach and agent figures, adds a much-needed comedic element to a film. Yet it is the small character choices that create emotion in the story, from Micky’s beat-up low budget automobile to the numerous half intelligent one-liners delivered from an increasingly unstable Dicky. This instability combined with gritty shots, constantly moving camera angles, and drab colors provide the audience with a full view of the challenges faced by both brothers in the struggle to survive as boxers.
Unlike the majority of sports stories turned into film The Fighter tackles a much more realistic portrayal of both the sport and the human complexities of the characters involved. The Fighter is more a movie about being a boxer than one about the sport itself, resulting in much of the story occurring outside of the ring. However, there is no denying that The Fighter is a tried and true sports film that overcomes the overplayed story through compelling acting and quality plot.
The surprising sibling chemistry of actors Bale and Wahlberg is the successful binding force in the The Fighter. The skill of these two brings relevance to the film for an audience that might otherwise step past a sports story by giving it heart.
Also leading the cast is Amy Adams as Charlene Fleming, a bartender and the love interest of Micky. Charlene threatens to challenge Micky’s already rocky relationship with his family and while this is not Adam’s most impressive role it does display a stretch from her previous body of work.
The supporting cast, consisting of the Micky and Dicky’s sisters and a number of coach and agent figures, adds a much-needed comedic element to a film. Yet it is the small character choices that create emotion in the story, from Micky’s beat-up low budget automobile to the numerous half intelligent one-liners delivered from an increasingly unstable Dicky. This instability combined with gritty shots, constantly moving camera angles, and drab colors provide the audience with a full view of the challenges faced by both brothers in the struggle to survive as boxers.
Unlike the majority of sports stories turned into film The Fighter tackles a much more realistic portrayal of both the sport and the human complexities of the characters involved. The Fighter is more a movie about being a boxer than one about the sport itself, resulting in much of the story occurring outside of the ring. However, there is no denying that The Fighter is a tried and true sports film that overcomes the overplayed story through compelling acting and quality plot.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Arrival (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wow – what a surprise.
Sometimes I can get very irritated by a trailer for giving too much away (case in point, “Room” – which I recut – and more recently “Passengers”). Sometimes I can get very excited by a really good teaser trailer (case in point, “10 Cloverfield Lane”). But most of the time a “ho hum” trailer typically drives the expectation of a “ho hum” film: “Jack Reacher: Never Look Back” being a good recent example. Then there is “Arrival”…
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Amsterdam (2022) in Movies
Nov 21, 2022
Weak First Half Gives Way To Strong Second Half
There are certain Directors working today that gain such a reputation that most Major Movie Stars clamor to be in their films - no matter how big (or small) their part is. Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson and Christopher Nolan all come to mind. And, for some reason, David O. Russell is in that camp as well.
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Vice (2018) in Movies
Jan 21, 2019
Good movie with 2 GREAT performances
Writer/Director Adam McKay was known for years as the writing partner/director of Will Ferrell, having written and directed such comedy gems as ANCHORMAN, TALLADEGA NIGHTS and STEP BROTHERS and then, in 2015, he stepped out of Ferrell's shadow - and the comedy world - and delivered the multi-Oscar nominated film THE BIG SHORT, a fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at the financial crisis of the mid-2000's.
His follow-up to this film is another fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at a serious subject - the life and career of former Vice President Dick Cheney, an unassuming bureaucrat that wields much power in the George W. Bush White House. I thought THE BIG SHORT worked on every level so was looking forward to this follow-up and this one works on MOST levels.
So..what does work? Let's start with the acting of the top-notch cast. Steve Carrell, Sam Rockwell, Lily Rabe, Justin Kirk and Tyler Perry all are terrific in smaller, supporting roles that depict real people (like Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Liz Cheney, Scooter LIbbey and Colin Powell, respectively). They all bring the necessary level of gravitas and ironic humor to their parts.
But...make no mistake...this film stars and IS ABOUT Lynne and Dick Cheney (Amy Adams and Christian Bale) and both of these two stars SHINE BRIGHTLY in their portrayal of a a Washington DC power couple who are always calculating the political angle of any issue and how they can benefit from it. I expect both of these two actors to get Oscar nominations.
What also works is the pseduo-documentary style that McKay brings to the screen (similar to THE BIG SHORT), the characters, at times, speak directly to the camera to explain something or (at one time) breaks into a Shakespearean scene to emphasize what's going on.
So...what doesn't work? I'm going to start with the Narrator of this piece, Jesse Plemons. He is a solid actor who can bring a wry sense of humor - or gravitas - to the proceedings. But, to be plain about it, Plemons narrator character (who we come to find out has a VERY big role in Cheney's life) is just not interesting enough to follow or listen to. In THE BIG SHORT, this role was filled by the charm and charisma of Ryan Gosling and, I'm afraid, Plemons just doesn't have that same level of charm and charisma.
Secondly, what didn't work for me was the people/events that were unfolding in front of me. There was NOT ONE character to root for on the screen. Every politician seen upon the screen was just out for themselves and were willing to screw (or stab in the back) anyone that is no longer any use for them. These are not very likable characters and I longed for someone to root for, which made this film fall short of "GREAT" status for me. It is a very good film - strongly acted - but not a GREAT film.
If you haven't seen it, I would recommend VICE to all if, for nothing else, the performances of Adams and Bale, they are mesmerizing, just don't expect to root for anyone.
Letter Grade B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
His follow-up to this film is another fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at a serious subject - the life and career of former Vice President Dick Cheney, an unassuming bureaucrat that wields much power in the George W. Bush White House. I thought THE BIG SHORT worked on every level so was looking forward to this follow-up and this one works on MOST levels.
So..what does work? Let's start with the acting of the top-notch cast. Steve Carrell, Sam Rockwell, Lily Rabe, Justin Kirk and Tyler Perry all are terrific in smaller, supporting roles that depict real people (like Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Liz Cheney, Scooter LIbbey and Colin Powell, respectively). They all bring the necessary level of gravitas and ironic humor to their parts.
But...make no mistake...this film stars and IS ABOUT Lynne and Dick Cheney (Amy Adams and Christian Bale) and both of these two stars SHINE BRIGHTLY in their portrayal of a a Washington DC power couple who are always calculating the political angle of any issue and how they can benefit from it. I expect both of these two actors to get Oscar nominations.
What also works is the pseduo-documentary style that McKay brings to the screen (similar to THE BIG SHORT), the characters, at times, speak directly to the camera to explain something or (at one time) breaks into a Shakespearean scene to emphasize what's going on.
So...what doesn't work? I'm going to start with the Narrator of this piece, Jesse Plemons. He is a solid actor who can bring a wry sense of humor - or gravitas - to the proceedings. But, to be plain about it, Plemons narrator character (who we come to find out has a VERY big role in Cheney's life) is just not interesting enough to follow or listen to. In THE BIG SHORT, this role was filled by the charm and charisma of Ryan Gosling and, I'm afraid, Plemons just doesn't have that same level of charm and charisma.
Secondly, what didn't work for me was the people/events that were unfolding in front of me. There was NOT ONE character to root for on the screen. Every politician seen upon the screen was just out for themselves and were willing to screw (or stab in the back) anyone that is no longer any use for them. These are not very likable characters and I longed for someone to root for, which made this film fall short of "GREAT" status for me. It is a very good film - strongly acted - but not a GREAT film.
If you haven't seen it, I would recommend VICE to all if, for nothing else, the performances of Adams and Bale, they are mesmerizing, just don't expect to root for anyone.
Letter Grade B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Muppets (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
As a child, I have fond memories of watching The Muppet Show and enjoying the mix of comedy, music, and dance with my family and recapping the show with my friends the following day. Kermit, Ms. Piggy, Fozzie the Bear, and the whole gang were my childhood icons and provided countless hours of entertainment with their brilliant and inspired variety show as well as the three movies that followed. It is hard to believe that 1989 was the last time the gang graced the big screen with “The Muppets in Space”. Thankfully they are back in a big way to delight fans, old and new, this holiday season.
The new films stars Jason Segel as Gary, a mild-mannered guy who has a swell life in his small community. He has been dating the lovely Mary (Amy Adams) for ten years and they are excited to plan their first visit to Los Angeles. Gary has a younger brother named Walter who is a huge fan of the Muppets, having grown up watching the beloved show with Gary. The fact that Walter actually is a Muppet might explain his utter devotion to the show and characters. So when Gary invites Walter to accompany Mary and him on their trip, Walter is ecstatic. At long last, he can visit The Muppet Studios.
Upon their arrival in L.A., Walter is shocked to find the studio in shambles and disrepair. Undaunted, Walter sneaks into Kermit’s old office and accidentally overhears a businessman named Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) plotting to steal the property from the Muppets. Determined to thwart Richman, Walter and Gary look up Kermit the Frog who, despite his reluctance, agrees to reunite the gang to put on a tele-thon to raise the needed money to save the theater.
Along the way there are some great and touching segments where we see what many of the characters have been up to in the recent years, and more than a few laughs and musical numbers also follow. In a race against time, and despite the lack of confidence the network has in their relevance, Kermit must whip the cast and theater into shape for an epic performance.
The movie was an absolute joy. It was so refreshing to see how Segel and director James Bobin have brought the Muppets to a new generation without losing the previous ones and staying very faithful to the characters and to Jim Henson’s vision. Segel, who came up with the story and co-wrote the script, seems to be having the time of his life as he sings and dances his way through several production numbers and gives a very funny, and in turns, tender performance.
Adams is a joy as the sweet, yet determined Mary, and the addition of the new Muppet Walter was a treat. Sure the plot may have been fairly formulaic but there were more than enough moments to keep the adults happy. At our screener, the adults were laughing even lauder than the kids in attendance, especially at the numerous pop culture reference, celebrity cameos, and nostalgic nods to the show.
I do not want to spoil the film but from Beaker doing his take on the Nirvana classic “Smells Like Teen Spirit”, to the Swedish Chef channeling Tony Montana from “Scarface” I was thoroughly entertained. I can honestly say this is not only one of the best of the Muppet movies but it is a perfect film to take the family. Just don’t be surprised if you find yourself enjoying the magic as much, if not more, than the kids.
The new films stars Jason Segel as Gary, a mild-mannered guy who has a swell life in his small community. He has been dating the lovely Mary (Amy Adams) for ten years and they are excited to plan their first visit to Los Angeles. Gary has a younger brother named Walter who is a huge fan of the Muppets, having grown up watching the beloved show with Gary. The fact that Walter actually is a Muppet might explain his utter devotion to the show and characters. So when Gary invites Walter to accompany Mary and him on their trip, Walter is ecstatic. At long last, he can visit The Muppet Studios.
Upon their arrival in L.A., Walter is shocked to find the studio in shambles and disrepair. Undaunted, Walter sneaks into Kermit’s old office and accidentally overhears a businessman named Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) plotting to steal the property from the Muppets. Determined to thwart Richman, Walter and Gary look up Kermit the Frog who, despite his reluctance, agrees to reunite the gang to put on a tele-thon to raise the needed money to save the theater.
Along the way there are some great and touching segments where we see what many of the characters have been up to in the recent years, and more than a few laughs and musical numbers also follow. In a race against time, and despite the lack of confidence the network has in their relevance, Kermit must whip the cast and theater into shape for an epic performance.
The movie was an absolute joy. It was so refreshing to see how Segel and director James Bobin have brought the Muppets to a new generation without losing the previous ones and staying very faithful to the characters and to Jim Henson’s vision. Segel, who came up with the story and co-wrote the script, seems to be having the time of his life as he sings and dances his way through several production numbers and gives a very funny, and in turns, tender performance.
Adams is a joy as the sweet, yet determined Mary, and the addition of the new Muppet Walter was a treat. Sure the plot may have been fairly formulaic but there were more than enough moments to keep the adults happy. At our screener, the adults were laughing even lauder than the kids in attendance, especially at the numerous pop culture reference, celebrity cameos, and nostalgic nods to the show.
I do not want to spoil the film but from Beaker doing his take on the Nirvana classic “Smells Like Teen Spirit”, to the Swedish Chef channeling Tony Montana from “Scarface” I was thoroughly entertained. I can honestly say this is not only one of the best of the Muppet movies but it is a perfect film to take the family. Just don’t be surprised if you find yourself enjoying the magic as much, if not more, than the kids.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hillbilly Elegy (2020) in Movies
Apr 22, 2021
General Shoutiness and a glowering Glenn Close
I missed Ron Howard's "Hillbilly Elegy" when it came out at the end of last year, but principally wanted to catch up on it to see Glenn Close's Oscar nominated performance before Sunday's Oscars.
Positives:
- When this film started, I suspected that the Glenn Close nomination might be another 'Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love' - - where her acceptance speech is longer than the time spent on screen! But no. Because of the flashback format deployed in the film, she actually gets a good amount of air time. And it's a really solid and impressive performance.
- The supporting cast is also good. Amy Adams is given a lot to do with a challenging role, and (just about) pulls it off. And young Owen Asztalos as the younger J. D. particularly impressed me.
Negatives:
- Although it's based on J. D. Vance's true life story, I really struggled to get very invested in the story. The choppy nature of the narrative - hopping repeatedly between 'the present' and multiple flashback timelines - really doesn't help with this.
- The whole J. D. / Usha romance element almost felt like it belonged in a different film. In fact, I found it frustrating that I found the elements with J. D.'s struggles at college, with the emerging love and guidance of Usha, as a more compelling narrative than the druggie mother lead story. Perhaps the movie was just trying to be too ambitious?
- Apart from one 'personal decision' scene in a motel bedroom, there's not much of an "up-side" to the story for the viewer to take away. It's not a movie that I found a positive experience.
Viewer Advisory;
If you've had any history of life in a dysfunctional family, there is a lot of shouting, slapping and general tension in this movie which you might find disturbing.
Summary Thoughts:
So, I came to this to see the performance of Glenn Close, and it's very good. I would personally be surprised if she takes the Oscar for this. However, having been nominated eight times before and never won, the 'sympathy vote' may play here.
But one of my bellweathers for a movie is to think whether I'll remember it in six months time. I'm afraid this one is unlikely to pass the test. If you say "Hillbilly Elegy" to me in October, I'll probably recall a whole lot of shouty people and Glenn Close glowering at me from the screen. That's not a wholly great recommendation for a movie. Sorry Mr Howard, but this one's a 'miss' for me.
(For the full graphical review, please see the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/21/hillbilly-elegy-review/ ).
Positives:
- When this film started, I suspected that the Glenn Close nomination might be another 'Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love' - - where her acceptance speech is longer than the time spent on screen! But no. Because of the flashback format deployed in the film, she actually gets a good amount of air time. And it's a really solid and impressive performance.
- The supporting cast is also good. Amy Adams is given a lot to do with a challenging role, and (just about) pulls it off. And young Owen Asztalos as the younger J. D. particularly impressed me.
Negatives:
- Although it's based on J. D. Vance's true life story, I really struggled to get very invested in the story. The choppy nature of the narrative - hopping repeatedly between 'the present' and multiple flashback timelines - really doesn't help with this.
- The whole J. D. / Usha romance element almost felt like it belonged in a different film. In fact, I found it frustrating that I found the elements with J. D.'s struggles at college, with the emerging love and guidance of Usha, as a more compelling narrative than the druggie mother lead story. Perhaps the movie was just trying to be too ambitious?
- Apart from one 'personal decision' scene in a motel bedroom, there's not much of an "up-side" to the story for the viewer to take away. It's not a movie that I found a positive experience.
Viewer Advisory;
If you've had any history of life in a dysfunctional family, there is a lot of shouting, slapping and general tension in this movie which you might find disturbing.
Summary Thoughts:
So, I came to this to see the performance of Glenn Close, and it's very good. I would personally be surprised if she takes the Oscar for this. However, having been nominated eight times before and never won, the 'sympathy vote' may play here.
But one of my bellweathers for a movie is to think whether I'll remember it in six months time. I'm afraid this one is unlikely to pass the test. If you say "Hillbilly Elegy" to me in October, I'll probably recall a whole lot of shouty people and Glenn Close glowering at me from the screen. That's not a wholly great recommendation for a movie. Sorry Mr Howard, but this one's a 'miss' for me.
(For the full graphical review, please see the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/21/hillbilly-elegy-review/ ).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Mar 30, 2021
The Last 45 minutes (out of 4 hours) is decent
When Zach Snyder was filming JUSTICE LEAGUE in 2016, a tragedy occurred in his family and he was forced to drop out and the job of Directing that film went to Joss Whedon (THE AVENGERS). This version of the film was met by many (including me) with a collective “meh”, it was an unintelligible mess of a movie that paid lip service to fan boys (maybe) and gave very little to anyone not well versed in all things DC Comics. Many, many fans assumed that there was much left on the cutting room floor (or not filmed at all) that would correct the many mistakes of this film.
After a large outcry to “Restore The Snyder Cut”, Warner Brothers and HBO Max gave the fans what they wanted - a 4 hour redone version of this film that was intended to clear up the many, many confusing moments of the first film.
And that is EXACTLY what has happened. Zach Snyder has created a film that is very long on explanation and exposition - exactly what the fanboys wanted. What it didn’t do was to clear up the mess that is the plot, pacing and characters of this film.
ZACH SNYDER’S JUSTICE LEAGUE unites many of the great SuperHeroes of DC Comics - Superman (Henry Cavill), Batman (Ben Affleck), Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), The Flash (Ezra Miller) and Cyborg (Ray Fisher) - to fight an intergalactic villain.
So..how many of those heroes are you anxious to see on screen together and really dive deep into their backstories and motivations? If you said The Flash and Cyborg - then this is the film for you for Snyder really delves deeply into these 2 characters.
Unfortunately, what this has done is to push the heroes that the “average Joe” knows and loves - Batman, WonderWoman and Aquaman - to the background and, most damning of all, relinquished Superman to an extended cameo. He also throws almost every DC Character that has appeared in a previous film in - most really quickly. So, thanks for stopping by the party Lois Lane (Amy Adams), Commissioner Gordon (J.K. Simmons), Vulko (Willem Dafoe), Lex Luther (Jesse Eisenberg), Alfred (Jeremy Irons), Martha Kent (Diane Lane), Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen) and Mira (Amber Heard). If I blinked I would have missed you.
To be fair, the last 45 minutes of this film are really interesting (including an Epilogue that sets up a sequel that we’ll never see), but in order to get there, you need to slog through 3 hours and 15 minutes of this disjointed film.
Worth the effort for the “Fanboys” and “Hardcores”, not worth the effort for the “Average Joe”.
Letter Grade: B (I really, really liked the Epilogue)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
After a large outcry to “Restore The Snyder Cut”, Warner Brothers and HBO Max gave the fans what they wanted - a 4 hour redone version of this film that was intended to clear up the many, many confusing moments of the first film.
And that is EXACTLY what has happened. Zach Snyder has created a film that is very long on explanation and exposition - exactly what the fanboys wanted. What it didn’t do was to clear up the mess that is the plot, pacing and characters of this film.
ZACH SNYDER’S JUSTICE LEAGUE unites many of the great SuperHeroes of DC Comics - Superman (Henry Cavill), Batman (Ben Affleck), Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), The Flash (Ezra Miller) and Cyborg (Ray Fisher) - to fight an intergalactic villain.
So..how many of those heroes are you anxious to see on screen together and really dive deep into their backstories and motivations? If you said The Flash and Cyborg - then this is the film for you for Snyder really delves deeply into these 2 characters.
Unfortunately, what this has done is to push the heroes that the “average Joe” knows and loves - Batman, WonderWoman and Aquaman - to the background and, most damning of all, relinquished Superman to an extended cameo. He also throws almost every DC Character that has appeared in a previous film in - most really quickly. So, thanks for stopping by the party Lois Lane (Amy Adams), Commissioner Gordon (J.K. Simmons), Vulko (Willem Dafoe), Lex Luther (Jesse Eisenberg), Alfred (Jeremy Irons), Martha Kent (Diane Lane), Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen) and Mira (Amber Heard). If I blinked I would have missed you.
To be fair, the last 45 minutes of this film are really interesting (including an Epilogue that sets up a sequel that we’ll never see), but in order to get there, you need to slog through 3 hours and 15 minutes of this disjointed film.
Worth the effort for the “Fanboys” and “Hardcores”, not worth the effort for the “Average Joe”.
Letter Grade: B (I really, really liked the Epilogue)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Transformers of the superhero genre
It feels like eons ago that Batman v Superman was announced as a genuine movie. Way back in 2007 there was a poster that seemed to signify DC Comic’s plans in I am Legend, but fans just thought of it as a pipedream.
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Apr 5, 2021
At over 4 hours it's still bloated and sprawling (1 more)
4:3 ratio is a needless gimmick
Does Lipstick on the Pig work?
In Zack Snyder’s much-discussed director’s cut of “Justice League”, Superman (Henry Cavill) is dead (post the events of “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice“) and a grieving Lois Lane (Amy Adams) can’t move on. Even Martha Kent (Diane Lane) has had the family farm repossessed. But the world is in deadly danger due to the work of Steppenwolf and his army of parademons. They are trying to reunite three ‘Mother Boxes’, previously hidden on earth. If joined and synchronized they will form ‘The Unity’, creating a gateway for Steppenwolf’s boss – Darkseid – to arrive and control the universe by invoking the “anti-life equation” (basically lockdown 3!).
Only the Justice League’s combined talents might be enough to stop them – but Batman (Ben Affleck) is having trouble in getting Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and The Flash (Ezra Miller) to work together. And even then, they reckon they might be a man short!
Positives:
- Well - it's so much better than the original 2017 version of "Justice League", but then that's not saying much! (I realise that I never did a review for that movie, which I saw on a transatlantic flight - - I put the whole incoherent mess down to my jetlag. But no.... it really was an incoherent mess!).
In the Snyder cut, we gain a much broader introduction to all of the main characters, especially to Barry Allen (the Flash) - in a very entertaining pet shop interview scene - and Victor Stone (Cyborg). And Steppenwolf gets more air time to flesh out his character.
- The story I find very similar to the Marvel equivalent: with Darkseid = Thanos; boxes = stones; Avengers = Justice League! But the story is at least now coherent and flows well. Its action set pieces, especially the ultimate defeat of Steppenwolf (nice decap!), are exciting.
- Some of the distracting scenes (the trapped family in the Russian ruins is a key example) have been excised from this version, making for a significant improvement.
Negatives:
- I'm with Mark Kermode in being a little bit mystified by all of the rave 5* reviews for this one. By anyone's imagination, a run time of 242 minutes is over-indulgent.
- Although the epilogue scene, featuring Jared Leto's Joker and a Batman f-bomb, is entertaining, it actually adds nothing to the exposition and could have been dropped to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
- That 4:3 screen ratio! JUST WHY SNYDER, WHY? There's one scene in particular, where all six members of the Justice League line up in the sunset to dramatic swelling music. The screen ratio forces Snyder to film it at a 60 degree angle to get them all in! "Galaxy Quest" intelligently used three different screen ratios, to great visual effect. So I could perhaps understand it if the 'flashback' scenes had been 4:3 and the rest in 16:9. But as it is, the usage is gimmicky, making (imho) no sense for a big fantasy spectacle like this.
- The Junkie XL (as Thomas Holkenborg) soundtrack I'm afraid did nothing for me.
Summary thoughts:
It's a film, for sure. Is it a watchable film now... hmm, yes just about. And it has scenes which indeed are highly entertaining. But if you follow my One Mann's Movies blog you should know by now my view on movies that extend beyond 90 minutes... they need to justify that delta running time. And by outstaying this target by another 90 minutes... and then by ANOTHER 62 minutes borders on taking the <proverbial>. It's not Shakespeare!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-does-lipstick-on-the-pig-work/).
Only the Justice League’s combined talents might be enough to stop them – but Batman (Ben Affleck) is having trouble in getting Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and The Flash (Ezra Miller) to work together. And even then, they reckon they might be a man short!
Positives:
- Well - it's so much better than the original 2017 version of "Justice League", but then that's not saying much! (I realise that I never did a review for that movie, which I saw on a transatlantic flight - - I put the whole incoherent mess down to my jetlag. But no.... it really was an incoherent mess!).
In the Snyder cut, we gain a much broader introduction to all of the main characters, especially to Barry Allen (the Flash) - in a very entertaining pet shop interview scene - and Victor Stone (Cyborg). And Steppenwolf gets more air time to flesh out his character.
- The story I find very similar to the Marvel equivalent: with Darkseid = Thanos; boxes = stones; Avengers = Justice League! But the story is at least now coherent and flows well. Its action set pieces, especially the ultimate defeat of Steppenwolf (nice decap!), are exciting.
- Some of the distracting scenes (the trapped family in the Russian ruins is a key example) have been excised from this version, making for a significant improvement.
Negatives:
- I'm with Mark Kermode in being a little bit mystified by all of the rave 5* reviews for this one. By anyone's imagination, a run time of 242 minutes is over-indulgent.
- Although the epilogue scene, featuring Jared Leto's Joker and a Batman f-bomb, is entertaining, it actually adds nothing to the exposition and could have been dropped to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
- That 4:3 screen ratio! JUST WHY SNYDER, WHY? There's one scene in particular, where all six members of the Justice League line up in the sunset to dramatic swelling music. The screen ratio forces Snyder to film it at a 60 degree angle to get them all in! "Galaxy Quest" intelligently used three different screen ratios, to great visual effect. So I could perhaps understand it if the 'flashback' scenes had been 4:3 and the rest in 16:9. But as it is, the usage is gimmicky, making (imho) no sense for a big fantasy spectacle like this.
- The Junkie XL (as Thomas Holkenborg) soundtrack I'm afraid did nothing for me.
Summary thoughts:
It's a film, for sure. Is it a watchable film now... hmm, yes just about. And it has scenes which indeed are highly entertaining. But if you follow my One Mann's Movies blog you should know by now my view on movies that extend beyond 90 minutes... they need to justify that delta running time. And by outstaying this target by another 90 minutes... and then by ANOTHER 62 minutes borders on taking the <proverbial>. It's not Shakespeare!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-does-lipstick-on-the-pig-work/).
