Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Zoolander 2 (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Zoolander 2” picks up just a couple days after the first film left off. Staying true to the story line, Zoolander and Hansel are as vapid as ever and have retreated to lives in exile after the school for children who couldn’t read good (or whatever) collapsed due to shoddy construction. With their dreams dashed, both models are licking their wounds when they are summoned back into the world of fashion by a disgustingly beautiful fashionista with the Botox of the gods, Alexanya Ato (Kristen Wiig). With a face that can hardly move Ato is unsettlingly inviting.
For Zoolander and Hansel, the world they once knew has been taken over by today’s most annoying pop stars and what is now known as – “mainstream hipster society.”
Reminiscent of the “Austin Powers” series, Penelope Cruz leads a high speed action-spy adventure (cheesy as it may sound, it’s pretty great) as Melanie Valentina, working for Interpol “fashion division.” Cruz sets out to discover who has been killing Hollywood’s famous faces following Bieber’s tragic, and very graphic, death.
Inadvertently, due to Zoolander’s irresistible good looks, Cruz embarks on a mission to help him reunite with his estranged son and defeat Mugatu (Will Ferrell). The film is exactly what you would expect following the first “Zoolander.” It’s short, funny, ridiculous, and yet the sequel is surprisingly relevant.
The incorporation of an androgynous character named All played by Benedict Cumberbatch steps dangerously close to the edge of what is acceptable amongst the film’s own likely audience of hipster pc’rs.
Surprise appearances are actually part of what makes this sequel pretty great, yet they don’t take over and the ridiculous storyline somehow remains a coherent.
The best appearance of all, and most out of place, is that of Neil deGrasse Tyson himself. Of course, as a beautiful person, Zoolander’s journey is one of epic spiritual proportions in his own mind, so somehow a physicist fits in quite nicely.
Delivering exactly what it advertises, I give “Zoolander 2” 3.5 out of 5 stars.
For Zoolander and Hansel, the world they once knew has been taken over by today’s most annoying pop stars and what is now known as – “mainstream hipster society.”
Reminiscent of the “Austin Powers” series, Penelope Cruz leads a high speed action-spy adventure (cheesy as it may sound, it’s pretty great) as Melanie Valentina, working for Interpol “fashion division.” Cruz sets out to discover who has been killing Hollywood’s famous faces following Bieber’s tragic, and very graphic, death.
Inadvertently, due to Zoolander’s irresistible good looks, Cruz embarks on a mission to help him reunite with his estranged son and defeat Mugatu (Will Ferrell). The film is exactly what you would expect following the first “Zoolander.” It’s short, funny, ridiculous, and yet the sequel is surprisingly relevant.
The incorporation of an androgynous character named All played by Benedict Cumberbatch steps dangerously close to the edge of what is acceptable amongst the film’s own likely audience of hipster pc’rs.
Surprise appearances are actually part of what makes this sequel pretty great, yet they don’t take over and the ridiculous storyline somehow remains a coherent.
The best appearance of all, and most out of place, is that of Neil deGrasse Tyson himself. Of course, as a beautiful person, Zoolander’s journey is one of epic spiritual proportions in his own mind, so somehow a physicist fits in quite nicely.
Delivering exactly what it advertises, I give “Zoolander 2” 3.5 out of 5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I really wanted this movie to be epic. I wanted it to be the follow up that so many waited so long to see.
However, it fell just short of that goal in my book.
Anchorman 2 picks up in 1980 where Ron Burgandy (Will Ferrell) and Veronica Corningstone (Christina
Applegate) are married, have a 6-year old son, and are co-anchors for a local news station in New York.
Not long into the movie, something comes between the two, and we see Burgandy hit a new low as an
announcer at Sea World. But he is approached with an opportunity to work at the first 24-hour news
channel, and a chance to get his old team back together. Along with Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), Champ
Kind (David Koechner) and Brick Tamland (Steve Carrell), Ron Burgandy takes the world by storm with
a new format, and vastly different “news” stories than what some traditionalists would call news.
As I said, there was so much potential for this movie that it just seemed to miss. It felt like they tried
to force too much of Brick’s “natural charm” that made him so popular in the first, even with the love
interest they brought in for him this go around. You top that off with recycled jokes, not just from
the first movie (which I would have been okay with), but from other movies as well. I immediately
recognized 2 from the Austin Powers franchise alone.
It’s not to say that the movie didn’t have its moments. There were quite a few times where I was caught
off guard by something I was not expecting, or where the joke fell naturally into place. But the rest of
the movie seemed forced. And one cameo in reference to MTV had me downright upset. But hey, not
everyone shares my view.
So my test? Would I pay to see this movie in theaters? No. Wait for it to come to disc/digital
download. I have a feeling it won’t be long before it gets there.
However, it fell just short of that goal in my book.
Anchorman 2 picks up in 1980 where Ron Burgandy (Will Ferrell) and Veronica Corningstone (Christina
Applegate) are married, have a 6-year old son, and are co-anchors for a local news station in New York.
Not long into the movie, something comes between the two, and we see Burgandy hit a new low as an
announcer at Sea World. But he is approached with an opportunity to work at the first 24-hour news
channel, and a chance to get his old team back together. Along with Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), Champ
Kind (David Koechner) and Brick Tamland (Steve Carrell), Ron Burgandy takes the world by storm with
a new format, and vastly different “news” stories than what some traditionalists would call news.
As I said, there was so much potential for this movie that it just seemed to miss. It felt like they tried
to force too much of Brick’s “natural charm” that made him so popular in the first, even with the love
interest they brought in for him this go around. You top that off with recycled jokes, not just from
the first movie (which I would have been okay with), but from other movies as well. I immediately
recognized 2 from the Austin Powers franchise alone.
It’s not to say that the movie didn’t have its moments. There were quite a few times where I was caught
off guard by something I was not expecting, or where the joke fell naturally into place. But the rest of
the movie seemed forced. And one cameo in reference to MTV had me downright upset. But hey, not
everyone shares my view.
So my test? Would I pay to see this movie in theaters? No. Wait for it to come to disc/digital
download. I have a feeling it won’t be long before it gets there.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 21, 2019
Too scary for kids - not scary enough for teenagers
SCARY STORIES TO TELL IN THE DARK is a good "starter" horror film. A step up from fair like Goosebumps but not quite to the level (in intensity, gore and violence) of a "real" Horror film like HEREDITY, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY or the SAW franchise - and that just might be it's downfall for it is stuck in a very narrow band of viewers who will enjoy this (too intense for younger kids, to "kidd-ish" for teenagers and above).
And that's too bad, for SCARY STORIES is a pretty well put together film. Telling...well...a series of scary stories that come true (to the detriment of the teens that these stories are written about).
Based on the YA series of novels of the same name, Director Andre Overdal stitches together (in some instances quite literally) a creepy (enough) tale of teens in danger by things that go bump into the night. There are good (enough) scares, some real (enough) spine-tingling chills and just (enough) death and destruction to keep things interesting.
And that's good for the cast is pretty bland. Zoe Margaret Coletti, Michael Garza, Gabriel Rush and Austin Zajur are "fine" (but interchangeable) as the 4 teens caught in the crossfire of these stories. Their performances/characters are almost good enough to sustain things, but, ultimately, brought nothing new or interesting to their roles. Neither do Lorraine Toussaint, Gil Bellows and Dean Norris, 3 usually dependable actors that just sort of drift in and out of this film with not much to do.
But that doesn't really matter for the special effects, scares and story threads are what you are there to see and the special effects are good (enough), the scares are scary (enough) and the story is just interesting (enough) to let you have a decent (enough) time at the theater.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that's too bad, for SCARY STORIES is a pretty well put together film. Telling...well...a series of scary stories that come true (to the detriment of the teens that these stories are written about).
Based on the YA series of novels of the same name, Director Andre Overdal stitches together (in some instances quite literally) a creepy (enough) tale of teens in danger by things that go bump into the night. There are good (enough) scares, some real (enough) spine-tingling chills and just (enough) death and destruction to keep things interesting.
And that's good for the cast is pretty bland. Zoe Margaret Coletti, Michael Garza, Gabriel Rush and Austin Zajur are "fine" (but interchangeable) as the 4 teens caught in the crossfire of these stories. Their performances/characters are almost good enough to sustain things, but, ultimately, brought nothing new or interesting to their roles. Neither do Lorraine Toussaint, Gil Bellows and Dean Norris, 3 usually dependable actors that just sort of drift in and out of this film with not much to do.
But that doesn't really matter for the special effects, scares and story threads are what you are there to see and the special effects are good (enough), the scares are scary (enough) and the story is just interesting (enough) to let you have a decent (enough) time at the theater.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Things You Save in a Fire in Books
Aug 5, 2019
Cassie Hanwell is a great firefighter. She loves her job in Austin, Texas and her friendly crew. Cassie's life is shaped by a series of events that occurred on her sixteenth birthday, including her mother leaving her and her father. Now she stays clearly in her comfort zone. That zone includes work, work, and more work. No relationships, no real attachments to anyone, a strong resistance to forgiving her mother, and definitely not love. But when her mom calls Cassie and asks her to move to Boston to help her--due to an illness--Cassie has to leave that comfort zone. Big time. She has to go live with her mother, whom she barely knows anymore. She has to leave behind her progressive Austin crew and work with a group of guys in Boston who are appalled at the thought of a "lady" on their crew. Except for one guy, the new rookie, who has no problem with Cassie. And Cassie doesn't mind being around him. At all. In fact she even likes it. But love isn't in Cassie's vocabulary, and even if it was, everyone knows firefighters don't date other firefighters. Right?
"I'd structured my life around routine, and safety, and order. Feelings were a lot of trouble. I avoided them as much as possible."
I really enjoyed Katherine Center's previous book, How to Walk Away, so I was excited to read this one. I didn't enjoy this one quite as much (though I enjoyed the little link between the two), but it is a cute read. I have to admit, there were times in this one when things seemed a little too saccharine for my cynical self. I know, I know, that's terrible, especially when things aren't always light and breezy for Cassie and friends in this book. I think it's something only sarcastic folks like myself will understand.
In fact, this book is a really interesting blend between dark and quite light and fluffy. Cassie has a dark past, as does the rookie, Owen, but a lot of the book is Cassie just repeating that she won't ever love anyone or date a firefighter. I think we all know where this is leading...
However, the book is really funny at times, and it's very easy to like Cassie. She's incredibly tough and brave, and she gives all the guys a run for their money. The book makes some great points on sexism, and I always enjoy a chance to watch a tough girl beat some boys at their own game. And I have to admit I enjoyed (okay, identified with) some of her anti-social tendencies.
"Human connection had its upsides, but it sure was a lot of work. The risk-reward ratio was low, at best."
There's also a good supporting cast from Cassie's mom and her mom's best friend. For me, this one picked up in the last fourth or so, when everything seemed to really come together. There's a moment when it all just clicks, and I found myself laughing and grinning a lot. That part made it all worth reading for me.
Overall, it took me some time to warm up to this book--much like it took Cassie a while to warm up to Massachusetts. But she's an engaging, tough character, and her story is one of resilience, even if there are a lot of really sweet, almost too-perfect moments too. You can pretty much tell how the story is going to play out, but it's a fun, cute read. 3.5 stars.
"I'd structured my life around routine, and safety, and order. Feelings were a lot of trouble. I avoided them as much as possible."
I really enjoyed Katherine Center's previous book, How to Walk Away, so I was excited to read this one. I didn't enjoy this one quite as much (though I enjoyed the little link between the two), but it is a cute read. I have to admit, there were times in this one when things seemed a little too saccharine for my cynical self. I know, I know, that's terrible, especially when things aren't always light and breezy for Cassie and friends in this book. I think it's something only sarcastic folks like myself will understand.
In fact, this book is a really interesting blend between dark and quite light and fluffy. Cassie has a dark past, as does the rookie, Owen, but a lot of the book is Cassie just repeating that she won't ever love anyone or date a firefighter. I think we all know where this is leading...
However, the book is really funny at times, and it's very easy to like Cassie. She's incredibly tough and brave, and she gives all the guys a run for their money. The book makes some great points on sexism, and I always enjoy a chance to watch a tough girl beat some boys at their own game. And I have to admit I enjoyed (okay, identified with) some of her anti-social tendencies.
"Human connection had its upsides, but it sure was a lot of work. The risk-reward ratio was low, at best."
There's also a good supporting cast from Cassie's mom and her mom's best friend. For me, this one picked up in the last fourth or so, when everything seemed to really come together. There's a moment when it all just clicks, and I found myself laughing and grinning a lot. That part made it all worth reading for me.
Overall, it took me some time to warm up to this book--much like it took Cassie a while to warm up to Massachusetts. But she's an engaging, tough character, and her story is one of resilience, even if there are a lot of really sweet, almost too-perfect moments too. You can pretty much tell how the story is going to play out, but it's a fun, cute read. 3.5 stars.
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated The Expendables (2010) in Movies
May 30, 2018
Action movies really don't get any better than this.
Contains spoilers, click to show
When I first heard about this film I had really high expectations. Sylvester Stallone writing, directing and starring in an action film. He was trying to bring together some of the greatest stars of action films past and present, it sounded too good to be true. As the months went by I kept hearing rumours as to who was in it. Pretty much every name from action films was mentioned. Then the biggest rumour of them all, it was going to star Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger! Never gonna happen I thought. I was never so glad to be wrong. The scene they appeared in may only be a few minutes long but it was perfect.
I went to see this film the week it came out. The cinema was fairly full, and as the film started I noticed something about the audience, they were loving the movie. As the film continued it started to feel like I was seeing this in my living room with a large group of friends. Everyone was laughing, gasping and really getting into the spirit of the film. This really added something special to the film. I have not experienced this during a normal screening of a film.
The film itself follows a very basic formula, big characters, big explosions, big guns and lots of bad guys dying. But what makes this one stand out from modern action films is it doesn't try to be anything more. It is a throw back to the great action films from the 80's and 90's like Commando, Predator, Die Hard and Rambo: First Blood Part II. Films that are so over the top but so very entertaining.
The cast is an action movie fans wet dream. Action movie legends Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dolph Lundgren Gary Daniels and Mickey Rourke star alongside modern day action stars Jason Statham, Jet Li, Steve Austin, Randy Couture and Terry Crews. Add to the cast Eric Roberts, David Zayas and Charisma Carpenter and you have probably the greatest cast assembled since Ocean's Eleven was remade in 2001. The cast works well. I always believe that if the cast had a good time making a movie then it will show in their performance. They must have had the time of their lives filming this.
A film like this will never get any major awards (it did win awards for the stunt work), but then again you don't go to see this looking for award winning performances. You go to see this to escape from the reality of life and to just be entertained. I am a major action movie fan and it really doesn't get any better than this.
I went to see this film the week it came out. The cinema was fairly full, and as the film started I noticed something about the audience, they were loving the movie. As the film continued it started to feel like I was seeing this in my living room with a large group of friends. Everyone was laughing, gasping and really getting into the spirit of the film. This really added something special to the film. I have not experienced this during a normal screening of a film.
The film itself follows a very basic formula, big characters, big explosions, big guns and lots of bad guys dying. But what makes this one stand out from modern action films is it doesn't try to be anything more. It is a throw back to the great action films from the 80's and 90's like Commando, Predator, Die Hard and Rambo: First Blood Part II. Films that are so over the top but so very entertaining.
The cast is an action movie fans wet dream. Action movie legends Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dolph Lundgren Gary Daniels and Mickey Rourke star alongside modern day action stars Jason Statham, Jet Li, Steve Austin, Randy Couture and Terry Crews. Add to the cast Eric Roberts, David Zayas and Charisma Carpenter and you have probably the greatest cast assembled since Ocean's Eleven was remade in 2001. The cast works well. I always believe that if the cast had a good time making a movie then it will show in their performance. They must have had the time of their lives filming this.
A film like this will never get any major awards (it did win awards for the stunt work), but then again you don't go to see this looking for award winning performances. You go to see this to escape from the reality of life and to just be entertained. I am a major action movie fan and it really doesn't get any better than this.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Trumbo (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
What is it that makes, not a great, but even a good biopic? It is certainly no enviable task, trying to condense decades of a person’s life into a mere two hours. Choosing what to keep and what to leave, stringing events together so that they feel as though they are one complete narrative opposed to a series of vignettes. And then there are the inevitable purists who will write off the entire product based on a single detail either left out or composited due to running time or budgetary restrictions. Over the years, I have found myself wrestling with my opinion of Braveheart. Do I enjoy it for its epic qualities, or do I cast it aside as the wretched historical inaccuracies fly in the face of what is one of the most important times in a country’s past?
The answer is simply, and stolen from another great historical epic, are you not entertained? Film can and should be powerful and informative. It can and should influence our thinking and encourage an emotional response, but above all, it should entertain. Trumbo does all of the above, ticks all the necessary boxes on the list of what makes a great biopic and whatever historical inaccuracies lie within be damned. Director Jay Roach, writer John McNamara and an ensemble so good it has to be seen to be believed have made, if not the best biopic of the year (that distinction still stays with Steve Jobs for now), then certainly the most enjoyable.
Where I find myself in reviewing Trumbo is trying not to sound monotonous in singing its high praises. Whether you’re interested in a message or not, because there is a good one in there, it’s a film that demands to be seen just on the strength of the cohesiveness that comes from the writing, the acting and (I still can’t believe I’m about to write this about the man who made all three Austin Powers movies) the directing.
I could prattle on endlessly about how overwhelmingly good this cast is, but the names speak for themselves. Bryan Cranston showcases that he is not just the best thing on television, but also a big-screen powerhouse. Helen Mirren, in her inimitable fashion and with beautiful understatement, is a force to be reckoned with, seething venom and self-righteousness. Louis C.K. finally breaks out of his stand-up comic persona to give a truly heartfelt performance played with surprisingly restrained vulnerability. The chemistry between him and Bryan Cranston will no doubt leave you wanting more. And John Goodman… well, it’s John Goodman. He continues to prove that no matter how small a part he has to play, it will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. Hands down, and these are only four out of a dozen terrific performances, there hasn’t been an ensemble this stunning since L.A. Confidential.
It should also be mentioned that Michael Stuhlbarg, David James Elliott and Dean O’Gorman, who portray Edward G. Robinson, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas respectively, are unquestionably destined to go down as the unsung heroes of Trumbo. Their efforts, not just to imitate but to fully realize these Hollywood stars of a by-gone era, are a further complement to inspired casting and commitment to honoring the lives of the people portrayed on screen.
In short (and well done for making it this far through monotonous and truly well-deserved praise), if you have to see one film this Thanksgiving season that doesn’t star Tom Hardy as England’s notorious Kray brothers, see Trumbo.
The answer is simply, and stolen from another great historical epic, are you not entertained? Film can and should be powerful and informative. It can and should influence our thinking and encourage an emotional response, but above all, it should entertain. Trumbo does all of the above, ticks all the necessary boxes on the list of what makes a great biopic and whatever historical inaccuracies lie within be damned. Director Jay Roach, writer John McNamara and an ensemble so good it has to be seen to be believed have made, if not the best biopic of the year (that distinction still stays with Steve Jobs for now), then certainly the most enjoyable.
Where I find myself in reviewing Trumbo is trying not to sound monotonous in singing its high praises. Whether you’re interested in a message or not, because there is a good one in there, it’s a film that demands to be seen just on the strength of the cohesiveness that comes from the writing, the acting and (I still can’t believe I’m about to write this about the man who made all three Austin Powers movies) the directing.
I could prattle on endlessly about how overwhelmingly good this cast is, but the names speak for themselves. Bryan Cranston showcases that he is not just the best thing on television, but also a big-screen powerhouse. Helen Mirren, in her inimitable fashion and with beautiful understatement, is a force to be reckoned with, seething venom and self-righteousness. Louis C.K. finally breaks out of his stand-up comic persona to give a truly heartfelt performance played with surprisingly restrained vulnerability. The chemistry between him and Bryan Cranston will no doubt leave you wanting more. And John Goodman… well, it’s John Goodman. He continues to prove that no matter how small a part he has to play, it will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. Hands down, and these are only four out of a dozen terrific performances, there hasn’t been an ensemble this stunning since L.A. Confidential.
It should also be mentioned that Michael Stuhlbarg, David James Elliott and Dean O’Gorman, who portray Edward G. Robinson, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas respectively, are unquestionably destined to go down as the unsung heroes of Trumbo. Their efforts, not just to imitate but to fully realize these Hollywood stars of a by-gone era, are a further complement to inspired casting and commitment to honoring the lives of the people portrayed on screen.
In short (and well done for making it this far through monotonous and truly well-deserved praise), if you have to see one film this Thanksgiving season that doesn’t star Tom Hardy as England’s notorious Kray brothers, see Trumbo.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 13, 2021
Fights to find the right tone - but succeeds more than it fails
The new Disney live action film CRUELLA (telling the origin story of one of the most well known villains in Disney animation history) is one of those strange films that is trying to walk a thin line between “G” rated “kid” entertainment and an “R” rated film intended for a more “mature” audience.
An that, ultimately, is the issue with this film, it bounces around tonally - sometimes bumping up against the “G” rating and often times landing closer to the “R”, so that, in the end, it will not be a totally satisfying experience for either the “G” or the “R” crowd.
Emma Stone takes on the title role of CRUELLA and in this film you watch her become the Cruella DeVille that you see in the Disney Animated Film (and the Glenn Close live action remake). Stone is very good in this role - almost a perfect fit. However, it looks to me that she is having a much better time playing the evil “R” rated version of Cruella rather then the comic-bookish “G” rated version, so her performance is, at times, brilliant and at other times, not as brillaint.
Emma Thompson steals just about every scene she is in as Cruella’s nemesis “The Baroness”. It’s good to see this terrific actress getting a role that she can really sink her teeth in. I hope this leads to other, strong important roles for this actress “of a certain age”.
The supporting players are strong…or should I say…Mark Strong (hehehehe). He brings his usual gravitas to the role of The Baroness’ right-hand man. But the players who impressed me the most were Joel Fry (YESTERDAY) and Paul Walter Hauser (RICHARD JEWELL) as Cruella’s 2 best friends/henchmen. They both were able to flesh out these characters (who are usually portrayed as bumbling buffoons) and both were able to find the line between “G” and “R” very well - and stay on it the entire film.
Director Craig Gillespie (I, TONYA) finds the correct tone for this film more often than not, but it is in the “not” portion of this that he fails this movie. The shifts in tone (often on a dime) are often jarring and the blame for this would have to be put right at the Director’s feet, though the look of this film (sort of a 1960’s Austin Powers meets SteamPunk look) succeeds VERY well and is as much a character in this film as the performers.
One final thing, the soundtrack used in CRUELLA is an interesting touch. Gillespie and Composer Nicholas Britell eschews (for the most part) a conventional score and highlights most of the scenes with a Pop song - though here Gillespie whips us around tonally as well. For, since the film is set in 1960’s London, a good many of the tunes used are ‘60 (and early ‘70’s) rock hits. But….every now and then…he will drop in a ‘80’s number.
But…as I sit and write this review, I am finding myself falling more and more on the side of “I Liked It”, so…set aside the tonal shifts…and you will be entertained by CRUELLA much more than you would expect.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
An that, ultimately, is the issue with this film, it bounces around tonally - sometimes bumping up against the “G” rating and often times landing closer to the “R”, so that, in the end, it will not be a totally satisfying experience for either the “G” or the “R” crowd.
Emma Stone takes on the title role of CRUELLA and in this film you watch her become the Cruella DeVille that you see in the Disney Animated Film (and the Glenn Close live action remake). Stone is very good in this role - almost a perfect fit. However, it looks to me that she is having a much better time playing the evil “R” rated version of Cruella rather then the comic-bookish “G” rated version, so her performance is, at times, brilliant and at other times, not as brillaint.
Emma Thompson steals just about every scene she is in as Cruella’s nemesis “The Baroness”. It’s good to see this terrific actress getting a role that she can really sink her teeth in. I hope this leads to other, strong important roles for this actress “of a certain age”.
The supporting players are strong…or should I say…Mark Strong (hehehehe). He brings his usual gravitas to the role of The Baroness’ right-hand man. But the players who impressed me the most were Joel Fry (YESTERDAY) and Paul Walter Hauser (RICHARD JEWELL) as Cruella’s 2 best friends/henchmen. They both were able to flesh out these characters (who are usually portrayed as bumbling buffoons) and both were able to find the line between “G” and “R” very well - and stay on it the entire film.
Director Craig Gillespie (I, TONYA) finds the correct tone for this film more often than not, but it is in the “not” portion of this that he fails this movie. The shifts in tone (often on a dime) are often jarring and the blame for this would have to be put right at the Director’s feet, though the look of this film (sort of a 1960’s Austin Powers meets SteamPunk look) succeeds VERY well and is as much a character in this film as the performers.
One final thing, the soundtrack used in CRUELLA is an interesting touch. Gillespie and Composer Nicholas Britell eschews (for the most part) a conventional score and highlights most of the scenes with a Pop song - though here Gillespie whips us around tonally as well. For, since the film is set in 1960’s London, a good many of the tunes used are ‘60 (and early ‘70’s) rock hits. But….every now and then…he will drop in a ‘80’s number.
But…as I sit and write this review, I am finding myself falling more and more on the side of “I Liked It”, so…set aside the tonal shifts…and you will be entertained by CRUELLA much more than you would expect.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Battle of the Sexes (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tennis and sex, but without the grunting.
Here’s a good test of someone’s age…. ask the question “Billie-Jean?”. Millennials will probably come back with “Huh?”; those in their 30’s or 40’s might come back with “Michael Jackson!”; those older than that will probably reply “King!”.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 24, 2019
Verdict: Goosebumps With Pure Horror
Story: Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark starts with the backdrop of the Richard Nixon election, where high school students Stella (Colletti), Auggie (Rush) and Chuck (Zajur) look to get revenge on the school bully, which sees them stumble into stranger’s Ramon (Garza) car on Halloween which sees them head to a haunted house that has the story about the daughter of the family Sarah Bellows, writing scary stories for the local kids that soon went missing.
When Stella finds the story book she starts to investigate the stories, only to see the stories writing themselves with the locals starting to go missing, including her friends, Stella must investigate the myth about Sarah to stop the people she loves going missing.
Thoughts on Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark
Characters – Stella is an outsider at her school, she has always struggled with the people talking about her mother that disappeared, she is known for writing stories and enjoys a horror film, she wants to investigate the haunted house and is fascinated by what she finds, even though she must do anything to protect her friends once she learns the evil involved. Most of this film Stella feels like a young Velma from Scooby Doo too, which can be hard to shake without realizing. Ramon Morales is a stranger in town, the police don’t take to him too kindly, but Stella sees him as a nice guy, it is slightly confusing trying to figure out how old he is and why he is hanging out with the high schoolers, but he does have a reason to be on the run. Auggie and Chuck are the two banter filled friends of Stella that do make the smart decisions when it comes to dealing with horror moments. Roy Nicholls is the father of Stella that has been struggling with his wife’s disappearance, which has seen him become distant from Stella too.
Performances – Zoe Margaret Colletti is great in the leading role, we see her give us a vulnerable, but strong character that needs to break out of her shell. Michael Garza is strong through the film, playing the mysterious stranger, needing to keep a lot of his secrets close to his chest. Gabriel Rush and Austin Zajur have great chemistry and the friends, while Dean Norris doesn’t do anything wrong, but does feel wasted at times.
Story – The story here follows a group of teenagers that find a book that tells scary stories that come true with horrifying outcomes and they must figure out how to break the curse placed upon them. This does feel like a much darker version of a Goosebumps set of stories, with each horror figure being terrifying in their own right, which will lead to an event that you don’t see coming. We do have the investigation side of the film which does answer the questions about what is going on and why, which as always is entertaining to watch in a horror and with everything adding up nicely we will be left with a story that flows smoothly throughout.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film comes from the different creations of horror, for the most part the trailer does show us each of the creations involved in the film, the mystery plays into why the horror events are happening and just what Sarah is making this happen.
Settings – The film is set in a small town, where everybody knows everyone, which does play into the idea that the stories around the town can destroy reputations and feelings.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are used to make the horror creatures seem more terrifying where they look like practical effects too, which is a delight to see.
Scene of the Movie – Chuck’s visit.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The trailer gives away all of the horror figures.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun horror film that is filled with scary figures that will fill you with dread as they are original creations and will surprise with what happens to the characters.
Overall: Fun Dark Horror.
Story: Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark starts with the backdrop of the Richard Nixon election, where high school students Stella (Colletti), Auggie (Rush) and Chuck (Zajur) look to get revenge on the school bully, which sees them stumble into stranger’s Ramon (Garza) car on Halloween which sees them head to a haunted house that has the story about the daughter of the family Sarah Bellows, writing scary stories for the local kids that soon went missing.
When Stella finds the story book she starts to investigate the stories, only to see the stories writing themselves with the locals starting to go missing, including her friends, Stella must investigate the myth about Sarah to stop the people she loves going missing.
Thoughts on Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark
Characters – Stella is an outsider at her school, she has always struggled with the people talking about her mother that disappeared, she is known for writing stories and enjoys a horror film, she wants to investigate the haunted house and is fascinated by what she finds, even though she must do anything to protect her friends once she learns the evil involved. Most of this film Stella feels like a young Velma from Scooby Doo too, which can be hard to shake without realizing. Ramon Morales is a stranger in town, the police don’t take to him too kindly, but Stella sees him as a nice guy, it is slightly confusing trying to figure out how old he is and why he is hanging out with the high schoolers, but he does have a reason to be on the run. Auggie and Chuck are the two banter filled friends of Stella that do make the smart decisions when it comes to dealing with horror moments. Roy Nicholls is the father of Stella that has been struggling with his wife’s disappearance, which has seen him become distant from Stella too.
Performances – Zoe Margaret Colletti is great in the leading role, we see her give us a vulnerable, but strong character that needs to break out of her shell. Michael Garza is strong through the film, playing the mysterious stranger, needing to keep a lot of his secrets close to his chest. Gabriel Rush and Austin Zajur have great chemistry and the friends, while Dean Norris doesn’t do anything wrong, but does feel wasted at times.
Story – The story here follows a group of teenagers that find a book that tells scary stories that come true with horrifying outcomes and they must figure out how to break the curse placed upon them. This does feel like a much darker version of a Goosebumps set of stories, with each horror figure being terrifying in their own right, which will lead to an event that you don’t see coming. We do have the investigation side of the film which does answer the questions about what is going on and why, which as always is entertaining to watch in a horror and with everything adding up nicely we will be left with a story that flows smoothly throughout.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film comes from the different creations of horror, for the most part the trailer does show us each of the creations involved in the film, the mystery plays into why the horror events are happening and just what Sarah is making this happen.
Settings – The film is set in a small town, where everybody knows everyone, which does play into the idea that the stories around the town can destroy reputations and feelings.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are used to make the horror creatures seem more terrifying where they look like practical effects too, which is a delight to see.
Scene of the Movie – Chuck’s visit.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The trailer gives away all of the horror figures.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun horror film that is filled with scary figures that will fill you with dread as they are original creations and will surprise with what happens to the characters.
Overall: Fun Dark Horror.
Debbiereadsbook (1107 KP) rated The White Room in Books
Jul 21, 2018
hot hot HOT!!!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
Welcome to The White Room. 3 rules you need to know: you may only visit once every 6 weeks; you may not request a repeat with anyone, and what happens in the White Room, stays in the White Room. Or they WERE the rules. But circumstances changes, and so do the rules.
I really don't know what I was expecting from this book, really I didn't but I KNOW I wasn't expecting THIS!
I LOVED THIS BOOK!!!
It's basically wall to wall sex, and I makes no apologies for loving a book written as such. It lands itself firmly on 3 shelves: erotica; over 18, and fan yourself its a hot one! Cos ooooeeee is this a hot hot HOT one!
Dom is given a visit to the White Room as a birthday gift. Avaline uses the White Room when her husband becomes terminally ill. Lexie visits after her divorce. Asher visits to get his Mrs Robinson fantasy played out. Simon likes to get his desk signed underneath by those he had sex with on top. Austin wanted to be pampered but he couldn't leave his dominance at the door. Vironica is a widow, but still a woman. Arianna wasn't even supposed to KNOW about the White Room. Alec likes to play with his food. Callum can't be in a relationship, not with his job. Baron is a preacher, and a widower, but still a man. Adelaide had a 2 man fantasy.
And then we come full circle back to Dom and Avaline.
Each chapter is well told from a single point of view, the person whose chapter it is. Mostly male/female pairings but there are some FFM (contact between the females) and a MFM (NO contact between the males) pairings. There are repeat visits by most of these characters, is some way or other. We get each and every emotion about why they are using the White Room, and why they are so affected by this particular visit. And just why they are all so pleased with the changing rules.
I saw no spelling or editing errors, and each story flows well from one to the next, but pay attention, they use different names in the White Room! You should read all the stories in order.
I really REALLY loved it!
This is, as far as I can see, the first I've read of this author, I hope it isn't the last!
5 very sexy stars!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Welcome to The White Room. 3 rules you need to know: you may only visit once every 6 weeks; you may not request a repeat with anyone, and what happens in the White Room, stays in the White Room. Or they WERE the rules. But circumstances changes, and so do the rules.
I really don't know what I was expecting from this book, really I didn't but I KNOW I wasn't expecting THIS!
I LOVED THIS BOOK!!!
It's basically wall to wall sex, and I makes no apologies for loving a book written as such. It lands itself firmly on 3 shelves: erotica; over 18, and fan yourself its a hot one! Cos ooooeeee is this a hot hot HOT one!
Dom is given a visit to the White Room as a birthday gift. Avaline uses the White Room when her husband becomes terminally ill. Lexie visits after her divorce. Asher visits to get his Mrs Robinson fantasy played out. Simon likes to get his desk signed underneath by those he had sex with on top. Austin wanted to be pampered but he couldn't leave his dominance at the door. Vironica is a widow, but still a woman. Arianna wasn't even supposed to KNOW about the White Room. Alec likes to play with his food. Callum can't be in a relationship, not with his job. Baron is a preacher, and a widower, but still a man. Adelaide had a 2 man fantasy.
And then we come full circle back to Dom and Avaline.
Each chapter is well told from a single point of view, the person whose chapter it is. Mostly male/female pairings but there are some FFM (contact between the females) and a MFM (NO contact between the males) pairings. There are repeat visits by most of these characters, is some way or other. We get each and every emotion about why they are using the White Room, and why they are so affected by this particular visit. And just why they are all so pleased with the changing rules.
I saw no spelling or editing errors, and each story flows well from one to the next, but pay attention, they use different names in the White Room! You should read all the stories in order.
I really REALLY loved it!
This is, as far as I can see, the first I've read of this author, I hope it isn't the last!
5 very sexy stars!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**