Search
Search results
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated True Romance (1993) in Movies
May 30, 2018
I know people that hate this film, but I know far more that love it.
Contains spoilers, click to show
The film was written by Quentin Tarantino, and it really shows with the sharp dialogue and crazy plot. The film centres around Clarence (Christian Slater) who meets and marries Alabama (Patricia Arquette). After Clarence goes to get Alabama's belongings, through a series of mishaps, he ends up with suitcase of coke and they decide to sell it. This leads to a wild adventure involving drug dealers, police and movie executives.
The casting in this film is amazing with Hollywood greats turning up and each one adds something special to the film. But by far the best performance is by Brad Pitt as the roommate of Clarence's friend Dick. He is on screen for a total of about 5 minutes but steals every scene he is in. However every one of the characters in the film brings something special. The performances by Hollywood greats, including Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken and Gary Oldman all come so close to being over the top, but the incredible script and brilliant directing manage to hold back just enough to stop it going too far.
This film is a true masterpiece where everything just falls in to place. The film is not for the faint of heart though. There are very graphic scenes of violence. One particular scene involving a woman getting severely beaten. The perpetrator definitely gets his comeuppance though. While the violence is very graphic, as with most of Tarantino's films, it is very bloody but also portrayed in a realistic manor. This adds to the shock and also to bring you closer to the victims.
I cannot praise this film enough. It is one of the greats that has been overlooked by many including Hollywood. Almost all of the performances are worthy of Oscar nomination, as with the script. But this film was overlooked by all the major awards.
If you are a fan of Tarantino films, or films with a good cast and great story give this film a try. I know people that hate this film, but I know far more that love it.
The casting in this film is amazing with Hollywood greats turning up and each one adds something special to the film. But by far the best performance is by Brad Pitt as the roommate of Clarence's friend Dick. He is on screen for a total of about 5 minutes but steals every scene he is in. However every one of the characters in the film brings something special. The performances by Hollywood greats, including Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken and Gary Oldman all come so close to being over the top, but the incredible script and brilliant directing manage to hold back just enough to stop it going too far.
This film is a true masterpiece where everything just falls in to place. The film is not for the faint of heart though. There are very graphic scenes of violence. One particular scene involving a woman getting severely beaten. The perpetrator definitely gets his comeuppance though. While the violence is very graphic, as with most of Tarantino's films, it is very bloody but also portrayed in a realistic manor. This adds to the shock and also to bring you closer to the victims.
I cannot praise this film enough. It is one of the greats that has been overlooked by many including Hollywood. Almost all of the performances are worthy of Oscar nomination, as with the script. But this film was overlooked by all the major awards.
If you are a fan of Tarantino films, or films with a good cast and great story give this film a try. I know people that hate this film, but I know far more that love it.
Sam (74 KP) rated The Hate u Give in Books
Nov 30, 2018
Problematic
I was so excited to start reading this one. Because of how popular it had been, I'd put off buying it for ages. Waterstones had a special edition in and that was as much of an excuse as I needed to buy it.
It's got five-star reviews everywhere, has won so many awards, and literally, everyone is talking about it. So, of course, it's worth a try.
Only I didn't enjoy it to the point where I got halfway through and couldn't finish it. I wasn't even sure whether to post the review because I know that lots of people will disagree with me over this.
I was so excited for a book to be out that's about police brutality in America towards black teenagers, and was surprised, to begin with, that something as serious as this was in a YA book, but also happy that it was being told to teenagers. It sounded like my ideal book.
But I just couldn't get along with it at all. The whole idea with the book is to show what casual racism is doing to America, but at the same time on every few pages, there's another part talking about how horrible and funny and evil white people are. If a book wants to make a stand against racism, make a stand against it from both sides, not just one. You cannot end racism by calling the other race.
I just found it really one-sided in its battle against racism. I am definitely not saying that the police shooting was right, let me just say that, and Starr has every right to hate the police for shooting her best friend. However, this does not mean that every few pages there needs to be a comment about how awful white people are.
A much healthier focus for the book would have been equality, not switching the racism to the other side in a 'how-do-you-like-it-now' move.
Read the full review at https://ohbookit.blog
Read the full review at https://ohbookit.blog
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated If Beale Street Could Talk (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Oh man, here's another one where I wonder what I missed. I just don't see what a lot of other people see in this one.
Fairly early on I thought to myself that there seems to be a lot going on but nothing happening. My opinion didn't waver much from there.
The music was wonderful but even so it felt like it was oddly misplaced in here. I found myself actively nothing it because it didn't feel right for the setting.
When we come to the acting I found it a bit hit and miss. The only performance that really blew me away was Regina King, she's a consistently good actress and this role has already won her a lot of supporting actress critics awards. I honestly think she's very deserving of the Oscar too. I haven't seen Roma yet (it's on the list, I'm getting to it!) to compare, but Vice and The Favourite don't hold up to the standard of King's acting in this.
A lot of If Beale Street Could Talk felt like it was being artsy for the sake of it. There was a fairly long scene where we see Fonny working a bit of wood. I really couldn't see any need for it to be there, certainly not in that form. It was one of many bits that didn't seem to have much relevance. I'm a little undecided on... well... a lot of things. The voiceovers, the characters that pop up outside the main cast...
All in all it felt like there were too many things it was trying to be. A romance, a crime drama, a discourse on racial inequality? It left me with more questions than answers.
What you should do
Here we are again. I probably wouldn't recommend this to anyone, but yet again I'm in the minority.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'm afraid that I was too bewildered by what was going on to pay attention to any of the things I might want... if invisible fridges really are functional though I'd be interested in one.
Fairly early on I thought to myself that there seems to be a lot going on but nothing happening. My opinion didn't waver much from there.
The music was wonderful but even so it felt like it was oddly misplaced in here. I found myself actively nothing it because it didn't feel right for the setting.
When we come to the acting I found it a bit hit and miss. The only performance that really blew me away was Regina King, she's a consistently good actress and this role has already won her a lot of supporting actress critics awards. I honestly think she's very deserving of the Oscar too. I haven't seen Roma yet (it's on the list, I'm getting to it!) to compare, but Vice and The Favourite don't hold up to the standard of King's acting in this.
A lot of If Beale Street Could Talk felt like it was being artsy for the sake of it. There was a fairly long scene where we see Fonny working a bit of wood. I really couldn't see any need for it to be there, certainly not in that form. It was one of many bits that didn't seem to have much relevance. I'm a little undecided on... well... a lot of things. The voiceovers, the characters that pop up outside the main cast...
All in all it felt like there were too many things it was trying to be. A romance, a crime drama, a discourse on racial inequality? It left me with more questions than answers.
What you should do
Here we are again. I probably wouldn't recommend this to anyone, but yet again I'm in the minority.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'm afraid that I was too bewildered by what was going on to pay attention to any of the things I might want... if invisible fridges really are functional though I'd be interested in one.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Dark Waters (2019) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
Dark Waters, the screenplay developed from the New York Times Magazine article: The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare. The article tells of Robert Bilott (Mark Ruffalo), a corporate environmental lawyer, who headed the years long battle against DuPont in one of the landmark cases that held the company accountable for their actions.
Bilott, is visited by a farmer, Wilbur Tennant (Jim Azelvandre), who was an acquaintance of his Grandmother. As a child, he visited her home in West Virginia during the summers and had fond memories of that farm. Robert, having worked with DuPont on many cases, felt confident that he would be able to sort out the situation for Tennant. What he does not realize until he visits Wilbur’s farm is that the situation is more dire than he had known.
Wilbur had arrived with multiple VHS tapes recording the various issues that were happening to his farm animals. Bilott witnesses the mass graves that littered Tennant’s farm from his herd that had died from various illnesses. Wilbur is convinced that the reason is the dump that DuPont has created next to his property.
Mark Ruffalo’s portrayal of Bilott is an exercise in subtlety. He becomes more purpose driven once his investigation and research in the information that DuPont had sent due to discovery. Anne Hathaway plays Sarah Bilott, Robert’s wife and steadfast partner. Over the years, Sarah had been supportive, however as the case drags on and Rob’s pay gets cut repeatedly, the strain begins to show.
This film has a stellar cast. From Tim Robbins, as Tom Terp, the managing partner at the firm, Victor Garber as DuPont’s in-house counsel. Mare Winningham as Darlene Kiger, a lead plaintiff in the class action suit and Bill Pullman as Harry Dietzler, lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
This movie has the quality that awards season loves. It is a David vs. Goliath, under dog wins story. Mark Ruffalo does a great portrayal of a man who initially does not want to pursue the case, then shifts to the defender of the people.
This movie is along the lines of Erin Brockovich and Norma Rae.
4.5 out of 5 Stars
Bilott, is visited by a farmer, Wilbur Tennant (Jim Azelvandre), who was an acquaintance of his Grandmother. As a child, he visited her home in West Virginia during the summers and had fond memories of that farm. Robert, having worked with DuPont on many cases, felt confident that he would be able to sort out the situation for Tennant. What he does not realize until he visits Wilbur’s farm is that the situation is more dire than he had known.
Wilbur had arrived with multiple VHS tapes recording the various issues that were happening to his farm animals. Bilott witnesses the mass graves that littered Tennant’s farm from his herd that had died from various illnesses. Wilbur is convinced that the reason is the dump that DuPont has created next to his property.
Mark Ruffalo’s portrayal of Bilott is an exercise in subtlety. He becomes more purpose driven once his investigation and research in the information that DuPont had sent due to discovery. Anne Hathaway plays Sarah Bilott, Robert’s wife and steadfast partner. Over the years, Sarah had been supportive, however as the case drags on and Rob’s pay gets cut repeatedly, the strain begins to show.
This film has a stellar cast. From Tim Robbins, as Tom Terp, the managing partner at the firm, Victor Garber as DuPont’s in-house counsel. Mare Winningham as Darlene Kiger, a lead plaintiff in the class action suit and Bill Pullman as Harry Dietzler, lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
This movie has the quality that awards season loves. It is a David vs. Goliath, under dog wins story. Mark Ruffalo does a great portrayal of a man who initially does not want to pursue the case, then shifts to the defender of the people.
This movie is along the lines of Erin Brockovich and Norma Rae.
4.5 out of 5 Stars
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Popstar Never Stop Never Stopping (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
If you go into this movie expecting anything other than crude comedy, you should not go see this movie. But this is not a bad thing. If you are at all familiar with, and like, the music of The Lonely Island, you will absolutely enjoy Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping. Which is pretty much The Lonely Island’s take on a Scary Movie, only focused solely on Justin Bieber’s Never Say Never.
Popstar is filmed in documentary style following Conner (Andy Samberg) , aka Conner4Real, as he is getting to release his second solo album after splitting from an influential hip-hop group, Style Boyz. Conner is the complete exaggeration of the real life Bieber, and the film follows his antics as he prepares for the big day and beyond.
In addition to Jorma Taccone and Akiva Shafer, the rest of The Lonely Island, there is a slew of familiar faces and cameos, including, but not limited to, Imogen Poots; Bill Hader; Maya Rudolph; Sarah Silverman; Tim Meadows; Pink; Usher; Nas; Joan Cusack; Adam Levine; and Will Arnett. There are so many more, also, but I would be remiss to give them away.
Ultimately it comes down to this: as I said before, if you are fan of The Lonely Island, you will enjoy this film. I honestly kind of walked out of the theater thinking that the film basically serves as a vehicle for a new Lonely Island album as there all the songs performed in the movie are original and new. But, again, that’s not a bad thing. It, at times, goes a little overboard, but it quickly reels you back in the next moment. I suppose you could say there is humor for all tastes. Well… most tastes anyway.
It’s not going to win any awards. Let’s just get that on the table, but it is a film that will have you laughing most of the way through. There was definitely big audience reaction during my screening of the film. I will most definitely be picking up the soundtrack and the film upon home release.
Popstar is filmed in documentary style following Conner (Andy Samberg) , aka Conner4Real, as he is getting to release his second solo album after splitting from an influential hip-hop group, Style Boyz. Conner is the complete exaggeration of the real life Bieber, and the film follows his antics as he prepares for the big day and beyond.
In addition to Jorma Taccone and Akiva Shafer, the rest of The Lonely Island, there is a slew of familiar faces and cameos, including, but not limited to, Imogen Poots; Bill Hader; Maya Rudolph; Sarah Silverman; Tim Meadows; Pink; Usher; Nas; Joan Cusack; Adam Levine; and Will Arnett. There are so many more, also, but I would be remiss to give them away.
Ultimately it comes down to this: as I said before, if you are fan of The Lonely Island, you will enjoy this film. I honestly kind of walked out of the theater thinking that the film basically serves as a vehicle for a new Lonely Island album as there all the songs performed in the movie are original and new. But, again, that’s not a bad thing. It, at times, goes a little overboard, but it quickly reels you back in the next moment. I suppose you could say there is humor for all tastes. Well… most tastes anyway.
It’s not going to win any awards. Let’s just get that on the table, but it is a film that will have you laughing most of the way through. There was definitely big audience reaction during my screening of the film. I will most definitely be picking up the soundtrack and the film upon home release.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Slumber Party Massacre II (1987) in Movies
Oct 14, 2020
I, and I can't stress this enough, fucking love Slumber Party Massacre II. It may not be as cinematically mature as the first one, but it's 100% more entertaining and batshit crazy.
The lead characters, as per usual, are walking, talking, cliché slasher victims, but much like the first, they benefit from a decent slab of development, and feel like a believable group of friends. One could argue that the amount of times we get to see their band play is a little over the top but it sort of works.
Some of the shooting style is completely bizarre. A lot of characters talking directly to the camera which is a little cringey, but mainly uncomfortable. This style is also adopted for an extended dance sequence about half way through. Honestly, it's all a bit bizarre but kind of in keeping with the sheer absurdity that is eventually thrust upon the audience.
That absurdity is of course, this movies antagonist, simply credited as The Driller Killer. This dude is dressed head to toe in leather, with a rockabilly style quiff, and sports a huge drill as his weapon of choice, that happens to be mounted upon a demonic looking electric guitar, a guitar he likes to rip solos on whilst simultaneously piling up bodies. I can't truly describe how ridulous this villain is, but he's certainly memorable, full of one liners (surely a direct reaction to the popularity of Freddy Krueger), and you guessed it, even gets himself a musical number (whilst still drilling people to death of course)
This completely off the rails approach to the slasher sub genre is what sets the movie apart from a lot of its peers, and is the reason why it's become such a cult classic.
Slumber Party Massacre II is a movie that was never going to win academy awards, and is considered by many to be another trashy slasher. Personally, I think it's a blast. It doesn't take itself too seriously, the killer is low-key hilarious, it has some decent practical gore, and encompasses everything cheesy but magnificent about 80s horror. It deserves unconditional love.
The lead characters, as per usual, are walking, talking, cliché slasher victims, but much like the first, they benefit from a decent slab of development, and feel like a believable group of friends. One could argue that the amount of times we get to see their band play is a little over the top but it sort of works.
Some of the shooting style is completely bizarre. A lot of characters talking directly to the camera which is a little cringey, but mainly uncomfortable. This style is also adopted for an extended dance sequence about half way through. Honestly, it's all a bit bizarre but kind of in keeping with the sheer absurdity that is eventually thrust upon the audience.
That absurdity is of course, this movies antagonist, simply credited as The Driller Killer. This dude is dressed head to toe in leather, with a rockabilly style quiff, and sports a huge drill as his weapon of choice, that happens to be mounted upon a demonic looking electric guitar, a guitar he likes to rip solos on whilst simultaneously piling up bodies. I can't truly describe how ridulous this villain is, but he's certainly memorable, full of one liners (surely a direct reaction to the popularity of Freddy Krueger), and you guessed it, even gets himself a musical number (whilst still drilling people to death of course)
This completely off the rails approach to the slasher sub genre is what sets the movie apart from a lot of its peers, and is the reason why it's become such a cult classic.
Slumber Party Massacre II is a movie that was never going to win academy awards, and is considered by many to be another trashy slasher. Personally, I think it's a blast. It doesn't take itself too seriously, the killer is low-key hilarious, it has some decent practical gore, and encompasses everything cheesy but magnificent about 80s horror. It deserves unconditional love.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Love And Friendship (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Beckinsale excels in a comic tale of Girl Power in the 1790’s.
Set in 1790, Kate Beckinsale plays Lady Susan Vernon, an 18th century cuckoo-like ‘MILF’ (actually, more ‘LILF’, but using the ‘Lady’ term loosely) who with her glamourous demeanor is lusted after by both younger beaus as well as married aristocracy: an example being Lord Manwaring (Lochlann O’Mearáin).
Playing many different ends against the middle, Lady Susan – with the collusion of her American friend Alicia (Chloë Sevigny) – attempts to both find a suitably rich suitor for her daughter Frederica (Morfydd Clark) as well as finding a rich husband for herself to allow her to stay in the manor (sic) to which she has become accustomed. A tale of deception, pregnancy and a marriage of convenience follows: does Lady Susan have to choose between her sexual desires and the rich, stupid and dull Sir James Martin (Tom Bennett, “David Brent: Life on the Road”). Or can she have her cake and eat it?
Based on a Jane Austen short story, “Lady Susan”, this is a delight from beginning to end. However, it does require the attention of the viewer: characters get introduced to you in rapid fire succession, and keeping track of who’s who and how they interrelate is quite a challenge.
But this is a tour de force for Kate “Underworld” Beckinsale who delivers a depth of acting ability that I’ve not seen from her in the past. Her comic timing is just sublime, and while comedies are often overlooked in Awards season, this is a role for which she richly deserves both BAFTA and Oscar recognition.
Stephen Fry joins what is a superb ensemble cast. But outstanding among them is Tom Bennett who is simply hilarious as the nice but dim Sir James. The comic routine about his misunderstanding of “Churchill” (Church – Hill) – a running gag – is sublime and a challenger (with “Was that it t’were so simple”) for the comedy routine of the year.
Directed by Whit Stilman (“The Last Days of Disco”) from his own screenplay, this is one for the more sophisticated viewer: requiring of your full attention, but a treat for the eyes, ears and brain.
Playing many different ends against the middle, Lady Susan – with the collusion of her American friend Alicia (Chloë Sevigny) – attempts to both find a suitably rich suitor for her daughter Frederica (Morfydd Clark) as well as finding a rich husband for herself to allow her to stay in the manor (sic) to which she has become accustomed. A tale of deception, pregnancy and a marriage of convenience follows: does Lady Susan have to choose between her sexual desires and the rich, stupid and dull Sir James Martin (Tom Bennett, “David Brent: Life on the Road”). Or can she have her cake and eat it?
Based on a Jane Austen short story, “Lady Susan”, this is a delight from beginning to end. However, it does require the attention of the viewer: characters get introduced to you in rapid fire succession, and keeping track of who’s who and how they interrelate is quite a challenge.
But this is a tour de force for Kate “Underworld” Beckinsale who delivers a depth of acting ability that I’ve not seen from her in the past. Her comic timing is just sublime, and while comedies are often overlooked in Awards season, this is a role for which she richly deserves both BAFTA and Oscar recognition.
Stephen Fry joins what is a superb ensemble cast. But outstanding among them is Tom Bennett who is simply hilarious as the nice but dim Sir James. The comic routine about his misunderstanding of “Churchill” (Church – Hill) – a running gag – is sublime and a challenger (with “Was that it t’were so simple”) for the comedy routine of the year.
Directed by Whit Stilman (“The Last Days of Disco”) from his own screenplay, this is one for the more sophisticated viewer: requiring of your full attention, but a treat for the eyes, ears and brain.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Terrible film making at it's best
Michael Bay’s Transformers series has received a huge amount of criticism since the first film was released back in 2007, some of it fair, and some of it not. Now, 7 years on and three films later, Bay returns to the helm of one of the biggest movie franchises of all time with Transformers: Age of Extinction, but can it silence his critics?
The answer here is no, but not because Extinction is poor, it’s simply because there seems to be a chip on the shoulders of reviewers who expect Oscar quality film-making, when all the target audience for these films really want is to see Optimus Prime kick some Decepticon ass.
Extinction is a whole new start for the series with new characters and a five year jump to allow people to put Dark of the Moon at the back of their minds.
Mark Wahlberg heads an entirely new cast as Cade, an inventor who has run out of luck after a string of failed concepts which haven’t taken off. Thankfully he comes across an old truck that promises to change his fortunes – I bet you can guess just who that might be.
Much of the criticism of the previous films was directed squarely at Bay’s choice of female leads, from Megan Fox’s pout to Rosie Huntington-Whitely’s laughable acting performance, it’s safe to say the series hasn’t been the pinnacle of the fairer sex’s characterisations. Mercifully, the introduction of Nicola Peltz as Cade’s daughter Tessa goes some way to dissolve that problem.
Yes, she’s not going to be troubling the Academy Awards any time soon, but she is a damn sight better than those that preceded her, though the poor script stops her from being anything but a whining teen.
A brilliant Stanley Tucci and an ingenious bit of casting in Kelsey Grammer complete the film’s human characters and the two act as the main antagonists.
Of the robot kind, Michael Bay has gone into overdrive, introducing characters left, right and centre and leaving no stone unturned. John Goodman and Ken Watanabe are both excellent as Hound and Drift – two new Autobots joining the resistance. Of course all the Transformers are outshone by the wonderful Peter Cullen who again returns to the series as Optimus, his voice work is absolutely superb, though with his previous experience, you wouldn’t expect any less.
Extinction’s premise is simple, there is a bounty on the heads of Optimus Prime and the rest of the Autobots, with the humans wanting to get there planet back after the events in Dark of the Moon.
The story is fun if a little incomprehensible at times; it occasionally feels like each plot point is merely there to act as a bridge until the next big set piece, though this never affects your enjoyment of the film itself.
Thankfully the special effects are absolutely stunning and some of the best seen on the big screen. The Transformers are beautifully rendered in seamless CGI and the CGI environments all look great as well.
Bay has also done well to make the battles look more realistic this time around. Previously, it was difficult to know who was fightingTransformers-Age-of-Extinction-Poster-Optimus-and-Grimlock-Crop who, with close ups of mashed metal stopping the audience from seeing exactly what was happening. Here things are much better, but still not perfect.
Unfortunately it isn’t all good news. The heavily marketed Dinobots are only in the film for about 20 minutes towards the finale which is a real shame, as it makes you feel a little cheated. Also, the running time is a real headache; this is the biggest Transformers film yet at just over three hours long and it feels it with numerous plot fillers that can occasionally detract from the rest of the film.
Overall, Bay has probably created the best Transformers film yet with some cracking special effects and dare I say it; decent acting. However, it is far too long with unnecessary sub-plots, especially at the start, which detract from what is pure entertainment.
The Transformers movies aren’t going to win any awards, and Michael Bay knows that, but they are a fine example of terrible film-making at its very best.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/07/06/terrible-film-making-at-its-best-transformers-4-review/
The answer here is no, but not because Extinction is poor, it’s simply because there seems to be a chip on the shoulders of reviewers who expect Oscar quality film-making, when all the target audience for these films really want is to see Optimus Prime kick some Decepticon ass.
Extinction is a whole new start for the series with new characters and a five year jump to allow people to put Dark of the Moon at the back of their minds.
Mark Wahlberg heads an entirely new cast as Cade, an inventor who has run out of luck after a string of failed concepts which haven’t taken off. Thankfully he comes across an old truck that promises to change his fortunes – I bet you can guess just who that might be.
Much of the criticism of the previous films was directed squarely at Bay’s choice of female leads, from Megan Fox’s pout to Rosie Huntington-Whitely’s laughable acting performance, it’s safe to say the series hasn’t been the pinnacle of the fairer sex’s characterisations. Mercifully, the introduction of Nicola Peltz as Cade’s daughter Tessa goes some way to dissolve that problem.
Yes, she’s not going to be troubling the Academy Awards any time soon, but she is a damn sight better than those that preceded her, though the poor script stops her from being anything but a whining teen.
A brilliant Stanley Tucci and an ingenious bit of casting in Kelsey Grammer complete the film’s human characters and the two act as the main antagonists.
Of the robot kind, Michael Bay has gone into overdrive, introducing characters left, right and centre and leaving no stone unturned. John Goodman and Ken Watanabe are both excellent as Hound and Drift – two new Autobots joining the resistance. Of course all the Transformers are outshone by the wonderful Peter Cullen who again returns to the series as Optimus, his voice work is absolutely superb, though with his previous experience, you wouldn’t expect any less.
Extinction’s premise is simple, there is a bounty on the heads of Optimus Prime and the rest of the Autobots, with the humans wanting to get there planet back after the events in Dark of the Moon.
The story is fun if a little incomprehensible at times; it occasionally feels like each plot point is merely there to act as a bridge until the next big set piece, though this never affects your enjoyment of the film itself.
Thankfully the special effects are absolutely stunning and some of the best seen on the big screen. The Transformers are beautifully rendered in seamless CGI and the CGI environments all look great as well.
Bay has also done well to make the battles look more realistic this time around. Previously, it was difficult to know who was fightingTransformers-Age-of-Extinction-Poster-Optimus-and-Grimlock-Crop who, with close ups of mashed metal stopping the audience from seeing exactly what was happening. Here things are much better, but still not perfect.
Unfortunately it isn’t all good news. The heavily marketed Dinobots are only in the film for about 20 minutes towards the finale which is a real shame, as it makes you feel a little cheated. Also, the running time is a real headache; this is the biggest Transformers film yet at just over three hours long and it feels it with numerous plot fillers that can occasionally detract from the rest of the film.
Overall, Bay has probably created the best Transformers film yet with some cracking special effects and dare I say it; decent acting. However, it is far too long with unnecessary sub-plots, especially at the start, which detract from what is pure entertainment.
The Transformers movies aren’t going to win any awards, and Michael Bay knows that, but they are a fine example of terrible film-making at its very best.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/07/06/terrible-film-making-at-its-best-transformers-4-review/
Darren (1599 KP) rated The A Plate (2012) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: The A Plate starts by introducing us to Jay Roth (Jacobsen) a car salesman working for Stevens Motors, Jay sees himself as one of the best in the business and uses his position to pick up woman but what he really wants it to be the manager which is currently filled by Dick Stevens (McMurray). When Dick gets cheating on his wife Candice (Barnes) she wants divorce which includes taking the dealership.
Jay sees this as a chance to take over the dealership by playing both sides of the divorce to put everything into place to become a partner. Jay takes a turn when he meets the Stevens’ daughter Andrea (Emery) who he gets told is off limits. As we know Jay won’t say no to a lady leading him to continue chase Andrea before getting involved in a relationship that will put his dealership dreams in threat.
The A Plate is a romantic comedy that is filled with hugely unlikable characters. We have an owner of car dealership going through a divorce which seems to end up getting pushed to the back while an awkward painfully romantic angle where the girl still falls for the guys crap even though she knows what car dealers are meant to be like. I don’t think the storylines mix together enough to have an impact upon each other and as soon as the romantic angle starts the whole business idea gets forgotten. We do have funny moments but I just never got into the idea of this being realistic story because of the characters. (4/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Shane Jacobsen: Jay Roth is the slick car salesman who uses all his skills on selling cars to get woman into bed. Jay wants to becoming the dealer but to do so he must play both sides of the owners into making them agree with them. All his plans get put at risk when he starts dating his boss’ daughter. Shane does a solid job even if his character is hugely unlikable. (6/10)
Sam McMurray: Dick Stevens is the owner of the dealership who is going to lose everything after getting caught cheating. He has to try and work out a way to make sure he keeps the dealership. Sam does a solid job but seems to over try and make each scene seem important. (5/10)
Julie Ann Emery: Andrea Stevens is the daughter of the boss who has caught the eye of Jay who even after being told to keep away goes after her as she returns home to help with the parents’ divorce. Julie does a solid job but never really has enough chemistry with Shane. (5/10)
Priscilla Barnes: Candice Stevens is the wife of Dick’s who wants everything after she catches him cheating and working with Jay tries to get the dealership. Priscilla does a solid job with her limited scenes. (6/10)
Support Cast: The A Plate has a supporting characters that are mainly used to add comedy to the film, we have Jay’s grandfather who steals the scenes.
Director Review: Terre Weisman – Terre creates a standard romantic comedy that will not go down as ground breaking. (5/10)
Comedy: The A Plate has its moments but never makes you laugh out loud. (5/10)
Romance: The A Plate has what looks like an awkward romantic angle where both sides should know better and still get involved. (5/10)
Chemistry: The A Plate struggles to create enough chemistry between the two leads. (4/10)
Settings: The A Plate has standard group of settings but none of which will make you remember anything in the film. (5/10)
Suggestion: The A Plate is one for the romantic comedy fans to try but I didn’t find it one of the good ones. (Rom Com Fans Try)
Best Part: Whip cream moments.
Worst Part: The stories don’t work well enough together.
Funniest Scene: Second whip cream moment.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: Won 3 Awards in small festivals including Boston International and Hoboken International.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Release Date: 2nd June 2015 on VOD
Overall: Rom Coms have to do a lot to make me interested, this didn’t do enough.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/31/the-a-plate-2011/
Jay sees this as a chance to take over the dealership by playing both sides of the divorce to put everything into place to become a partner. Jay takes a turn when he meets the Stevens’ daughter Andrea (Emery) who he gets told is off limits. As we know Jay won’t say no to a lady leading him to continue chase Andrea before getting involved in a relationship that will put his dealership dreams in threat.
The A Plate is a romantic comedy that is filled with hugely unlikable characters. We have an owner of car dealership going through a divorce which seems to end up getting pushed to the back while an awkward painfully romantic angle where the girl still falls for the guys crap even though she knows what car dealers are meant to be like. I don’t think the storylines mix together enough to have an impact upon each other and as soon as the romantic angle starts the whole business idea gets forgotten. We do have funny moments but I just never got into the idea of this being realistic story because of the characters. (4/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Shane Jacobsen: Jay Roth is the slick car salesman who uses all his skills on selling cars to get woman into bed. Jay wants to becoming the dealer but to do so he must play both sides of the owners into making them agree with them. All his plans get put at risk when he starts dating his boss’ daughter. Shane does a solid job even if his character is hugely unlikable. (6/10)
Sam McMurray: Dick Stevens is the owner of the dealership who is going to lose everything after getting caught cheating. He has to try and work out a way to make sure he keeps the dealership. Sam does a solid job but seems to over try and make each scene seem important. (5/10)
Julie Ann Emery: Andrea Stevens is the daughter of the boss who has caught the eye of Jay who even after being told to keep away goes after her as she returns home to help with the parents’ divorce. Julie does a solid job but never really has enough chemistry with Shane. (5/10)
Priscilla Barnes: Candice Stevens is the wife of Dick’s who wants everything after she catches him cheating and working with Jay tries to get the dealership. Priscilla does a solid job with her limited scenes. (6/10)
Support Cast: The A Plate has a supporting characters that are mainly used to add comedy to the film, we have Jay’s grandfather who steals the scenes.
Director Review: Terre Weisman – Terre creates a standard romantic comedy that will not go down as ground breaking. (5/10)
Comedy: The A Plate has its moments but never makes you laugh out loud. (5/10)
Romance: The A Plate has what looks like an awkward romantic angle where both sides should know better and still get involved. (5/10)
Chemistry: The A Plate struggles to create enough chemistry between the two leads. (4/10)
Settings: The A Plate has standard group of settings but none of which will make you remember anything in the film. (5/10)
Suggestion: The A Plate is one for the romantic comedy fans to try but I didn’t find it one of the good ones. (Rom Com Fans Try)
Best Part: Whip cream moments.
Worst Part: The stories don’t work well enough together.
Funniest Scene: Second whip cream moment.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: Won 3 Awards in small festivals including Boston International and Hoboken International.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Release Date: 2nd June 2015 on VOD
Overall: Rom Coms have to do a lot to make me interested, this didn’t do enough.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/31/the-a-plate-2011/
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
