Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams (2010) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams starts by Mayor Buckman (Mosely) explaining why they are out for vengeances where they town of Pleasant Valley lost 2001 residents in the 1800s. When the deal with a local Sheriff is getting pushed to the limits Buckman makes sure his maniacs are safe. This leads to them going on tour to get the people from the north. We then meet High society sister Rome (Johnson) and Tina (Hope) part of Road Rascal reality show going to the south. After their camper gets run off the crashes they get stuck in the middle of nowhere where they bump into the Pleasant Valley community.
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Longest Yard (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Continuing the current trend of remakes, Adam Sandler’s Happy Madison production company set their sights on remaking the classic prison football film The Longest Yard. Like most projects that Sandler puts his Midas touch upon, this too has some moments of true gold.
The film stars Adam Sandler as Paul Crewe, a former NFL star quarterback who was banned from the league after allegedly throwing a game. As the film opens, Crewe is spending his time as a boy toy for a snobby socialite who is happy to capitalize on being seen with him, and parading Paul through various promotional ventures.
After reaching his breaking point, Paul lashes back by “borrowing” her car and leading several police officers on a high speed, and drunken chase through the streets. The resulting carnage is not only captured on live television, but awards Paul a three year prison term.
Upon arriving in the remote prison location, Crewe is introduced to Warden Hazen (James Cromwell), who attempts to recruit Crewe to help him with his semi-pro team. Crewe declines as he was urged to forcibly by Captain of the Guards Captain Knauer (William Fitchtner).
Paul eventually meets a helpful inmate known as Caretaker (Chris Rock), who shows him the ropes of prison life, and becomes a good friend for Crewe, who certainly needs friends, as there are more than a few guards and prisoners who lost money on the game he through years ago.
In time, Crew is forced by the Warden to organize a team of prisoners for a tune up game with the guards. In a series of comedic moments, Paul and Caretaker have to take drastic measures in order to organize a team from the prisoners including a game of basketball that is rougher than most games Paul had to face on the playing fields of the NFL.
Onboard to assist Paul is Coach Nate Scarborough (Burt Reynolds), who provides a much needed spark and wisdom to the team and as a former football great, allows Paul to unload some of the burden of getting the team and himself ready to play.
Of course there will be some subterfuge afoot, and the guards are not about to allow the prisoners any sense of hope, which all leads to a very funny series of point/counterpoint moves on the part of both teams to undermine the other.
When news of the game gets out, it is not long before ESPN 2 wants to televise the return of Paul Crewe, and the game soon becomes a national showcase. Since Warden Hazen has political aspirations, the outcome of the game in his favor becomes paramount forcing him to increase the pressure, and forces Paul to make a very important choice.
While the film follows the basic premise of the original, it has been updated to take advantage of modern humor and fine supporting cast. Many ex-NFL players ranging from Brian Bosworth, Michael Irvin, Bill Romanowski, and Bill Goldberg are in the film as well as wrestlers Steve Austin, Kevin Nash, and rapper Nelly.
While some may say the film is predictable, Sandler and the supporting cast do a great job in mixing humor with some of the more serious issues of prison life which results in a film that masterfully mixes humor, sports action, and human drama to create one of the better sports films in recent memory.
The film stars Adam Sandler as Paul Crewe, a former NFL star quarterback who was banned from the league after allegedly throwing a game. As the film opens, Crewe is spending his time as a boy toy for a snobby socialite who is happy to capitalize on being seen with him, and parading Paul through various promotional ventures.
After reaching his breaking point, Paul lashes back by “borrowing” her car and leading several police officers on a high speed, and drunken chase through the streets. The resulting carnage is not only captured on live television, but awards Paul a three year prison term.
Upon arriving in the remote prison location, Crewe is introduced to Warden Hazen (James Cromwell), who attempts to recruit Crewe to help him with his semi-pro team. Crewe declines as he was urged to forcibly by Captain of the Guards Captain Knauer (William Fitchtner).
Paul eventually meets a helpful inmate known as Caretaker (Chris Rock), who shows him the ropes of prison life, and becomes a good friend for Crewe, who certainly needs friends, as there are more than a few guards and prisoners who lost money on the game he through years ago.
In time, Crew is forced by the Warden to organize a team of prisoners for a tune up game with the guards. In a series of comedic moments, Paul and Caretaker have to take drastic measures in order to organize a team from the prisoners including a game of basketball that is rougher than most games Paul had to face on the playing fields of the NFL.
Onboard to assist Paul is Coach Nate Scarborough (Burt Reynolds), who provides a much needed spark and wisdom to the team and as a former football great, allows Paul to unload some of the burden of getting the team and himself ready to play.
Of course there will be some subterfuge afoot, and the guards are not about to allow the prisoners any sense of hope, which all leads to a very funny series of point/counterpoint moves on the part of both teams to undermine the other.
When news of the game gets out, it is not long before ESPN 2 wants to televise the return of Paul Crewe, and the game soon becomes a national showcase. Since Warden Hazen has political aspirations, the outcome of the game in his favor becomes paramount forcing him to increase the pressure, and forces Paul to make a very important choice.
While the film follows the basic premise of the original, it has been updated to take advantage of modern humor and fine supporting cast. Many ex-NFL players ranging from Brian Bosworth, Michael Irvin, Bill Romanowski, and Bill Goldberg are in the film as well as wrestlers Steve Austin, Kevin Nash, and rapper Nelly.
While some may say the film is predictable, Sandler and the supporting cast do a great job in mixing humor with some of the more serious issues of prison life which results in a film that masterfully mixes humor, sports action, and human drama to create one of the better sports films in recent memory.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Hannie Caulder (1971) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
You'll Have a Blast Watching This
Set in the western frontier days, a woman seeks revenge after a gang of bandits abuse her and kill her husband.
Acting: 8
No one is winning any awards, but they get the job done. Raquel Welch holds her own in her primary role as Hannie Caulder. She’s tough as nails and I love the perfect timing with which she delivers her quips. It’s fun watching her kick all the ass. Shout-out to Robert Culp as well playing the role of gunslinger Thomas Luther Price. He approaches his role with the calm demeanor of one that only kills when he has to. Both actors killed it.
The ones playing the bandits, however, did not. it was like watching the Three Stooges try and be bad guys. Fortunately they didn’t ruin the enjoyment of the movie as it made me want them to get theirs even more.
Beginning: 10
First ten minutes does the job of a true beginning: Sets up the plot while getting you excited to watch the rest of the movie. By the end of it, you know who’s bad, who’s good, and who needs to be avenged. Let the rest of the movie commence!
Characters: 8
Loved the protagonists as characters, not so much the bad guys as mentioned above. The villains were bumbling idiots who seemed to do bad things off sheer luck. Fortunately Hannie and her motivation for revenge was enough to carry the story. While I thought they could’ve put more clothes on the poor girl (she spends most of the movie in a poncho with nothing underneath), her rise to becoming a gunslinger was fun to watch.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
There are some really beautiful shots I adored in the movie. At the very beginning, we see Hannie standing over her dead husband against the backdrop of her burning home. It feels almost poetic. Beautiful shots of the landscape are captured so perfectly. The gun battles were also shot in such a way that the deaths felt more realistic which was a nice touch.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 9
You want fun? Check! Cool gun fights? Check! A quest for revenge that you can get behind? Done and done. I would be surprised if you didn’t have a blast during the film’s 85-minute runtime.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 10
Plot: 8
Much like Wonder Woman, the only thing this movie really suffers from is an unnecessary romance. it felt forced and happened way too quick. Hannie, like Diana, doesn’t need a man, not even in the slightest. Even if Thomas hadn’t trained her, I feel like she would have learned her way around a gun as her desire for revenge was so strong. You don’t need to fall in love to have a desire to kick ass. If anything, throwing love into the mix should have made Hannie question her motives. The rest of the story, though linear, was solid.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 87
I don’t say this lightly: I really enjoyed this movie. As campy as it can feel at times, a strong female lead makes it unique and memorable. If you like westerns, or even if you just like good movies, check this one out now for free on Amazon Prime Video or Hulu.
Acting: 8
No one is winning any awards, but they get the job done. Raquel Welch holds her own in her primary role as Hannie Caulder. She’s tough as nails and I love the perfect timing with which she delivers her quips. It’s fun watching her kick all the ass. Shout-out to Robert Culp as well playing the role of gunslinger Thomas Luther Price. He approaches his role with the calm demeanor of one that only kills when he has to. Both actors killed it.
The ones playing the bandits, however, did not. it was like watching the Three Stooges try and be bad guys. Fortunately they didn’t ruin the enjoyment of the movie as it made me want them to get theirs even more.
Beginning: 10
First ten minutes does the job of a true beginning: Sets up the plot while getting you excited to watch the rest of the movie. By the end of it, you know who’s bad, who’s good, and who needs to be avenged. Let the rest of the movie commence!
Characters: 8
Loved the protagonists as characters, not so much the bad guys as mentioned above. The villains were bumbling idiots who seemed to do bad things off sheer luck. Fortunately Hannie and her motivation for revenge was enough to carry the story. While I thought they could’ve put more clothes on the poor girl (she spends most of the movie in a poncho with nothing underneath), her rise to becoming a gunslinger was fun to watch.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
There are some really beautiful shots I adored in the movie. At the very beginning, we see Hannie standing over her dead husband against the backdrop of her burning home. It feels almost poetic. Beautiful shots of the landscape are captured so perfectly. The gun battles were also shot in such a way that the deaths felt more realistic which was a nice touch.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 9
You want fun? Check! Cool gun fights? Check! A quest for revenge that you can get behind? Done and done. I would be surprised if you didn’t have a blast during the film’s 85-minute runtime.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 10
Plot: 8
Much like Wonder Woman, the only thing this movie really suffers from is an unnecessary romance. it felt forced and happened way too quick. Hannie, like Diana, doesn’t need a man, not even in the slightest. Even if Thomas hadn’t trained her, I feel like she would have learned her way around a gun as her desire for revenge was so strong. You don’t need to fall in love to have a desire to kick ass. If anything, throwing love into the mix should have made Hannie question her motives. The rest of the story, though linear, was solid.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 87
I don’t say this lightly: I really enjoyed this movie. As campy as it can feel at times, a strong female lead makes it unique and memorable. If you like westerns, or even if you just like good movies, check this one out now for free on Amazon Prime Video or Hulu.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Missionary (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Directed by Anthony DiBlasi (whom is no stranger to the horror genre) ‘Missionary’ stars Dawn Olivieri (Heroes, True Blood, House Of Lies, CSI, How I Met Your Mother, Stargate Atlantis, The Vampire Diaries, Entourage, American Hustle) as Katherine, a young single mother recently separated from her husband Ian portrayed by actor Kip Pardue (Remember The Titans, Driven, The Rules Of Attraction, Hostel: Part 3, Mad Men, House) who is struggling to work full time, go to school, and raise their son Kesley (Conner Christie). One afternoon while helping Kelsey practice before tryouts for the junior high football team they are visited buy two Mormon missionaries. One of the two, Elder Kevin Brock (Mitch Ryan) offers to help Kelsey practice thereby ‘bending the rules’ regarding Mormons and sports under the guise of hoping to convert Katherine and Kelsey to the Mormon faith. In reality, Kevin and Katherine become infatuated with each other despite their 10 year age difference and begin an affair which also seriously compromises what Katherine likes to refer to as ‘the rules in the Mormon handbook’. While Katherine sees this as only a ‘temporary’ yet passionate sexual relationship, Kevin becomes more and more obsessed not only with Katherine but becoming a father figure to her young son Kelsey and based upon ‘his interpretation’ of Mormon doctrine believes that Katherine and Kesley are the family he’s been seeking since he joined the Mormon and that they will become his ‘celestial family’. Eventually, Katherine decides that the relationship is not good for either of them and instead choose to reconcile with her husband Ian and attempts to quietly end her relationship with Kevin. Now obsessed and bordering on psychotic, Kevin begins to stalk Katherine and her son determined to make them his ‘family’ at any cost.
For a film that follows the blueprint for the classic slasher/stalker, I have to give it a great deal of credit.
The introduction of the ‘Mormon Component’ was an original idea that to the best of my knowledge no one had dared to utilize in a movie. Probably out of fear that it might anger the leadership and followers of the Mormon faith. This film did an exceptional job though of creating a ‘distance’ between the antagonist and the other characters in the movie who were Mormons so even those who are not familiar with the religion almost instantly know that Kevin is not a legitimate follower of the faith and that his actions are NOT those of an everyday follower of that faith. The casting of Dawn Olivieri, Connor Christie, and Kip Pardue as the Kingsmen family were spot on. They were truly believable as a struggling family that was going through rough times and trying to work through their difficulties only to be thwarted by a most unlikely circumstance in the form of a crazed stalker-type who twists his religious beliefs into justifying his violent and evil actions.
On a scale of 1 to 5 stars, I’d give this film 3 stars. The film may not win any awards with the exception being an excellent job on the part of the actors and crew. The film does follow a blueprint of sorts as mentioned earlier for a slasher/stalker film and combined with original components definitely deserves a place in the scary movie section. Definitely NOT one for the kids as the film contains violence, gore, and some partial nudity. I would include it in a movie marathon on a Friday or Saturday night with a group of friends and some popcorn.
For a film that follows the blueprint for the classic slasher/stalker, I have to give it a great deal of credit.
The introduction of the ‘Mormon Component’ was an original idea that to the best of my knowledge no one had dared to utilize in a movie. Probably out of fear that it might anger the leadership and followers of the Mormon faith. This film did an exceptional job though of creating a ‘distance’ between the antagonist and the other characters in the movie who were Mormons so even those who are not familiar with the religion almost instantly know that Kevin is not a legitimate follower of the faith and that his actions are NOT those of an everyday follower of that faith. The casting of Dawn Olivieri, Connor Christie, and Kip Pardue as the Kingsmen family were spot on. They were truly believable as a struggling family that was going through rough times and trying to work through their difficulties only to be thwarted by a most unlikely circumstance in the form of a crazed stalker-type who twists his religious beliefs into justifying his violent and evil actions.
On a scale of 1 to 5 stars, I’d give this film 3 stars. The film may not win any awards with the exception being an excellent job on the part of the actors and crew. The film does follow a blueprint of sorts as mentioned earlier for a slasher/stalker film and combined with original components definitely deserves a place in the scary movie section. Definitely NOT one for the kids as the film contains violence, gore, and some partial nudity. I would include it in a movie marathon on a Friday or Saturday night with a group of friends and some popcorn.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Foxcatcher (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
‘Foxcatcher’ stars Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo, Steve Carell, Sienna Miller, and Vanessa Redgrave with an appearance by Anthony Michael Hall and tells an account of Olympic Gold Medal Wrestling Champions, brothers Mark and Dave Schultz and their dealings with their millionaire coach, paranoid-schizophrenic John du Pont who eventually murdered Dave Schultz in 1996.
The film has already been received extremely well by critics and has been praised for the performances of Ruffalo, Tatum, and Carell as the three underwent complete character transformations. The film premiered in May at the Cannes Film Festival and director Bennett Miller took home the award for best director. As someone who has seen the film I can tell you that at first I didn’t recognize any of the three lead actors when their characters first appeared on screen in the movie. I would bet money on this film being nominated for Oscars, Emmys, and any other movie awards that I cannot imagine right now based on their performances alone. Channing Tatum has even been quoted as say that this was the hardest acting challenge he has had to date in his career.
In the course of the film, we see a unique look inside the mind of an Olympic athlete via Canning Tatum’s performance as Mark Schultz and how they start out as ‘pure’ and patriotic and how those athletes can be corrupted with the promise of big money for sponsorship or with the purpose of restoring and repeating the ‘glory and standing’ they experienced previously and how it reaches into their lives and the lives of the athlete’s families. Example, in the film when at coach John du Pont’s (Carell) insistence, Mark tries to convince his brother Dave (Ruffalo) to join him in putting together team ‘Foxcatcher’ to train wrestlers for the 1988 Seoul Olympics. At first, Dave declines for the reason of not wanting to uproot his family from their home. Later on though, when its of du Pont’s opinion that Mark’s efforts are unsatisfactory du Pont takes matters into his own hands and convinces Dave himself of signing on thereby alienating Mark from and then from his brother. Eventually, the brothers reconcile but this appears to enrage du Pont who’se already starting to display the symptoms associated with paranoid-schizophrenia. Which some say is the true culprit behind du Pont’s mixer of Dave Schultz.
I would personally give this film 4 out of 5 stars. Bennett Miller couldn’t have done a better job directing this film and once again, the performances by Tatum, Ruffalo, and Carell were amazing and I have no doubt that they will become major millstones in their careers. However, there is the obvious downside of knowing the outcome in this particular instance. Although I did indeed enjoy the film it was also for all intents and purposes, the film was basically a two hour march to death for the character of Dave Schultz which was a major bummer. But hey, that’s not the fault of anyone involved in the film. That’s just what happens when you watch a true crime story. That’s my only gripe in regards to the film though. I say go see it. It is a two hour film though so be sure you grab a meal and a few beverages before you hit the theater.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ , thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies!
The film has already been received extremely well by critics and has been praised for the performances of Ruffalo, Tatum, and Carell as the three underwent complete character transformations. The film premiered in May at the Cannes Film Festival and director Bennett Miller took home the award for best director. As someone who has seen the film I can tell you that at first I didn’t recognize any of the three lead actors when their characters first appeared on screen in the movie. I would bet money on this film being nominated for Oscars, Emmys, and any other movie awards that I cannot imagine right now based on their performances alone. Channing Tatum has even been quoted as say that this was the hardest acting challenge he has had to date in his career.
In the course of the film, we see a unique look inside the mind of an Olympic athlete via Canning Tatum’s performance as Mark Schultz and how they start out as ‘pure’ and patriotic and how those athletes can be corrupted with the promise of big money for sponsorship or with the purpose of restoring and repeating the ‘glory and standing’ they experienced previously and how it reaches into their lives and the lives of the athlete’s families. Example, in the film when at coach John du Pont’s (Carell) insistence, Mark tries to convince his brother Dave (Ruffalo) to join him in putting together team ‘Foxcatcher’ to train wrestlers for the 1988 Seoul Olympics. At first, Dave declines for the reason of not wanting to uproot his family from their home. Later on though, when its of du Pont’s opinion that Mark’s efforts are unsatisfactory du Pont takes matters into his own hands and convinces Dave himself of signing on thereby alienating Mark from and then from his brother. Eventually, the brothers reconcile but this appears to enrage du Pont who’se already starting to display the symptoms associated with paranoid-schizophrenia. Which some say is the true culprit behind du Pont’s mixer of Dave Schultz.
I would personally give this film 4 out of 5 stars. Bennett Miller couldn’t have done a better job directing this film and once again, the performances by Tatum, Ruffalo, and Carell were amazing and I have no doubt that they will become major millstones in their careers. However, there is the obvious downside of knowing the outcome in this particular instance. Although I did indeed enjoy the film it was also for all intents and purposes, the film was basically a two hour march to death for the character of Dave Schultz which was a major bummer. But hey, that’s not the fault of anyone involved in the film. That’s just what happens when you watch a true crime story. That’s my only gripe in regards to the film though. I say go see it. It is a two hour film though so be sure you grab a meal and a few beverages before you hit the theater.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ , thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies!
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Dictator (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Sacha Baron Cohen is undoubtedly one of the most daring names in comedy recently. A Cambridge graduate, the comedian-actor who has starred in fairly controversial films “Bruno” and “Borat” returns with director Larry Charles in 2012’s “The Dictator”. What can be said about Cohen, over other contemporary comedians, is his absolutely excellent ability to inhabit a character role – both in and out of the film he is portrayed in. “The Dictator” is no exception to this, yet it might be the controversy regarding the Academy Awards snub that is remembered more than this film.
Cohen plays the hilariously named Admiral General Aladeen, a megalomaniacal dictator of a fictional oil-rich North African country named Waadeya. While on his trip to the UN to deliver a speech, he is thrown from his oppressive dictatorial role into that of a lost New Yorker, desperate to get back to his position as dictator. He meets others along the way to help him, namely Aasif Mandvi and Anna Farris.
The film’s plot is about as formulaic and basic as a comedy can get, simply serving as a vehicle to push from one joke to the next. If you were expecting any sort of compelling narrative, with jokes sprinkled throughout, then this movie will not be enjoyable. It completely rides upon its humor, which is both beneficial and detrimental. If the film at least attached you to particular characters other than Admiral General Aladeen then it might benefit more from its gags featuring multiple characters.
The real highlight of the film is Cohen’s consistent portrayal of this outrageous ruler. He is funny throughout; and even though he might be a horrible person with villainous qualities, he has a childish heart underneath. It is that mixture of qualities that makes for some very hilarious moments.
The actual jokes and gags themselves hold their own throughout. As mentioned, the film plods forward from one gag or joke to the next, with story simply setting up the scenes. Most of the jokes were grin worthy, and a handful of them were laugh-out-loud hilarious. Yet, overall I would not call it the funniest movie of the year. There’s a bit of everything in the movie. Sacha Baron Cohen’s trademark shocking and offensive humor will please the college moviegoers and his more clever witty humor will amuse older watchers. Yet, even the offensive humor appears to be more tame than his other movies’ most memorable moments. The whole film also deals heavily with contemporary political issues – specifically the power-obsessed dictators which have filled the news as of late. Cohen’s character pokes fun at both the absurdity of people like Colonel Ghadafi as well as the hangers-on who surround such people.
Overall, the movie maintains a consistent level of humor throughout. While that level of humor may remain at simply grin-level comedy, it still has a handful of laugh-out-loud moments. It might not be the funniest movie of the year, but it is by no means bad at what it does. A less formulaic plot would have benefited the movie’s gags by allowing other comedians in the movie to shine more. As it stands, it is a movie centered completely on Cohen’s comedy and held up by it as well. Not completely unlike the self-centered nature of his character, Admiral General Aladeen.
Cohen plays the hilariously named Admiral General Aladeen, a megalomaniacal dictator of a fictional oil-rich North African country named Waadeya. While on his trip to the UN to deliver a speech, he is thrown from his oppressive dictatorial role into that of a lost New Yorker, desperate to get back to his position as dictator. He meets others along the way to help him, namely Aasif Mandvi and Anna Farris.
The film’s plot is about as formulaic and basic as a comedy can get, simply serving as a vehicle to push from one joke to the next. If you were expecting any sort of compelling narrative, with jokes sprinkled throughout, then this movie will not be enjoyable. It completely rides upon its humor, which is both beneficial and detrimental. If the film at least attached you to particular characters other than Admiral General Aladeen then it might benefit more from its gags featuring multiple characters.
The real highlight of the film is Cohen’s consistent portrayal of this outrageous ruler. He is funny throughout; and even though he might be a horrible person with villainous qualities, he has a childish heart underneath. It is that mixture of qualities that makes for some very hilarious moments.
The actual jokes and gags themselves hold their own throughout. As mentioned, the film plods forward from one gag or joke to the next, with story simply setting up the scenes. Most of the jokes were grin worthy, and a handful of them were laugh-out-loud hilarious. Yet, overall I would not call it the funniest movie of the year. There’s a bit of everything in the movie. Sacha Baron Cohen’s trademark shocking and offensive humor will please the college moviegoers and his more clever witty humor will amuse older watchers. Yet, even the offensive humor appears to be more tame than his other movies’ most memorable moments. The whole film also deals heavily with contemporary political issues – specifically the power-obsessed dictators which have filled the news as of late. Cohen’s character pokes fun at both the absurdity of people like Colonel Ghadafi as well as the hangers-on who surround such people.
Overall, the movie maintains a consistent level of humor throughout. While that level of humor may remain at simply grin-level comedy, it still has a handful of laugh-out-loud moments. It might not be the funniest movie of the year, but it is by no means bad at what it does. A less formulaic plot would have benefited the movie’s gags by allowing other comedians in the movie to shine more. As it stands, it is a movie centered completely on Cohen’s comedy and held up by it as well. Not completely unlike the self-centered nature of his character, Admiral General Aladeen.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Fast & Furious 6 (2013) in Movies
Feb 22, 2020
Flying...Headbutt
The gang is back in Fast & Furious 6 to take down a group of criminals led by someone that was once their own…I gotta tell you, after I watched this movie, my inner me clapped. Not because this was a phenomenal movie, but because director Justin Lin got a legit grasp on what this franchise is supposed to be. Sure it’s action and car chases, rinse and repeat, but I think that was taken way too seriously in the previous five movies. I mean, serious to the point of being flat-out obnoxious. In this sixth installment, Lin embraces the craziness of it all and plays on it, makes it bigger and more ridiculous at times. Seeing this put a smile on my face and made me think this franchise, with however many movies it has left, just might have some legs afterall. Clearly I feel some kind of way as this is the longest Intro I’ve written in a long time.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 6
If you’ve seen one of these beginnings, you’ve seen them all. There’s not much new under the sun here but it’s definitely better than average. I’ve seen worse starts, I’ll just say that.
Characters: 10
Ok, so these guys are not going to wow you with their exponential growth throughout the movie, but they’re still fun characters. Dom, Letty, Brian…when you see them all together, you get a real sense of what they are going for: really creating a family-like atmosphere. These guys have been through hell and back together and you can’t help but feel connected to them at this sixth installment. Roman (Tyrese Gibson) is just the best. His comedic timing can be everything in a scene and he’s a blast to watch. His character is literally there for a charm effect and you know what? It works.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 8
Entertainment Value: 7
Here’s what makes this movie entertaining: The absolute ridiculousness of it all. After seeing Dom singlehandedly lift a car and snidely joke about it, nothing surprises me anymore about these movies. Also two words for you: Flying Headbutt. You’ll thank me later.
Memorability: 7
As always, there are some extremely fun car chases scattered throughout the movie, including one involving a big airplane stunt. Not bad as action movies go. And also: Flying Headbutt.
Pace: 7
Plot: 4
These stories will never be nominated for any type of major awards, that’s no secret. The plans are completely improbable, the bad guys usually over-the-top ridiculous, and the story is a rollercoaster of keeping things interesting. And why the hell does the GOVERNMENT keep calling on these clowns to save the world? Seriously! Just put your expectations aside of finding any plausible story and just enjoy the damn movie.
Resolution: 10
Once the Flying Headbutt (yes, that’s my third mention) happens, it’s all downhill from there. However, the movie does wrap nicely and gives me a sense of completion for the story. It ended with me thinking, “You know, I could probably stomach one more of these.”
Overall: 78
Based on my previous experience with this franchise, I was really surprised by my level of enjoyment for Fast & Furious 6. It’s not a movie I would put on if I had multiple choices, but it’s a movie I could have on in the background as I’m working on my scripts. This franchise is growing…even if its characters aren’t.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 6
If you’ve seen one of these beginnings, you’ve seen them all. There’s not much new under the sun here but it’s definitely better than average. I’ve seen worse starts, I’ll just say that.
Characters: 10
Ok, so these guys are not going to wow you with their exponential growth throughout the movie, but they’re still fun characters. Dom, Letty, Brian…when you see them all together, you get a real sense of what they are going for: really creating a family-like atmosphere. These guys have been through hell and back together and you can’t help but feel connected to them at this sixth installment. Roman (Tyrese Gibson) is just the best. His comedic timing can be everything in a scene and he’s a blast to watch. His character is literally there for a charm effect and you know what? It works.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 8
Entertainment Value: 7
Here’s what makes this movie entertaining: The absolute ridiculousness of it all. After seeing Dom singlehandedly lift a car and snidely joke about it, nothing surprises me anymore about these movies. Also two words for you: Flying Headbutt. You’ll thank me later.
Memorability: 7
As always, there are some extremely fun car chases scattered throughout the movie, including one involving a big airplane stunt. Not bad as action movies go. And also: Flying Headbutt.
Pace: 7
Plot: 4
These stories will never be nominated for any type of major awards, that’s no secret. The plans are completely improbable, the bad guys usually over-the-top ridiculous, and the story is a rollercoaster of keeping things interesting. And why the hell does the GOVERNMENT keep calling on these clowns to save the world? Seriously! Just put your expectations aside of finding any plausible story and just enjoy the damn movie.
Resolution: 10
Once the Flying Headbutt (yes, that’s my third mention) happens, it’s all downhill from there. However, the movie does wrap nicely and gives me a sense of completion for the story. It ended with me thinking, “You know, I could probably stomach one more of these.”
Overall: 78
Based on my previous experience with this franchise, I was really surprised by my level of enjoyment for Fast & Furious 6. It’s not a movie I would put on if I had multiple choices, but it’s a movie I could have on in the background as I’m working on my scripts. This franchise is growing…even if its characters aren’t.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hamilton (2020) in Movies
Jul 5, 2020
Captures the power of being in "the room where it happens"
I'll just cut to the chase, the filmed version of the mega-hit stage musical HAMILTON (now streaming on Disney+) is terrific. If you are one of the few that have not seen this, check it out - you'll be glad you did.
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Cherry (2021) in Movies
Feb 25, 2021
Tom Holland and Joe and Anthony Russo have teamed up again but this time on a project which is about as far away from the Marvel universe as possible. Based on the book Nico Walker; “Cherry” is a compelling tale told in segments that depict a different style and phase of the main character’s life.
Holland stars as a young man who is trying to find a direction in his life. He meets a young girl named Emily (Ciara Bravo), and soon begins a relationship with her. This phase of the film plays out as a Young Romance film and the audience is given a good look at their world.
When Emily decides to move to Montreal to go to school and escape the issues she has’ Cherry goes into a downward spiral and enlists in the Army as a way to escape his pain and to try to find direction.
The film takes a dramatic turn at this point as Emily and Cherry reunite and marries but he is facing his pending military service which will split the couple. The film then pivots and becomes a war movie as we see Cherry go through Basic Training and then is deployed to Afghanistan as a medic. The horrors he experiences during his two years in the service traumatize him and he returns home to Emily with a severe case of PTSD which complicates their life and relationship.
The film then pivots again to show a descent into depression and drug addiction as Cherry and Emily fall deeply into the spell of drugs which causes Cherry to become more and more desperate to fund their habit which soon includes bank robbery.
While the film is deeply dark and depressing; there is a thread of hope throughout the film as despite their numerous issues; the bond between Emily and Cherry remains despite challenges well beyond what any normal relationship faces.
The honest and brutal nature of the story is amplified by the fact that this is a true story based on the life of Nico Walker. There have been films that depict the challenges facing Vets such as “The Deer Hunter” “Coming Home”, and “Born on the 4th of July”, which underscores the struggles that Vietnam Vets faced after their service. While “Cherry” looks at a modern conflict; it underscores how Vets are still struggling to get the care they need as many survivors to return broken and unable to resume their lives.
Holland and Bravo have solid chemistry with one another and the story is gripping and engaging throughout. Seeing Holland in a much more mature and darker role than we are used to seeing him in shows that he has a range of talents and is very capable of taking on a variety of parts.
Joe and Anthony Russo moved well from their recent Marvel films to a deeply personal and troubling story and the fact that they cover the multiple genres in each of the film segments shows they are very talented filmmakers with a bright future.
Do not be shocked to see “Cherry” come up at the next awards season as it is a film not to be missed and you can see it on Apple TV on March 12th. and cinemas on February 26th.
4.5 stars out of 5
Holland stars as a young man who is trying to find a direction in his life. He meets a young girl named Emily (Ciara Bravo), and soon begins a relationship with her. This phase of the film plays out as a Young Romance film and the audience is given a good look at their world.
When Emily decides to move to Montreal to go to school and escape the issues she has’ Cherry goes into a downward spiral and enlists in the Army as a way to escape his pain and to try to find direction.
The film takes a dramatic turn at this point as Emily and Cherry reunite and marries but he is facing his pending military service which will split the couple. The film then pivots and becomes a war movie as we see Cherry go through Basic Training and then is deployed to Afghanistan as a medic. The horrors he experiences during his two years in the service traumatize him and he returns home to Emily with a severe case of PTSD which complicates their life and relationship.
The film then pivots again to show a descent into depression and drug addiction as Cherry and Emily fall deeply into the spell of drugs which causes Cherry to become more and more desperate to fund their habit which soon includes bank robbery.
While the film is deeply dark and depressing; there is a thread of hope throughout the film as despite their numerous issues; the bond between Emily and Cherry remains despite challenges well beyond what any normal relationship faces.
The honest and brutal nature of the story is amplified by the fact that this is a true story based on the life of Nico Walker. There have been films that depict the challenges facing Vets such as “The Deer Hunter” “Coming Home”, and “Born on the 4th of July”, which underscores the struggles that Vietnam Vets faced after their service. While “Cherry” looks at a modern conflict; it underscores how Vets are still struggling to get the care they need as many survivors to return broken and unable to resume their lives.
Holland and Bravo have solid chemistry with one another and the story is gripping and engaging throughout. Seeing Holland in a much more mature and darker role than we are used to seeing him in shows that he has a range of talents and is very capable of taking on a variety of parts.
Joe and Anthony Russo moved well from their recent Marvel films to a deeply personal and troubling story and the fact that they cover the multiple genres in each of the film segments shows they are very talented filmmakers with a bright future.
Do not be shocked to see “Cherry” come up at the next awards season as it is a film not to be missed and you can see it on Apple TV on March 12th. and cinemas on February 26th.
4.5 stars out of 5
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated I Care a Lot (2020) in Movies
Feb 27, 2021
Rosamund Pike - what Gone Girl did next (1 more)
Supporting cast: Peter Dinklage, Eiza Gonzáles and Dianne Wiest
An inky black comedy thriller
Maria Grayson (Rosamund Pike) and her colleague-cum-lover Fran (Eiza González) are running an extensive con. Through the manipulation of the Boston legal and medical systems, Maria arranges to be appointed the legal guardian for numerous older people. Packing them away to a drugged up life in a care home, the pair then plunder the estates of their wards, turning a tidy profit. The weatlhy and unattached Jennifer Peterson (Dianne Wiest) appears to be a "cherry" that can take their fortunes to a completely different level. But all is not as it seems, and Maria and Fran's evil but comfortable lives are about to be turned on their heads.
Positives:
- When I say the comedy is inky black, I mean it. It's unusual to find a movie without a single character that you can relate to or even remotely like. For some reason, it reminded me of the Michael Douglas / Kathleen Turner vehicle "The War of the Roses" in that regard. And yet, once you let the evilness of it sink in, it becomes a rip-roaring story that delights to the very end.
- Rosamund Pike delivers yet again another superb performance, making Maria an icy cold villain. The role could be summed up as "What Gone Girl did next".
- Peter Dinklage delights in portraying an evil character which, for reasons of spoiler avoidance, I shall say nothing further about. But it's a cracking performance and brilliant to see a script that steadfastly ignores his physical characteristics.
- Dianne Wiest ("The Mule") and Eiza González ("the sexy one" from "Baby Driver") also deliver strong supporting roles.
-J Blakeson - who did "The Disappearance of Alice Creed" - directs with style, and hopefully his truly novel screenplay will be suitably recognised through awards. There are some clever twists: one near the end which (Smug McSmuggerson from the University of Smugchester) I saw coming, and another one soon after that I didn't!
- Mark Canham - not a composer I know - delivers a really engaging and bouncy score that's top notch. Loved it.
Negatives:
- The plot is just SO inky black at the beginning, that some may get through the first 15 minutes and think "Nope, not for me". You should stick with it: after Peter Dinklage appears, the movie shifts up a gear and changes in tone.
- The plot occasionally stretches credibility beyond breaking point. In particular, all the characters seem to be wholly incompetent at 'dispatching people' when they have the opportunity to do so. The repetition of these failures I found to be a bit tiresome.
Summary: Finding a movie with a novel storyline is an unusual thing these days, and one that combines that with a taut and engrossing screenplay is a gem indeed. It's probably not one recommended for very elderly people to watch.... then again, perhaps with so many evil scammers around in real life, it might be considered required viewing! But, if you have one, you'll probably want to have a chat with your granny after watching this.
(For the full graphical review, check out the full review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/02/27/i-care-a-lot-an-inky-black-comedy-thriller/. Thanks).
Positives:
- When I say the comedy is inky black, I mean it. It's unusual to find a movie without a single character that you can relate to or even remotely like. For some reason, it reminded me of the Michael Douglas / Kathleen Turner vehicle "The War of the Roses" in that regard. And yet, once you let the evilness of it sink in, it becomes a rip-roaring story that delights to the very end.
- Rosamund Pike delivers yet again another superb performance, making Maria an icy cold villain. The role could be summed up as "What Gone Girl did next".
- Peter Dinklage delights in portraying an evil character which, for reasons of spoiler avoidance, I shall say nothing further about. But it's a cracking performance and brilliant to see a script that steadfastly ignores his physical characteristics.
- Dianne Wiest ("The Mule") and Eiza González ("the sexy one" from "Baby Driver") also deliver strong supporting roles.
-J Blakeson - who did "The Disappearance of Alice Creed" - directs with style, and hopefully his truly novel screenplay will be suitably recognised through awards. There are some clever twists: one near the end which (Smug McSmuggerson from the University of Smugchester) I saw coming, and another one soon after that I didn't!
- Mark Canham - not a composer I know - delivers a really engaging and bouncy score that's top notch. Loved it.
Negatives:
- The plot is just SO inky black at the beginning, that some may get through the first 15 minutes and think "Nope, not for me". You should stick with it: after Peter Dinklage appears, the movie shifts up a gear and changes in tone.
- The plot occasionally stretches credibility beyond breaking point. In particular, all the characters seem to be wholly incompetent at 'dispatching people' when they have the opportunity to do so. The repetition of these failures I found to be a bit tiresome.
Summary: Finding a movie with a novel storyline is an unusual thing these days, and one that combines that with a taut and engrossing screenplay is a gem indeed. It's probably not one recommended for very elderly people to watch.... then again, perhaps with so many evil scammers around in real life, it might be considered required viewing! But, if you have one, you'll probably want to have a chat with your granny after watching this.
(For the full graphical review, check out the full review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/02/27/i-care-a-lot-an-inky-black-comedy-thriller/. Thanks).
