Search
Search results
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The House That Jack Built (2018) in Movies
Nov 15, 2019
Into the disturbing mind of a serial killer..
The human mind is still one of those ultimate enigmas of life. How does it work exactly? Nature vs. nurture? What causes some of us to devote their lives to philanthropy and helping others whilst others of us are deeply disturbed devoting their existence to the destruction of life for their twisted, demented pleasure?
The story of Jack is a exercise in the extreme. From the opening moments of THTJB, the audience is quickly brought into Jack's world and not released for 2 1/2 hours of brutality.
Jack finds himself in his bright red rape van when he passes a damsel in distress in the form of a woman with a flat tire. He stops and reluctantly agrees to drive her to the nearest auto repair place for assistance. When the plight becomes more complicated, Jack reluctantly agrees to further drive the woman around. Growing impatient with her constant blather and insults at Jack's personality, Jack quickly reaches his limit and destroys the woman quickly using her broken car jack which happens to be lying right next to him in the front seat.
That is just the beginning.
The film is set to 5 "incidents" and an "epilogue" which chronicle several years in Jack's life, including other relationships with woman, his family and random encounters he has all used to fuel his addiction with death. Without detailing them all here, his journey for carnage includes extreme actions including multiple murders, corpse manipulation and even human trophies.
If you are a fan of writer/director Lars von Trier, this will be nothing new to you if you have seen some of his other films including Antichrist, Nymphomaniac or Dogville. His films usually require a strong stomach, but do not shock for shock's sake alone. The vivid imagery in all his films is used not only to proper the narrative, to show the audience something they have not seen before and cross the lines between art and film. His films will repulse some. I won't squabble with those who cannot handle his type of film-making; however, maybe my inner film snob relishes those who give me something different, something to think about after I have finished watching and thought out interesting characters you almost never see any more.
With THTJB, he delves into the human mind well providing voice-over to let us in to what Jack is thinking and maybe helps us include a glimmer of understanding with it. Jack's acts are loathsome, morbid, violent, criminal and terrible, but somehow I was still fascinated by him which comes with good writing. In an interview I watched after viewing the film, von Trier explained he loved writing for Jack because you never knew quite what he was going to say. Several times within the film he is "caught" in an awkward situation and is able to talk himself out of it with absurd, yet believable rhetoric. You certainly don't root for him since his actions are reprehensible, but you are interested in what happens next.
Matt Dillon was overlooked during awards season of 2018. The Academy should've looked his way as they did for Sir Anthony Hopkins in 1991. His performance is gritty, deeply disturbing and very believable. He made Jack seem sympathetic at times even through his extreme violent nature. Sometimes subtle, sometimes over the top. I can't remember a performance of his which was more striking.
A film by Lars von Trier will always propel your intellect after your viewing is complete and this film is no exception. Some of the images the movie provides (not just the kill scenes) are unforgettable, some beautiful, but all very thought out and aligned with precision. He is undoubtedly one of the most unique directors working in film today and I continually look forward to his subsequent offerings!
The story of Jack is a exercise in the extreme. From the opening moments of THTJB, the audience is quickly brought into Jack's world and not released for 2 1/2 hours of brutality.
Jack finds himself in his bright red rape van when he passes a damsel in distress in the form of a woman with a flat tire. He stops and reluctantly agrees to drive her to the nearest auto repair place for assistance. When the plight becomes more complicated, Jack reluctantly agrees to further drive the woman around. Growing impatient with her constant blather and insults at Jack's personality, Jack quickly reaches his limit and destroys the woman quickly using her broken car jack which happens to be lying right next to him in the front seat.
That is just the beginning.
The film is set to 5 "incidents" and an "epilogue" which chronicle several years in Jack's life, including other relationships with woman, his family and random encounters he has all used to fuel his addiction with death. Without detailing them all here, his journey for carnage includes extreme actions including multiple murders, corpse manipulation and even human trophies.
If you are a fan of writer/director Lars von Trier, this will be nothing new to you if you have seen some of his other films including Antichrist, Nymphomaniac or Dogville. His films usually require a strong stomach, but do not shock for shock's sake alone. The vivid imagery in all his films is used not only to proper the narrative, to show the audience something they have not seen before and cross the lines between art and film. His films will repulse some. I won't squabble with those who cannot handle his type of film-making; however, maybe my inner film snob relishes those who give me something different, something to think about after I have finished watching and thought out interesting characters you almost never see any more.
With THTJB, he delves into the human mind well providing voice-over to let us in to what Jack is thinking and maybe helps us include a glimmer of understanding with it. Jack's acts are loathsome, morbid, violent, criminal and terrible, but somehow I was still fascinated by him which comes with good writing. In an interview I watched after viewing the film, von Trier explained he loved writing for Jack because you never knew quite what he was going to say. Several times within the film he is "caught" in an awkward situation and is able to talk himself out of it with absurd, yet believable rhetoric. You certainly don't root for him since his actions are reprehensible, but you are interested in what happens next.
Matt Dillon was overlooked during awards season of 2018. The Academy should've looked his way as they did for Sir Anthony Hopkins in 1991. His performance is gritty, deeply disturbing and very believable. He made Jack seem sympathetic at times even through his extreme violent nature. Sometimes subtle, sometimes over the top. I can't remember a performance of his which was more striking.
A film by Lars von Trier will always propel your intellect after your viewing is complete and this film is no exception. Some of the images the movie provides (not just the kill scenes) are unforgettable, some beautiful, but all very thought out and aligned with precision. He is undoubtedly one of the most unique directors working in film today and I continually look forward to his subsequent offerings!
Darren (1599 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Dec 6, 2019
Verdict: Powerful
Story: Marriage Story starts as we meet theatre director Charlie (Driver) and his wife actress Nicole (Johansson) they are about to go through a separation, with Nicole starting a new life in LA where she is trying to return to the television or film, moving away from the New York theatre lifestyle.
With the lives going on completely different directions, Nicole is pushed into getting a lawyer in Nora Fanshaw (Dern) which sees the two looking at a divorce, something neither thought would come their way, where they end up seeing the darker side of a break up even if they want to remain friends for their son.
Thoughts on Marriage Story
Characters – Nicole is an actress, mother and wife, she is given a chance to leave the theatre and return to television, while the couple are going through a separation and her moving to LA. She has given up a lot of her dreams for her marriage in the past, which is one of the reasons why she wants to get a divorce. Charlie is the theatre director, father and husband in New York, he wants to stay in New York running his theatre company. He is more stubborn that he wants to admit. Nora Fanshaw and Jay are both the lawyers hired to represent the divorcing couple, they show their ruthless sides whenever the two are trying to get the upper hand.
Performances – Adam Driver gives us one of the best performances of the year, where he shows one that suddenly sees his whole life come crashing around him, showing the signs of his anger of everything happening. Scarlett Johansson is fantastic too where we see how she is escaping from a trapped life showing her character start a new life. Laura Dern and Ray Liotta are both great in the supporting roles usually getting the bigger and louder scenes.
Story – The story here follows a couple that are going through a separation that turns into a messy divorce as they expose the problems, they both had through the years. The best way to describe this story is brilliant, when we break it down, it shows how relationships can break down and how two people want to end things calmly and for the right reasons, remaining friends for their son. It shows us how things can get out of hand when lawyers get involved and how everybody seems to know best apart from the two who are going through the breakup. We see how lives can change, people can move on and how holding on can be heart breaking. It is watching how both Nicole and Charlie are reacting to how everything is spirally out of hand which is easy for the highlight of the storytelling.
Comedy/Romance – The comedy in the film is brilliant, it does get a perfectly laugh when needed, while staying straight when it doesn’t, the romance does show us how love can go from the heights to the end.
Settings – The film uses the two main settings of cities, New York and LA, the locations are used to show how the lives will need to be changed, not just for Nicole and Charlie, but their son too.
Scene of the Movie – Let’s try and talk this through without a lawyer.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The timeline isn’t the best.
Final Thoughts – This is easily one of the best films of the year, it shows us how love can end and how a divorce can spirally out of control, the two lead performances are easily within the best of the year too.
Overall: Awards Guaranteed.
Story: Marriage Story starts as we meet theatre director Charlie (Driver) and his wife actress Nicole (Johansson) they are about to go through a separation, with Nicole starting a new life in LA where she is trying to return to the television or film, moving away from the New York theatre lifestyle.
With the lives going on completely different directions, Nicole is pushed into getting a lawyer in Nora Fanshaw (Dern) which sees the two looking at a divorce, something neither thought would come their way, where they end up seeing the darker side of a break up even if they want to remain friends for their son.
Thoughts on Marriage Story
Characters – Nicole is an actress, mother and wife, she is given a chance to leave the theatre and return to television, while the couple are going through a separation and her moving to LA. She has given up a lot of her dreams for her marriage in the past, which is one of the reasons why she wants to get a divorce. Charlie is the theatre director, father and husband in New York, he wants to stay in New York running his theatre company. He is more stubborn that he wants to admit. Nora Fanshaw and Jay are both the lawyers hired to represent the divorcing couple, they show their ruthless sides whenever the two are trying to get the upper hand.
Performances – Adam Driver gives us one of the best performances of the year, where he shows one that suddenly sees his whole life come crashing around him, showing the signs of his anger of everything happening. Scarlett Johansson is fantastic too where we see how she is escaping from a trapped life showing her character start a new life. Laura Dern and Ray Liotta are both great in the supporting roles usually getting the bigger and louder scenes.
Story – The story here follows a couple that are going through a separation that turns into a messy divorce as they expose the problems, they both had through the years. The best way to describe this story is brilliant, when we break it down, it shows how relationships can break down and how two people want to end things calmly and for the right reasons, remaining friends for their son. It shows us how things can get out of hand when lawyers get involved and how everybody seems to know best apart from the two who are going through the breakup. We see how lives can change, people can move on and how holding on can be heart breaking. It is watching how both Nicole and Charlie are reacting to how everything is spirally out of hand which is easy for the highlight of the storytelling.
Comedy/Romance – The comedy in the film is brilliant, it does get a perfectly laugh when needed, while staying straight when it doesn’t, the romance does show us how love can go from the heights to the end.
Settings – The film uses the two main settings of cities, New York and LA, the locations are used to show how the lives will need to be changed, not just for Nicole and Charlie, but their son too.
Scene of the Movie – Let’s try and talk this through without a lawyer.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The timeline isn’t the best.
Final Thoughts – This is easily one of the best films of the year, it shows us how love can end and how a divorce can spirally out of control, the two lead performances are easily within the best of the year too.
Overall: Awards Guaranteed.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Powerless (The Hero Agenda, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<strong>Guys, I've found the Fight Book of the Year.</strong> At this rate I'm actually wondering if there's such a thing as a Blogger's Choice Awards so I can actually <i>nominate</i> this.
(If there is one, point me there NOW. I'll love you forever. :p)
In a world with heroes and villains, Kenna Swift works as an intern in a lab. While working in the lab one night, Kenna gets attacked by villains and is even saved by one of them. Being saved by a villain causes her to think about what a hero or a villain really is, and she ends up teaming up with them after finding out that maybe heroes aren't exactly heroes.
<b>I actually like Kenna as a character. Considering her circumstances, she's actually pretty brilliant and resourceful</b> when all else fails, kick butt by kneeing someone in the balls. She even had an experiment before everything went Inferno to try and become a hero as well instead of being powerless. <b>Her brilliance and intelligence sometimes fall short in the midst of chaos, but I pretty much approve her as a character.</b>
Except... I'm still irritated. <strong><i>Powerless</i> just has sooo many arguments and fights. The characters fight with each other constantly verbally and physically. The fighting takes up over half of the book</strong> when Kenna, Rebel, and Jeremy team up with villains. Kenna is basically a bystander, Rebel is ironically the glue, and Jeremy is going neck to neck with Draven. Nitro and Dante already have some tension between them. <strong>There's boy drama and fighting thrown together, and it is SO. DARN. IRRITATING.</strong>
Have I mentioned <strong>it sounds completely immature?</strong> By some point in the book, I've deemed <i>Powerless</i> <b>a book unworthy of memorability in my brain simply because of the number of fights that belong in a playground with unruly little kids tugging each other consistently.</b> The amount was also great enough I mentally started to threaten poor A.G. Howard's <i>Unhinged</i>.
But of course, <i><a title="Splintered by A.G. Howard" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-splintered-by-ag-howard/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">Splintered</a></i> has a love triangle to which I feel completely indifferent to regardless of the fact I like the world and read the second book to determine which, if any, corner actually deserves my complete and utmost devotion.
(It also inspired a few discussion posts for the future. *tucks posts in an invisible drawer*)
Anyways, back to the fights. The majority of book are the characters not getting along for most of the book it's akin to the <a title="Lark by Erica Cope" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-lark-by-erica-cope/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">romance overshadowing the plot</a> and I found it highly annoying. Meanwhile, <strong>I'm left with questions about the entire world after reading the book and none of them actually got answered.</strong><strong>
</strong>
How does this whole power thing work? Are powers inherited, or are they random? Is being a villain or hero random, or are they inherited (that seems to be yes)? Why was the hero/villain world created? HOW was it created? Was it an experiment gone awry? Is it similar to Captain America?
I got vague answers or no answers. Childs and Deebs may answer those questions in the sequels, or perhaps it's the overall plot of the series, but, I don't really see how it will all fit with what they've laid out in <i>Powerless</i>. <b>It's plot-driven and doesn't take too much time to develop the world or the characters, but makes you question what is considered good and evil.</b>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-powerless-by-tera-lynn-childs-and-tracey-deebs/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
(If there is one, point me there NOW. I'll love you forever. :p)
In a world with heroes and villains, Kenna Swift works as an intern in a lab. While working in the lab one night, Kenna gets attacked by villains and is even saved by one of them. Being saved by a villain causes her to think about what a hero or a villain really is, and she ends up teaming up with them after finding out that maybe heroes aren't exactly heroes.
<b>I actually like Kenna as a character. Considering her circumstances, she's actually pretty brilliant and resourceful</b> when all else fails, kick butt by kneeing someone in the balls. She even had an experiment before everything went Inferno to try and become a hero as well instead of being powerless. <b>Her brilliance and intelligence sometimes fall short in the midst of chaos, but I pretty much approve her as a character.</b>
Except... I'm still irritated. <strong><i>Powerless</i> just has sooo many arguments and fights. The characters fight with each other constantly verbally and physically. The fighting takes up over half of the book</strong> when Kenna, Rebel, and Jeremy team up with villains. Kenna is basically a bystander, Rebel is ironically the glue, and Jeremy is going neck to neck with Draven. Nitro and Dante already have some tension between them. <strong>There's boy drama and fighting thrown together, and it is SO. DARN. IRRITATING.</strong>
Have I mentioned <strong>it sounds completely immature?</strong> By some point in the book, I've deemed <i>Powerless</i> <b>a book unworthy of memorability in my brain simply because of the number of fights that belong in a playground with unruly little kids tugging each other consistently.</b> The amount was also great enough I mentally started to threaten poor A.G. Howard's <i>Unhinged</i>.
But of course, <i><a title="Splintered by A.G. Howard" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-splintered-by-ag-howard/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">Splintered</a></i> has a love triangle to which I feel completely indifferent to regardless of the fact I like the world and read the second book to determine which, if any, corner actually deserves my complete and utmost devotion.
(It also inspired a few discussion posts for the future. *tucks posts in an invisible drawer*)
Anyways, back to the fights. The majority of book are the characters not getting along for most of the book it's akin to the <a title="Lark by Erica Cope" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-lark-by-erica-cope/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">romance overshadowing the plot</a> and I found it highly annoying. Meanwhile, <strong>I'm left with questions about the entire world after reading the book and none of them actually got answered.</strong><strong>
</strong>
How does this whole power thing work? Are powers inherited, or are they random? Is being a villain or hero random, or are they inherited (that seems to be yes)? Why was the hero/villain world created? HOW was it created? Was it an experiment gone awry? Is it similar to Captain America?
I got vague answers or no answers. Childs and Deebs may answer those questions in the sequels, or perhaps it's the overall plot of the series, but, I don't really see how it will all fit with what they've laid out in <i>Powerless</i>. <b>It's plot-driven and doesn't take too much time to develop the world or the characters, but makes you question what is considered good and evil.</b>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-powerless-by-tera-lynn-childs-and-tracey-deebs/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020 (Updated Jan 26, 2020)
Fantastic performances from two old acting pros.
Being inaugurated as a new pope in the last century must have been a source of enormous pride. But there must also have been a nagging thought... at some point you are going to be paraded, stiff as a board, around your work courtyard before being taken back inside to your place of work and buried there!
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Wedding Ringer (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
When I first heard the title of this movie, I probably thought what 99% of the population thought… that sounds like The Wedding Singer. Without even knowing anything about the film I had this preconceived notion that it was about a jeweler for weddings who is the best jeweler in town! Sarcasm is so hard to convey, but picture the end of that last sentence dripping with it.
It seems like Kevin Hart is in everything these days. He is the big name to know, and on everyone’s short list (rim shot). But it’s for good reason. They guy is funny. So I had a little hope The Wedding Ringer. Especially when you partner him with Josh Gad, a person more commonly known for being the supporting actor. Who is still a supporting actor in this film, but you wouldn’t know it.
For those that don’t know, TWR is about Doug Harris (Gad), a bridegroom who finds himself in a little bit of a pickle. It’s 10 days before his wedding, and he still has yet to figure out how to tell Gretchen (Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting), his bride-to-be, that his Best Man, and entire wedding party, are entirely fictitious. Never fear, for Harris is lead to Jimmy Callahan (Hart), proprietor of The Best Man, Inc. Only Jimmy doesn’t know exactly what he’s getting into as he makes an attempt at the fabled “Golden Tuxedo”, a myth in the business of being able to provide a 7-man grooms party in 10 days. Hilarity and hijinks ensue.
This movie was far better than I imagined it would be. With edgy humor, and great cameo appearances, the film delivers. Not afraid to make inside jokes about the actors’ previous roles, and not focusing on racial humor that some may anticipate, the film did not disappoint. The chemistry between Hart and Gad was good. It wasn’t great, but you can tell there was some. Hearing Cuoco-Sweeting curse after watching her for years on network television was a bit of a shock at first, but it certainly seemed natural. It was just so hard to accept the fact that she played her character so well, being the opposite end of the spectrum from some of the things she is most known for.
As I mentioned earlier, there were some great cameos throughout the film. Without giving away the big surprises, be on the lookout for Josh Peck, Cloris Leachman, Mimi Rogers, Whitney Cummings and Jeffrey Ross (just to name a few). Surprisingly enough, the edgiest jokes did not even come from the main cast, but more the supporting actors. They did an excellent job of spreading the humor. And while soundtrack is not a huge focus for comedies, I thought it a nice touch that many of the selections were more than fitting for the scenes.
Was the movie formulaic? You betcha? I called the ending of the movie a mere 20 minutes in. Are all of the jokes original? No. There were some great ones that I have never heard before, and the ones that you’ve seen a lot were delivered in fresh, creative way. Is it a movie that’s going to win awards? Likely not, but it’s definitely worth checking out for date night.
Bottom line, the movie surpassed my expectations by a mile. It was nice to see a movie that doesn’t rely on the obvious jokes and humor you would expect given the cast and setting. This is definitely one that will be making its way into my collection when released for home viewing, and I may head out and take a gander at it again this weekend.
It seems like Kevin Hart is in everything these days. He is the big name to know, and on everyone’s short list (rim shot). But it’s for good reason. They guy is funny. So I had a little hope The Wedding Ringer. Especially when you partner him with Josh Gad, a person more commonly known for being the supporting actor. Who is still a supporting actor in this film, but you wouldn’t know it.
For those that don’t know, TWR is about Doug Harris (Gad), a bridegroom who finds himself in a little bit of a pickle. It’s 10 days before his wedding, and he still has yet to figure out how to tell Gretchen (Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting), his bride-to-be, that his Best Man, and entire wedding party, are entirely fictitious. Never fear, for Harris is lead to Jimmy Callahan (Hart), proprietor of The Best Man, Inc. Only Jimmy doesn’t know exactly what he’s getting into as he makes an attempt at the fabled “Golden Tuxedo”, a myth in the business of being able to provide a 7-man grooms party in 10 days. Hilarity and hijinks ensue.
This movie was far better than I imagined it would be. With edgy humor, and great cameo appearances, the film delivers. Not afraid to make inside jokes about the actors’ previous roles, and not focusing on racial humor that some may anticipate, the film did not disappoint. The chemistry between Hart and Gad was good. It wasn’t great, but you can tell there was some. Hearing Cuoco-Sweeting curse after watching her for years on network television was a bit of a shock at first, but it certainly seemed natural. It was just so hard to accept the fact that she played her character so well, being the opposite end of the spectrum from some of the things she is most known for.
As I mentioned earlier, there were some great cameos throughout the film. Without giving away the big surprises, be on the lookout for Josh Peck, Cloris Leachman, Mimi Rogers, Whitney Cummings and Jeffrey Ross (just to name a few). Surprisingly enough, the edgiest jokes did not even come from the main cast, but more the supporting actors. They did an excellent job of spreading the humor. And while soundtrack is not a huge focus for comedies, I thought it a nice touch that many of the selections were more than fitting for the scenes.
Was the movie formulaic? You betcha? I called the ending of the movie a mere 20 minutes in. Are all of the jokes original? No. There were some great ones that I have never heard before, and the ones that you’ve seen a lot were delivered in fresh, creative way. Is it a movie that’s going to win awards? Likely not, but it’s definitely worth checking out for date night.
Bottom line, the movie surpassed my expectations by a mile. It was nice to see a movie that doesn’t rely on the obvious jokes and humor you would expect given the cast and setting. This is definitely one that will be making its way into my collection when released for home viewing, and I may head out and take a gander at it again this weekend.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Parker (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
So I, being the girl that I am, wasn’t exactly keyed up to go and see a “shoot-em up” style action flick — you know, the kind that Jason Statham excels at? My boyfriend, however, is like most red-blooded men and found this movie right up his alley. Perhaps it was due to the fact I “owed” him from cashing in my chick-flick points and making him watch “the Painted Veil” with me the other day; perhaps it was because my choice of Redbox rentals had been rather lackluster in comparison. Either way, he was looking forward the the prospect of this movie review far more than I.
“Parker” starts off in Ohio where Jason Statham’s character (Parker) is working a job with four other men. The job seems to go off without a hitch until the end when Parker discovers an innocent man died in the process, thus starting “beef” between he and one of his partners. The apparent boss of the crooks then asks Parker to join them in another job, requiring him to give up his share of the loot to contribute to the upcoming job. Parker politely declines and, of course, this doesn’t sit too well with the crooks. As predicted, they then turn on him and Parker is left for dead on the side of the road.
As we know, Jason Statham’s characters are indestructible. I mean, this was covered in both “Crank” movies so the audience should be well-versed in how this goes down, right? Of course, Parker survives and thus starts on a path of revenge. Mob bosses are involved, hits are put out, etc. Regardless, his journey takes him to Palm Springs where the four crooks who betrayed him are preparing for their next big job.
Now, you’re probably wondering where Jennifer Lopez is in all of this (yes, JLo has a part in this movie – I know, I feel your pain too). Given that her last decent flick was “the Cell” and “Selena,” I wasn’t expecting too much from her character. As Parker is making his way down to Palm Springs, the movie then focuses on JLo’s character, a depressed and rather broken divorcee living with her mother and desperate for a commission from her job as a real-estate agent. Cue in Parker, dressed as a wealthy Texan, and looking to buy a home in Palm Springs. Of course we see JLo checking him out and basically throwing herself at him because, well, that’s what all us desperate women do, right? We throw ourselves at rich men when times are hard without taking much else into consideration (like, say the cop – who comes across as a decent guy – who wants nothing else but to date her. But hey, he’s not Jason Statham, right? Pfft!). Regardless, JLo finds a way to weasel herself into helping Parker’s character and thwarting the four thieves who betrayed Parker. Luckily for all of us, JLo advances are shut down and we don’t have to fall witness to another “Gigli”.
Is the movie some amazing cinematic masterpiece? Absolutely not. Are Parker’s flashbacks cheesy and annoying? Of course. But we are talking about an action flick and one that doesn’t disappoint in lots of blood, gun fights, knifing action, and Jason Statham being an overall badass.
Will your girlfriend love this movie? Probably not. Will you, you red-blooded hunk of testosterone, love this movie? Probably. It is, after all, geared towards your sex. And, just in case the blood and fights don’t do it for you, there are more than enough exposed breasts throughout the film keep your interest piqued.
So if you’re looking for a good revenge-style action flick, this one is decent enough. It won’t win any awards, but it won’t leave your poor girlfriend screaming for the hills either. JLo’s performance, however, that’s just inexcusible….
“Parker” starts off in Ohio where Jason Statham’s character (Parker) is working a job with four other men. The job seems to go off without a hitch until the end when Parker discovers an innocent man died in the process, thus starting “beef” between he and one of his partners. The apparent boss of the crooks then asks Parker to join them in another job, requiring him to give up his share of the loot to contribute to the upcoming job. Parker politely declines and, of course, this doesn’t sit too well with the crooks. As predicted, they then turn on him and Parker is left for dead on the side of the road.
As we know, Jason Statham’s characters are indestructible. I mean, this was covered in both “Crank” movies so the audience should be well-versed in how this goes down, right? Of course, Parker survives and thus starts on a path of revenge. Mob bosses are involved, hits are put out, etc. Regardless, his journey takes him to Palm Springs where the four crooks who betrayed him are preparing for their next big job.
Now, you’re probably wondering where Jennifer Lopez is in all of this (yes, JLo has a part in this movie – I know, I feel your pain too). Given that her last decent flick was “the Cell” and “Selena,” I wasn’t expecting too much from her character. As Parker is making his way down to Palm Springs, the movie then focuses on JLo’s character, a depressed and rather broken divorcee living with her mother and desperate for a commission from her job as a real-estate agent. Cue in Parker, dressed as a wealthy Texan, and looking to buy a home in Palm Springs. Of course we see JLo checking him out and basically throwing herself at him because, well, that’s what all us desperate women do, right? We throw ourselves at rich men when times are hard without taking much else into consideration (like, say the cop – who comes across as a decent guy – who wants nothing else but to date her. But hey, he’s not Jason Statham, right? Pfft!). Regardless, JLo finds a way to weasel herself into helping Parker’s character and thwarting the four thieves who betrayed Parker. Luckily for all of us, JLo advances are shut down and we don’t have to fall witness to another “Gigli”.
Is the movie some amazing cinematic masterpiece? Absolutely not. Are Parker’s flashbacks cheesy and annoying? Of course. But we are talking about an action flick and one that doesn’t disappoint in lots of blood, gun fights, knifing action, and Jason Statham being an overall badass.
Will your girlfriend love this movie? Probably not. Will you, you red-blooded hunk of testosterone, love this movie? Probably. It is, after all, geared towards your sex. And, just in case the blood and fights don’t do it for you, there are more than enough exposed breasts throughout the film keep your interest piqued.
So if you’re looking for a good revenge-style action flick, this one is decent enough. It won’t win any awards, but it won’t leave your poor girlfriend screaming for the hills either. JLo’s performance, however, that’s just inexcusible….
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Argo (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
As a small child, I can remember the Iranian hostage crisis as it dominated the news media for over a year. While I did not understand the political atmosphere behind it, I did understand that a group of our embassy staff were being held prisoner in a foreign land for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Director and star Ben Affleck has brought a new side to the story to light in the form of his new film “Argo”, which is based upon true events which have recently become declassified. The story centers around six workers of the embassy in Tehran, who fled the chaos when a disgruntled mob stormed the embassy walls. At that time it was unheard of for an embassy to be occupied as they host country and internal security were thought to of been more than adequate protection.
However for a country in a state of revolution, much less one that was extremely upset with America’s refusal to return the deposed Shah to face trial, security from the local populace was not available when the unthinkable happened.
After being turned away by the British and New Zealand embassies, the six escapees find refuge in the residence of the Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor (Victor Garber), who refuses to turn them away despite the volatile political situation harboring them would create should they ever be discovered.
On the other side of the world, C.I.A. Director Jack O’Donnell (Bryan Cranston), and his staff are desperately looking for a way to retrieve not only the Americans held hostage but also the six individuals currently being sheltered by the Canadian ambassador.
With few viable options available, save for the longshot of trying to get the refugees to bike through 300 miles of winter and soldier laden roads to the Turkish border, Tony Mendez (Affleck), is brought in to find other options.
One evening, Tony gets the idea to go to Iran posing as a Canadian filmmaker on a location scouting trip for an upcoming film. His plan is to pass the refugees off as part of his crew thanks to newly issued passports from the Canadian government.
In order to add validity to his plan, Tony recruits award-winning makeup artist John Chambers (John Goodman), and producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin), to help establish the necessary cover for the operation.
Soon Tony, John, and Lester have obtained a script for science fiction film named “Argo”, and the use the Hollywood trades and publicity machine to establish their back story of their production company and film project.
With time running down, Tony must venture alone to Tehran to meet with and prepare the refugees for extraction as well as firming up their cover with the local Iranian authorities.
What follows is a tense political thriller that is extremely well performed and captivating throughout. What really impressed me about the film was that Affleck expertly paced it and refrain from using such overused stereotypes such as car chases, fight sequences, and love scenes to tell the story.
The cast is exceptionally good all around and the film does a good job capturing the look and the atmosphere of the situation without ever becoming preachy and taking extreme political stances. Instead the focus is on real people caught in an extraordinary situation from which they were unprepared, and the extraordinary measures taken by good people in the United States and Canada who stepped up and did the right thing regardless of the cost to them personally or politically.
“Argo”, was an extremely pleasant surprise in one of the most enjoyable films I have seen this year. While I understand it would not be for everyone, I would not be surprised to see the film get a few Oscar nods come awards season as they would be in my opinion well deserved.
Director and star Ben Affleck has brought a new side to the story to light in the form of his new film “Argo”, which is based upon true events which have recently become declassified. The story centers around six workers of the embassy in Tehran, who fled the chaos when a disgruntled mob stormed the embassy walls. At that time it was unheard of for an embassy to be occupied as they host country and internal security were thought to of been more than adequate protection.
However for a country in a state of revolution, much less one that was extremely upset with America’s refusal to return the deposed Shah to face trial, security from the local populace was not available when the unthinkable happened.
After being turned away by the British and New Zealand embassies, the six escapees find refuge in the residence of the Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor (Victor Garber), who refuses to turn them away despite the volatile political situation harboring them would create should they ever be discovered.
On the other side of the world, C.I.A. Director Jack O’Donnell (Bryan Cranston), and his staff are desperately looking for a way to retrieve not only the Americans held hostage but also the six individuals currently being sheltered by the Canadian ambassador.
With few viable options available, save for the longshot of trying to get the refugees to bike through 300 miles of winter and soldier laden roads to the Turkish border, Tony Mendez (Affleck), is brought in to find other options.
One evening, Tony gets the idea to go to Iran posing as a Canadian filmmaker on a location scouting trip for an upcoming film. His plan is to pass the refugees off as part of his crew thanks to newly issued passports from the Canadian government.
In order to add validity to his plan, Tony recruits award-winning makeup artist John Chambers (John Goodman), and producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin), to help establish the necessary cover for the operation.
Soon Tony, John, and Lester have obtained a script for science fiction film named “Argo”, and the use the Hollywood trades and publicity machine to establish their back story of their production company and film project.
With time running down, Tony must venture alone to Tehran to meet with and prepare the refugees for extraction as well as firming up their cover with the local Iranian authorities.
What follows is a tense political thriller that is extremely well performed and captivating throughout. What really impressed me about the film was that Affleck expertly paced it and refrain from using such overused stereotypes such as car chases, fight sequences, and love scenes to tell the story.
The cast is exceptionally good all around and the film does a good job capturing the look and the atmosphere of the situation without ever becoming preachy and taking extreme political stances. Instead the focus is on real people caught in an extraordinary situation from which they were unprepared, and the extraordinary measures taken by good people in the United States and Canada who stepped up and did the right thing regardless of the cost to them personally or politically.
“Argo”, was an extremely pleasant surprise in one of the most enjoyable films I have seen this year. While I understand it would not be for everyone, I would not be surprised to see the film get a few Oscar nods come awards season as they would be in my opinion well deserved.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
It's difficult to know where to begin. I have strong feelings about Disney remakes in general, I was open to the idea until I saw some. I can understand remaking some that stand a chance of being mainly actual live-action like Cinderella and Beauty & The Beast, and I'm looking forward to Mulan despite its lack of Mushu... but... remaking something as "live-action" with realism when you have to include things that aren't realistic (talking animals) it seems pointless to me.
As the film started I was taken aback by the beautiful scenery shots, animation studios really have nailed realistic water. As the animals started to appear I was encouraged for the most part. The zebras and antelope looked wonderful and the movements were spot on, but the larger animals didn't quite have the same elegance. Watching it all was fine though until you noticed something, then it was difficult not to spot something else.
I really disliked the animation of Scar, I know he's supposed to look like the typical alpha male of the pride, but his look in the original and now has never been very in keeping to me.
The best piece of animation in the whole thing was Timon. That little meerkat was spot on through the whole thing for me, edgy and darting, it was perfect. The only drawback was the voiceover by Billy Eichner, he doesn't encapsulate the personality of Timon, but then he did have some big boots to fill.
With Timon as the best of animation, it was only fitting that Pumbaa filled in the other side by being the best of the voice cast. Seth Rogen was born for this role, he's fantastic. I absolutely loved him. Perfect comedic timing, maybe not the best singing voice but once it mixed in with everything else you couldn't tell.
Dare I say that I wasn't a fan of the songs? I didn't like the modern take on them... I'm not sure if I'd really classify it as a modern take, everything just seemed to be taken much more seriously than before. I actually quite enjoyed Be Prepared, while it wasn't really sung it probably plays better to Chiwetel Ejiofor's strengths done this way. The really dubious addition was the song "Spirit" by Beyoncé. It was barely included and if it was in there more then it really didn't stick out. The only bit I noticed was "spirit, spirit" being bellowed randomly. I've watched the video and full song on YouTube since the film, I can only assume that it's an attempt at best original song awards but I don't think it has that goosebump impact that Disney epics should. Those high notes should probably be left to Mariah.
It's difficult to know just how much my enjoyment of the original affected my feelings about the new one. It's not one that I grew up with, I rewatched it recently for what may have been the first time. Lion King is very much one of the Disney classics you can be aware of even without seeing it, that's the power of Disney.
Remaking a film as "live-action" when there's no human cast seems like the wrong choice to me. The realistic CGI will only work up to a point when you're trying to make animals speak. The films itself is still spectacular, and there are some amazing pieces of animation to see (I do love baby Simba, he's so cute), but I'm of the opinion that if it ain't broke don't fix it. When you look at it overall the voice cast isn't any better than the original, neither are the songs, with it being so incredibly similar with only the animation style being the major twist I'm left underwhelmed by the final cut.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-movie-review.html
As the film started I was taken aback by the beautiful scenery shots, animation studios really have nailed realistic water. As the animals started to appear I was encouraged for the most part. The zebras and antelope looked wonderful and the movements were spot on, but the larger animals didn't quite have the same elegance. Watching it all was fine though until you noticed something, then it was difficult not to spot something else.
I really disliked the animation of Scar, I know he's supposed to look like the typical alpha male of the pride, but his look in the original and now has never been very in keeping to me.
The best piece of animation in the whole thing was Timon. That little meerkat was spot on through the whole thing for me, edgy and darting, it was perfect. The only drawback was the voiceover by Billy Eichner, he doesn't encapsulate the personality of Timon, but then he did have some big boots to fill.
With Timon as the best of animation, it was only fitting that Pumbaa filled in the other side by being the best of the voice cast. Seth Rogen was born for this role, he's fantastic. I absolutely loved him. Perfect comedic timing, maybe not the best singing voice but once it mixed in with everything else you couldn't tell.
Dare I say that I wasn't a fan of the songs? I didn't like the modern take on them... I'm not sure if I'd really classify it as a modern take, everything just seemed to be taken much more seriously than before. I actually quite enjoyed Be Prepared, while it wasn't really sung it probably plays better to Chiwetel Ejiofor's strengths done this way. The really dubious addition was the song "Spirit" by Beyoncé. It was barely included and if it was in there more then it really didn't stick out. The only bit I noticed was "spirit, spirit" being bellowed randomly. I've watched the video and full song on YouTube since the film, I can only assume that it's an attempt at best original song awards but I don't think it has that goosebump impact that Disney epics should. Those high notes should probably be left to Mariah.
It's difficult to know just how much my enjoyment of the original affected my feelings about the new one. It's not one that I grew up with, I rewatched it recently for what may have been the first time. Lion King is very much one of the Disney classics you can be aware of even without seeing it, that's the power of Disney.
Remaking a film as "live-action" when there's no human cast seems like the wrong choice to me. The realistic CGI will only work up to a point when you're trying to make animals speak. The films itself is still spectacular, and there are some amazing pieces of animation to see (I do love baby Simba, he's so cute), but I'm of the opinion that if it ain't broke don't fix it. When you look at it overall the voice cast isn't any better than the original, neither are the songs, with it being so incredibly similar with only the animation style being the major twist I'm left underwhelmed by the final cut.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Jan 8, 2021
The fantastic ensemble cast (1 more)
Great directing and editing
Effortlessly stylish and entertaining
The Personal History of David Copperfield starts with the young man (Dev Patel) regaling a theatre audience with a reading of his autobiography. This immediately pitches him into witnessing his own birth to widowed single mother Clara (the wonderful Morfydd Clark, or "Saint Maud" fame). From there, Copperfield goes helter-skelter into a rollercoaster life encompassing workhouse-bottling poverty, fish-gutting and rich gentlemanly pursuits.
You have to admire the artistry of Dickens. Of course, I am aware of some of the plethora of rich and complex characters that Dickens imagined including the rascally Mr Micawber (Peter Capaldi) and the ever-'umble but conniving Uriah Heep (Ben Wishaw). But the story is literally rammed with amazing characters. It's almost as if Dickens conjured up full pen-portraits of 30 different characters and then contrived to fit them somehow into the story. Remarkably rich.
There's a very striking nature to the casting of this movie. It had me going "Wha?? Who??" while watching it. Because the roles are cast multi-culturally, without nature to the demographics of the time and - crucially - to the relationship between the characters. For example, with Copperfield, you might - with a bit of a squint - play along with it since we never see the father. But then the mother of the (very-much-white) Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard) turns up as Nigerian-born actress Nikki Amuka-Bird (who is fabulous). Benedict Wong also turns up as legal director Mr Wickfield. It was as if the casting was done purely on talent and regardless of race and appropriateness for the Dickensian times. Which is refreshingly different and much to be welcomed.
Sarah Crowe has won a number of awards for her casting of the film and a BAFTA nomination too. And well deserved, since she pulls in a truly stellar ensemble cast. As well as those mentioned above, we also have Hugh Laurie as the addled Mr Dick; Tilda Swinton as Betsey Trotwood; Anna Maxwell Martin as Mrs Strong; Paul Whitehouse as Daniel Peggotty; and Gwendoline Christie as the evil Mrs Murdstone. Even Daisy May Cooper (from TV's "This Country") turns up and is particularly effective as Peggoty - the housemaid and friend to Copperfield. And casting Morfydd Clark in a second role as the scatty love interest Dora Spenlow is also both brilliant and provocative.
With such a wealth of talent on show, it's difficult to pull out specific performances. This is a movie that genuinely deserved to make the SAG Ensemble award list.
When I saw that the director of this was Armando Iannucci, I raised an eyebrow. For the subject matter seemed to be at right angles to the normal satirical thrust of the director. But the guy behind "The Thick of It" and "The Death of Stalin" reigned in his most satirical barbs and - together with his regular collaborative screenwriter Simon Blackwell - turned the movie into a delightfully quirky telling of the story. I felt that there was something of the Guy Ritchie "Sherlock Holmes" behind the very effective use of the cutting and on screen handwriting.
In that cutting, many of the scene transitions are masterfully done. So a special shout-out to the film editors Mick Audsley and Peter Lambert here. A memorable example is a flashback in the "boat house" where a background tarpaulin blows away to reveal Steerforth on horseback in France: simply breathtaking.
This was a refreshing movie. Endlessly innovative and entertaining. It makes me even possibly want to revisit trying to read the book again! Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://rb.gy/ba74zo ).
You have to admire the artistry of Dickens. Of course, I am aware of some of the plethora of rich and complex characters that Dickens imagined including the rascally Mr Micawber (Peter Capaldi) and the ever-'umble but conniving Uriah Heep (Ben Wishaw). But the story is literally rammed with amazing characters. It's almost as if Dickens conjured up full pen-portraits of 30 different characters and then contrived to fit them somehow into the story. Remarkably rich.
There's a very striking nature to the casting of this movie. It had me going "Wha?? Who??" while watching it. Because the roles are cast multi-culturally, without nature to the demographics of the time and - crucially - to the relationship between the characters. For example, with Copperfield, you might - with a bit of a squint - play along with it since we never see the father. But then the mother of the (very-much-white) Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard) turns up as Nigerian-born actress Nikki Amuka-Bird (who is fabulous). Benedict Wong also turns up as legal director Mr Wickfield. It was as if the casting was done purely on talent and regardless of race and appropriateness for the Dickensian times. Which is refreshingly different and much to be welcomed.
Sarah Crowe has won a number of awards for her casting of the film and a BAFTA nomination too. And well deserved, since she pulls in a truly stellar ensemble cast. As well as those mentioned above, we also have Hugh Laurie as the addled Mr Dick; Tilda Swinton as Betsey Trotwood; Anna Maxwell Martin as Mrs Strong; Paul Whitehouse as Daniel Peggotty; and Gwendoline Christie as the evil Mrs Murdstone. Even Daisy May Cooper (from TV's "This Country") turns up and is particularly effective as Peggoty - the housemaid and friend to Copperfield. And casting Morfydd Clark in a second role as the scatty love interest Dora Spenlow is also both brilliant and provocative.
With such a wealth of talent on show, it's difficult to pull out specific performances. This is a movie that genuinely deserved to make the SAG Ensemble award list.
When I saw that the director of this was Armando Iannucci, I raised an eyebrow. For the subject matter seemed to be at right angles to the normal satirical thrust of the director. But the guy behind "The Thick of It" and "The Death of Stalin" reigned in his most satirical barbs and - together with his regular collaborative screenwriter Simon Blackwell - turned the movie into a delightfully quirky telling of the story. I felt that there was something of the Guy Ritchie "Sherlock Holmes" behind the very effective use of the cutting and on screen handwriting.
In that cutting, many of the scene transitions are masterfully done. So a special shout-out to the film editors Mick Audsley and Peter Lambert here. A memorable example is a flashback in the "boat house" where a background tarpaulin blows away to reveal Steerforth on horseback in France: simply breathtaking.
This was a refreshing movie. Endlessly innovative and entertaining. It makes me even possibly want to revisit trying to read the book again! Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://rb.gy/ba74zo ).
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated What We Do in the Shadows in TV
Jan 22, 2021
Anyone who watched and enjoyed the entirely silly, but mostly genius, original film version of this, written and directed by the same partnership of Jermaine Clement and Taika Waititi, should not miss this show! Although Clement and Waititi step down from acting duties (aside from cameo appearences), they are replaced by the ideal, if not actually better, pairing of Matt Berry and Kayvan Novak, whose previous experience in left-field comedy with an improvisational edge leaves them perfectly placed to make this comedy fly like a startled bat!
The lead duo are joined in all 20 episodes over 2 seasons so far by relative unknowns Natasia Demetriou, Harvey Guillén and Mark Proksch. The first two do adequate jobs of keeping the laughs rolling and the mood steady. But it is Proksch, who brings some knowledge of a working mockumentary farce from his role as Nate is the US version of The Office, who is the stand-out as Colin the energy vampire, who bores his victims to death, or leaves them drained of the will to live. The many ways that single joke is varied to hilarious effect is a thing of true comedic beauty at all times.
The fine balance between the bizarre and ridiculous world of vampires and other monsters with a situation of utter mundanity like flatsharing affords some wonderful moments of laugh out loud insanity. The writing is terrific all the way through, and the bite sized episode lengths ensure it zips along and the joke only wears thin if you gorge on too many in one go. In fact I would strongly recommend not bingeing this one, but rather savouring 2 or 3 in a sitting then leaving it a while. There is something about missing it and coming back to the joke after a break that works better for me.
Some of the things I love about it are the details of the visual world they live in. The paraphernalia of the flat they live in and the clothes they wear is joyous and ever rewarding. There will be things to spot in the background that you missed first time for sure – and that is a sign to me that they wanted to create a classic here and not something disposable. I also adore the opening credit sequence, and sing along every single time.
Then there is the fabulous use of creative swearing, that manages to reach new and surprising heights episode to episode. Berry is especially proficient in this art, leaving me spitting out my tea many times with the use of a profane phrase off the cuff. It is as much the way he says it as what he says, so it is no surprise to me he has been singled out at recent TV awards shows. I hope he gets the recognition he deserves with a shiny trophy or two.
The fact that it was nominated for 8 Emmys for season 2, after only two nods for season 1, also shows that this is an entity that gets better if you stick with it. At first the pattern of the humour may not gel, but the more you get used to it, the character quirks and various relationships, the rewards as a viewer are exponentially good. And if you watch long enough there are also some tasty cameo parts that turn up… but I won’t spoil the surprises here.
Is it a joke that can run and run? No probably not. But I would like to at least see a third season, to wrap it all up. Especially as season 2 ends on somewhat of a cliffhanger, as much as a puerile comedy like this can do. I am a fan. And I imagine I’ll always be able to go back and enjoy an episode here and there to cheer me up. Brilliant stuff, that has its heart and its funny bones in all the right places. Go on, stick your teeth into it!
The lead duo are joined in all 20 episodes over 2 seasons so far by relative unknowns Natasia Demetriou, Harvey Guillén and Mark Proksch. The first two do adequate jobs of keeping the laughs rolling and the mood steady. But it is Proksch, who brings some knowledge of a working mockumentary farce from his role as Nate is the US version of The Office, who is the stand-out as Colin the energy vampire, who bores his victims to death, or leaves them drained of the will to live. The many ways that single joke is varied to hilarious effect is a thing of true comedic beauty at all times.
The fine balance between the bizarre and ridiculous world of vampires and other monsters with a situation of utter mundanity like flatsharing affords some wonderful moments of laugh out loud insanity. The writing is terrific all the way through, and the bite sized episode lengths ensure it zips along and the joke only wears thin if you gorge on too many in one go. In fact I would strongly recommend not bingeing this one, but rather savouring 2 or 3 in a sitting then leaving it a while. There is something about missing it and coming back to the joke after a break that works better for me.
Some of the things I love about it are the details of the visual world they live in. The paraphernalia of the flat they live in and the clothes they wear is joyous and ever rewarding. There will be things to spot in the background that you missed first time for sure – and that is a sign to me that they wanted to create a classic here and not something disposable. I also adore the opening credit sequence, and sing along every single time.
Then there is the fabulous use of creative swearing, that manages to reach new and surprising heights episode to episode. Berry is especially proficient in this art, leaving me spitting out my tea many times with the use of a profane phrase off the cuff. It is as much the way he says it as what he says, so it is no surprise to me he has been singled out at recent TV awards shows. I hope he gets the recognition he deserves with a shiny trophy or two.
The fact that it was nominated for 8 Emmys for season 2, after only two nods for season 1, also shows that this is an entity that gets better if you stick with it. At first the pattern of the humour may not gel, but the more you get used to it, the character quirks and various relationships, the rewards as a viewer are exponentially good. And if you watch long enough there are also some tasty cameo parts that turn up… but I won’t spoil the surprises here.
Is it a joke that can run and run? No probably not. But I would like to at least see a third season, to wrap it all up. Especially as season 2 ends on somewhat of a cliffhanger, as much as a puerile comedy like this can do. I am a fan. And I imagine I’ll always be able to go back and enjoy an episode here and there to cheer me up. Brilliant stuff, that has its heart and its funny bones in all the right places. Go on, stick your teeth into it!