Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Brightburn (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Superheroes and villains are a subject close to my heart, I enjoy speculating on the good and bad potential of superpowers, so to have the bad Superman story laid out like this is very interesting to experience.
Having a bad Superman would have been good, but switching it to a child automatically knocks the "scary" up a notch, something we saw earlier in the year in The Prodigy.
Tori and Kyle Breyer are desperately trying to have a baby, their lives start to revolve around the idea when one night the Earth literally moves for them and a meteor hits their farm. Ten years later and Tori and Kyle have their adopted son, Brandon, but growing up comes with some unexpected twists.
Brightburn's trailer makes it very clear that what we're going to see is a Superman-style childhood but the film is actually not so blatant. In fact, everything about the pre-release information tells you exactly what you're going to get while the film alone actually leaves it to your imagination. You have to make assumptions and educated guesses about what's going to happen. It's a bit of a shame that there's really no successful way to advertise this film without pointing out the obvious.
Elizabeth Banks (eternally young and possibly getting younger) plays Tori, Brandon's mum. The terror she gets across while still retaining a mother's love is spot on and great to watch on screen. In particular there's a scene where she discovers Brandon's notebook and the way she reacts made me react, and twisting that scene with the side story of Brandon and his dad was so effective.
I have one fault when it comes to horror, and that's that I can't take it seriously, luckily lots of people in my screening felt the same way too. While there were a couple of moments that went for actual humour I found myself laughing at some of the gore too. It was the same reaction as I get from extreme action scenes, an extended "oooooooh!" with a slight wince and then laughing. I can't help it, it's just funny.
Brightburn is probably an easier horror to see as the scary moments are mostly predictable so you could close your eyes in time for the bad bits if you wanted too, a lot are prefixed with something ominous in the background to prepare you.
One moment that made me jump was actually not a scary piece, it was the moment Brandon realises he's different. You already know part of his discovery if you've seen the trailer and yet again this film then tweaks that moment to give you something a little different.
The way they use light and dark is great because it allows things to creep up on you, quite literally, and highlights the evil that is starting to permeate the town.
It surprises me that I enjoyed this one as much as I did. I think the action moments probably holds up a lot of it. I like the idea, but I'm not convinced that it was created as well as it could have been. I was impressed that they didn't step back from the violent moments though, Brightburn is ballsy, and I like it for that.
[Note: Stay to see some clips into the credits.]
What you should do
If you like horror then I think it's a fairly good offering to see, it's probably also a good crossover if you're more into superheroes.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd love the aunt's house but without the creepy added extras.
Having a bad Superman would have been good, but switching it to a child automatically knocks the "scary" up a notch, something we saw earlier in the year in The Prodigy.
Tori and Kyle Breyer are desperately trying to have a baby, their lives start to revolve around the idea when one night the Earth literally moves for them and a meteor hits their farm. Ten years later and Tori and Kyle have their adopted son, Brandon, but growing up comes with some unexpected twists.
Brightburn's trailer makes it very clear that what we're going to see is a Superman-style childhood but the film is actually not so blatant. In fact, everything about the pre-release information tells you exactly what you're going to get while the film alone actually leaves it to your imagination. You have to make assumptions and educated guesses about what's going to happen. It's a bit of a shame that there's really no successful way to advertise this film without pointing out the obvious.
Elizabeth Banks (eternally young and possibly getting younger) plays Tori, Brandon's mum. The terror she gets across while still retaining a mother's love is spot on and great to watch on screen. In particular there's a scene where she discovers Brandon's notebook and the way she reacts made me react, and twisting that scene with the side story of Brandon and his dad was so effective.
I have one fault when it comes to horror, and that's that I can't take it seriously, luckily lots of people in my screening felt the same way too. While there were a couple of moments that went for actual humour I found myself laughing at some of the gore too. It was the same reaction as I get from extreme action scenes, an extended "oooooooh!" with a slight wince and then laughing. I can't help it, it's just funny.
Brightburn is probably an easier horror to see as the scary moments are mostly predictable so you could close your eyes in time for the bad bits if you wanted too, a lot are prefixed with something ominous in the background to prepare you.
One moment that made me jump was actually not a scary piece, it was the moment Brandon realises he's different. You already know part of his discovery if you've seen the trailer and yet again this film then tweaks that moment to give you something a little different.
The way they use light and dark is great because it allows things to creep up on you, quite literally, and highlights the evil that is starting to permeate the town.
It surprises me that I enjoyed this one as much as I did. I think the action moments probably holds up a lot of it. I like the idea, but I'm not convinced that it was created as well as it could have been. I was impressed that they didn't step back from the violent moments though, Brightburn is ballsy, and I like it for that.
[Note: Stay to see some clips into the credits.]
What you should do
If you like horror then I think it's a fairly good offering to see, it's probably also a good crossover if you're more into superheroes.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd love the aunt's house but without the creepy added extras.
Mothergamer (1568 KP) rated The Green Hornet (2011) in Movies
Apr 3, 2019
I don't even have the words for how infuriated I am right now with The Green Hornet film. There's a small part of me that wishes I could just throw a brick at Seth Rogen's crotch right now, because he absolutely deserves it along with director Michael Gondry. That's right, the director of the film Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind which to me was a good movie is responsible for this equally terrible movie.
I do feel much of the blame lies with the fact that Seth Rogen co-wrote this screenplay and he claimed that he was so glad he didn't screw up one of his favorite childhood heroes. Seth, Seth, Seth....tsk tsk, someone's a dirty rotten liar Seth. Why must you constantly lie to us Seth? The truth is you messed up completely! In the original radio show, comics, and T.V. Show Britt Reid wasn't a moron. He was a smart successful newspaper publisher, he was confident, and he could fight well alongside his equally confident sidekick Kato. I loved the T.V. show and I loved the comic. I loved watching The Green Hornet on Kung Fu Saturday when I was a kid. That was the highlight of my Saturday. I would watch a couple of episodes of The Green Hornet and then watch the featured kung fu film. That's a sacred childhood memory and you, Seth Rogen along with your director have pissed all over it.
Not only did you make Britt Reid a total jerk, you made him stupid too! He loosely based Britt Reid on Paris Hilton? Are you kidding me with this nonsense?
Seth Rogen's Britt Reid is a spoiled rich brat who shows no interest in running the newspaper, but he instead becomes buddies with Kato his mechanic and coffee maker. I felt bad for Jay Chou because he's no Bruce Lee, but he did alright in spite of Seth Rogen constantly hyperventilating and shouting in every scene. He tried, he really did. Cameron Diaz's role as Reid's secretary Lenore Case is completely useless. She's basically camera filler with a great smile.
Of course, The Green Hornet has to have a villain and that is Christoph Waltz (Oscar winner from Inglorious Basterds) as Chudnofsky, but there is no depth to the character which proves bad writing is bad writing. Now I like action scenes as much as the next person, but it's as if Seth Rogen got bored and just added as much action as possible as filler rather than having an actual plot that tells the story. There's also so much pointless dialogue, watching this train wreck of a film is like being stuck in a dentist's chair having a root canal with no anesthesia. Yes, it's that damn bad. Not even the overpriced 3-D could save this film. That is just a gimmick to get more money out of people and this film proved that point real quick.
There is so much that could have been done to make this film version of the T.V. show great, but none of it was done. Instead, we get a film that is so terrible with no plot at all, a fake Britt Reid (I don't care what you say Rogen, that character you played was NOT Britt Reid! You are a liar sir!), a subdued Kato that got overshadowed by the crazy rich brat, a useless vapid secretary, and a villain that's about as threatening as a labradoodle. Seth Rogen and Michale Gondry you should be ashamed and embarrassed that your names are on this piece of trash.
Don't waste your money on this folks and certainly don't waste it on 3-D. The original is better and I'm sure that Mr. Rogen's going to have several bricks thrown at his crotch for even writing this awful screenplay. Just please, do us a favor and go sit in the corner with M. Night Shyamalan and quit making movies, because you really screwed the pooch on this one pal.
I do feel much of the blame lies with the fact that Seth Rogen co-wrote this screenplay and he claimed that he was so glad he didn't screw up one of his favorite childhood heroes. Seth, Seth, Seth....tsk tsk, someone's a dirty rotten liar Seth. Why must you constantly lie to us Seth? The truth is you messed up completely! In the original radio show, comics, and T.V. Show Britt Reid wasn't a moron. He was a smart successful newspaper publisher, he was confident, and he could fight well alongside his equally confident sidekick Kato. I loved the T.V. show and I loved the comic. I loved watching The Green Hornet on Kung Fu Saturday when I was a kid. That was the highlight of my Saturday. I would watch a couple of episodes of The Green Hornet and then watch the featured kung fu film. That's a sacred childhood memory and you, Seth Rogen along with your director have pissed all over it.
Not only did you make Britt Reid a total jerk, you made him stupid too! He loosely based Britt Reid on Paris Hilton? Are you kidding me with this nonsense?
Seth Rogen's Britt Reid is a spoiled rich brat who shows no interest in running the newspaper, but he instead becomes buddies with Kato his mechanic and coffee maker. I felt bad for Jay Chou because he's no Bruce Lee, but he did alright in spite of Seth Rogen constantly hyperventilating and shouting in every scene. He tried, he really did. Cameron Diaz's role as Reid's secretary Lenore Case is completely useless. She's basically camera filler with a great smile.
Of course, The Green Hornet has to have a villain and that is Christoph Waltz (Oscar winner from Inglorious Basterds) as Chudnofsky, but there is no depth to the character which proves bad writing is bad writing. Now I like action scenes as much as the next person, but it's as if Seth Rogen got bored and just added as much action as possible as filler rather than having an actual plot that tells the story. There's also so much pointless dialogue, watching this train wreck of a film is like being stuck in a dentist's chair having a root canal with no anesthesia. Yes, it's that damn bad. Not even the overpriced 3-D could save this film. That is just a gimmick to get more money out of people and this film proved that point real quick.
There is so much that could have been done to make this film version of the T.V. show great, but none of it was done. Instead, we get a film that is so terrible with no plot at all, a fake Britt Reid (I don't care what you say Rogen, that character you played was NOT Britt Reid! You are a liar sir!), a subdued Kato that got overshadowed by the crazy rich brat, a useless vapid secretary, and a villain that's about as threatening as a labradoodle. Seth Rogen and Michale Gondry you should be ashamed and embarrassed that your names are on this piece of trash.
Don't waste your money on this folks and certainly don't waste it on 3-D. The original is better and I'm sure that Mr. Rogen's going to have several bricks thrown at his crotch for even writing this awful screenplay. Just please, do us a favor and go sit in the corner with M. Night Shyamalan and quit making movies, because you really screwed the pooch on this one pal.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Quiet Place (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“There’s a kind of hush, all over the world tonight”.
What a masterpiece this is! The most novel, the most tense, the most exhilarating, the most edge-of-your-seat Indie horror movie I could hope to see this year.
It’s 2020 and 89 days after “it” happens, the world is a very different place. Making any noise at all becomes a death sentence…. that bad cold could kill you and nothing seems to be able to prevent mankind from being annihilated one sneeze at a time.
In what could be a nice “Cloverfield”-style series, the action here focuses in on the resourceful Abbott family: the father Lee (John Krasinski, “Away We Go”) is handy with electronics and back-woods skills; the mother Evelyn (Emily Blunt, “The Girl on the Train“; “Edge of Tomorrow“) has medical training. So they are well suited then to take care of their offspring: the profoundly deaf Regan (Millicent Simmonds); Marcus (Noah Jupe); and their youngest Beau (a cute Cade Woodward). It’s a battle of brains against vicious, relentless and malevolent alien brawn: how far will Lee and Evelyn go to keep their family safe?
Man, this is a tense film! It doesn’t pull its punches from the get-go and thereafter there is an air of brooding and ever-building menace that gets right under your skin. This is certainly not helped by the fact that there is a ticking clock of an oncoming ‘event’ – no spoilers here – to worry about. As incessantly and inevitably as the rising tide in “The Shallows” a clock ticks down. Thank heavens then that the ‘event’ and the outcome of that ‘event’ are both traditionally such quiet affairs!
While all of the buzz at the moment is on the 80’s Easter Eggs in “Ready Player One”, here is a movie packed with delights for movie lovers. There are recognisable elements here from such classics as “The Road”, “Signs”, “Witness”, “Alien”, “Jurassic Park”, “Jaws”…. even (traumatically) “Home Alone”! So is it then just a rag-bag collection of stolen moments from other films? No – not at all. This stands tall and proud as a master work in its own right, the standout and unique quality of the movie being its use (or rather absence) of sound… something that works so magnificently as a concept in a movie-theatre.
I was lucky enough in the late September of 1979 to see (at 10 am in the morning as I remember!) in the Odeon Leicester Square in London, the first ever UK (and probably worldwide) showing of a little film called “Alien”. The cinema was pretty empty, but I have never sat through such an electric viewing. This had some of the same aura about it: a hushed audience, totally gripped. (I agree with Simon Mayo and Ali Plumb on this though that all snacks, and especially popcorn in scrapy SCRAPY cardboard boxes, should be banned from these screenings… I had to physically move seats away a noisy muncher as the film started!). But for sure, distractions accepted, this is a classic communal movie experience and so is a movie you should most DEFINITELY see in the cinema.
If there is one Oscar for February 2019 that I think should already be a shoe-in for a nomination, if not a win, it is the sound team led by Erik Aadahl and Ethan Van der Ryn: breathtakingly spectacular. This is assisted enormously by the musical score of Marco Beltrami (“Logan“, “The Shallows“) which helps augment and annotate the action jump-scares brilliantly.
Another critical member of the crew for a film like this is the editor, and here Christopher Tellefsen (“Joy“) delivers the goods with tight and effective execution of those cuts (the film sort!) that made me vertically leave my seat at least a couple of times.
Real life couple Krasinski and Blunt share such obvious and tender chemistry that it is impossible to not get emotionally involved. A shared iPhone listening moment, as a lull in the action, is very moving. Millicent Simmonds, who is actually deaf from childhood in an inspired piece of storytelling/casting, is also an acting force to be reckoned with: her only other movie is last year’s “Wonderstruck” that I have yet to see.
Writers Bryan Woods and Scott Beck (with contribution to the screenplay from Krasinski) also deserve praise for an intelligent and highly satisfying plot that never fails to disappoint to the last drop. Every detail, down to the painted footsteps on the un-squeaky floorboards, is just pitch-perfect. It’s also a film that very wisely doesn’t outstay its welcome: 90 minutes of such adrenaline is almost too much for anyone to stand! Krasinski as director keeps everything deliciously tight during that running time with no time to breath, particularly in the frenetic final reel.
I’ve gushed enough. This is a must see for sci-fi and horror fans of all ages. And with a “BvS quotient” of just 6.8%, it’s enormously good value for money. Go see it!
It’s 2020 and 89 days after “it” happens, the world is a very different place. Making any noise at all becomes a death sentence…. that bad cold could kill you and nothing seems to be able to prevent mankind from being annihilated one sneeze at a time.
In what could be a nice “Cloverfield”-style series, the action here focuses in on the resourceful Abbott family: the father Lee (John Krasinski, “Away We Go”) is handy with electronics and back-woods skills; the mother Evelyn (Emily Blunt, “The Girl on the Train“; “Edge of Tomorrow“) has medical training. So they are well suited then to take care of their offspring: the profoundly deaf Regan (Millicent Simmonds); Marcus (Noah Jupe); and their youngest Beau (a cute Cade Woodward). It’s a battle of brains against vicious, relentless and malevolent alien brawn: how far will Lee and Evelyn go to keep their family safe?
Man, this is a tense film! It doesn’t pull its punches from the get-go and thereafter there is an air of brooding and ever-building menace that gets right under your skin. This is certainly not helped by the fact that there is a ticking clock of an oncoming ‘event’ – no spoilers here – to worry about. As incessantly and inevitably as the rising tide in “The Shallows” a clock ticks down. Thank heavens then that the ‘event’ and the outcome of that ‘event’ are both traditionally such quiet affairs!
While all of the buzz at the moment is on the 80’s Easter Eggs in “Ready Player One”, here is a movie packed with delights for movie lovers. There are recognisable elements here from such classics as “The Road”, “Signs”, “Witness”, “Alien”, “Jurassic Park”, “Jaws”…. even (traumatically) “Home Alone”! So is it then just a rag-bag collection of stolen moments from other films? No – not at all. This stands tall and proud as a master work in its own right, the standout and unique quality of the movie being its use (or rather absence) of sound… something that works so magnificently as a concept in a movie-theatre.
I was lucky enough in the late September of 1979 to see (at 10 am in the morning as I remember!) in the Odeon Leicester Square in London, the first ever UK (and probably worldwide) showing of a little film called “Alien”. The cinema was pretty empty, but I have never sat through such an electric viewing. This had some of the same aura about it: a hushed audience, totally gripped. (I agree with Simon Mayo and Ali Plumb on this though that all snacks, and especially popcorn in scrapy SCRAPY cardboard boxes, should be banned from these screenings… I had to physically move seats away a noisy muncher as the film started!). But for sure, distractions accepted, this is a classic communal movie experience and so is a movie you should most DEFINITELY see in the cinema.
If there is one Oscar for February 2019 that I think should already be a shoe-in for a nomination, if not a win, it is the sound team led by Erik Aadahl and Ethan Van der Ryn: breathtakingly spectacular. This is assisted enormously by the musical score of Marco Beltrami (“Logan“, “The Shallows“) which helps augment and annotate the action jump-scares brilliantly.
Another critical member of the crew for a film like this is the editor, and here Christopher Tellefsen (“Joy“) delivers the goods with tight and effective execution of those cuts (the film sort!) that made me vertically leave my seat at least a couple of times.
Real life couple Krasinski and Blunt share such obvious and tender chemistry that it is impossible to not get emotionally involved. A shared iPhone listening moment, as a lull in the action, is very moving. Millicent Simmonds, who is actually deaf from childhood in an inspired piece of storytelling/casting, is also an acting force to be reckoned with: her only other movie is last year’s “Wonderstruck” that I have yet to see.
Writers Bryan Woods and Scott Beck (with contribution to the screenplay from Krasinski) also deserve praise for an intelligent and highly satisfying plot that never fails to disappoint to the last drop. Every detail, down to the painted footsteps on the un-squeaky floorboards, is just pitch-perfect. It’s also a film that very wisely doesn’t outstay its welcome: 90 minutes of such adrenaline is almost too much for anyone to stand! Krasinski as director keeps everything deliciously tight during that running time with no time to breath, particularly in the frenetic final reel.
I’ve gushed enough. This is a must see for sci-fi and horror fans of all ages. And with a “BvS quotient” of just 6.8%, it’s enormously good value for money. Go see it!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Good visuals, not much else to recommend it
A few of my loyal readers recommended that I check out ALITA: BATTLE ANGEL in the biggest screen I could find, and in 3D. And...I'm glad I did for this film is a visual feast for the eyes, filled with eye-popping CGI and an interesting futuristic world on which the events of the film take place.
Unfortunately...that is all that there is to this film, for the rest of the movie does not live up to the fantastical elements laid forth visually.
Adapted to the screen from filmmakers James Cameron and Robert Rodriguez, ALITA: BATTLE ANGEL is a combination of the first 4 of Yukito Kishiro's series of 9 manga books, and (hopefully) the first in a trilogy of films that follows a robot, Alita, who is put back together by the mysterious Dr. Ido. When she awakens, she does not know what her past was, but as events transpire, it soon becomes apparent that Alita is much more than the sweet, young girl robot that her outward appearance would suggest.
Rosa Salazar is winning enough as the completely CGI creation of Alita, but no so charismatic that she can carry the film on her own, she will need help - and that's where this film falls down. Christoph Waltz is mediocre in the underwritten part of Dr. Ido. Instead of being interesting and mysterious, he is bland and boring. I'm beginning to think that Waltz needs the words of Quentin Tarantino to shine (because he does shine in Tarantino films) but is just so-so when speaking someone else's lines. Jennifer Connelly is wasted as Ido's ex-wife, somehow connected to the power elite of the Universe and Marashala Ali (who will soon win his 2nd Oscar) is completely shutdown and "one-note" as the big bad guy. Ed Skrein, Jackie Earle Haley (completely unrecognizable in voice or character as the CGI bad guy Grewishka) and Keean Johnson are all very forgettable as others in this world. Only Jeff Fahey (as a robot-Cowboy bounty hunter) is able to jump off the screen with what is the beginnings of an interesting character.
The battles, races, action and plot twists and turns are all "standard issue", pretty predictable and unsurprising. It is clear that Cameron and Rodriguez were so focused on the CGI and world building that they did not spend enough time on the plot, dialogue or pacing. And that's too bad, for besides the impressive visuals and graphics (and they are impressive), there is not much else to recommend from this film.
Letter Grade: B- (for the visuals)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Unfortunately...that is all that there is to this film, for the rest of the movie does not live up to the fantastical elements laid forth visually.
Adapted to the screen from filmmakers James Cameron and Robert Rodriguez, ALITA: BATTLE ANGEL is a combination of the first 4 of Yukito Kishiro's series of 9 manga books, and (hopefully) the first in a trilogy of films that follows a robot, Alita, who is put back together by the mysterious Dr. Ido. When she awakens, she does not know what her past was, but as events transpire, it soon becomes apparent that Alita is much more than the sweet, young girl robot that her outward appearance would suggest.
Rosa Salazar is winning enough as the completely CGI creation of Alita, but no so charismatic that she can carry the film on her own, she will need help - and that's where this film falls down. Christoph Waltz is mediocre in the underwritten part of Dr. Ido. Instead of being interesting and mysterious, he is bland and boring. I'm beginning to think that Waltz needs the words of Quentin Tarantino to shine (because he does shine in Tarantino films) but is just so-so when speaking someone else's lines. Jennifer Connelly is wasted as Ido's ex-wife, somehow connected to the power elite of the Universe and Marashala Ali (who will soon win his 2nd Oscar) is completely shutdown and "one-note" as the big bad guy. Ed Skrein, Jackie Earle Haley (completely unrecognizable in voice or character as the CGI bad guy Grewishka) and Keean Johnson are all very forgettable as others in this world. Only Jeff Fahey (as a robot-Cowboy bounty hunter) is able to jump off the screen with what is the beginnings of an interesting character.
The battles, races, action and plot twists and turns are all "standard issue", pretty predictable and unsurprising. It is clear that Cameron and Rodriguez were so focused on the CGI and world building that they did not spend enough time on the plot, dialogue or pacing. And that's too bad, for besides the impressive visuals and graphics (and they are impressive), there is not much else to recommend from this film.
Letter Grade: B- (for the visuals)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2018
Blech
The Mummy was a completely awesome movie! Filled with perfectly timed comedy, a strong female heroine, a somewhat sinister Mummy, and great lines! I’m talking, of course, about the 1999 version of The Mummy. The one starring Brendan Fraser and the wonderful Rachel Weisz.
The remake tried to be a great movie and slid in somewhere around “mediocre at best”. As one might expect, this was Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise. (Does the man ever actually try to play someone other than himself? Serious question.) Sofia Boutella is blandly proficient as the scantily clad mummy who couldn’t ooze menace or evil if her life depended on it. Given that we’re supposed to accept that this chick killed her baby half-brother and her father, you’d think there’d be something in the way of evil there. Instead she just comes across as your typical vengeful, wanton female. Annabelle Wallis was about as good as Boutella was. And I did not buy Crowe’s Jekyll/Hyde at all.
Why was there a wet white t-shirt scene in The Mummy? Did not a single person making it go “You know, maybe we should have her put on a different color shirt?” Because it’s not like the wet white t-shirt is a blatant aim to give guys something to beat off to or anything. Between Boutella’s outfit and the “Lookit! Boobies!” of that particular scene, it was obvious that the film crew wasn’t exactly confident of their success in the movie being popular on it’s premise or the actors’ abilities alone.
Now, I do give them credit for the hiring of Sofia Boutella. She looked right for the role. However, why did we have to do the contrast of the evil foreign female against the stereotypical white female again. (Blonde hair, blue eyes, etc. etc. You really can’t get more white.) This is, admittedly, more predominant in my mind since seeing the criticism that Wonder Woman got for the very minor role African Americans played in the film. I couldn’t help but think “Really, how hard would it have been to hire an African American female for Jenny’s role?” And then it would have avoided the white girls vs the other girls thing. But, yeah, no, that’s too difficult a concept for the people making the casting decisions to understand.
(On a lighter note: A blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jenny meant every time she was on screen, I kept expecting Forest Gump to yell for her from off screen.)
The action was fine, with nothing new thrown in. Some of the scenes are recognizable from the better The Mummy. The dialogue was acceptable, but nothing to write home about.
Do yourself a favor and just watch The Mummy movie from 1999. It’s by far the better film experience. This one wasn’t bad, but it certainly wasn’t very good.
The remake tried to be a great movie and slid in somewhere around “mediocre at best”. As one might expect, this was Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise. (Does the man ever actually try to play someone other than himself? Serious question.) Sofia Boutella is blandly proficient as the scantily clad mummy who couldn’t ooze menace or evil if her life depended on it. Given that we’re supposed to accept that this chick killed her baby half-brother and her father, you’d think there’d be something in the way of evil there. Instead she just comes across as your typical vengeful, wanton female. Annabelle Wallis was about as good as Boutella was. And I did not buy Crowe’s Jekyll/Hyde at all.
Why was there a wet white t-shirt scene in The Mummy? Did not a single person making it go “You know, maybe we should have her put on a different color shirt?” Because it’s not like the wet white t-shirt is a blatant aim to give guys something to beat off to or anything. Between Boutella’s outfit and the “Lookit! Boobies!” of that particular scene, it was obvious that the film crew wasn’t exactly confident of their success in the movie being popular on it’s premise or the actors’ abilities alone.
Now, I do give them credit for the hiring of Sofia Boutella. She looked right for the role. However, why did we have to do the contrast of the evil foreign female against the stereotypical white female again. (Blonde hair, blue eyes, etc. etc. You really can’t get more white.) This is, admittedly, more predominant in my mind since seeing the criticism that Wonder Woman got for the very minor role African Americans played in the film. I couldn’t help but think “Really, how hard would it have been to hire an African American female for Jenny’s role?” And then it would have avoided the white girls vs the other girls thing. But, yeah, no, that’s too difficult a concept for the people making the casting decisions to understand.
(On a lighter note: A blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jenny meant every time she was on screen, I kept expecting Forest Gump to yell for her from off screen.)
The action was fine, with nothing new thrown in. Some of the scenes are recognizable from the better The Mummy. The dialogue was acceptable, but nothing to write home about.
Do yourself a favor and just watch The Mummy movie from 1999. It’s by far the better film experience. This one wasn’t bad, but it certainly wasn’t very good.
BackToTheMovies (56 KP) rated The Captor (2019) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019
2019 certainly seems to be the year of Ethan Hawke slaying it in movies! The Kid was a powerhouse performance enough to warrant and the year off but then The Captor is released and once again. Wow. Ethan Hawke only goes and blows the bloody doors off this real-life true story about a bank robbery in Stockholm. This is our The Captor review.
It’s 1973 and Lars Nystrom (Hawke) walks into a bank in Stockholm firing a rifle and takes two staff members hostage. Demanding $1m, a blue Mustang and the release of Gunnar Sorensson (Mark Strong) a famous bank robber. What transpires over the next few hours is beyond belief and it’s difficult to even comprehend that most of this actually happened in real life!
Starring an all-star cast of Hawke, Mark Strong and Noomi Rapace The Captor has cult classic written all over it. Hawke plays this bat shit crazy robber who’s jumped in way above his head. The performances all round not only support Hawke’s center stage dominance but they add depth to the story. We have moments of relaxation in the vaults as character arcs are developed and relationships formed. It really is a film that’s all guns blazing one minute, hilarious comedic moments the next and then tones down and becomes level headed the next.
Director and screenwriter Robert Budreau never over embellish any scenes or characters. We really see both sides of Nystrom’s (Hawke) motives and back story. A man so up front with bravado when push comes to shove but a character of layers with a vulnerable and kind-nature hiding inside. The latter of those personality traits leads to one of the captors in question falling for her captor. Stockholm Syndrome explains this very phenomenon and in the US the movie is actually titled ‘Stockholm’ before being renamed to The Captor here in the UK.
Mark Strong rocks the double denim as Gunnar Sorensson and acts like a brother of sorts to Hawke’s Nystrom. It’s great watching the scenes between the police throughout as they scramble to try and meet Nystrom’s ludicrous demands. Gunnar’s intentions are never clear or really explained throughout. He’s just happy to be out of jail if albeit with an ulterior motive.
I feel as thou the direction of the movie is trying to put us in the shoes of the hostages. The very same hostages that in real life never testified against their captors. They’re portrayed as the rebellious force with good motives whilst the police are portrayed as the bad guys who want to make them pay. Noomi Rapace plays the emotional anchor of the movie and the bond that develops between her and Nystrom is palpable.
“This movie has cult classic written all over it”
There’s no psychological explanation about the phenom that is Stockholm Syndrom it’s just a routine, tootin good time!
https://backtothemovies.com/the-captor-review-a-cult-classic-ethan-hawke-at-his-finest/
It’s 1973 and Lars Nystrom (Hawke) walks into a bank in Stockholm firing a rifle and takes two staff members hostage. Demanding $1m, a blue Mustang and the release of Gunnar Sorensson (Mark Strong) a famous bank robber. What transpires over the next few hours is beyond belief and it’s difficult to even comprehend that most of this actually happened in real life!
Starring an all-star cast of Hawke, Mark Strong and Noomi Rapace The Captor has cult classic written all over it. Hawke plays this bat shit crazy robber who’s jumped in way above his head. The performances all round not only support Hawke’s center stage dominance but they add depth to the story. We have moments of relaxation in the vaults as character arcs are developed and relationships formed. It really is a film that’s all guns blazing one minute, hilarious comedic moments the next and then tones down and becomes level headed the next.
Director and screenwriter Robert Budreau never over embellish any scenes or characters. We really see both sides of Nystrom’s (Hawke) motives and back story. A man so up front with bravado when push comes to shove but a character of layers with a vulnerable and kind-nature hiding inside. The latter of those personality traits leads to one of the captors in question falling for her captor. Stockholm Syndrome explains this very phenomenon and in the US the movie is actually titled ‘Stockholm’ before being renamed to The Captor here in the UK.
Mark Strong rocks the double denim as Gunnar Sorensson and acts like a brother of sorts to Hawke’s Nystrom. It’s great watching the scenes between the police throughout as they scramble to try and meet Nystrom’s ludicrous demands. Gunnar’s intentions are never clear or really explained throughout. He’s just happy to be out of jail if albeit with an ulterior motive.
I feel as thou the direction of the movie is trying to put us in the shoes of the hostages. The very same hostages that in real life never testified against their captors. They’re portrayed as the rebellious force with good motives whilst the police are portrayed as the bad guys who want to make them pay. Noomi Rapace plays the emotional anchor of the movie and the bond that develops between her and Nystrom is palpable.
“This movie has cult classic written all over it”
There’s no psychological explanation about the phenom that is Stockholm Syndrom it’s just a routine, tootin good time!
https://backtothemovies.com/the-captor-review-a-cult-classic-ethan-hawke-at-his-finest/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Yesterday (2019) in Movies
Nov 23, 2019
Rocky For the Win
Yesterday can be quite the uneven movie at times, however its good ultimately outweighs its bad when it’s all said and done. When a struggling singer-songwriter gets hit by a bus, he awakens to a world where people have no knowledge of The Beatles. He uses their songs to become famous, but soon realizes that that fame comes at a cost.
Acting: 10
Himesh Patel delivers a strong performance as singer-songwriter Jack Malik. He was definitely overshadowed at times by even stronger performances from the likes of Joel Fry who plays his Road Manager Rocky and Kate McKinnon as Debra Hammer, a woman who latches on to Jack’s fame and runs with it. Even Ed Sheeran came through with a solid performance as himself.
Beginning: 9
Characters: 10
To expand on the above, I loved what the supporting characters brought to the table. Ed Sheeran’s caricature of himself is pretty hilarious and it’s refreshing to see a celebrity not taking himself too seriously. Rocky is all over the place and constantly screwing things up, but even his screwups have a certain endearing quality that brings you closer into his world. Meanwhile Debra Hammer is just a fireball, adding spice to every single scene she is in. She is one of those characters you can’t help but laugh at.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
As Jack’s popularity start to increase so does his fanbase and reach. He starts to travel the world and we’re graced with beautiful shots from all over the globe and across the UK. Different venues and swelling crowds keep the scenes fresh and advance the story in a smooth fashion.
Conflict: 5
The major conflict appears to be between Jack and his friend Ellie (Lily James). They both seem to have a thing for each other but Jack’s newfound fame throws a bit of a monkey wrench into the advancement of their relationship. I had trouble buying into the conflict a bit, however, as I never suspected the truth would be found out about Jack nor did I think at any point that him and Ellie wouldn’t end up together. Despite knowing this, the movie was still enjoyable. I just wish more feasible obstacles were put in place to advance the story properly.
Entertainment Value: 8
The movie is ultimately heartfelt and sweet which makes for enhancing its entertainment value. it was a treat watching someone who struggled for so long finally make it and live his dream. I also enjoyed watching Jack develop as a character and change his perspective on what he considered success.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Plot: 10
Resolution: 5
Overall: 82
I have to say, this was one of the most fun movie experiences I had all year. To hear these crowds succumb to all The Beatles music sung from the mouth of someone else is vastly unique. Although it does stumble at bit at the end, I highly recommend Yesterday.
Acting: 10
Himesh Patel delivers a strong performance as singer-songwriter Jack Malik. He was definitely overshadowed at times by even stronger performances from the likes of Joel Fry who plays his Road Manager Rocky and Kate McKinnon as Debra Hammer, a woman who latches on to Jack’s fame and runs with it. Even Ed Sheeran came through with a solid performance as himself.
Beginning: 9
Characters: 10
To expand on the above, I loved what the supporting characters brought to the table. Ed Sheeran’s caricature of himself is pretty hilarious and it’s refreshing to see a celebrity not taking himself too seriously. Rocky is all over the place and constantly screwing things up, but even his screwups have a certain endearing quality that brings you closer into his world. Meanwhile Debra Hammer is just a fireball, adding spice to every single scene she is in. She is one of those characters you can’t help but laugh at.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
As Jack’s popularity start to increase so does his fanbase and reach. He starts to travel the world and we’re graced with beautiful shots from all over the globe and across the UK. Different venues and swelling crowds keep the scenes fresh and advance the story in a smooth fashion.
Conflict: 5
The major conflict appears to be between Jack and his friend Ellie (Lily James). They both seem to have a thing for each other but Jack’s newfound fame throws a bit of a monkey wrench into the advancement of their relationship. I had trouble buying into the conflict a bit, however, as I never suspected the truth would be found out about Jack nor did I think at any point that him and Ellie wouldn’t end up together. Despite knowing this, the movie was still enjoyable. I just wish more feasible obstacles were put in place to advance the story properly.
Entertainment Value: 8
The movie is ultimately heartfelt and sweet which makes for enhancing its entertainment value. it was a treat watching someone who struggled for so long finally make it and live his dream. I also enjoyed watching Jack develop as a character and change his perspective on what he considered success.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Plot: 10
Resolution: 5
Overall: 82
I have to say, this was one of the most fun movie experiences I had all year. To hear these crowds succumb to all The Beatles music sung from the mouth of someone else is vastly unique. Although it does stumble at bit at the end, I highly recommend Yesterday.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
As a fan of the Pride and Prejudice book by Jane Austen, I thought it was all kinds of wrong when I came across the parody novel Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, by Seth Grahame-Smith, that essentially Austen’s classic novel with elements of modern zombie fiction. Mainly because I’m not a fan of horror movies. So as we approached the theater where we were screening Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, I told my husband, “I really don’t want to watch this. I hate zombies.” He just laughed. “You hate zombies, but you watch Walking Dead. Just pretend it’s an episode of Walking dead. Just set near the Victorian era.” I admit, I do watch the Walking Dead but it’s the most stressful hour of television for me, and there are commercial breaks. This movie has a running time for this move was almost 2 hrs with no commercials.
But the movie got a giggle out of me in the first 5 minutes. And of course it made me gasp not long after. But Walking Dead has trained me well, and it wasn’t too long ago that I watched Hateful Eight, so I think I’m quite desensitized to blood and gore now, and in comparison, PPZ was relatively mild in that regard. It also had enough of the elements of the original story that fighting zombies actually became an entertaining digression. You know – beautiful young ladies, dashing young men, ballroom dancing, budding romance, zombie attack.
“To succeed in polite society, a young woman must be many things. Kind… well-read… and accomplished. But to survive in the world as WE know it, you’ll need… other qualities.” Those qualities include being skilled in the martial arts and weapons training, while wearing a corset –essentially making them Regency era bad-asses.
Because I don’t watch Downton Abbey, the last time I saw Lily James, who plays Elizabeth Bennett, she was brilliantly blond and sweetly keeping her promise to her mother to “have courage and be kind.” as Cinderella. In PPZ, she’s a fierce brunette who doesn’t take too kindly to Fitzwilliam Darcy, played by a sullen and haughty Sam Riley – another Disney alum, last seen as Diaval, Maleficent’s companion raven.
Where the Jane Austen’s Mr. Darcy is won over by Elizbeth’s charm and wit, PPZ’s Darcy is slowly won over by Elizabeth’s aggressive and bold battle skills. Adding the alternate history of how zombies came to be a part of Regency era England hurried the story along, so the romantic developments felt a bit rushed, but Riley’s Darcy was quite believable in his reluctant but growing admiration of Elizabeth.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this movie, zombies and all. When you can get guys to cheer for some undead’s head getting blown off, and still make the ladies sigh for the romance, you have a pretty perfect date movie. It may very well be my favorite period costume romantic zombie action film.
But the movie got a giggle out of me in the first 5 minutes. And of course it made me gasp not long after. But Walking Dead has trained me well, and it wasn’t too long ago that I watched Hateful Eight, so I think I’m quite desensitized to blood and gore now, and in comparison, PPZ was relatively mild in that regard. It also had enough of the elements of the original story that fighting zombies actually became an entertaining digression. You know – beautiful young ladies, dashing young men, ballroom dancing, budding romance, zombie attack.
“To succeed in polite society, a young woman must be many things. Kind… well-read… and accomplished. But to survive in the world as WE know it, you’ll need… other qualities.” Those qualities include being skilled in the martial arts and weapons training, while wearing a corset –essentially making them Regency era bad-asses.
Because I don’t watch Downton Abbey, the last time I saw Lily James, who plays Elizabeth Bennett, she was brilliantly blond and sweetly keeping her promise to her mother to “have courage and be kind.” as Cinderella. In PPZ, she’s a fierce brunette who doesn’t take too kindly to Fitzwilliam Darcy, played by a sullen and haughty Sam Riley – another Disney alum, last seen as Diaval, Maleficent’s companion raven.
Where the Jane Austen’s Mr. Darcy is won over by Elizbeth’s charm and wit, PPZ’s Darcy is slowly won over by Elizabeth’s aggressive and bold battle skills. Adding the alternate history of how zombies came to be a part of Regency era England hurried the story along, so the romantic developments felt a bit rushed, but Riley’s Darcy was quite believable in his reluctant but growing admiration of Elizabeth.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this movie, zombies and all. When you can get guys to cheer for some undead’s head getting blown off, and still make the ladies sigh for the romance, you have a pretty perfect date movie. It may very well be my favorite period costume romantic zombie action film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated This is 40 (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The last time we saw Pete and Debbie in the movie “Knocked Up”, they were just reconciling after a short separation. Pete found Debbie too controlling and regularly escaped the house leading Debbie to believe he was having an affair when really he was in a fantasy baseball draft. Five years later, Pete is no longer a band promoter but trying to keep his own record label afloat, while Debbie owns and manages a clothing boutique.
To the casual observer, Pete and Debbie, played with great chemistry by Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann, live an idyllic life with a nice house, two daughters and promising businesses. But a closer look finds Pete would rather play Scrabble on his iPad while on the toilet than spend time playing with his daughters. Most would never guess Debbie is a stress smoker since she goes to great lengths to hide her habit. Stressing over turning 40 isn’t helping her quit and neither is trying to figure out which of her employees is stealing from her. Is it the sexpot Desi, played easily by Megan Fox, or is it the strange Jodi, played with eerie weirdness by Charlyne Yi? As for Pete’s business, his stubborn antipathy towards popular music is driving his record label towards bankruptcy. But that’s not all that’s troubling Pete and Debbie. Both have daddy issues and neither know how quite to handle their over-emotional 14 year old daughter.
Sound like a hodge-podge of dilemmas? It certainly is. What started out as an amusing tale of turning 40 quickly devolved into a manic mess of pointing fingers, curse words, teenage angst and mental breakdowns. At one point in the film, Debbie’s dad, played by John Lithgow, looked utterly confused and I could empathize. If this movie had a storyline, it got lost along with any sympathy for Pete or Pete’s dad played by Albert Brooks. You know it’s bad when you start hoping the 8 year old daughter, Charlotte, says something funny again to break the tension.
With this strong cast of actors, including director Judd Apatow’s daughters Maude and Iris who played Pete and Debbie’s daughters, Sadie and Charlotte, there was no issue with the performances. Maybe some of the story was trimmed away in the editing room, but with a run time of 134 minutes, one would think some semblance of a storyline could have been left. Sure, there was plenty to laugh at, especially with bit parts played by Jason Segal, Melissa McCarthy and Chris O’Dowd.
I really wanted to like this movie. Judd Apatow, Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann sounded like the perfect trio to make a funny movie. Alas, the funny stuff is in the trailers. Save yourself some dough and wait for the DVD, where some of the storyline may make it in the deleted scenes.
To the casual observer, Pete and Debbie, played with great chemistry by Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann, live an idyllic life with a nice house, two daughters and promising businesses. But a closer look finds Pete would rather play Scrabble on his iPad while on the toilet than spend time playing with his daughters. Most would never guess Debbie is a stress smoker since she goes to great lengths to hide her habit. Stressing over turning 40 isn’t helping her quit and neither is trying to figure out which of her employees is stealing from her. Is it the sexpot Desi, played easily by Megan Fox, or is it the strange Jodi, played with eerie weirdness by Charlyne Yi? As for Pete’s business, his stubborn antipathy towards popular music is driving his record label towards bankruptcy. But that’s not all that’s troubling Pete and Debbie. Both have daddy issues and neither know how quite to handle their over-emotional 14 year old daughter.
Sound like a hodge-podge of dilemmas? It certainly is. What started out as an amusing tale of turning 40 quickly devolved into a manic mess of pointing fingers, curse words, teenage angst and mental breakdowns. At one point in the film, Debbie’s dad, played by John Lithgow, looked utterly confused and I could empathize. If this movie had a storyline, it got lost along with any sympathy for Pete or Pete’s dad played by Albert Brooks. You know it’s bad when you start hoping the 8 year old daughter, Charlotte, says something funny again to break the tension.
With this strong cast of actors, including director Judd Apatow’s daughters Maude and Iris who played Pete and Debbie’s daughters, Sadie and Charlotte, there was no issue with the performances. Maybe some of the story was trimmed away in the editing room, but with a run time of 134 minutes, one would think some semblance of a storyline could have been left. Sure, there was plenty to laugh at, especially with bit parts played by Jason Segal, Melissa McCarthy and Chris O’Dowd.
I really wanted to like this movie. Judd Apatow, Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann sounded like the perfect trio to make a funny movie. Alas, the funny stuff is in the trailers. Save yourself some dough and wait for the DVD, where some of the storyline may make it in the deleted scenes.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Magic Mike (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Depending on what you are looking for and what your expectations are going into it, the movie Magic Mike will either satisfy you or dissapoint you entirely.
Bad news first: If you are looking for a great plot, great storyline and phenomenal acting you will undoubtedly leave the theater disappointed.
Good news: If you are looking for a movie full of ‘good views’, some decent laughs, and men with rock-hard bodies with ripped muscles, you’ll get what you were looking for.
The movie Magic Mike, produced by Channing Tatum is loosely based on Tatum’s own experience before his acting career took off, when he spent a period of time earning a living as a male stripper. While working a roofing construction job, Mike (Tatum) meets Adam (Alex Pettyfer) and despite his young age, Mike befriends him and takes him out partying and, unbeknownst to Adam, to the strip club where Mikr works as a stripper. Mike introduces Adam to Dallas (Mathew McConaughey), the owner of the strip club, as The Kid.
.
During one of the club’s shows, one of the other strippers, “Tarzan” (Kevin Nash) passed out, and Mike pushes The Kid out on stage. It’s an awkward, unpolished performance, as one would expect from someone brand new to that particular scene, but The Kid proves to be a hit. When Adam realizes the income potential and allure of life as a stripper, he expresses interest in joining Magic Mike’s crew, and Mike and Dallas take him under their wings and teach him everything he needs to know to be successful in the business. They share tips, tricks, and outfit him with appropriate costumes. He quickly learns the dance moves and the importance of perfect timing when it comes to the pelvic thrust.
While the ‘main’ story line unfolded pretty well and the dancing and on-stage portion of the male revue club scenes were rather riveting, the attempt at bringing a romance into the story – first between Mike and Joanna (a Sociology student played by Olivia Munn) then Adam’s sister Brooke (Cody Horn) fell flat. It seemed awkward and forced, and there was no chemistry whatsoever. With a cast of stars such as McConaughey and Channing, one would expect a higher level of performance, but apparently the writer was counting on the sex appeal and dance scenes to carry the film. Instead, the audience was left with a series of awkward silences and uncomfortable, choppy dialog. Magic Mike left those in the audience that were looking for more than a two-hour male revue sadly disappointed.
We agreed that if you go wanting to see a ‘real’ movie with a ‘real’ storyline, Magic Mike rates 2 out of 5.
If you go with the expectations of ‘sex on a screen’ we rate this 4 of 5. And only 4 of 5 because we both felt uncomfortable with the ‘crotch in the face scenes’. But if you’re into that kinda thing, then by all means, 5 of 5.
Bad news first: If you are looking for a great plot, great storyline and phenomenal acting you will undoubtedly leave the theater disappointed.
Good news: If you are looking for a movie full of ‘good views’, some decent laughs, and men with rock-hard bodies with ripped muscles, you’ll get what you were looking for.
The movie Magic Mike, produced by Channing Tatum is loosely based on Tatum’s own experience before his acting career took off, when he spent a period of time earning a living as a male stripper. While working a roofing construction job, Mike (Tatum) meets Adam (Alex Pettyfer) and despite his young age, Mike befriends him and takes him out partying and, unbeknownst to Adam, to the strip club where Mikr works as a stripper. Mike introduces Adam to Dallas (Mathew McConaughey), the owner of the strip club, as The Kid.
.
During one of the club’s shows, one of the other strippers, “Tarzan” (Kevin Nash) passed out, and Mike pushes The Kid out on stage. It’s an awkward, unpolished performance, as one would expect from someone brand new to that particular scene, but The Kid proves to be a hit. When Adam realizes the income potential and allure of life as a stripper, he expresses interest in joining Magic Mike’s crew, and Mike and Dallas take him under their wings and teach him everything he needs to know to be successful in the business. They share tips, tricks, and outfit him with appropriate costumes. He quickly learns the dance moves and the importance of perfect timing when it comes to the pelvic thrust.
While the ‘main’ story line unfolded pretty well and the dancing and on-stage portion of the male revue club scenes were rather riveting, the attempt at bringing a romance into the story – first between Mike and Joanna (a Sociology student played by Olivia Munn) then Adam’s sister Brooke (Cody Horn) fell flat. It seemed awkward and forced, and there was no chemistry whatsoever. With a cast of stars such as McConaughey and Channing, one would expect a higher level of performance, but apparently the writer was counting on the sex appeal and dance scenes to carry the film. Instead, the audience was left with a series of awkward silences and uncomfortable, choppy dialog. Magic Mike left those in the audience that were looking for more than a two-hour male revue sadly disappointed.
We agreed that if you go wanting to see a ‘real’ movie with a ‘real’ storyline, Magic Mike rates 2 out of 5.
If you go with the expectations of ‘sex on a screen’ we rate this 4 of 5. And only 4 of 5 because we both felt uncomfortable with the ‘crotch in the face scenes’. But if you’re into that kinda thing, then by all means, 5 of 5.