Search
Search results
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
After putting in plenty of years and two prior movies spent protecting the President, Secret Service member Mike Banning is up for promotion. In Angel Has Fallen, the third installment of the Fallen franchise, Banning has been personally hand-picked by President Allan Trumbull to take over as the new Secret Service Director. Trumbull tells him the good news directly during a getaway fishing trip, but then things quickly turn bad when a drone attack attempts to assassinate the President. Banning is able to successfully save himself and the President, but the attack kills all the rest of the Secret Service members on site and the aftermath leaves Trumbull in a coma. Planted DNA evidence linking Banning to an involvement in the attack leads to his arrest, and with the President unconscious, he has no other witness to clear his name. Banning’s obviously been framed and set-up and will have to escape from authorities to find out who is responsible, and to also protect the President from any further attempts on his life.
Directed by Ric Roman Waugh, Angel Has Fallen is a film that starts off pretty well, yet I feel that the whole narrative of Banning being so easily framed is pretty hard to believe, especially given that he’s been the hero of two films already. It’s the driving force of the film’s story and yet it seems highly questionable to me that the intelligence committee would be so quick to blame it all on Banning considering his reputable history. Naturally any attack on the President is taken very seriously, but the FBI is extremely quick to condemn the man that just saved his life. I think it’s the weakest part of the story, although story is not an area this film ever really excels at. I would even say that most of its attempts at being smart usually fall flat. Regardless, this is the kind of movie that would be best enjoyed if you didn’t take it too seriously. It’s in many ways a throwback to the macho action movies of yesteryear, and that’s where it makes up for its shortcomings.
As the first film I’ve seen in this series, I admittedly had low expectations for it. If not for my dad wanting to see it, I probably would have skipped it entirely, but in truth it turned out to be better than I had anticipated. It’s also been the number one movie at the box office for two weeks running, so what do I know? I must confess that ever since seeing Den of Thieves last year, I’ve instantly become a huge fan of Gerard Butler, whose filmography I’ve largely overlooked. I love his energy, his over-the-top acting and his tough guy persona. He’s a great fit here in Angel Has Fallen as Banning and is enjoyable to watch, even if at times it can be a little hard to believe that he’s somehow always the smartest guy in the room.
The rest of the cast in the movie is respectful as well. Morgan Freeman is a comfortable choice as President Trumbull, and he truly makes me long for a time when we had a sane and competent President. It’s a rather reserved role for Freeman, as he spends most of the runtime in a coma. Still, he’s a graceful and welcome presence who has at least a couple moments to shine. Jada Pinkett Smith has the unfortunate role of playing the FBI agent who orders Banning’s arrest, and I wish she had a bit more to work with. Nick Nolte plays Banning’s estranged father Clay, a paranoid war veteran living off the grid, and he’s one of the highlights of the film. I enjoyed his character’s relationship with Banning, and he and Butler play off each other well. Danny Huston also gives a worthwhile performance as Banning’s former military companion Wade Jennings.
Despite having the appearance of a run-of-the-mill, rescue-the-President type of action movie, the action is actually for the most part quite admirable. Right from the get-go, it makes an impressive statement with its tense and exciting introductory scene which feels reminiscent of tactical military-style video games. The movie is heavy on explosions, shootouts, and hand-to-hand combat, and its action is generally fun. There’s also an impressive final stand-off that’s surprisingly well-planned and executed. It’s in moments like this where the movie demonstrates its intelligence and expertise. If not for these strong action sequences, I feel the movie as a whole would have suffered tremendously, but it rightfully delivers on what we came to see. Of course, not all of the action is stellar, and there’s a clunker of a car chase thrown into the mix, but overall I was entertained.
One area where the movie could have used some more improvement was with the special effects. They’re sufficient in the sense that they still clearly convey what the movie is trying to show, but a lot of it looks noticeably fake. It’s unfortunate, but I also don’t believe it was ever a major distraction. Another issue with the film is that its run-time feels a little long and there are some subplots that I really couldn’t care less about. It’s your standard government scheming and political conspiracy stuff, complete with all of the twists you would expect, but it isn’t particularly interesting, even if it does explain the purpose of the initial attack on the President.
Overall, I had a better time with Angel Has Fallen than I would have imagined. It’s far from great, but it’s good enough that I’ll probably now check out the two previous Fallen films at some point. The story might leave a lot to be desired, but the action sequences help fill the void. I would recommend it for fans of action movies, or anyone who likes Gerard Butler. It’s not something anyone needs to rush to the theater to see, but if you’re looking for a little action to end your summer with, it should do the trick.
Directed by Ric Roman Waugh, Angel Has Fallen is a film that starts off pretty well, yet I feel that the whole narrative of Banning being so easily framed is pretty hard to believe, especially given that he’s been the hero of two films already. It’s the driving force of the film’s story and yet it seems highly questionable to me that the intelligence committee would be so quick to blame it all on Banning considering his reputable history. Naturally any attack on the President is taken very seriously, but the FBI is extremely quick to condemn the man that just saved his life. I think it’s the weakest part of the story, although story is not an area this film ever really excels at. I would even say that most of its attempts at being smart usually fall flat. Regardless, this is the kind of movie that would be best enjoyed if you didn’t take it too seriously. It’s in many ways a throwback to the macho action movies of yesteryear, and that’s where it makes up for its shortcomings.
As the first film I’ve seen in this series, I admittedly had low expectations for it. If not for my dad wanting to see it, I probably would have skipped it entirely, but in truth it turned out to be better than I had anticipated. It’s also been the number one movie at the box office for two weeks running, so what do I know? I must confess that ever since seeing Den of Thieves last year, I’ve instantly become a huge fan of Gerard Butler, whose filmography I’ve largely overlooked. I love his energy, his over-the-top acting and his tough guy persona. He’s a great fit here in Angel Has Fallen as Banning and is enjoyable to watch, even if at times it can be a little hard to believe that he’s somehow always the smartest guy in the room.
The rest of the cast in the movie is respectful as well. Morgan Freeman is a comfortable choice as President Trumbull, and he truly makes me long for a time when we had a sane and competent President. It’s a rather reserved role for Freeman, as he spends most of the runtime in a coma. Still, he’s a graceful and welcome presence who has at least a couple moments to shine. Jada Pinkett Smith has the unfortunate role of playing the FBI agent who orders Banning’s arrest, and I wish she had a bit more to work with. Nick Nolte plays Banning’s estranged father Clay, a paranoid war veteran living off the grid, and he’s one of the highlights of the film. I enjoyed his character’s relationship with Banning, and he and Butler play off each other well. Danny Huston also gives a worthwhile performance as Banning’s former military companion Wade Jennings.
Despite having the appearance of a run-of-the-mill, rescue-the-President type of action movie, the action is actually for the most part quite admirable. Right from the get-go, it makes an impressive statement with its tense and exciting introductory scene which feels reminiscent of tactical military-style video games. The movie is heavy on explosions, shootouts, and hand-to-hand combat, and its action is generally fun. There’s also an impressive final stand-off that’s surprisingly well-planned and executed. It’s in moments like this where the movie demonstrates its intelligence and expertise. If not for these strong action sequences, I feel the movie as a whole would have suffered tremendously, but it rightfully delivers on what we came to see. Of course, not all of the action is stellar, and there’s a clunker of a car chase thrown into the mix, but overall I was entertained.
One area where the movie could have used some more improvement was with the special effects. They’re sufficient in the sense that they still clearly convey what the movie is trying to show, but a lot of it looks noticeably fake. It’s unfortunate, but I also don’t believe it was ever a major distraction. Another issue with the film is that its run-time feels a little long and there are some subplots that I really couldn’t care less about. It’s your standard government scheming and political conspiracy stuff, complete with all of the twists you would expect, but it isn’t particularly interesting, even if it does explain the purpose of the initial attack on the President.
Overall, I had a better time with Angel Has Fallen than I would have imagined. It’s far from great, but it’s good enough that I’ll probably now check out the two previous Fallen films at some point. The story might leave a lot to be desired, but the action sequences help fill the void. I would recommend it for fans of action movies, or anyone who likes Gerard Butler. It’s not something anyone needs to rush to the theater to see, but if you’re looking for a little action to end your summer with, it should do the trick.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 15, 2021
Much like the recent Justice League redo we have Suicide Squad... sorry, The Suicide Squad.
The bad guys (and gals) club together to protect America... and by default, the world.
So it's not really a sequel, it's not really a reboot, but it's sort of a rebooted sequel while being a standalone film in the same universe. I've got no idea, but what we've got doesn't really bring out the same character dynamics as we've had previously.
Harley, Flag, Boomerang and Waller make repeat visits to the franchise. Harley and Boomerang are their usual, slightly off the wall, selves to bring the outlandish humour element. But Flag and Waller aren't anywhere near the versions they were in their last outing. Flag isn't sceptical, and that could be acceptance after the previous missions, but he's less of a leader and altogether more... bland. Waller on the other hand is still a hardass, but on a much different level. Before, she was sinister evil with a smidge of understated terrifying. Now... she's just shouty. It didn't make for a good viewing experience.
The dynamic change also left me cold. Harley and Boomerang have great chemistry together, what they did to her and Flag though, that was an odd mood. At least last time he was firm and decisive, now we're getting lingering camera shots that feel like they have romantic undertones. They also took Harley out of a lot of group activity, for a storyline that could easily have been summed up in another way.
Supporting the old familiars are a lot of new faces. In fact, there are over a dozen new named characters in The Suicide Squad.
Idris Elba is obviously a big pull in the advertising of this. Bloodsport isn't a character I know well, but it's handy that there are several, almost identical, characters they could swap in for Deadshot in case they want to bring Will Smith back later. But whether or not the comic book characters are the same, the story on the screen comes across almost identical.
And then there's Peacemaker, played by John Cena... another highly trained marksman. But this one with a penchant for tighty-whities. With this and F9, I'm not sure I have enough words. This is the last in a string of roles for him that I really haven't enjoyed. I'm even more distressed now that I know there's an 8 episode Peacemaker series coming in 2022. Heavy "do not want" vibes.
I couldn't go through this review without talking about King Shark... that would be criminal. Sylvester Stallone did this perfectly. Nanaue has humour, vulnerability, anger, wonder... and that was all conveyed with animation and a minimal script. I will not apologise for saying he was the best thing about the whole movie.
The rest of the characters are a steep learning curve. There was a lot of opportunity, but some rash decisions meant there was also a lot of wasted IP.
Our bad guys were a little all over the place. Front and centre we had Peter Capaldi as Thinker. He's not exactly a force to be reckoned with though, and honestly, I kind of expected more considering his prominence in the trailer. Starro was more of a challenger as a baddie, but they did ignore a lot of his abilities and left him as more of a novelty... and those armpits... *shudder*
Effects were as you'd expect for a DC film, not bad, but nothing that blows your mind. Animating a giant starfish is never going to look all that believable though, so there's a certain amount of leeway you need to give them for that.
The vibrant colours felt very on brand for James Gunn, and almost made this a bit of a companion piece to Birds of Prey... but those flowers... Yes, Harley has her hallucinatory moments, those flowers felt entirely pointless and out of place.
While The Suicide Squad was watchable, I really didn't find it to be the redemption that a lot of people are praising it to be. In fact, it felt like a solid step back for some characters and an excessive waste of others. Had they made the entire movie from King Shark's point of view then this obviously would have been a 5 star film, but as it was I didn't like the tone it had, and a lot of the action felt way too lighthearted for me. This wasn't an improvement on the previous iteration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-suicide-squad-movie-review.html
The bad guys (and gals) club together to protect America... and by default, the world.
So it's not really a sequel, it's not really a reboot, but it's sort of a rebooted sequel while being a standalone film in the same universe. I've got no idea, but what we've got doesn't really bring out the same character dynamics as we've had previously.
Harley, Flag, Boomerang and Waller make repeat visits to the franchise. Harley and Boomerang are their usual, slightly off the wall, selves to bring the outlandish humour element. But Flag and Waller aren't anywhere near the versions they were in their last outing. Flag isn't sceptical, and that could be acceptance after the previous missions, but he's less of a leader and altogether more... bland. Waller on the other hand is still a hardass, but on a much different level. Before, she was sinister evil with a smidge of understated terrifying. Now... she's just shouty. It didn't make for a good viewing experience.
The dynamic change also left me cold. Harley and Boomerang have great chemistry together, what they did to her and Flag though, that was an odd mood. At least last time he was firm and decisive, now we're getting lingering camera shots that feel like they have romantic undertones. They also took Harley out of a lot of group activity, for a storyline that could easily have been summed up in another way.
Supporting the old familiars are a lot of new faces. In fact, there are over a dozen new named characters in The Suicide Squad.
Idris Elba is obviously a big pull in the advertising of this. Bloodsport isn't a character I know well, but it's handy that there are several, almost identical, characters they could swap in for Deadshot in case they want to bring Will Smith back later. But whether or not the comic book characters are the same, the story on the screen comes across almost identical.
And then there's Peacemaker, played by John Cena... another highly trained marksman. But this one with a penchant for tighty-whities. With this and F9, I'm not sure I have enough words. This is the last in a string of roles for him that I really haven't enjoyed. I'm even more distressed now that I know there's an 8 episode Peacemaker series coming in 2022. Heavy "do not want" vibes.
I couldn't go through this review without talking about King Shark... that would be criminal. Sylvester Stallone did this perfectly. Nanaue has humour, vulnerability, anger, wonder... and that was all conveyed with animation and a minimal script. I will not apologise for saying he was the best thing about the whole movie.
The rest of the characters are a steep learning curve. There was a lot of opportunity, but some rash decisions meant there was also a lot of wasted IP.
Our bad guys were a little all over the place. Front and centre we had Peter Capaldi as Thinker. He's not exactly a force to be reckoned with though, and honestly, I kind of expected more considering his prominence in the trailer. Starro was more of a challenger as a baddie, but they did ignore a lot of his abilities and left him as more of a novelty... and those armpits... *shudder*
Effects were as you'd expect for a DC film, not bad, but nothing that blows your mind. Animating a giant starfish is never going to look all that believable though, so there's a certain amount of leeway you need to give them for that.
The vibrant colours felt very on brand for James Gunn, and almost made this a bit of a companion piece to Birds of Prey... but those flowers... Yes, Harley has her hallucinatory moments, those flowers felt entirely pointless and out of place.
While The Suicide Squad was watchable, I really didn't find it to be the redemption that a lot of people are praising it to be. In fact, it felt like a solid step back for some characters and an excessive waste of others. Had they made the entire movie from King Shark's point of view then this obviously would have been a 5 star film, but as it was I didn't like the tone it had, and a lot of the action felt way too lighthearted for me. This wasn't an improvement on the previous iteration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-suicide-squad-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Skyscraper (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
As sponsored by Duck Tape.
I have a fundamental problem with this film. And it’s not that it’s an irrevocably cheesy and derivative action movie, since you could automatically assume that by watching the ridiculously over-the-top trailer. But more on that later.
Dwayne Johnson plays Will Sawyer, a security expert left one-legged after a disastrous FBI operation 10 years previously. Now Will has moved with his wife Sarah (Neve Campbell, “Scream”, “House of Cards”) and two young kids into “The Pearl” in Hong Kong, the tallest building – by several Shards – in the world, designed and constructed by tech billionaire Zhao Long Ji (Chin Han, “Independence Day: Resurgence“). As the first residents, the family live in isolated splendour on a high floor. But in true “Die Hard” fashion, baddies, led by a the unconvincingly evil “Scandinavian” Kores Botha (Roland Møller, “The Commuter“), are intent on controlling and then destroying the high-rise. As fire races up towards his family, Will has to use all his physical capabilities to re-enter the building and save his family.
Now, there are implausible leaps in films and then there are IMPLAUSIBLE leaps!
As a story it’s well-crafted but completely bonkers. There are more ludicrous plot holes than muscles on Johnson’s well-crafted body. Why exactly does Botha needs to implement such a ridiculously convoluted plot to secure his goal? Why wasn’t the lift drop delayed by two minutes? Why don’t critical access controls have two-factor authentication? And – most perplexing of all – why don’t the “heaven cameras” show the building below?!!
Big, bigger, biggest!
Both “Die Hard” and “The Towering Inferno”, of which this is an unsubtle blend, could both be similarly accused of lacking credibility but were fun rides. This is not in the same league as either, but has its moments of vertiginous excitement. Johnson is suitably energetic in the muscular lead but lacks acting nuance. I was trying to analyse why this is, and I came down to his eyeballs! In conversation with Campbell, his eyes dart from left to right and back again, as if an army of ants are running over her face. He needs to take lessons on fixed stares from Michael Caine!
Duck tape! Anyone knows if you put two bits together you never get them apart again!
As the title of this review implies, Duck Tape also plays a key role: not for Johnson the fancy blue light/red light gloves of Tom Cruise! It also derives one of the best of a series of quotable lines from the film: “If it can’t be fixed with Duck Tape, you’re not using enough Duck Tape!”.
Neve Campbell is actually the best actor in the film, proving to be suitably kick-ass in her own right. It’s a shame she’s been rather tagged as ‘the screaming girl from “Scream”… no, not Barrymore, the other one’: she deserves more feature film opportunities like this one.
The best acting in the movie from Neve Campbell, here with a Noah Cottrell and a supremely confident performance by McKenna Roberts.
Rawson Marshall Thurber (“Central Intelligence“, “Dodgeball”) keeps the action to a tight 102 minutes, but needs to keep more control over his Hong Kong extras: there is far too much ‘twenty-second-pointing’ and over exuberant jumping up and down going on that draws the attention away from the principals. This is particularly the case in the Die-Hard rip-off of an ending (“HOOOLLLLLLYYYYYY!!!”).
As a popcorn piece of escapist nonsense, it’s serviceable and delivers as a B-grade movie… it’s not good enough to be a “Die Hard” classic, and not bad enough to be a “so bad it’s good” disaster like “Into the Storm“.
Taiwanese actress Hannah Quinlivan as Xia, the ruthless hit-girl.
You’ll note that I haven’t rubbished the film per se. So why then do I hold a negative view of the flick, and indeed somewhat regret going to see it?
One word – – Grenfell.
I knew the plot on going in, but didn’t equate just how damaging the mental effects of that dreadful night of 14th June 2017 were on my soul. Traumatic incendiary scenes together with some insensitive dialogue (“We’re going to turn that tower into a chimney”) broke through the wall of “entertainment” and left just a sick feeling in my stomach. And my wife had exactly the same feelings as we debriefed afterwards. This is a film that might have benefited from sitting on the shelf for a couple of years before release.
If you can separate in your mind the movie story from the shocking reality of one of life’s most unpleasant recent twists, then good for you: go and enjoy the movie. But I wasn’t so lucky so on a purely personal basis this is one occasion when I will give a film two ratings.
Dwayne Johnson plays Will Sawyer, a security expert left one-legged after a disastrous FBI operation 10 years previously. Now Will has moved with his wife Sarah (Neve Campbell, “Scream”, “House of Cards”) and two young kids into “The Pearl” in Hong Kong, the tallest building – by several Shards – in the world, designed and constructed by tech billionaire Zhao Long Ji (Chin Han, “Independence Day: Resurgence“). As the first residents, the family live in isolated splendour on a high floor. But in true “Die Hard” fashion, baddies, led by a the unconvincingly evil “Scandinavian” Kores Botha (Roland Møller, “The Commuter“), are intent on controlling and then destroying the high-rise. As fire races up towards his family, Will has to use all his physical capabilities to re-enter the building and save his family.
Now, there are implausible leaps in films and then there are IMPLAUSIBLE leaps!
As a story it’s well-crafted but completely bonkers. There are more ludicrous plot holes than muscles on Johnson’s well-crafted body. Why exactly does Botha needs to implement such a ridiculously convoluted plot to secure his goal? Why wasn’t the lift drop delayed by two minutes? Why don’t critical access controls have two-factor authentication? And – most perplexing of all – why don’t the “heaven cameras” show the building below?!!
Big, bigger, biggest!
Both “Die Hard” and “The Towering Inferno”, of which this is an unsubtle blend, could both be similarly accused of lacking credibility but were fun rides. This is not in the same league as either, but has its moments of vertiginous excitement. Johnson is suitably energetic in the muscular lead but lacks acting nuance. I was trying to analyse why this is, and I came down to his eyeballs! In conversation with Campbell, his eyes dart from left to right and back again, as if an army of ants are running over her face. He needs to take lessons on fixed stares from Michael Caine!
Duck tape! Anyone knows if you put two bits together you never get them apart again!
As the title of this review implies, Duck Tape also plays a key role: not for Johnson the fancy blue light/red light gloves of Tom Cruise! It also derives one of the best of a series of quotable lines from the film: “If it can’t be fixed with Duck Tape, you’re not using enough Duck Tape!”.
Neve Campbell is actually the best actor in the film, proving to be suitably kick-ass in her own right. It’s a shame she’s been rather tagged as ‘the screaming girl from “Scream”… no, not Barrymore, the other one’: she deserves more feature film opportunities like this one.
The best acting in the movie from Neve Campbell, here with a Noah Cottrell and a supremely confident performance by McKenna Roberts.
Rawson Marshall Thurber (“Central Intelligence“, “Dodgeball”) keeps the action to a tight 102 minutes, but needs to keep more control over his Hong Kong extras: there is far too much ‘twenty-second-pointing’ and over exuberant jumping up and down going on that draws the attention away from the principals. This is particularly the case in the Die-Hard rip-off of an ending (“HOOOLLLLLLYYYYYY!!!”).
As a popcorn piece of escapist nonsense, it’s serviceable and delivers as a B-grade movie… it’s not good enough to be a “Die Hard” classic, and not bad enough to be a “so bad it’s good” disaster like “Into the Storm“.
Taiwanese actress Hannah Quinlivan as Xia, the ruthless hit-girl.
You’ll note that I haven’t rubbished the film per se. So why then do I hold a negative view of the flick, and indeed somewhat regret going to see it?
One word – – Grenfell.
I knew the plot on going in, but didn’t equate just how damaging the mental effects of that dreadful night of 14th June 2017 were on my soul. Traumatic incendiary scenes together with some insensitive dialogue (“We’re going to turn that tower into a chimney”) broke through the wall of “entertainment” and left just a sick feeling in my stomach. And my wife had exactly the same feelings as we debriefed afterwards. This is a film that might have benefited from sitting on the shelf for a couple of years before release.
If you can separate in your mind the movie story from the shocking reality of one of life’s most unpleasant recent twists, then good for you: go and enjoy the movie. But I wasn’t so lucky so on a purely personal basis this is one occasion when I will give a film two ratings.
Dianne Robbins (1738 KP) rated Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again! (2018) in Movies
Apr 24, 2019
Seeing Donna's backstories with her lovers. (1 more)
Nice to see most of the cast together again.
Literally everything else (8 more)
The same dramatic hairstyles on two principal female characters for over twenty years, really? Talk about suspension of belief.
Lifeless.
No real heart to it.
Meryl Streep is in it for mere seconds.
Relationships between the characters. Disjointed and disconnected.
Not the best ABBA songs.
The Kissed the Teacher sequence. I mean, wth was that about?
Not much singing or a reason to sing.
Joyless
Contains spoilers, click to show
I loved the first one and have been known to watch the DVD or listen to the CD on a continuous loop for upwards of 12 hours. I'm not kidding. I adore Meryl Streep and everything she touches is gold. Except for this movie. Omg, it is so bad. It lost all the joy the first film had. Why?! Why did they have to destroy this movie so badly?
Spoiler alert: Donna, Meryl Streep's joyous character is dead at the start of this film. Her story is told through flashbacks with Lily James of Downton Abbey starring as recent college-grad, Donna, and her adventures in the Greek Isles as she meets each of the three men who may be her daughter, Sophie's father. Donna flits around as the bohemian she is but the character is too flighty to be believed and she certainly doesn't flesh out Meryl Streep's version of Donna. It seems pointless for her to even have tried.
The cast is very dated and stagnant, in reverse, as they are shown as their younger selves exactly as they are 20 or 30 years later, even down to the same clothing and hairstyles. It's ridiculous to think these fashionable women would never update their looks over the years or that their personalities and mannerisms had not changed either. Are they living in a vacuum? They're all just so one-note. Maybe the creators did it because they thought the movie would be easier to understand or figure out which character was whom, but it's just not realistic. I'll admit, dramas are my favorite genre and this is meant as much lighter fare but I wish they would have expected the audience to have half a brain and be able to figure out the younger cast and the elder versions of them. It felt dumbed down.
The modern plotline is morose, joyless, and lifeless, and missed all the heart, humor, and passion of the first.
And Cher's character, why bother? She didn't bring anything to the role other than her real-life celebrity.
I regret buying this DVD and even more so, wasting 2 hours of my life watching this dull, spoon-fed money grab.
Spoiler alert: Donna, Meryl Streep's joyous character is dead at the start of this film. Her story is told through flashbacks with Lily James of Downton Abbey starring as recent college-grad, Donna, and her adventures in the Greek Isles as she meets each of the three men who may be her daughter, Sophie's father. Donna flits around as the bohemian she is but the character is too flighty to be believed and she certainly doesn't flesh out Meryl Streep's version of Donna. It seems pointless for her to even have tried.
The cast is very dated and stagnant, in reverse, as they are shown as their younger selves exactly as they are 20 or 30 years later, even down to the same clothing and hairstyles. It's ridiculous to think these fashionable women would never update their looks over the years or that their personalities and mannerisms had not changed either. Are they living in a vacuum? They're all just so one-note. Maybe the creators did it because they thought the movie would be easier to understand or figure out which character was whom, but it's just not realistic. I'll admit, dramas are my favorite genre and this is meant as much lighter fare but I wish they would have expected the audience to have half a brain and be able to figure out the younger cast and the elder versions of them. It felt dumbed down.
The modern plotline is morose, joyless, and lifeless, and missed all the heart, humor, and passion of the first.
And Cher's character, why bother? She didn't bring anything to the role other than her real-life celebrity.
I regret buying this DVD and even more so, wasting 2 hours of my life watching this dull, spoon-fed money grab.
Joseph Rogers (13 KP) rated Stuck in Love (2013) in Movies
Jan 18, 2020
I regularly looked at the message boards on the IMDB website, (when they were available!) and I couldn’t find a decent review in the message boards for this film so I thought I’d do one on here.
The premise is about a family of writers, a father, daughter and son dealing with love over the course of a year. The father is a divorcee and still has conflicting feelings for his ex-wife who he has been apart from for 3 years. It’s a story about finding love and holding onto it, i guess another theme could be to not rush head on into love for fear of getting hurt and doing this by learning from personal experience (for instance the daughter and son learning from their parents).
This film has an amazing cast (amazing as in great performances, it’s not exactly an A-list cast which i think would ruin it due to the genre of the film) and uses the actors to the absolute best of it’s abilities.
One of the best performances in this movie is probably Greg Kinnear as he strikes the balance between a good and a bad father through no fault of his own as he’s caught up in the complexities of his own love life. Which is another great thing about this film, as the children are supposed to be between 17-19 years old, they actually go through the same problems as the adults, thus making everyone in this film equal and shows that no matter who you are or what you’re background is, everyone gets hurt by love, and more or less everyone reacts the same.
If I had one problem with this film it’s that it could have been about 20-30 minutes longer as it’s one of those films where you want to know more back story of the characters, particularly Greg Kinnear’s.
But as I say, this film couldn’t have used the actors better for this genre. To compliment the acting and great story the soundtrack is one of the best I’ve heard for a long time. The first track we hear is “Home – Edward Sharpe & The Magnetic Zeros” which is an amazing, comforting, happy, melancholic song in of itself, but it opens the film with a huge bang of presumptions that enter your mind of where this film could lead you.
It leads you exactly where you want it to.
There will be some things I’ve left out purposefully as I hate any reviews or trailers that just show you all the best bits and you go to see the movie and find that they really were the ONLY good bits. So watch the movie and enjoy it for what it is!
The premise is about a family of writers, a father, daughter and son dealing with love over the course of a year. The father is a divorcee and still has conflicting feelings for his ex-wife who he has been apart from for 3 years. It’s a story about finding love and holding onto it, i guess another theme could be to not rush head on into love for fear of getting hurt and doing this by learning from personal experience (for instance the daughter and son learning from their parents).
This film has an amazing cast (amazing as in great performances, it’s not exactly an A-list cast which i think would ruin it due to the genre of the film) and uses the actors to the absolute best of it’s abilities.
One of the best performances in this movie is probably Greg Kinnear as he strikes the balance between a good and a bad father through no fault of his own as he’s caught up in the complexities of his own love life. Which is another great thing about this film, as the children are supposed to be between 17-19 years old, they actually go through the same problems as the adults, thus making everyone in this film equal and shows that no matter who you are or what you’re background is, everyone gets hurt by love, and more or less everyone reacts the same.
If I had one problem with this film it’s that it could have been about 20-30 minutes longer as it’s one of those films where you want to know more back story of the characters, particularly Greg Kinnear’s.
But as I say, this film couldn’t have used the actors better for this genre. To compliment the acting and great story the soundtrack is one of the best I’ve heard for a long time. The first track we hear is “Home – Edward Sharpe & The Magnetic Zeros” which is an amazing, comforting, happy, melancholic song in of itself, but it opens the film with a huge bang of presumptions that enter your mind of where this film could lead you.
It leads you exactly where you want it to.
There will be some things I’ve left out purposefully as I hate any reviews or trailers that just show you all the best bits and you go to see the movie and find that they really were the ONLY good bits. So watch the movie and enjoy it for what it is!
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Captive State (2019) in Movies
Jul 6, 2020
Not Captivating Enough - 6/10
Captive State is a 2019 sci-fi/thriller movie directed by Rupert Wyatt and co-written by Rupert Wyatt and Erica Beeney. It was produced by Amblin Partners and Participant Media with producers Rupert Wyatt and David Crockett. The film stars John Goodman, Ashton Sanders, Jonathan Majors, and Vera Farmiga.
In 2019, Chicago is placed under Martial Law as extraterrestrials invade Earth. Attempting to flee the city, the Drummond family, breaks through a barricade to a tunnel exit. Before they can back up and reverse, the aliens attack, vaporizing both parents, with the children having survived in the backseat. Nine years later, 2028, the world has surrendered to the conquering alien forces, who have now become the governing authority. They are called "The Legislators" because all rules of governance and subsequent laws come from them. Walled off from the rest of the city and deep beneath the ground, they've had conscripted humans build them suitable habitats called "Closed Zones" where only high government officials are granted access. Gabriel Drummond (Ashton Sanders), the younger son of the Drummond family is confronted by Chicago Police Commander William Mulligan (John Goodman) who believes he is a part of the resistance. Gabriel's brother Rafe Drummond (Jonathan Majors) was part of the resistance but died on a mission and murals are painted of him in Pilsen, the poor part of town, where Gabriel lives. Mulligan however is not convinced the resistance group, called Phoenix has been neutralized as believed and continues to work towards bringing them down.
This movie was not at all what I expected. I thought it was going to be better than what it was and that's because I didn't even have high expectations going into it. So from the previews/trailers it looked like it was going to be a bigger scale resistance. When I hear resistance fighting, I guess I picture more like fighting like Fallen Skies or like the resistance fighters in Star Wars. This was more of a political/spy thriller going back and forth between the point of view from members of the resistance and those tasked with bringing them down. It had sprinkling of sci-fi and aliens but was too grounded in reality to make it entertaining. It seemed very "done before" and lacked originality. John Goodman did a good job and so did Ashton Sanders but I feel this movie suffered from a bad plot to begin with. Or maybe it sounds good on paper but the delivery failed. Visually it was appealing, the aliens and ships and things looked wonderful but after watching seemed like it wasn't enough to leave the audience satisfied. I give it a 6/10.
In 2019, Chicago is placed under Martial Law as extraterrestrials invade Earth. Attempting to flee the city, the Drummond family, breaks through a barricade to a tunnel exit. Before they can back up and reverse, the aliens attack, vaporizing both parents, with the children having survived in the backseat. Nine years later, 2028, the world has surrendered to the conquering alien forces, who have now become the governing authority. They are called "The Legislators" because all rules of governance and subsequent laws come from them. Walled off from the rest of the city and deep beneath the ground, they've had conscripted humans build them suitable habitats called "Closed Zones" where only high government officials are granted access. Gabriel Drummond (Ashton Sanders), the younger son of the Drummond family is confronted by Chicago Police Commander William Mulligan (John Goodman) who believes he is a part of the resistance. Gabriel's brother Rafe Drummond (Jonathan Majors) was part of the resistance but died on a mission and murals are painted of him in Pilsen, the poor part of town, where Gabriel lives. Mulligan however is not convinced the resistance group, called Phoenix has been neutralized as believed and continues to work towards bringing them down.
This movie was not at all what I expected. I thought it was going to be better than what it was and that's because I didn't even have high expectations going into it. So from the previews/trailers it looked like it was going to be a bigger scale resistance. When I hear resistance fighting, I guess I picture more like fighting like Fallen Skies or like the resistance fighters in Star Wars. This was more of a political/spy thriller going back and forth between the point of view from members of the resistance and those tasked with bringing them down. It had sprinkling of sci-fi and aliens but was too grounded in reality to make it entertaining. It seemed very "done before" and lacked originality. John Goodman did a good job and so did Ashton Sanders but I feel this movie suffered from a bad plot to begin with. Or maybe it sounds good on paper but the delivery failed. Visually it was appealing, the aliens and ships and things looked wonderful but after watching seemed like it wasn't enough to leave the audience satisfied. I give it a 6/10.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Creepshow 2 (1987) in Movies
Sep 27, 2019
More Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark
Creepshow 2- is also a very good movie, with its three stories. That are horrorfyed and terrorfyed. Each one of them of are scary.
The Plot: This second horror anthology presents more eerie tales based on Stephen King stories. One episode finds a cigar-store Native American statue coming to life to avenge the death of the shop owner (George Kennedy) and his wife (Dorothy Lamour). Another features a group of teens menaced by a blob-like creature. The final installment follows a wealthy and callous woman (Lois Chiles) who hits a hitchhiker with her car and decides to flee the scene, but the victim isn't inclined to remain dead.
It features three more horror segments consisting of Old Chief Wooden Head, The Raft and The Hitchhiker.
Originally, the film was planned to have five stories much like the first film, two of these consisted of Pinfall and Cat from Hell. These two segments, however, were cut from the film due to the film's budget. "Cat from Hell", which would later be used in Tales from the Darkside: The Movie, focused on a wealthy old man hiring a hitman for $100,000 to kill a black cat, which was believed to killed three other people inside the residence he lives in and fears to be next. Unbeknownst to them, the cat soon exacts cosmic revenge on the two.
Pinfall", which was set to appear after Old Chief Wood'nhead, told the story of two rivalry teams consisted of the Regi-Men and the Bad News Boors competing in a bowling alley owned by an aged millionaire; the owner is soon killed in a freak accident and the teams found out afterwards that he would award one of them $5 million for whoever got the highest score. Soon, things turn up for the worst of the Regi-Team when the Boors, after they were killed in a fiery car-crash purposely caused by the Regi-Team, return as burnt-up revenants and soon get their revenge on their killers. Unlike Cat from Hell which managed to be brought onto the screen through a different film, Pinfall was never shot and never appeared outside of the film's original script.
During "The Raft" segment, actor Daniel Beer cited that he had almost died from hypothermia due to the water being very cold. While the crew wanted him to continue working with his role, the director Michael Gornick brought him to the hospital as he feared the actor would leave the set and never return if they get him to keep working during his cold condition. After a full recovery, he managed to finish the segment.
Again i would highly reccordmend this movie.
The Plot: This second horror anthology presents more eerie tales based on Stephen King stories. One episode finds a cigar-store Native American statue coming to life to avenge the death of the shop owner (George Kennedy) and his wife (Dorothy Lamour). Another features a group of teens menaced by a blob-like creature. The final installment follows a wealthy and callous woman (Lois Chiles) who hits a hitchhiker with her car and decides to flee the scene, but the victim isn't inclined to remain dead.
It features three more horror segments consisting of Old Chief Wooden Head, The Raft and The Hitchhiker.
Originally, the film was planned to have five stories much like the first film, two of these consisted of Pinfall and Cat from Hell. These two segments, however, were cut from the film due to the film's budget. "Cat from Hell", which would later be used in Tales from the Darkside: The Movie, focused on a wealthy old man hiring a hitman for $100,000 to kill a black cat, which was believed to killed three other people inside the residence he lives in and fears to be next. Unbeknownst to them, the cat soon exacts cosmic revenge on the two.
Pinfall", which was set to appear after Old Chief Wood'nhead, told the story of two rivalry teams consisted of the Regi-Men and the Bad News Boors competing in a bowling alley owned by an aged millionaire; the owner is soon killed in a freak accident and the teams found out afterwards that he would award one of them $5 million for whoever got the highest score. Soon, things turn up for the worst of the Regi-Team when the Boors, after they were killed in a fiery car-crash purposely caused by the Regi-Team, return as burnt-up revenants and soon get their revenge on their killers. Unlike Cat from Hell which managed to be brought onto the screen through a different film, Pinfall was never shot and never appeared outside of the film's original script.
During "The Raft" segment, actor Daniel Beer cited that he had almost died from hypothermia due to the water being very cold. While the crew wanted him to continue working with his role, the director Michael Gornick brought him to the hospital as he feared the actor would leave the set and never return if they get him to keep working during his cold condition. After a full recovery, he managed to finish the segment.
Again i would highly reccordmend this movie.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 6, 2019 (Updated Oct 6, 2019)
Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) is a down on his luck loner, currently taking seven different kinds of medication and living with his frail old mother (Frances Conroe). Arthur fantasises about living a ‘normal’ life, with hopes of becoming a stand up comedian and dating his next door neighbour, and the lines between reality and fantasy begin to become just as blurred for us during the movie as they do within Arthur’s mind.
We’re in Gotham City during the early eighties. A garbage strike means that the city is currently suffering from a build up of garbage on the streets and the subsequent arrival of ‘super rats’. The rich are getting richer, the poor and the underprivileged even more so. And, at the forefront of all the wealth and power in the city is Thomas Wayne, who is currently looking to run for mayor. There is growing divide and unrest throughout Gotham, all of which serves to add fuel to the increasingly unstable mind of Arthur Fleck.
We’ve had our fair share of Joker portrayals over the decades, the most memorable of which being in 2008, and Heath Ledger’s brilliant take on the character in The Dark Knight. But Joaquin Phoenix brings a side to the Joker we’ve not experienced before - all skin and bone, abused, downtrodden, ridiculed and with a neurological condition that sees him suddenly laughing maniacally and uncontrollably, even during times of stress or sadness. Throughout the movie, we learn that Arthur also had a pretty unpleasant childhood and, for a while, you really can sympathise with him and the suffering he experiences. “I just don’t want to feel so bad any more” he says at one point.
Joker features no CGI, no costumed antics (other than the clowned kind), or any of the traditional comic book movie themes that we’re now so used to seeing. Instead, Joker treats us to something of a slow-burn character study, one mans slow descent into madness, and the birth of one of the most iconic villains of all time. Joaquin Phoenix is incredible in the role, supported by an outstanding cast, including Robert De Niro as a late night talk show host idolised by Arthur and Zazie Beets as the neighbour Arthur becomes obsessed with.
Joker isn’t exactly enjoyable in the traditional sense, uncomfortable at times and a brutally honest depiction of extreme mental health issues. But it’s beautifully shot, subtly weaving itself into the familiar DC universe while remaining unique and original. I was gripped from start to finish and I just hope that the upcoming Robert Pattison incarnation of The Batman fits into the universe and style that has been introduced here within Joker.
We’re in Gotham City during the early eighties. A garbage strike means that the city is currently suffering from a build up of garbage on the streets and the subsequent arrival of ‘super rats’. The rich are getting richer, the poor and the underprivileged even more so. And, at the forefront of all the wealth and power in the city is Thomas Wayne, who is currently looking to run for mayor. There is growing divide and unrest throughout Gotham, all of which serves to add fuel to the increasingly unstable mind of Arthur Fleck.
We’ve had our fair share of Joker portrayals over the decades, the most memorable of which being in 2008, and Heath Ledger’s brilliant take on the character in The Dark Knight. But Joaquin Phoenix brings a side to the Joker we’ve not experienced before - all skin and bone, abused, downtrodden, ridiculed and with a neurological condition that sees him suddenly laughing maniacally and uncontrollably, even during times of stress or sadness. Throughout the movie, we learn that Arthur also had a pretty unpleasant childhood and, for a while, you really can sympathise with him and the suffering he experiences. “I just don’t want to feel so bad any more” he says at one point.
Joker features no CGI, no costumed antics (other than the clowned kind), or any of the traditional comic book movie themes that we’re now so used to seeing. Instead, Joker treats us to something of a slow-burn character study, one mans slow descent into madness, and the birth of one of the most iconic villains of all time. Joaquin Phoenix is incredible in the role, supported by an outstanding cast, including Robert De Niro as a late night talk show host idolised by Arthur and Zazie Beets as the neighbour Arthur becomes obsessed with.
Joker isn’t exactly enjoyable in the traditional sense, uncomfortable at times and a brutally honest depiction of extreme mental health issues. But it’s beautifully shot, subtly weaving itself into the familiar DC universe while remaining unique and original. I was gripped from start to finish and I just hope that the upcoming Robert Pattison incarnation of The Batman fits into the universe and style that has been introduced here within Joker.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bad Boys for Life (2020) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
Welcome to Miami - again!
Will Smith seems to have been having a lacklustre period in his career. His genie from "Aladdin" got a rather lukewarm reception. And his last movie - "Gemini Man" - billed as a big summer blockbuster - failed to impress. True it wasn't a commercial disaster (raking in at the time of writing about 150% of budget), but it's still a film on a plane for me that, even if I'm bored, I'll say "nah" to.
Perhaps it's for this reason that Smith reached for an old and reliable property to dust off for another outing.
And, do you know, it's not half bad.
I only recently saw this one, right at the end of its UK cinema run, because frankly it appealed to me like being hit round the head with a cold fish. Martin Lawrence is an actor who just grates on me enormously. I'm sure he's a lovely chap; kind to animals; donates to charity; etc - but I generally just don't find him funny. (Here though he has a killer line about condom use that made me chuckle.) It feels to me like he is on implausible ground here re-treading the role of aging detective Marcus Burnett. One look at Burnett lumbering along and you would think "well, he'd never pass the medical" for the on-street role he's portrayed doing. His buddy is detective Mike Lowrey (Will Smith), who has a sordid past that is set to catch up on him.
Since we start the story in Colombia, where Isabel Aretas (Kate Del Castillo), the witchy wife of a notorious deceased drug baron, is sprung from prison by her son Armando (Jacob Scipio) in what I admit is a clever and novel way. The Aretas family is bent on revenge - - and a key target in their sites is Lowrey.
Burnett is newly a grandparent and hell-bent on retirement. But with Lowrey and his associates with a target on their backs, will there be one last chance to "Ride Together, Die Together"?
Not seen the first two movies? Not to worry! There are movies, like LOTR, where if you've missed the first two movies in the series you will be left in serious "WTF" territory in trying to watch the third. This is not one of those movies. The story is entirely self-contained, and refers to events never seen prior to the first film in the series.
But whether the movie is for you will depend on your tolerance for loud and brash visuals and music with the knob turned up to 12. Directors Adil and Bilall (Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - Belgian film school buddies best known for the critically acclaimed 2015 feature "Black") - don't do anything by halves.
There is a scene in "Lost Series 3" in which Sawyer, Kate, and Alex have to bust young Karl out of the mysterious room 23 where he is being tortured by having his eyes kept open while watching a collage of images continually smashed into his eyeballs. This movie feels a little like that after a while.
This is not by any means a criticism that it's poorly done. There is some truly stunning cinematography of the Miami skyline by Belgian cinematographer Robrecht Heyvaert, including a 'pull-back' drone shot from a conversation on the top of a building that is quite AWESOME! And there are more than enough "fast action - then slo-mo - then fast again" shots to keep music-video junkies happy!
The music score by Lorne Balfe is also pumping, adding a dynamism to the frantic action scenes that keeps you entertained.
The screenplay by Chris Bremner, Peter Craig and Joe Carnahan is assuredly familiar: it's not going to win any prizes for originality. We've seen the cartel/revenge plotline played out in multiple movies over the years. And we've also seen the "buddy cops with aging partner taking retirement" angle from the "Lethal Weapon" series. This just sticks them together.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence wise-crack their way through the comedy well-enough, though for me it never reaches the heights of the pairing of Smith and Tommy Lee Jones from MiB (or indeed Mel Gibson and Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon). Elsewhere we have Vanessa Hudgens as a cute cop, still trying to break through from "Disneyfication" into mainstream flicks. For one horrible moment, when I saw her name on the cast, I thought she might be the love interest to Smith. But no. That honour goes to Mexican beauty Paola Nuñez who, with only a 10 year age gap, becomes a less gag-worthy pairing. She plays a female leadership role (every 20's film now needs one) as the head of a new crime division.
Also good value is Joe Pantoliano reprising his role as Captain Howard - Lowrie's exasperated boss. Playing it by the numbers, every film like this has to have one!
Where the plot does add some interest is in a surprising scene mid-film and a twist that I didn't see coming. But this twist felt - in the context of the release date or the film - like a mistake (a "Spoiler Section" in my review on the One Mann's Movies web site discusses this).
All of this happens of course against a backdrop of a body count of bad guys being killed in ever more graphic and gory ways, while the good guys generally dodge every bullet, grenade and crashing helicopter heading their way.
It's that time of year when films are released to die. Where studios drop their movies that are never going to trouble the Academy and are not deemed worthy of summer or even late spring release. But they should have had more faith in this one, for it's not half bad. True, you may need a couple of paracetamols afterwards, but if your corneas and ear-drums can stand the pace, its not short on entertainment value.
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies link here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-bad-boys-for-life-2020/ ).
Perhaps it's for this reason that Smith reached for an old and reliable property to dust off for another outing.
And, do you know, it's not half bad.
I only recently saw this one, right at the end of its UK cinema run, because frankly it appealed to me like being hit round the head with a cold fish. Martin Lawrence is an actor who just grates on me enormously. I'm sure he's a lovely chap; kind to animals; donates to charity; etc - but I generally just don't find him funny. (Here though he has a killer line about condom use that made me chuckle.) It feels to me like he is on implausible ground here re-treading the role of aging detective Marcus Burnett. One look at Burnett lumbering along and you would think "well, he'd never pass the medical" for the on-street role he's portrayed doing. His buddy is detective Mike Lowrey (Will Smith), who has a sordid past that is set to catch up on him.
Since we start the story in Colombia, where Isabel Aretas (Kate Del Castillo), the witchy wife of a notorious deceased drug baron, is sprung from prison by her son Armando (Jacob Scipio) in what I admit is a clever and novel way. The Aretas family is bent on revenge - - and a key target in their sites is Lowrey.
Burnett is newly a grandparent and hell-bent on retirement. But with Lowrey and his associates with a target on their backs, will there be one last chance to "Ride Together, Die Together"?
Not seen the first two movies? Not to worry! There are movies, like LOTR, where if you've missed the first two movies in the series you will be left in serious "WTF" territory in trying to watch the third. This is not one of those movies. The story is entirely self-contained, and refers to events never seen prior to the first film in the series.
But whether the movie is for you will depend on your tolerance for loud and brash visuals and music with the knob turned up to 12. Directors Adil and Bilall (Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - Belgian film school buddies best known for the critically acclaimed 2015 feature "Black") - don't do anything by halves.
There is a scene in "Lost Series 3" in which Sawyer, Kate, and Alex have to bust young Karl out of the mysterious room 23 where he is being tortured by having his eyes kept open while watching a collage of images continually smashed into his eyeballs. This movie feels a little like that after a while.
This is not by any means a criticism that it's poorly done. There is some truly stunning cinematography of the Miami skyline by Belgian cinematographer Robrecht Heyvaert, including a 'pull-back' drone shot from a conversation on the top of a building that is quite AWESOME! And there are more than enough "fast action - then slo-mo - then fast again" shots to keep music-video junkies happy!
The music score by Lorne Balfe is also pumping, adding a dynamism to the frantic action scenes that keeps you entertained.
The screenplay by Chris Bremner, Peter Craig and Joe Carnahan is assuredly familiar: it's not going to win any prizes for originality. We've seen the cartel/revenge plotline played out in multiple movies over the years. And we've also seen the "buddy cops with aging partner taking retirement" angle from the "Lethal Weapon" series. This just sticks them together.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence wise-crack their way through the comedy well-enough, though for me it never reaches the heights of the pairing of Smith and Tommy Lee Jones from MiB (or indeed Mel Gibson and Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon). Elsewhere we have Vanessa Hudgens as a cute cop, still trying to break through from "Disneyfication" into mainstream flicks. For one horrible moment, when I saw her name on the cast, I thought she might be the love interest to Smith. But no. That honour goes to Mexican beauty Paola Nuñez who, with only a 10 year age gap, becomes a less gag-worthy pairing. She plays a female leadership role (every 20's film now needs one) as the head of a new crime division.
Also good value is Joe Pantoliano reprising his role as Captain Howard - Lowrie's exasperated boss. Playing it by the numbers, every film like this has to have one!
Where the plot does add some interest is in a surprising scene mid-film and a twist that I didn't see coming. But this twist felt - in the context of the release date or the film - like a mistake (a "Spoiler Section" in my review on the One Mann's Movies web site discusses this).
All of this happens of course against a backdrop of a body count of bad guys being killed in ever more graphic and gory ways, while the good guys generally dodge every bullet, grenade and crashing helicopter heading their way.
It's that time of year when films are released to die. Where studios drop their movies that are never going to trouble the Academy and are not deemed worthy of summer or even late spring release. But they should have had more faith in this one, for it's not half bad. True, you may need a couple of paracetamols afterwards, but if your corneas and ear-drums can stand the pace, its not short on entertainment value.
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies link here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-bad-boys-for-life-2020/ ).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Everybody Knows (Todos Lo Saben) (2018) in Movies
Mar 13, 2019 (Updated Mar 13, 2019)
Excellent acting from Bardem and (especially) Cruz
I have always liked, but not loved, the English language movies that Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem have been a part of. Part of the issue, I think, is that even though they are dynamic, charismatica and GOOD LOOKING screen presences that embody the very definitioni of the term "MOVIE STAR", they are working in a language that is not their native language, so something, I think, gets lost in translation. So, it was with some excitement that I checked out the Spanish language thriller EVERYBODY KNOWS (Spanish Title: TODOS LO SOBEN).
And...I wasn't disappointed. Both Bardem and (especially) Cruz shine in this familial thriller. Cruz stars as Laura, a native of Spain now living in Argentina. She (and her 2 children) come back to her small village outside of Madrid for the wedding of her younger sister. When a bad thing happens on this trip, Laura must find a way out while dealing with lingering family matters and pressures that come to the fore due to the stress of the situation.
Without putting too much of a fine point on this, Cruz is stunning. Not only is she a beautiful woman who commands the screen whenever she is on, but as her character becomes more and more physically and emotionally torn with "the situation" her raw emotions come out and you see a very real portrayal of a mother who will do anything for her children. This performance is (was?) Academy Award worthy - it is that good. This is a strong actress at the top of her game.
She is more than matched on screen by the less showey, nuanced - yet fun, at times - performance of her real life husband, Javier Bardem, who plays a person from Lara's past that is drawn into the events. Bardem won an Oscar for playing the mysterious, scary hitman, Anton Chigurh in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MAN. This was a a character who barely spoke. In this film, he plays a lively, extroverted fun-loving person who's whole personae is called into question, quite the contrast to the English language characters I have, heretofore, known him for.
Iranian Director Asghar Farhadi (best known for THE SEPARATION) does a good job driving the story - once it gets started - he is sure handed in handling both the suspense/action moments of this movie as well as the family drama during the "many people talking around a table" scenes. This film led off the Cannes Film Festival last year and was greatly lauded.
It's not a perfect film. My friend who saw the movie with me stated (correctly) that he had never seen a movie that "started so poorly but corrected itself and finished as an excellent film" like this one did. The first 1/2 hour to 45 minutes of this 2 hour and 15 minute film is filled with introducing the myriad of characters associated with this family (and the mystery that enfolds), but it is a scattershot approach to film making and character introduction and Farhadi misses the mark more than he hits the mark during this period.
But once the mystery unfolds - and Cruz and Bardem's characters (and acting) kicks into high gear - things get quite good, quite tense and quite engrossing. Well worth the time to check it out.
Letter Grade B+: (C for the first 45 minutes, A for the last hour and a half)
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...I wasn't disappointed. Both Bardem and (especially) Cruz shine in this familial thriller. Cruz stars as Laura, a native of Spain now living in Argentina. She (and her 2 children) come back to her small village outside of Madrid for the wedding of her younger sister. When a bad thing happens on this trip, Laura must find a way out while dealing with lingering family matters and pressures that come to the fore due to the stress of the situation.
Without putting too much of a fine point on this, Cruz is stunning. Not only is she a beautiful woman who commands the screen whenever she is on, but as her character becomes more and more physically and emotionally torn with "the situation" her raw emotions come out and you see a very real portrayal of a mother who will do anything for her children. This performance is (was?) Academy Award worthy - it is that good. This is a strong actress at the top of her game.
She is more than matched on screen by the less showey, nuanced - yet fun, at times - performance of her real life husband, Javier Bardem, who plays a person from Lara's past that is drawn into the events. Bardem won an Oscar for playing the mysterious, scary hitman, Anton Chigurh in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MAN. This was a a character who barely spoke. In this film, he plays a lively, extroverted fun-loving person who's whole personae is called into question, quite the contrast to the English language characters I have, heretofore, known him for.
Iranian Director Asghar Farhadi (best known for THE SEPARATION) does a good job driving the story - once it gets started - he is sure handed in handling both the suspense/action moments of this movie as well as the family drama during the "many people talking around a table" scenes. This film led off the Cannes Film Festival last year and was greatly lauded.
It's not a perfect film. My friend who saw the movie with me stated (correctly) that he had never seen a movie that "started so poorly but corrected itself and finished as an excellent film" like this one did. The first 1/2 hour to 45 minutes of this 2 hour and 15 minute film is filled with introducing the myriad of characters associated with this family (and the mystery that enfolds), but it is a scattershot approach to film making and character introduction and Farhadi misses the mark more than he hits the mark during this period.
But once the mystery unfolds - and Cruz and Bardem's characters (and acting) kicks into high gear - things get quite good, quite tense and quite engrossing. Well worth the time to check it out.
Letter Grade B+: (C for the first 45 minutes, A for the last hour and a half)
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)