Search
Search results
Mel Rodriguez recommended GoodFellas (1990) in Movies (curated)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Soul (2020) in Movies
Feb 5, 2021
Good...but wished it touched my Soul more
The creators at PIXAR have done it again. They have crafted a beautifully drawn, incredibly imaginative, wonderfully performed, heartwarming story for young and old alike to enjoy.
I just wished it touched my Soul more.
Written and Directed by Pete Docter (UP!, INSIDE OUT) - who I would argue is the…ahem…soul of Pixar - SOUL tells the story of Joe, a middle school band teacher who aspires to be a jazz musician. On the cusp of realzing his dream, Joe (or, rather, Joe’s soul) finds himself in the afterlife desperately trying to return to his life to fulfill his dream.
Strongly voiced by Jamie Foxx, Joe is singularly focused on his goal and he won’t let anything get in his way, not even a “lost soul” (voiced by Tina Fey).
Now, I am a big fan of Tina Fey’s and she does just as good a job in her voice acting as Foxx, but for me, I just didn’t sense a gel of characters between these two. Part of that issue just might be in the storytelling - as Joe’s character is constantly pushing Fey’s character away and, so, was pushing me away as well.
And that is too bad as this relationship is at the…well…soul of this film and I really wanted this to work better because the rest of the film is WONDERFUL.
Docter’s depiction of the afterlife is sublimely abstract and I really felt that this worked well and was a smart way to deal with that portion of the film. The script moves along and the assorted situations and characters that Joe and “22” (Fey’s character) encounter are fun.
And that’s because Pixar, once again, populates the film with a strong array of voice talent that brings “something more” to their characters - Graham Norton, Phylicia Rashad, Wes Studi and Daveed Diggs all shine in what are, essentially, extended cameo roles.
Which brings me back to my central issue - Foxx and Fey are on screen together for most of this film and I just wanted to connect with them more. Perhaps I was just not in the mood for this film at the time I viewed it. I will definitely give this movie another look (because there are so many good things going on).
Perhaps, I just need to open my soul more.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I just wished it touched my Soul more.
Written and Directed by Pete Docter (UP!, INSIDE OUT) - who I would argue is the…ahem…soul of Pixar - SOUL tells the story of Joe, a middle school band teacher who aspires to be a jazz musician. On the cusp of realzing his dream, Joe (or, rather, Joe’s soul) finds himself in the afterlife desperately trying to return to his life to fulfill his dream.
Strongly voiced by Jamie Foxx, Joe is singularly focused on his goal and he won’t let anything get in his way, not even a “lost soul” (voiced by Tina Fey).
Now, I am a big fan of Tina Fey’s and she does just as good a job in her voice acting as Foxx, but for me, I just didn’t sense a gel of characters between these two. Part of that issue just might be in the storytelling - as Joe’s character is constantly pushing Fey’s character away and, so, was pushing me away as well.
And that is too bad as this relationship is at the…well…soul of this film and I really wanted this to work better because the rest of the film is WONDERFUL.
Docter’s depiction of the afterlife is sublimely abstract and I really felt that this worked well and was a smart way to deal with that portion of the film. The script moves along and the assorted situations and characters that Joe and “22” (Fey’s character) encounter are fun.
And that’s because Pixar, once again, populates the film with a strong array of voice talent that brings “something more” to their characters - Graham Norton, Phylicia Rashad, Wes Studi and Daveed Diggs all shine in what are, essentially, extended cameo roles.
Which brings me back to my central issue - Foxx and Fey are on screen together for most of this film and I just wanted to connect with them more. Perhaps I was just not in the mood for this film at the time I viewed it. I will definitely give this movie another look (because there are so many good things going on).
Perhaps, I just need to open my soul more.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated The Hunger Games (2012) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020 (Updated Nov 26, 2020)
One of the most clueless things I've ever seen, as painstakingly unintelligent as it is one-dimensional and blunt. My problem isn't so much that every YA movie from then until at least 2018 cribbed from it (and for the most part, did it better lol) mercilessly until they left nothing left to this one but its picked-clean carcass - but moreso with the fact that it does only a couple steps above the bare minimum. How awesome would this have been as a Battle Royale-style, anti-fascist bloodbath where a bunch of kids are picked at random and exposed to both the elements and a shit-ton of weapons in a 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘚𝘩𝘰𝘸-esque battlefield commentated by a flamboyant Stanley Tucci and Toby Jones? But no, fuck that right? Instead we get a garbage-looking, shakycam exercise in going through the motions with bad characters and toothless action (wasps? most of the characters dying offscreen? are you kidding me?). Plus we're treated to another awful forced romance, dull-arrowed swipes at classism which amount to nothing more than overtly-obvious visual signifiers with nothing to actually chew on (I assume out of cowardice - which makes it worse), and one of the most infamous cases of vaguely misogynistic attempts at a 'strong female lead' by making her mean and stripped of any actual personality. Somehow it doesn't really drag, but it's pretty viciously unexciting. There's some real bite to the scenes where Katniss's every expression let alone word is picked apart by a capricious crowd and disingenuous MC, and Haymitch painfully watching the rich children play with the toy sword - though not only does it refuse to dive into the treasure trove of possible commentary it sets up, but I actually have to apologize to the (worlds better) 𝘋𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵 for goofing on its idiotic politics because this is somehow even dumber. "We want to make sure there's never another uprising again, show we're a gracious + caring government, and entertain the public all at once. How do we do that? Well we'll just start abducting and killing children at random on national television of course!" Lmfao. Doesn't lean into anything that could have made this enjoyable, and there's a lot - so they had to have *tried* to make it this flat. Also one of those movies that only knows how to express its limited emotion through unbearable "everything sucks" world-building. Great... that would be another thing entirely if it even earned the right to do that, which naturally this doesn't. Cheesy and unintentionally funny.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Oct 11, 2019
Oof
I had a horrible horrible feeling that Justice League was going to be rubbish. After the double whammy of raw sewage that was BvS and Suicide Squad, my hopes for a third ensemble film weren't high at all.
The finished result was worse than I thought it was going to be be though...
Firstly, we will start with the characters - a collection of some of the finest heroes the world of comics has to offer.
Batman, who I thought was the best part about BvS, is relegated to a boring and tired waste, who acts as occasional comic relief. It doesn't help that at this point, Ben Affleck seems completely uninterested in even being involved (can't blame the guy).
After a pretty good solo outing, Wonder Woman has gone from an empowered female badass, to someone who mopes around about her ex boyfriend (but is still admittedly badass).
The Flash (one of my favourite DC characters) is LITERALLY useless from start to finish.
Cyborg has the remnants of a potential interesting back story, but the rushed nature of the whole affair gives us next to nothing there.
Aquaman isn't too bad, but is there, like Batman, for light comic relief whilst he shouts generic gym-bro nonsense everywhere.
Superman, when he turns up, is ok. Just not really given much to do - it's all just a big mess.
The villain of the piece is Steppenwolf, a bland, forgettable and generic CGI demon who has little-to-no impact as he shouts his way through the bare bones narrative.
Talking of the CGI, it's just not that great, again. I'm not sure how this keeps happening with the amount of money being pumped into these things?
The third act of the film is draped in CGI, and it all looks cheap! And I just can't get my head around it! Ahhhhh!
(I'm not even going to talk about Henry Cavill's now infamous and hideous CGI mouth)
When it comes to the DCEU, the better films have been the solo outings, and it really shows here - the three characters who had not yet appeared properly at this point (Cyborg, Aquaman, and The Flash) just seem hugely wasted in a movie that is obviously trying to play catch up with the MCU - something that's not necessary! DC has a wealth of great source material to draw from, and it's yet to be utilised properly!
It would seem that going forward, Warner Bros are concentrating more on these solo films, and judging by the putrid mess of Justice League, that's is definitely the right direction to go in.
The finished result was worse than I thought it was going to be be though...
Firstly, we will start with the characters - a collection of some of the finest heroes the world of comics has to offer.
Batman, who I thought was the best part about BvS, is relegated to a boring and tired waste, who acts as occasional comic relief. It doesn't help that at this point, Ben Affleck seems completely uninterested in even being involved (can't blame the guy).
After a pretty good solo outing, Wonder Woman has gone from an empowered female badass, to someone who mopes around about her ex boyfriend (but is still admittedly badass).
The Flash (one of my favourite DC characters) is LITERALLY useless from start to finish.
Cyborg has the remnants of a potential interesting back story, but the rushed nature of the whole affair gives us next to nothing there.
Aquaman isn't too bad, but is there, like Batman, for light comic relief whilst he shouts generic gym-bro nonsense everywhere.
Superman, when he turns up, is ok. Just not really given much to do - it's all just a big mess.
The villain of the piece is Steppenwolf, a bland, forgettable and generic CGI demon who has little-to-no impact as he shouts his way through the bare bones narrative.
Talking of the CGI, it's just not that great, again. I'm not sure how this keeps happening with the amount of money being pumped into these things?
The third act of the film is draped in CGI, and it all looks cheap! And I just can't get my head around it! Ahhhhh!
(I'm not even going to talk about Henry Cavill's now infamous and hideous CGI mouth)
When it comes to the DCEU, the better films have been the solo outings, and it really shows here - the three characters who had not yet appeared properly at this point (Cyborg, Aquaman, and The Flash) just seem hugely wasted in a movie that is obviously trying to play catch up with the MCU - something that's not necessary! DC has a wealth of great source material to draw from, and it's yet to be utilised properly!
It would seem that going forward, Warner Bros are concentrating more on these solo films, and judging by the putrid mess of Justice League, that's is definitely the right direction to go in.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mega Shark vs Kolossus (2015) in Movies
Aug 16, 2020
Amendment to the shark rules, having "mega" in the title... *chef's kiss*
When the hunt for the power source known as Red Mercury takes a team to an underground bunker they accidentally awaken the giant doomsday machine that's been idle since the Cold War. While the Kolossus runs rampage a new megalodon is terrorising the coast... what will happen when the two inexplicably meet?
I will say that of the Mega-Shark "franchise" the best is Mega Shark Vs. Mecha Shark. It is obviously much more sensible having two things that are designed to be in the same environment battling together, a robot fighting a shark is epic... but a stretch. This duo does mean that it feels very much like two films, but honestly, the ridiculousness of this makes up a bit for that.
It does at last start with a super realistic submarine that's manned by a lot of women in tight pleather that doesn't look like it would offer any kind of protection against water or action. This is why we come for these films... the accuracy.
The acting is exactly what you'd expect from a shark film, probably something you'd rather wasn't on your resume. You've got all the stereotypes with all the cringeable moments and the actors don't do a bad job with what they're given.
There's a little issue right at the beginning of the film. When the team meet up outside the bunker there's an obviously pointless exchange to explain what's going on, two of the actors have subtitles. I don't have an issue with subtitles when they're needed, but while both the actors have accents in the scene they're actually speaking perfectly understandable English. It might have been a glitch on the copy I watched, I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but if it wasn't then I don't know what they were thinking.
When it comes to the shark scale this film is good because it has the requisite bag CGI, stupid storyline and classic quotes... the famous last words "No sign of the mega shark" and my personal favourite "...or you can die hiding under your desk searching for your balls." Glorious. Despite the amazing lines and the fact it's got a shark in it, the sheer impossibility of the pairing and the fact it feels like two films forced together makes it fall short of high marks.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/mega-shark-vs-kolossus-movie-review.html
When the hunt for the power source known as Red Mercury takes a team to an underground bunker they accidentally awaken the giant doomsday machine that's been idle since the Cold War. While the Kolossus runs rampage a new megalodon is terrorising the coast... what will happen when the two inexplicably meet?
I will say that of the Mega-Shark "franchise" the best is Mega Shark Vs. Mecha Shark. It is obviously much more sensible having two things that are designed to be in the same environment battling together, a robot fighting a shark is epic... but a stretch. This duo does mean that it feels very much like two films, but honestly, the ridiculousness of this makes up a bit for that.
It does at last start with a super realistic submarine that's manned by a lot of women in tight pleather that doesn't look like it would offer any kind of protection against water or action. This is why we come for these films... the accuracy.
The acting is exactly what you'd expect from a shark film, probably something you'd rather wasn't on your resume. You've got all the stereotypes with all the cringeable moments and the actors don't do a bad job with what they're given.
There's a little issue right at the beginning of the film. When the team meet up outside the bunker there's an obviously pointless exchange to explain what's going on, two of the actors have subtitles. I don't have an issue with subtitles when they're needed, but while both the actors have accents in the scene they're actually speaking perfectly understandable English. It might have been a glitch on the copy I watched, I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but if it wasn't then I don't know what they were thinking.
When it comes to the shark scale this film is good because it has the requisite bag CGI, stupid storyline and classic quotes... the famous last words "No sign of the mega shark" and my personal favourite "...or you can die hiding under your desk searching for your balls." Glorious. Despite the amazing lines and the fact it's got a shark in it, the sheer impossibility of the pairing and the fact it feels like two films forced together makes it fall short of high marks.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/mega-shark-vs-kolossus-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Happytime Murders (2017) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Why did some muppet green light this?
Man, this is grim.
The Happytime Murders is set in LA where puppets and humans live together but without much harmony, in a somewhat clumsy parody of racism. In this setting Phil Philips (voiced by Muppets regular Bill Barretta) is a disgraced ex-cop puppet – the first of his kind -drummed out of the force for an indiscretion and now making ends meet as a PI.
But someone is progressively bumping off members of “Happy Time” – an old muppet-style show on the Puppet Television Network featuring Phil’s old flame Jenny (Elizabeth Banks). When a murder hits home close to Pete, he teams with his old police partner Connie (Melissa McCartney) to catch the murderer.
One problem with this film is that the concept – rude puppets – is not new: “Avenue Q” have done this way better on stage and “Team America: World Police” on film. So from the outset the content doesn’t really shock. But the worst problem is that for adults, the screenplay by Todd Berger is just NOT FUNNY ENOUGH. It’s a bad sign when you can count the moments you moved from a smile to a light chuckle on one hand: just three times in fact (with the silly string scene, with the wringing-out scene (“look away”) and with a parody of a famous interrogation scene).
So, based on the ‘laffs-per-minute’ count, this is 90 minutes of my life I’d like back please. Actually, if you cut out the regular swearing and came up with a suitable story about silly string, then – cartoon puppet violence and all – the kids might enjoy it much more!
The only other mildly entertaining aspect for me – which grudgingly earns it an extra half Fad – were the closing titles that showed how some of it was filmed.
McCarthy delivers much of the same shtick we’ve seen from her in all of her recent movie outings, which doesn’t really wash well with me anymore. Banks is good as the love interest Jenny, but has little to do.
It’s directed by Brian Henson, son of the late and great Jim Henson. I’m all for “experiments”, and I notice that this was released under the “Henson Alternative” brand, which is perhaps appropriate, but some experiments work and some just don’t. I personally think this is one that doesn’t extend the Henson brand and needs to be quietly forgotten with a line drawn under it.
Definitely NOT recommended. If someone asks you to go to the cinema with them to see this, tell them to get stuffed!
The Happytime Murders is set in LA where puppets and humans live together but without much harmony, in a somewhat clumsy parody of racism. In this setting Phil Philips (voiced by Muppets regular Bill Barretta) is a disgraced ex-cop puppet – the first of his kind -drummed out of the force for an indiscretion and now making ends meet as a PI.
But someone is progressively bumping off members of “Happy Time” – an old muppet-style show on the Puppet Television Network featuring Phil’s old flame Jenny (Elizabeth Banks). When a murder hits home close to Pete, he teams with his old police partner Connie (Melissa McCartney) to catch the murderer.
One problem with this film is that the concept – rude puppets – is not new: “Avenue Q” have done this way better on stage and “Team America: World Police” on film. So from the outset the content doesn’t really shock. But the worst problem is that for adults, the screenplay by Todd Berger is just NOT FUNNY ENOUGH. It’s a bad sign when you can count the moments you moved from a smile to a light chuckle on one hand: just three times in fact (with the silly string scene, with the wringing-out scene (“look away”) and with a parody of a famous interrogation scene).
So, based on the ‘laffs-per-minute’ count, this is 90 minutes of my life I’d like back please. Actually, if you cut out the regular swearing and came up with a suitable story about silly string, then – cartoon puppet violence and all – the kids might enjoy it much more!
The only other mildly entertaining aspect for me – which grudgingly earns it an extra half Fad – were the closing titles that showed how some of it was filmed.
McCarthy delivers much of the same shtick we’ve seen from her in all of her recent movie outings, which doesn’t really wash well with me anymore. Banks is good as the love interest Jenny, but has little to do.
It’s directed by Brian Henson, son of the late and great Jim Henson. I’m all for “experiments”, and I notice that this was released under the “Henson Alternative” brand, which is perhaps appropriate, but some experiments work and some just don’t. I personally think this is one that doesn’t extend the Henson brand and needs to be quietly forgotten with a line drawn under it.
Definitely NOT recommended. If someone asks you to go to the cinema with them to see this, tell them to get stuffed!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Fast X (2023) in Movies
May 17, 2023
Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) is enjoying the good life as a husband and a
father and has found himself happy with his life but admits that he
worries about losing the ones he loves. In “FastX” which is the latest
film in the long-running series; the sins of the past are about to return
to wreak revenge upon Dominic and his crew.
Linking the events of the sixth film in the series, the crew find
themselves setup and framed after an extended and intense action sequence
in Rome and are on the run from the very agency they have been working
for.
The enigmatic and flamboyant Dante (Jason Mom); always seems to be
one step ahead of the team which finds themselves scattered at various
locations around the world which gives them plenty of time to fight,
drive, tech, and plan their next step in what is increasingly becoming a
deadly game from which there seems to be no way to survive.
The film has a very large cast and it is great to see the faces old and new
pop in and out of the film while they focus on the core characters. The
film does have some slow segments between the action but this is done to
establish new characters and develop the family relationships between
others as a family is a large theme of the series.
This is both a good and bad thing as it is nice to see so many characters
but some have little more than a brief cameo and others get more time than
is necessary. With so many moving parts and locations; the film does
deliver what fans will expect as the creators know the formula that has
made the series such a success and make sure that the over-the-top,
absurd, bombastic, adrenaline ride of the series remains even though it
requires the audience to throw logic and reason out the window and just go
along with the intense stunts and action sequences.
The film sets up the planned next film well and there are some interesting
side stories that I am curious to see how they will be developed in the
next film which had been reported to be the finale of the series before
spin-offs would carry the franchise forward.
It has been reported that Universal has asked for a twelfth film to make
the finale a trilogy and based on the latest outing, there is still enough
gas in the tank to give fans a flawed yet enjoyable summer Popcorn movie.
3.5 stars out of 5
father and has found himself happy with his life but admits that he
worries about losing the ones he loves. In “FastX” which is the latest
film in the long-running series; the sins of the past are about to return
to wreak revenge upon Dominic and his crew.
Linking the events of the sixth film in the series, the crew find
themselves setup and framed after an extended and intense action sequence
in Rome and are on the run from the very agency they have been working
for.
The enigmatic and flamboyant Dante (Jason Mom); always seems to be
one step ahead of the team which finds themselves scattered at various
locations around the world which gives them plenty of time to fight,
drive, tech, and plan their next step in what is increasingly becoming a
deadly game from which there seems to be no way to survive.
The film has a very large cast and it is great to see the faces old and new
pop in and out of the film while they focus on the core characters. The
film does have some slow segments between the action but this is done to
establish new characters and develop the family relationships between
others as a family is a large theme of the series.
This is both a good and bad thing as it is nice to see so many characters
but some have little more than a brief cameo and others get more time than
is necessary. With so many moving parts and locations; the film does
deliver what fans will expect as the creators know the formula that has
made the series such a success and make sure that the over-the-top,
absurd, bombastic, adrenaline ride of the series remains even though it
requires the audience to throw logic and reason out the window and just go
along with the intense stunts and action sequences.
The film sets up the planned next film well and there are some interesting
side stories that I am curious to see how they will be developed in the
next film which had been reported to be the finale of the series before
spin-offs would carry the franchise forward.
It has been reported that Universal has asked for a twelfth film to make
the finale a trilogy and based on the latest outing, there is still enough
gas in the tank to give fans a flawed yet enjoyable summer Popcorn movie.
3.5 stars out of 5
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bird Box (2018) in Movies
Feb 1, 2019
Almost a good movie
One of my favorite films of 2018 is A QUIET PLACE where aliens with extreme hearing can get you if you make a noise. It is a quite interesting and well made film (with a bravura performance by Emily Blunt), so when I heard there was a variant of this theme (this time you can't use your eyes), I decided to check it out and to see if Sandra Bullock could pull off the same sort of bravura performance as Blunt.
And, that's too bad, for by comparison the Netflix flick BIRD BOX is no A QUIET PLACE, but if I don't try to compare it to A QUIET PLACE, BIRD BOX is a very entertaining film, indeed.
The story follows Bullock as Malorie a pregnant single woman who holds no "maternal instinct" towards her unborn child. Malorie is devoid of emotion and compassion and is dreading the day that her child will be born. Enter into this an "end of world event" where unseen aliens show up and, if you look at them, you go insane and try to commit suicide. Amidst this chaos, Malorie and a ragtag assortment of survivors find shelter in the house of Douglas (John Malkovich). Can this disparate group of strangers find a way to survive in this insane new world?
Well...the fun in this kind of movie is in the characters trapped together and the "10 Little Indians" style of demise as the house guests are picked off one by one by the aliens (or each other). It is the drama of these trapped individuals, and the surprise and the ingenuity of how they are killed off that makes or breaks these types of films.
And in this way, this film succeeds very well for besides Bullock and Malkovich, the housemates are filled with (for the most part) a strong grouping of actors led, most notably, by Trevante Rhodes (MOONLIGHT) and Jacki Weaver (ANIMAL KINGDOM). They are strong presences in this household and are interesting to watch. Good ol' B.D. Wong (JURASSIC PARK among many, many credits) brings his usual, solid game and Lil Rey Howery (GET OUT) brings much needed energy and humor to the proceedings. Add to this the usual, creepy Tom Hollander (IN THE LOOP) as a mysterious houseguest who is...creepy...and there is enough going on to keep my interest.
Add to this the always intriguing work of Malkovich as the paranoid, "me first" homeowner and Bullock underplaying her emotions as a counterbalance to Malkovich overplaying his emotions and the scenes in the house were interesting and (at times) gripping.
The problem I have with this film is that it inter cuts these scenes with scenes of Bullock (and a few other survivors from the house) "5 years later" - so, you already know who makes it and who doesn't - which takes away the tension of the house scenes. It also has an ending that, quite frankly, I saw coming a mile off and so it was not a satisfying conclusion to the proceedings for the ending was uneventful and unsurprising. A poor way to end this sort of film.
Don't get me wrong, the scenes in the house of the initial group of survivors is well worth viewing this film, I just wish Director Susanne Bier (THE NIGHT MANAGER) didn't dilute these scenes by bringing us forward in time too soon. I wonder how much better this film could have been had we just watched the events of the film (including all of the "5 years later scenes") in chronological order, I gotta think it would have been a better film.
This is, by every definition of the term, a "B" film, perfect for a snow, rain or cold-bound afternoon at home.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And, that's too bad, for by comparison the Netflix flick BIRD BOX is no A QUIET PLACE, but if I don't try to compare it to A QUIET PLACE, BIRD BOX is a very entertaining film, indeed.
The story follows Bullock as Malorie a pregnant single woman who holds no "maternal instinct" towards her unborn child. Malorie is devoid of emotion and compassion and is dreading the day that her child will be born. Enter into this an "end of world event" where unseen aliens show up and, if you look at them, you go insane and try to commit suicide. Amidst this chaos, Malorie and a ragtag assortment of survivors find shelter in the house of Douglas (John Malkovich). Can this disparate group of strangers find a way to survive in this insane new world?
Well...the fun in this kind of movie is in the characters trapped together and the "10 Little Indians" style of demise as the house guests are picked off one by one by the aliens (or each other). It is the drama of these trapped individuals, and the surprise and the ingenuity of how they are killed off that makes or breaks these types of films.
And in this way, this film succeeds very well for besides Bullock and Malkovich, the housemates are filled with (for the most part) a strong grouping of actors led, most notably, by Trevante Rhodes (MOONLIGHT) and Jacki Weaver (ANIMAL KINGDOM). They are strong presences in this household and are interesting to watch. Good ol' B.D. Wong (JURASSIC PARK among many, many credits) brings his usual, solid game and Lil Rey Howery (GET OUT) brings much needed energy and humor to the proceedings. Add to this the usual, creepy Tom Hollander (IN THE LOOP) as a mysterious houseguest who is...creepy...and there is enough going on to keep my interest.
Add to this the always intriguing work of Malkovich as the paranoid, "me first" homeowner and Bullock underplaying her emotions as a counterbalance to Malkovich overplaying his emotions and the scenes in the house were interesting and (at times) gripping.
The problem I have with this film is that it inter cuts these scenes with scenes of Bullock (and a few other survivors from the house) "5 years later" - so, you already know who makes it and who doesn't - which takes away the tension of the house scenes. It also has an ending that, quite frankly, I saw coming a mile off and so it was not a satisfying conclusion to the proceedings for the ending was uneventful and unsurprising. A poor way to end this sort of film.
Don't get me wrong, the scenes in the house of the initial group of survivors is well worth viewing this film, I just wish Director Susanne Bier (THE NIGHT MANAGER) didn't dilute these scenes by bringing us forward in time too soon. I wonder how much better this film could have been had we just watched the events of the film (including all of the "5 years later scenes") in chronological order, I gotta think it would have been a better film.
This is, by every definition of the term, a "B" film, perfect for a snow, rain or cold-bound afternoon at home.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Fred (860 KP) rated The Producers (2005) in Movies
May 27, 2019
If I had never seen the original, this may have been decent
No question that the original 1968 film is one of the greatest comedies of all time. Anyone who's seen the original is going to have a hard time not comparing this film to the original. As soon as this movie started, I knew I was in trouble. Let's just say that Nathan Lane & Matthew Broderick don't even come close to Zero Mostel & Gene Wilder. But it doesn't stop there. There is nobody in this film that is better than anyone in the original film. I realize they needed people that could not only act, but sing & in some cases, dance. But one cannot look at the first 10 minutes of the film & think, "Those are the worst impressions of Mostel & Wilder I've ever seen." Broderick is the hardest to look at. He just doesn't come off as natural when he becomes hysterical or when he's explaining things to Bialystock. Nathan Lane fares better, but somehow the jokes come out very stale & unfunny.
Some of my favorite jokes from the original are just awful in this film. For example, in the original, Max says, "Well, you know what they say; smile & the world smiles with you." He then turns & looks into the camera & says, "This man should be in a straight-jacket." Crossing the 4th wall works so well. Yet, in this film, Lane says the line to a statue. During the out-takes on the DVD, we see Lane deliver the line to the camera, ala Mostel. But he stops, realizing that he's not supposed to do it the same way as Zero, but the new, lamer version. The Hitler tryouts are also ruined in comparison to the original. In the original, the man singing "Have You Ever Heard the German Band", points to the piano player & orders, "You Vill Play It!" Hilarious. In this one the same character turns & say, "Play the song, please." or something weak like that. And finally, when the man (who has become a mentally challenged man for this film) goes to sing "The Little Wooden Boy", he goes into a stupid little dance, & when he is just about to start, the director yells, "Next!" Nowhere near as funny as the original, where we see a man so sure of himself & so confident get ready to sing & then is cut off with the much funnier, "Thank you!" More problems arise with the changing of the story from the original. The main change is the omission of LSD (Dick Shawn's character). I heard they removed him as a hippie wouldn't work today. So, instead of just making him something other than a hippie, let's get rid of him & throw the character of Franz in there. Doesn't work. Then, when the play is finally put on, the director, a very homosexual Roger DeBris, comes out & sings, creating an obviously gay Hitler. And the audience then loves the show. How weak. There are other changes too, none of them good.
Now, let's get to the good points of this film. Some of the original songs are pretty good. Broderick redeems his bad acting for some good singing & dancing. Even Will Ferrel does a pretty good job. I can't say the same for Uma Thurman though, as her song is annoying & screechy! There are some funny parts in the movie, & they are all new to the story as all the original jokes fall flat (even without comparison). But there are not enough of the funny parts to save this film.
I can see how some may like the Broadway aspect of this film & I myself might have if the film itself didn't stink on the whole. So, I'll stick to the original film, this film had no reason to be made & now that I have seen it, it had no reason to be watched either.
Some of my favorite jokes from the original are just awful in this film. For example, in the original, Max says, "Well, you know what they say; smile & the world smiles with you." He then turns & looks into the camera & says, "This man should be in a straight-jacket." Crossing the 4th wall works so well. Yet, in this film, Lane says the line to a statue. During the out-takes on the DVD, we see Lane deliver the line to the camera, ala Mostel. But he stops, realizing that he's not supposed to do it the same way as Zero, but the new, lamer version. The Hitler tryouts are also ruined in comparison to the original. In the original, the man singing "Have You Ever Heard the German Band", points to the piano player & orders, "You Vill Play It!" Hilarious. In this one the same character turns & say, "Play the song, please." or something weak like that. And finally, when the man (who has become a mentally challenged man for this film) goes to sing "The Little Wooden Boy", he goes into a stupid little dance, & when he is just about to start, the director yells, "Next!" Nowhere near as funny as the original, where we see a man so sure of himself & so confident get ready to sing & then is cut off with the much funnier, "Thank you!" More problems arise with the changing of the story from the original. The main change is the omission of LSD (Dick Shawn's character). I heard they removed him as a hippie wouldn't work today. So, instead of just making him something other than a hippie, let's get rid of him & throw the character of Franz in there. Doesn't work. Then, when the play is finally put on, the director, a very homosexual Roger DeBris, comes out & sings, creating an obviously gay Hitler. And the audience then loves the show. How weak. There are other changes too, none of them good.
Now, let's get to the good points of this film. Some of the original songs are pretty good. Broderick redeems his bad acting for some good singing & dancing. Even Will Ferrel does a pretty good job. I can't say the same for Uma Thurman though, as her song is annoying & screechy! There are some funny parts in the movie, & they are all new to the story as all the original jokes fall flat (even without comparison). But there are not enough of the funny parts to save this film.
I can see how some may like the Broadway aspect of this film & I myself might have if the film itself didn't stink on the whole. So, I'll stick to the original film, this film had no reason to be made & now that I have seen it, it had no reason to be watched either.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Captain America: Civil War (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Mini Avengers, Assemble
Is anyone else getting bored of superhero films? Nope? Just me then. We’re not even halfway through 2016 and there have been three of them. In February, there was Deadpool, a film that despite all the odds, turned out to be smashing – despite its generic finale.
Then, DC tried to compete with Marvel in March with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. It was fine, if far too long and lacking in any real drama. Now, Marvel is back with Captain America: Civil War. But can it break the superhero tedium that has started to settle in?
Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is back and he is not happy. The titular hero, and the rest of our beloved Avengers clan, are asked to sign up to a UN treaty, designed to reign in their unsupervised power after a dramatic and deadly battle against terrorists in Nigeria. It turns out the Avengers lost the PR war and countries across the globe want blood – well them to back off a little at least.
Most of the fan favourites return in Civil War, with Robert Downey Jr proving once again why he was cast as Tony Stark/Iron Man all those years ago. He is a commanding presence and brings to the table some of the best one-liners outside a fully-fledged Iron Man film.
Elsewhere, Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow), Jeremy Renner (Hawkeye), Elizabeth Olsen (Scarlet Witch) and Paul Bettany (Vision) all return and despite the increasing number of characters all make their presence felt throughout the course of the film – something Avengers: Age of Ultron failed to do.
However, the film belongs to the characters that join the film and the Marvel Universe. Paul Rudd’s Ant-Man makes a truly exceptional appearance and features in Civil War’s most memorable scene – a brilliantly choreographed battle between two sides in a deserted airport.
And, the long-awaited “homecoming” of Spider-Man to the MCU is thankfully worth the wait. He’s been teased in the trailers and I’m pleased to say his screen-time is far greater than anyone could have imagined. Young Tom Holland’s portrayal of Peter Parker may need some time to settle in, we have a Spider-Man reboot to look forward to in 2018, but he makes a cracking first impression.
So, with all those characters it’s fair to say that Civil War should be renamed “Mini Avengers Assemble” as there’s far more at stake here than a simple Captain America movie. Directors Joe and Anthony Russo have created the film that Age of Ultron should have been and it’s a slight disservice to their incredible work that the film isn’t labelled as a full Avengers feature, despite the lack of Thor and Hulk.
The action is beautifully filmed and the locations are fabulous. From Africa to America and from Germany to London, nearly every inch of the world is touched upon in some way – yet it doesn’t feel disjointed.
But what makes Civil War stand out from all the rest is its human side. This isn’t a superhero movie that ends in a climactic battle against a faceless army, it explores the human impact of our characters’ actions and the emotion radiates from its heart.
Yes, it’s 20 minutes too long but apart from that, I can’t think of a bad word to say. It has reinvigorated a genre that was starting to turn a little stale. Bringing together a set of characters that against all the odds gel together so well makes it feel as fresh as Iron Man did way back in 2008.
If this is the magic the Russo brothers can work at Marvel, Avengers: Infinity War should be something truly special indeed. X-Men: Apocalypse, you have your work cut out.
Oh, and wait right up until the end credits for something very special indeed.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/01/mini-avengers-assemble-captain-america-civil-war-review/
Then, DC tried to compete with Marvel in March with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. It was fine, if far too long and lacking in any real drama. Now, Marvel is back with Captain America: Civil War. But can it break the superhero tedium that has started to settle in?
Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is back and he is not happy. The titular hero, and the rest of our beloved Avengers clan, are asked to sign up to a UN treaty, designed to reign in their unsupervised power after a dramatic and deadly battle against terrorists in Nigeria. It turns out the Avengers lost the PR war and countries across the globe want blood – well them to back off a little at least.
Most of the fan favourites return in Civil War, with Robert Downey Jr proving once again why he was cast as Tony Stark/Iron Man all those years ago. He is a commanding presence and brings to the table some of the best one-liners outside a fully-fledged Iron Man film.
Elsewhere, Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow), Jeremy Renner (Hawkeye), Elizabeth Olsen (Scarlet Witch) and Paul Bettany (Vision) all return and despite the increasing number of characters all make their presence felt throughout the course of the film – something Avengers: Age of Ultron failed to do.
However, the film belongs to the characters that join the film and the Marvel Universe. Paul Rudd’s Ant-Man makes a truly exceptional appearance and features in Civil War’s most memorable scene – a brilliantly choreographed battle between two sides in a deserted airport.
And, the long-awaited “homecoming” of Spider-Man to the MCU is thankfully worth the wait. He’s been teased in the trailers and I’m pleased to say his screen-time is far greater than anyone could have imagined. Young Tom Holland’s portrayal of Peter Parker may need some time to settle in, we have a Spider-Man reboot to look forward to in 2018, but he makes a cracking first impression.
So, with all those characters it’s fair to say that Civil War should be renamed “Mini Avengers Assemble” as there’s far more at stake here than a simple Captain America movie. Directors Joe and Anthony Russo have created the film that Age of Ultron should have been and it’s a slight disservice to their incredible work that the film isn’t labelled as a full Avengers feature, despite the lack of Thor and Hulk.
The action is beautifully filmed and the locations are fabulous. From Africa to America and from Germany to London, nearly every inch of the world is touched upon in some way – yet it doesn’t feel disjointed.
But what makes Civil War stand out from all the rest is its human side. This isn’t a superhero movie that ends in a climactic battle against a faceless army, it explores the human impact of our characters’ actions and the emotion radiates from its heart.
Yes, it’s 20 minutes too long but apart from that, I can’t think of a bad word to say. It has reinvigorated a genre that was starting to turn a little stale. Bringing together a set of characters that against all the odds gel together so well makes it feel as fresh as Iron Man did way back in 2008.
If this is the magic the Russo brothers can work at Marvel, Avengers: Infinity War should be something truly special indeed. X-Men: Apocalypse, you have your work cut out.
Oh, and wait right up until the end credits for something very special indeed.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/01/mini-avengers-assemble-captain-america-civil-war-review/