Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Messengers 2: The Scarecrow (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
John Rollins is a guy who's just trying to catch a break. He lives on a farm with his wife and two children, but his crops just won't grow. His cornfield is infested with crows and his water pump won't work. Stress and fatigue don't begin to describe what John is currently going through. He's a man of faith that's just trying to figure out how he can support his family with no income. He's pretty much lost all hope until he stumbles upon the scarecrow in his barn. After being convinced by his neighbor, he puts the scarecrow up in his cornfield. Besides, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain. John wakes up to a field full of dead crows and his water pump begins working again. Everything looks to finally be turning in John's favor, but there's two sides to every coin. People that get in the way of John's crops or his family begin to turn up dead. What makes matters worse is that John finds possessions of the victims in his cornfield and he is the only person all the evidence points to. Once he realizes that the scarecrow is the root of his newfound problems and that he could wind up losing his family, John knows he has to get rid of it but he may already be too late...
In my movie watching experience, I've learned that it's usually important to watch an original film before its sequel. With this day and age though where sequels are actually prequels and we get prequel trilogies sixteen years AFTER the original trilogy, there aren't really any guidelines to follow when it comes to watching films anymore. So being somebody who had no interest in seeing The Messengers, the sequel didn't really interest me until they announced Norman Reedus in the title role. Since Reedus had been impressive in films such as The Boondock Saints, Blade II, and even his brief (but rather incredible) cameo in Antibodies, I felt it was my obligation to at least give this film a chance. The results are pretty much what you'd expect for a direct to DVD horror film.
The acting isn't terrible, but doesn't really do much to stand out. Norman Reedus, Heather Stephens, and Richard Riehle are pretty much the cream of the crop as far as acting goes. Reedus does a good job of acting like a farmer who's going through troubled times and just wants to support his family. He was easy to relate to since just about everyone is either going through tough times or has so in the past. Stephens played the concerned wife and was able to portray the widest range of emotions in the film. Riehle always seemed to show up to encourage John Rollins to do mischievous things, so the seeds are planted from the get-go that something isn't quite right with him. The boy who played John's son, Michael, is the only actor in the film that could really be considered atrocious as his lines are delivered so nonchalantly.
The way the rest of the film plays out just feels like it borrowed heavily from Jeepers Creepers 2 and the Children of the Corn films. The scarecrow drags its scythe on the ground as it's stalking its victims, which was a nice touch but was really the only enjoyable part of the scarecrow. Once it reveals itself at the end of the film and starts walking around, it makes pterodactyl sounds and trust me, that's just as incredible as it sounds. The film actually starts going downhill in the second half, which is when the cheesy effects come in and unanswered questions begin. The latter half of the film is filled with a lot of moments that will leave you scratching your head wondering why you even decided to watch this film to begin with.
Messengers 2: The Scarecrow isn't exactly the greatest film to watch, but it isn't the worst either. While it does have its fair share of blood and isn't half bad at times, it doesn't really offer anything most horror fans haven't seen before. Messengers 2 is really only recommended for die hard fans of Norman Reedus since it's basically just a rehash of Jeepers Creepers 2 with a lower budget. It's the type of film that's a decent watch at 3 o' clock in the morning when you stumble across it channel surfing, but isn't worth deliberately tracking down on DVD.
In my movie watching experience, I've learned that it's usually important to watch an original film before its sequel. With this day and age though where sequels are actually prequels and we get prequel trilogies sixteen years AFTER the original trilogy, there aren't really any guidelines to follow when it comes to watching films anymore. So being somebody who had no interest in seeing The Messengers, the sequel didn't really interest me until they announced Norman Reedus in the title role. Since Reedus had been impressive in films such as The Boondock Saints, Blade II, and even his brief (but rather incredible) cameo in Antibodies, I felt it was my obligation to at least give this film a chance. The results are pretty much what you'd expect for a direct to DVD horror film.
The acting isn't terrible, but doesn't really do much to stand out. Norman Reedus, Heather Stephens, and Richard Riehle are pretty much the cream of the crop as far as acting goes. Reedus does a good job of acting like a farmer who's going through troubled times and just wants to support his family. He was easy to relate to since just about everyone is either going through tough times or has so in the past. Stephens played the concerned wife and was able to portray the widest range of emotions in the film. Riehle always seemed to show up to encourage John Rollins to do mischievous things, so the seeds are planted from the get-go that something isn't quite right with him. The boy who played John's son, Michael, is the only actor in the film that could really be considered atrocious as his lines are delivered so nonchalantly.
The way the rest of the film plays out just feels like it borrowed heavily from Jeepers Creepers 2 and the Children of the Corn films. The scarecrow drags its scythe on the ground as it's stalking its victims, which was a nice touch but was really the only enjoyable part of the scarecrow. Once it reveals itself at the end of the film and starts walking around, it makes pterodactyl sounds and trust me, that's just as incredible as it sounds. The film actually starts going downhill in the second half, which is when the cheesy effects come in and unanswered questions begin. The latter half of the film is filled with a lot of moments that will leave you scratching your head wondering why you even decided to watch this film to begin with.
Messengers 2: The Scarecrow isn't exactly the greatest film to watch, but it isn't the worst either. While it does have its fair share of blood and isn't half bad at times, it doesn't really offer anything most horror fans haven't seen before. Messengers 2 is really only recommended for die hard fans of Norman Reedus since it's basically just a rehash of Jeepers Creepers 2 with a lower budget. It's the type of film that's a decent watch at 3 o' clock in the morning when you stumble across it channel surfing, but isn't worth deliberately tracking down on DVD.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: The Front Runner starts after Gary Hart (Jackman) has missed out on the Vice-President position, four-years later in 1987, Gary is running for the Presidency, he is the clear favourite too, his team which includes Bill Dixon (Simmons) knows it is only a matter of time before he wins, while the opposition team is looking for weakness in his reputation.
Gary’s lead starts taking a hit when an early report of a potential affair emerges and before long every single newspaper in the country is trying to cover the story on different levels, some using it as a gossip column while others just want to question his own integrity. This will see Gary’s hope of becoming President come crashing down around him.
Thoughts on The Front Runner
Characters – These characters are based on real people, which will show certain ones in good and bad lights. Senator Gary Hart is running for Presidency, is has the whole campaign under complete control, which has all but guaranteed he would become the next President of the United States. Gary has the ability to spin any story that is placed on front of him, to show that he could bring America a brighter future. Gary however does have a secret with an affair which the press turn into a big story which sees him needing to try and recover from the spiralling situation he has created with his own wrong doing. Lee Hart is the wife of Gary, she has been part of a previous separation which made her suffer enough, she has however always stood by her man with strict rules for the future. Bill Dixon is the campaign manager for Gary, that wants to keep everything simple only this becomes difficult when the truth starts to come out. The Front Runner struggles with one big problem, we have such a large cast of characters it does make it hard to keep up with the almost nameless characters, we have three or four papers and their staff, the campaign team, the people involved in the potential affair, it just becomes completely keeping up with who is who.
Performances – Hugh Jackman is great to watch in the leading role, if he was given that one scene to try and make his character truly memorable it would have put him into a stronger respected performance for the year. Vera Farmiga does everything asked of her character which she doesn’t do anything wrong with. J.K. Simmons almost feels wasted in his role which should have been larger for what is going on. Most of the performances do seem to struggle for this reason.
Story – The story here follows a presidential candidate whose life becomes filed with speculation after an alleged affair that both sides denied saw him going from a guarantee winner to needing to withdraw, changing the way politics are portrayed in the papers forever. This story does put the spotlight on the moment that saw a change in how politics and journalist operated, the film even points out in the fact that previous Presidents asked for heads to be turned about affairs, but this alleged one saw the country turn on any person that was willing to cheat. The story does show how the three weeks changed the whole race, only it does try to put way too many characters into the film which does make it hard to keep up with who each person is and what side of the story they really are on.
Biopic/History – We follow a 3 week period in Gary Hart’s life, the three weeks that took him from being the next President to the moment he withdrew wanting to keep the false accusations about him out of the papers, this shows how quickly the public can turn on people and the media can make it happen, this plays into the history side of electing a President because we see how minds suddenly changed after how previous ones had acted.
Settings – The film does use the authentic settings, show how the press would hide for a story, while Gary would use the public to put an end to the stories being made up.
Scene of the Movie – Twisting the medias words.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too many characters.
Final Thoughts – This is a story which does feel like it should be told to more people, only this version of the story is completely over-saturated be characters making it hard to keep up with.
Overall: Political Thriller that just doesn’t pack the punch.
Gary’s lead starts taking a hit when an early report of a potential affair emerges and before long every single newspaper in the country is trying to cover the story on different levels, some using it as a gossip column while others just want to question his own integrity. This will see Gary’s hope of becoming President come crashing down around him.
Thoughts on The Front Runner
Characters – These characters are based on real people, which will show certain ones in good and bad lights. Senator Gary Hart is running for Presidency, is has the whole campaign under complete control, which has all but guaranteed he would become the next President of the United States. Gary has the ability to spin any story that is placed on front of him, to show that he could bring America a brighter future. Gary however does have a secret with an affair which the press turn into a big story which sees him needing to try and recover from the spiralling situation he has created with his own wrong doing. Lee Hart is the wife of Gary, she has been part of a previous separation which made her suffer enough, she has however always stood by her man with strict rules for the future. Bill Dixon is the campaign manager for Gary, that wants to keep everything simple only this becomes difficult when the truth starts to come out. The Front Runner struggles with one big problem, we have such a large cast of characters it does make it hard to keep up with the almost nameless characters, we have three or four papers and their staff, the campaign team, the people involved in the potential affair, it just becomes completely keeping up with who is who.
Performances – Hugh Jackman is great to watch in the leading role, if he was given that one scene to try and make his character truly memorable it would have put him into a stronger respected performance for the year. Vera Farmiga does everything asked of her character which she doesn’t do anything wrong with. J.K. Simmons almost feels wasted in his role which should have been larger for what is going on. Most of the performances do seem to struggle for this reason.
Story – The story here follows a presidential candidate whose life becomes filed with speculation after an alleged affair that both sides denied saw him going from a guarantee winner to needing to withdraw, changing the way politics are portrayed in the papers forever. This story does put the spotlight on the moment that saw a change in how politics and journalist operated, the film even points out in the fact that previous Presidents asked for heads to be turned about affairs, but this alleged one saw the country turn on any person that was willing to cheat. The story does show how the three weeks changed the whole race, only it does try to put way too many characters into the film which does make it hard to keep up with who each person is and what side of the story they really are on.
Biopic/History – We follow a 3 week period in Gary Hart’s life, the three weeks that took him from being the next President to the moment he withdrew wanting to keep the false accusations about him out of the papers, this shows how quickly the public can turn on people and the media can make it happen, this plays into the history side of electing a President because we see how minds suddenly changed after how previous ones had acted.
Settings – The film does use the authentic settings, show how the press would hide for a story, while Gary would use the public to put an end to the stories being made up.
Scene of the Movie – Twisting the medias words.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too many characters.
Final Thoughts – This is a story which does feel like it should be told to more people, only this version of the story is completely over-saturated be characters making it hard to keep up with.
Overall: Political Thriller that just doesn’t pack the punch.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
I saw the trailers for this and thought it looked pretty good, the story sounded interesting and even though the effects in the clips looked a little dubious I was excited for one reason... Jerry Bruckheimer was involved, and I've never seen anything he's done that I didn't enjoy.
Henry Brogan is a master assassin, his whole life has been dedicated to perfecting his craft, but when he discovers he's been misled about a recent kill he decides it's time to hang up his gun. Such a high profile asset can't just retire from his life though and he soon finds himself being pursued. His would-be killer is agile and surprisingly capable, Henry is impressed by the improvising skills, and so he should be... they're his.
I've only just learnt that this film has been on the cards for 20 odd years. When it was first discussed technology wasn't up for the task the idea was pitching. Knowing that fact makes me wonder if they kept a 90's/00's script because the action does have that nostalgic quality. There have been lots of directors and actors attached to it and there's a fun thought experiment to have by exploring the possible outcomes it could have had.
Before I talk about my thoughts on the film I want to touch on the experience I had. Being out of town for the release meant that I was able to go to a cinema showing it in HFR 3D. This is the way it was filmed and intended to be seen but hardly any cinemas (in the world it seems) are able to show it that way. Cineworld Crawley were one of the cinemas that could, initially I wasn't bothered about seeing it in this format, but to be so close and have it snatched away was a real trauma.
I saw roughly the first 3 minutes of the film in HFR 3D and it seems this was the same fate of the screening before too. What I saw of it was mind-blowing, Will Smith was so crystal clear that he probably wouldn't have even looked that good if he was performing it in the room with me. But as I say, (several) 3-minute viewings were all we got before they had to give up and show us the 2D version. I'd be interested to know if anyone has a successful HFR screening. I would like to have seen it all the way through to see how it changed the visuals, sadly that's unlikely to happen now.
Let me put this out there straight away... this film is not good, and yet somehow good.
Gemini Man is a conventional idea with a twist and has an average script, but there's something engaging about the action. Oh, and while the script wasn't great it's entirely accurate when it states "Everyone hates cilantro." Yes, quite right.
De-aging technology has come a long way recently, but it has ups and downs depending on budget. In this respect Gemini Man had me stumped. The CGI in the trailer didn't look great and I assumed that was maybe early footage to get it out in front of audiences, but the film genuinely wasn't much better. There are moments where you don't notice it, you could almost pass Little Will off as the original, but the main problem is he's too familiar. On a lesser-known actor this might have played off better in more scenes. There are several moments where Little Will is lit with a flashlight and those moments caused me the most problems because that lighting looked wrong, particularly on his neck, and any quality work that may have been there was lost with the one bad piece. Most other effects are pretty reasonable until we get to the parkour ninja assassin towards the end... that sequence appears to be CG and everything is too fast and very cartoony.
I don't feel much of a need to talk about acting, it's all... fine. Without an epic script there's not much to work with but everyone makes it work as it needs to. It's a little sad that with 20 years to play with this wasn't a masterpiece on all fronts, or at least the script.
Gemini Man may have had a lot of issues for me but in the moment it's good to watch... even with the cheesy ending and the point where I thought it was directed by John Woo. I won't feel the need to buy this when it comes out but I'll definitely watch it again while hoping to see the HFR version in full.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/gemini-man-movie-review.html
Henry Brogan is a master assassin, his whole life has been dedicated to perfecting his craft, but when he discovers he's been misled about a recent kill he decides it's time to hang up his gun. Such a high profile asset can't just retire from his life though and he soon finds himself being pursued. His would-be killer is agile and surprisingly capable, Henry is impressed by the improvising skills, and so he should be... they're his.
I've only just learnt that this film has been on the cards for 20 odd years. When it was first discussed technology wasn't up for the task the idea was pitching. Knowing that fact makes me wonder if they kept a 90's/00's script because the action does have that nostalgic quality. There have been lots of directors and actors attached to it and there's a fun thought experiment to have by exploring the possible outcomes it could have had.
Before I talk about my thoughts on the film I want to touch on the experience I had. Being out of town for the release meant that I was able to go to a cinema showing it in HFR 3D. This is the way it was filmed and intended to be seen but hardly any cinemas (in the world it seems) are able to show it that way. Cineworld Crawley were one of the cinemas that could, initially I wasn't bothered about seeing it in this format, but to be so close and have it snatched away was a real trauma.
I saw roughly the first 3 minutes of the film in HFR 3D and it seems this was the same fate of the screening before too. What I saw of it was mind-blowing, Will Smith was so crystal clear that he probably wouldn't have even looked that good if he was performing it in the room with me. But as I say, (several) 3-minute viewings were all we got before they had to give up and show us the 2D version. I'd be interested to know if anyone has a successful HFR screening. I would like to have seen it all the way through to see how it changed the visuals, sadly that's unlikely to happen now.
Let me put this out there straight away... this film is not good, and yet somehow good.
Gemini Man is a conventional idea with a twist and has an average script, but there's something engaging about the action. Oh, and while the script wasn't great it's entirely accurate when it states "Everyone hates cilantro." Yes, quite right.
De-aging technology has come a long way recently, but it has ups and downs depending on budget. In this respect Gemini Man had me stumped. The CGI in the trailer didn't look great and I assumed that was maybe early footage to get it out in front of audiences, but the film genuinely wasn't much better. There are moments where you don't notice it, you could almost pass Little Will off as the original, but the main problem is he's too familiar. On a lesser-known actor this might have played off better in more scenes. There are several moments where Little Will is lit with a flashlight and those moments caused me the most problems because that lighting looked wrong, particularly on his neck, and any quality work that may have been there was lost with the one bad piece. Most other effects are pretty reasonable until we get to the parkour ninja assassin towards the end... that sequence appears to be CG and everything is too fast and very cartoony.
I don't feel much of a need to talk about acting, it's all... fine. Without an epic script there's not much to work with but everyone makes it work as it needs to. It's a little sad that with 20 years to play with this wasn't a masterpiece on all fronts, or at least the script.
Gemini Man may have had a lot of issues for me but in the moment it's good to watch... even with the cheesy ending and the point where I thought it was directed by John Woo. I won't feel the need to buy this when it comes out but I'll definitely watch it again while hoping to see the HFR version in full.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/gemini-man-movie-review.html
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) in Movies
Dec 20, 2019 (Updated Jan 22, 2020)
Contains spoilers, click to show
Right then... I definitely need to go and see this again to properly digest it, so my thoughts on it will probably change...
Just like TLJ before it, there are things that I liked about Rise of Skywalker, and plenty that I didn't. There are also parts that I liked overall, but we're executed poorly - this unfortunately seems to be what to expect from Star Wars these days.
The opening act of ROS, so let's say the first 40ish minutes, felt like a complete mess to me. We are thrown from scene to scene without having much time to catch breath. It feels panicky, and not in a good way.
It not really until the-bit-from-the-trailer-where-rey-jumps-over-a-tie-fighter that the narrative seems to just calm down a bit and find it's footing.
What follows is a mixed bag of humour and mild action which is a bit so so, slowly leading up to the films finale.
I have to say, I actually really enjoyed the majority of the third act. The action scene that takes place on Endor is fantastic. It looks amazing, some of the visual shots are great, and the choreography just about resists falling into prequel territory lightsaber battles.
The final battle, again is visually stunning, and though at times corny, I felt it was a suitable end scene for the saga.
In terms of characters - I once again enjoyed Rey, even i was left undecided with how her arc was left off - the same goes for Kylo Ren, and once again, Adam Driver was a massive highlight throughout.
However, I once again found myself struggling to like Finn and Poe, and it seems that after the events of TFA, both of these characters were just a bit of dead weight, still included in the larger narrative because the actors had signed contracts. Finn runs into a group of defective stormtroopers at one point, and the movie sort of half-arses them into the story, but they ultimately serve no real purpose.
The narrative is also guilty of setting up a potentially important plot beat between him and Rey, which is eventually dropped and forgotten without mention.
Leia's story felt a bit unfleshed, and that surely down to the limited footage they had to work with.
There are two moments that stuck out when it comes to bad execution - the reveal of Rey's lineage is sudden and questionable, but the dialogue used when Kylo Ren delivers the revealing line is laughable, and spoils any weight the moment may have otherwise had. The second is when we are inevitably introduced to Luke's force ghost, a moment that has been coming since the events of TLJ, is delivered with a fan-service line referencing the moment where he threw his lightsaber away at the start of said film, and this bring me to one of my main criticisms of ROS.
I was not the biggest fan of TLJ, but as I mentioned in my review for it, I have a lot of respect for Rian Johnson for trying something new, and ROS reverses a lot of what he did. It feels a bit disrespectful, and a bit spineless.
This also happens a few more times in regards to plot points to do with Chewbacca, and C3-PO - the narrative sets up a fairly ballsy move, and then reverses it and plays it safe. It's a little frustrating.
Palpatines return is something that I can just about get behind - he looked suitably terrifying - but I just wish that the groundwork had been put down a bit more in previous films (films, not the TV shows). Instead, it does have a bit of a desperate ret-con feel about it.
But enough moaning from me, have some more positives - the music score is once again fantastic, the visual effects and CGI are pretty damn good (barring a couple of dodgy shots here and there), and I once again enjoyed the locations that we visited.
Rise of Skywalker will no doubt be devisive, just like The Last Jedi, and it's a film filled to the brim with thrilling Star Wars moments, as well as really really stupid moments, but to be honest, I've come to expect no more and no less at this point. Go and see it for what it is, and try and have a good time, because for the most part, it's pretty entertaining sci-fi fluff.
Side note - Everytime Merry from Lord of the Rings popped up, I found it completely distracting...
Just like TLJ before it, there are things that I liked about Rise of Skywalker, and plenty that I didn't. There are also parts that I liked overall, but we're executed poorly - this unfortunately seems to be what to expect from Star Wars these days.
The opening act of ROS, so let's say the first 40ish minutes, felt like a complete mess to me. We are thrown from scene to scene without having much time to catch breath. It feels panicky, and not in a good way.
It not really until the-bit-from-the-trailer-where-rey-jumps-over-a-tie-fighter that the narrative seems to just calm down a bit and find it's footing.
What follows is a mixed bag of humour and mild action which is a bit so so, slowly leading up to the films finale.
I have to say, I actually really enjoyed the majority of the third act. The action scene that takes place on Endor is fantastic. It looks amazing, some of the visual shots are great, and the choreography just about resists falling into prequel territory lightsaber battles.
The final battle, again is visually stunning, and though at times corny, I felt it was a suitable end scene for the saga.
In terms of characters - I once again enjoyed Rey, even i was left undecided with how her arc was left off - the same goes for Kylo Ren, and once again, Adam Driver was a massive highlight throughout.
However, I once again found myself struggling to like Finn and Poe, and it seems that after the events of TFA, both of these characters were just a bit of dead weight, still included in the larger narrative because the actors had signed contracts. Finn runs into a group of defective stormtroopers at one point, and the movie sort of half-arses them into the story, but they ultimately serve no real purpose.
The narrative is also guilty of setting up a potentially important plot beat between him and Rey, which is eventually dropped and forgotten without mention.
Leia's story felt a bit unfleshed, and that surely down to the limited footage they had to work with.
There are two moments that stuck out when it comes to bad execution - the reveal of Rey's lineage is sudden and questionable, but the dialogue used when Kylo Ren delivers the revealing line is laughable, and spoils any weight the moment may have otherwise had. The second is when we are inevitably introduced to Luke's force ghost, a moment that has been coming since the events of TLJ, is delivered with a fan-service line referencing the moment where he threw his lightsaber away at the start of said film, and this bring me to one of my main criticisms of ROS.
I was not the biggest fan of TLJ, but as I mentioned in my review for it, I have a lot of respect for Rian Johnson for trying something new, and ROS reverses a lot of what he did. It feels a bit disrespectful, and a bit spineless.
This also happens a few more times in regards to plot points to do with Chewbacca, and C3-PO - the narrative sets up a fairly ballsy move, and then reverses it and plays it safe. It's a little frustrating.
Palpatines return is something that I can just about get behind - he looked suitably terrifying - but I just wish that the groundwork had been put down a bit more in previous films (films, not the TV shows). Instead, it does have a bit of a desperate ret-con feel about it.
But enough moaning from me, have some more positives - the music score is once again fantastic, the visual effects and CGI are pretty damn good (barring a couple of dodgy shots here and there), and I once again enjoyed the locations that we visited.
Rise of Skywalker will no doubt be devisive, just like The Last Jedi, and it's a film filled to the brim with thrilling Star Wars moments, as well as really really stupid moments, but to be honest, I've come to expect no more and no less at this point. Go and see it for what it is, and try and have a good time, because for the most part, it's pretty entertaining sci-fi fluff.
Side note - Everytime Merry from Lord of the Rings popped up, I found it completely distracting...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ghostbusters (1984) in Movies
Oct 30, 2020
A Comedy Classic
My daughter was flipping channels the other day and ran across the great 1984 Supernatural comedy GHOSTBUSTERS and stopped to watch for awhile. As happens with her generation, she eventually got more interested in her phone and friends and wandered away. Me? I was drawn back into this film so much so that I went downstairs, grabbed the DVD (yes, kids, I still own DVDs) and popped the film into my Home Theater System to give it a proper viewing.
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Illeana Douglas recommended In a Lonely Place (1950) in Movies (curated)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Death to 2020 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
The annual event of Charlie Brooker’s Yearly Wipe is the one piece of satire I have been sure not to miss over the years. But 2020 has been a bit different, and finding himself in lockdown like everyone else, Brooker re-imagines the format into a full on talking-heads mockumentary that does away with himself as host in favour of a cross Atlantic vibe and a narration from the bass tones of Laurence Fishburne, no less.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Extraction (2020) in Movies
May 6, 2020
Fun, by-the-book, action flick
I'm pretty sure that no matter what, I was going to enjoy the Chris Hemsworth action flick EXTRACTION whether it was good or not. It is, after all, a NEW movie, albeit one that was made "Direct to Netflix", so those can be of lesser quality.
I'm happy to report that in the case of EXTRACTION, that is not the case. This is a good (if by the books) popcorn action flick with a charismatic lead keeping you company throughout.
In EXTRACTION, Chris Hemsworth stars as an Australian Mercenary (who knew there was such a thing), hired to extract the kidnapped son of a drug lord from the hands of his fiercest rival.
This is a pretty "by-the-numbers" action film:
1). The mercenary has "baggage" - will the events (and the subject he is to extract) help him come to terms with his pent-up emotions in order to move past his traumatic "baggage"?
2). Will there be some sort of "double-cross" that screws up the extraction causing our hero to go "on the run" with his "Extraction"?
3). Will there be a buddy that our hero trusts who will, ultimately, double-cross him?
What do you think?
The fun of this film was not the plot machinations (they are pretty basic), but the execution of these machinations - and this execution is pretty fun/enjoyable.
Start with Chris Hemsworth as our mercenary - with the great action flick name of Tyler Rake. Hemsworth knows exactly what kind of film he is in - and he brings the goods. If he chose to, I think Hemsworth could be an action hero staple like Jason Statham or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - but I think Hemsworth is not really interested in that. But here, he is steely eyed and calm taking hits and doling out punishment to hoards of "red shirt" bad guys in his way. He has the action hero chops. He also has the acting chops to make the overwrought "emotional" scenes palatable. He makes weak writing enjoyable.
Joining him is Rudhraksh Jaiswal as "the extraction" - and his interactions with Hemsworth are fun. Randeep Hodha and Golshifteh Farahani do a nice job in the roles that they play in the action and the always watchable David Harbour eats a ton of scenery in his limited time on the screen. All are fun to watch.
But it is the telling of the story by first time Director Sam Hargrave that was a (pleasant) surprise for me. After doubling Chris Evans in the first CAPTAIN AMERICA film, Hargrave became the "go to" guy for Marvel action choreography, so (I'm sure) he got to know Hemsworth there. He brings a fast-paced style to this film that works. He doesn't stop to examine much at all (which helps the plot holes in the script) and his action work with his stunt actors is top-notch. If you watch nothing else in this film, check out the chase scene at about the 1/3 mark of the film. Hemsworth and "the extraction" are being chased - and it is filmed in the "shaky cam/cinema veritae/ make it look like one long tracking shot" style that I often criticize in my reviews - but here it worked and worked well. I'll be keeping my eye on what Hargrave does next (word is it that there will be an Extraction 2).
All of this is brought together by Producers Joe and Anthony Russo - the Directors of many Marvel films (including INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME). Not only did they Produce this film, but they wrote the story from where this film came from. It's obvious that they turned the majority of the screenplay writing to others (most notably Ande Parks) and this film is based on a graphic novel...so it plays like an over-the-top comic book action flick (think John Wick-lite) where the dialogue is sparse and cliche-ridden. This part of the film was far less interesting than the action parts.
But, the action is fast, fun and furious and Hemsworth is worth watching for the 1 hour 56 minute running time.
All-in-all, a good time was had while watching the first "new" film in over 6 weeks.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I'm happy to report that in the case of EXTRACTION, that is not the case. This is a good (if by the books) popcorn action flick with a charismatic lead keeping you company throughout.
In EXTRACTION, Chris Hemsworth stars as an Australian Mercenary (who knew there was such a thing), hired to extract the kidnapped son of a drug lord from the hands of his fiercest rival.
This is a pretty "by-the-numbers" action film:
1). The mercenary has "baggage" - will the events (and the subject he is to extract) help him come to terms with his pent-up emotions in order to move past his traumatic "baggage"?
2). Will there be some sort of "double-cross" that screws up the extraction causing our hero to go "on the run" with his "Extraction"?
3). Will there be a buddy that our hero trusts who will, ultimately, double-cross him?
What do you think?
The fun of this film was not the plot machinations (they are pretty basic), but the execution of these machinations - and this execution is pretty fun/enjoyable.
Start with Chris Hemsworth as our mercenary - with the great action flick name of Tyler Rake. Hemsworth knows exactly what kind of film he is in - and he brings the goods. If he chose to, I think Hemsworth could be an action hero staple like Jason Statham or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - but I think Hemsworth is not really interested in that. But here, he is steely eyed and calm taking hits and doling out punishment to hoards of "red shirt" bad guys in his way. He has the action hero chops. He also has the acting chops to make the overwrought "emotional" scenes palatable. He makes weak writing enjoyable.
Joining him is Rudhraksh Jaiswal as "the extraction" - and his interactions with Hemsworth are fun. Randeep Hodha and Golshifteh Farahani do a nice job in the roles that they play in the action and the always watchable David Harbour eats a ton of scenery in his limited time on the screen. All are fun to watch.
But it is the telling of the story by first time Director Sam Hargrave that was a (pleasant) surprise for me. After doubling Chris Evans in the first CAPTAIN AMERICA film, Hargrave became the "go to" guy for Marvel action choreography, so (I'm sure) he got to know Hemsworth there. He brings a fast-paced style to this film that works. He doesn't stop to examine much at all (which helps the plot holes in the script) and his action work with his stunt actors is top-notch. If you watch nothing else in this film, check out the chase scene at about the 1/3 mark of the film. Hemsworth and "the extraction" are being chased - and it is filmed in the "shaky cam/cinema veritae/ make it look like one long tracking shot" style that I often criticize in my reviews - but here it worked and worked well. I'll be keeping my eye on what Hargrave does next (word is it that there will be an Extraction 2).
All of this is brought together by Producers Joe and Anthony Russo - the Directors of many Marvel films (including INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME). Not only did they Produce this film, but they wrote the story from where this film came from. It's obvious that they turned the majority of the screenplay writing to others (most notably Ande Parks) and this film is based on a graphic novel...so it plays like an over-the-top comic book action flick (think John Wick-lite) where the dialogue is sparse and cliche-ridden. This part of the film was far less interesting than the action parts.
But, the action is fast, fun and furious and Hemsworth is worth watching for the 1 hour 56 minute running time.
All-in-all, a good time was had while watching the first "new" film in over 6 weeks.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Vaughn and Golding cross the pond to deliver more of the same.
You would probably need to be living under a rock not to know that “Kingsman: The Golden Circle” is the follow-up film to Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman’s highly successful 2015 offering “Kingsman: The Secret Service”: a raucous, violent and rude entry into the spy-caper genre. And the sequel is more of the same: why mess with a crowd-pleasing formula?
The fledgling agent Eggsy (Taron Egerton (“Eddie the Eagle“), curiously called “Eggy” at various points in the film for reasons I didn’t understand) is now the new “Galahad” following the demise in the first film of the original, played by Colin Firth (“Magic in the Moonlight“, “Bridget Jones’ Baby“). But just as he’s getting into his stride the whole Kingsman organisation, now headed by Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as Arthur , is ripped apart by an evil drugs cartel called “The Golden Circle” headed by smiling but deadly Poppy (Juliane Moore, “Still Alice”).
Eggsy and Lancelot (Mark Strong, “Miss Sloane“) in desperation turn to Statesman – the US equivalent organisation – and together with some surprising allies set out to defeat the evil plot to poison all casual drug users.
Subtle this film certainly is not, featuring brash and absurdly unrealistic action scenes that are 90% CGI but – for me at least – enormous fun to watch. As with the first film (and I’m thinking of the grotesquely violent church scene here) the action moves however from ‘edgy’ to “over-the-top/offensive” at times. The ‘burger scene’ and (particularly) the ‘Glastonbury incident’ are the standout moments for all the wrong reasons. I have a theory about how these *might* have come about…
One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre
The scene: Matthew Vaughn and Jane Golding are working “The Golden Circle” script at Goldman’s English home.
Vaughn: “OK, so Eggsy is in the tent with Clara and needs to plant the tracking device on her.”
Goldman’s husband Jonathan Ross sticks his head round the door.
Ross: “Hey Guys, I’ve an idea about that. I was on the phone to Wussell Bwand and we came up with a GWEAT idea.”
Vaughn: (rolling his eyes, mutters to himself): “Oh God, not again…”
Ross: “We thought that Eggsy could use his finger to stick the tracker right up her – ahem – ‘lady canal’ and… and… here’s the really great bit… the camera’s gonna be his finger. A camera up the muff! It’ll be weally weally funny!”
Vaughn: “But Jonathan…”.
Goldman nudges him hard.
Goldman (whispering): “Just let it go Matthew… you know what he’s like if he doesn’t get at least a couple of his ideas into the film”.
You can only hope a stunt vagina was used for this scene, else Poppy Delavigne (older sister of Cara) is going to find it very hard to find credible future work. One can only guess what tasteful interlude is being planned for Kingsman 3 – – a prostate-based tracker perhaps?
The film works best when the core team of Taron Egerton, Mark Strong and Colin Firth (yes, Colin Firth!) are together. Jeff Bridges (“Hell or High Water“), Channing Tatum (“Foxcatcher“) and Halle Berry (“Monster’s Ball”) all turn up as key members of ‘Statesman’ – adding star power but not a lot else – together with Pedro Pascal (“The Great Wall“) as ‘Whiskey’…. who I expected to be someone equally famous behind the moustache but wasn’t!
There’s also a very entertaining cameo from a star (no spoilers from me) whose foul-mouthed tirades I found very funny, and who also has the funniest line in the film (playing off one of the most controversial elements of the first film). It’s fair to say though that others I’ve spoken to didn’t think this appearance fitted the film at all.
Julianne Moore makes for an entertaining – if less than credible – villain, as does Bruce Greenwood (“Star Trek: Into Darkness”) as a barely disguised Trump. None of the motivations of the bad ‘uns however support any scrutiny whatsoever: this is very much a “park your brain at the door” film.
I really shouldn’t enjoy this crass, brash, brainless movie fast-food… and I know many have hated it! But my guilty secret is that I really did like it – one of the best nights of unadulterated escapist fun I’ve had since “Baby Driver”. Classy it’s certainly NOT, but I enjoyed this just as much as the original.
The fledgling agent Eggsy (Taron Egerton (“Eddie the Eagle“), curiously called “Eggy” at various points in the film for reasons I didn’t understand) is now the new “Galahad” following the demise in the first film of the original, played by Colin Firth (“Magic in the Moonlight“, “Bridget Jones’ Baby“). But just as he’s getting into his stride the whole Kingsman organisation, now headed by Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as Arthur , is ripped apart by an evil drugs cartel called “The Golden Circle” headed by smiling but deadly Poppy (Juliane Moore, “Still Alice”).
Eggsy and Lancelot (Mark Strong, “Miss Sloane“) in desperation turn to Statesman – the US equivalent organisation – and together with some surprising allies set out to defeat the evil plot to poison all casual drug users.
Subtle this film certainly is not, featuring brash and absurdly unrealistic action scenes that are 90% CGI but – for me at least – enormous fun to watch. As with the first film (and I’m thinking of the grotesquely violent church scene here) the action moves however from ‘edgy’ to “over-the-top/offensive” at times. The ‘burger scene’ and (particularly) the ‘Glastonbury incident’ are the standout moments for all the wrong reasons. I have a theory about how these *might* have come about…
One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre
The scene: Matthew Vaughn and Jane Golding are working “The Golden Circle” script at Goldman’s English home.
Vaughn: “OK, so Eggsy is in the tent with Clara and needs to plant the tracking device on her.”
Goldman’s husband Jonathan Ross sticks his head round the door.
Ross: “Hey Guys, I’ve an idea about that. I was on the phone to Wussell Bwand and we came up with a GWEAT idea.”
Vaughn: (rolling his eyes, mutters to himself): “Oh God, not again…”
Ross: “We thought that Eggsy could use his finger to stick the tracker right up her – ahem – ‘lady canal’ and… and… here’s the really great bit… the camera’s gonna be his finger. A camera up the muff! It’ll be weally weally funny!”
Vaughn: “But Jonathan…”.
Goldman nudges him hard.
Goldman (whispering): “Just let it go Matthew… you know what he’s like if he doesn’t get at least a couple of his ideas into the film”.
You can only hope a stunt vagina was used for this scene, else Poppy Delavigne (older sister of Cara) is going to find it very hard to find credible future work. One can only guess what tasteful interlude is being planned for Kingsman 3 – – a prostate-based tracker perhaps?
The film works best when the core team of Taron Egerton, Mark Strong and Colin Firth (yes, Colin Firth!) are together. Jeff Bridges (“Hell or High Water“), Channing Tatum (“Foxcatcher“) and Halle Berry (“Monster’s Ball”) all turn up as key members of ‘Statesman’ – adding star power but not a lot else – together with Pedro Pascal (“The Great Wall“) as ‘Whiskey’…. who I expected to be someone equally famous behind the moustache but wasn’t!
There’s also a very entertaining cameo from a star (no spoilers from me) whose foul-mouthed tirades I found very funny, and who also has the funniest line in the film (playing off one of the most controversial elements of the first film). It’s fair to say though that others I’ve spoken to didn’t think this appearance fitted the film at all.
Julianne Moore makes for an entertaining – if less than credible – villain, as does Bruce Greenwood (“Star Trek: Into Darkness”) as a barely disguised Trump. None of the motivations of the bad ‘uns however support any scrutiny whatsoever: this is very much a “park your brain at the door” film.
I really shouldn’t enjoy this crass, brash, brainless movie fast-food… and I know many have hated it! But my guilty secret is that I really did like it – one of the best nights of unadulterated escapist fun I’ve had since “Baby Driver”. Classy it’s certainly NOT, but I enjoyed this just as much as the original.
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated Goodnight Mister Tom in Books
Nov 7, 2019
In September 1939, as Britain stands on the brink of the war, many young children from the cities are evacuated tot he countryside to escape an imminent German bombardment. Willie Beech, a boy from Deptford who is physically and emotionally abused by his mother, arrives at the home of Tom Oakley, a widower in his sixties who lives in the village of Little Weirwold. The boy is thinly clad, underfed and covered with painful bruises, and believes he is full of sin, a result of his upbringing by his mother, a domineering, insane, God-fearing widow.
"Mister Tom", as William christens his new guardian, is reclusive and bad-tempered, and as such is avoided by the community. Willie lives with him as his Mother wants him to live with someone who is either religious or lives next to a church. Though initially distant, he is touched after discovering William's home-life and treats him with kindness and understanding, helping to educate him. Under his care, William begins to thrive, forming a small circle of friends at school among his classmates including fellow-evacuee Zach. He also becomes proficient in drawing and dramatics. As William is changed by Tom, so is Tom transformed by William's presence in his home. It is revealed that Tom lost his wife and baby son to Scarlatina some 40 years previously, and he has become reclusive because of this.
The growing bond between William and Tom is threatened when William's mother requests that the boy returns to her in the city, telling him she is sick. At first, William thinks this will be a good thing, as he can be helpful to his mother. However, his mother is not pleased to learn the details of his time with Tom, feeling that he has not been disciplined properly. While William has been away, she has become pregnant and had a girl, but is neglecting the baby. After a bad reunion, where his mother becomes furious upon learning the details of her son's life with Tom, abhorring his association with the Jewish Zach among other things, she hits William and puts him in the under-stairs cupboard, chains him to the piping. William regains consciousness briefly to find himself in the cupboard – he has been stripped of his clothes, minus his underwear, and his ankle is twisted. He quietly sobs for Tom, before he falls asleep.
Back in Little Weirwold, Tom has a premonition that something is not right with William. Although he has never travelled beyond his immediate locality, he ventures into London and eventually locates William's neighbourhood of Deptford and his home. He persuades a local policeman to break down the door of the apparently empty home, to be greeted with a vile stench. They find William in the closet with the baby, who had also been locked under the stairs by William's mother and has now died. William is malnourished and badly bruised as he had been locked under the stairs for a number of days. William is hospitalised, but whilst there suffers horrific nightmares and is drugged simply to prevent his screams from disturbing other children. Tom is warned that it is likely that William will be taken to a children's home, and, unable to observe William's distress any longer, kidnaps him from the hospital and takes him back to Little Weirwold.
Back with Mister Tom, William is much damaged by his ordeal and is also blaming himself for the death of his sister as he had not been able to provide enough milk to feed her whilst locked away, and becomes very depressed. Later, when his favourite teacher Annie Hartridge has a baby, William is shocked to learn from Zach that a woman cannot conceive a child on her own, and realises that his mother was having a relationship with a man, even though she had previously told him that it was wrong for unmarried couples to live together or have children together (something which society in general had regarded as unacceptable at this time). Tom is traced by the authorities, who have come to tell William that his mother is dead, having committed suicide. They also offer him a place in a children's home, as they've been unable to trace any other relatives who may have been able to take care of him. Luckily the authorities realise that William has already found a good home and allow Tom to adopt him.
Tom, William and Zach then enjoy a holiday at the seaside village of Salmouth, where they stay in the house of a widow whose sons have been sent out to war. Zach then receives news that his father has been injured by a German bomb in London and he hurries home on the next train saying farewell to all his friends. Unfortunately this is the last time they see him. William later learns that Zach has been killed and is grief-stricken for some time, but his grief is later healed by another recluse, Geoffery Sanderton. Geoffery, a young man who had lost a leg during the war and takes William for private art lessons,recognises the signs of grief and gives William a pipe to paint along with a picture of two smiling young men. One of the men is Geoffery and he tells William about the loss of his own best friend, the other man in the picture and the owner of the pipe. This is when William starts to come to terms with Zach's death. Adding to this, Doctor Little, the village doctor, who was Zach's guardian while he was evacuated, is surprised but pleased when William asks to have Zach's bike. Through learning to ride it, William realises that Zach lives on inside him and he will never forget his wonderful companion that Zach was.
In the months following, William grows closer to Carrie, one of his friends. One night, on returning home to Tom (whom he now calls "Dad"), he thinks back on how much he has changed since arriving in Little Weirwold and realises that he is growing.
Goodnight Mr Tom Wiki.
Goodnight Mr Tom was published by Kestrel in 1981 and later on in that same year in the US by Harper and Row. The book won Author Michelle Magorian the annual Guardian Children's fiction prize. Magorian was also a runner up for the Carnegie Medal. The book has been adapted as a Movie, a play and a musical. The most recent theatrical adaption won the Laurence Olivier award for Best Entertainment.
I came across the book when I was 10/11 years old. I needed the book for English at primary school, since we needed to read the book and complete a series of assignments for our teacher. I have in the subsequent years read and re-read the book. The book is rather good and I recommand it for children from the ages of 9/10 upwards. The book is a good representation of what happened during WW2 in a fictional setting. And William and Mr Tom healing each other from what they both experienced (Tom loosing family to Scarlatina and William being abused by his mother). I give the book an 8/10.
"Mister Tom", as William christens his new guardian, is reclusive and bad-tempered, and as such is avoided by the community. Willie lives with him as his Mother wants him to live with someone who is either religious or lives next to a church. Though initially distant, he is touched after discovering William's home-life and treats him with kindness and understanding, helping to educate him. Under his care, William begins to thrive, forming a small circle of friends at school among his classmates including fellow-evacuee Zach. He also becomes proficient in drawing and dramatics. As William is changed by Tom, so is Tom transformed by William's presence in his home. It is revealed that Tom lost his wife and baby son to Scarlatina some 40 years previously, and he has become reclusive because of this.
The growing bond between William and Tom is threatened when William's mother requests that the boy returns to her in the city, telling him she is sick. At first, William thinks this will be a good thing, as he can be helpful to his mother. However, his mother is not pleased to learn the details of his time with Tom, feeling that he has not been disciplined properly. While William has been away, she has become pregnant and had a girl, but is neglecting the baby. After a bad reunion, where his mother becomes furious upon learning the details of her son's life with Tom, abhorring his association with the Jewish Zach among other things, she hits William and puts him in the under-stairs cupboard, chains him to the piping. William regains consciousness briefly to find himself in the cupboard – he has been stripped of his clothes, minus his underwear, and his ankle is twisted. He quietly sobs for Tom, before he falls asleep.
Back in Little Weirwold, Tom has a premonition that something is not right with William. Although he has never travelled beyond his immediate locality, he ventures into London and eventually locates William's neighbourhood of Deptford and his home. He persuades a local policeman to break down the door of the apparently empty home, to be greeted with a vile stench. They find William in the closet with the baby, who had also been locked under the stairs by William's mother and has now died. William is malnourished and badly bruised as he had been locked under the stairs for a number of days. William is hospitalised, but whilst there suffers horrific nightmares and is drugged simply to prevent his screams from disturbing other children. Tom is warned that it is likely that William will be taken to a children's home, and, unable to observe William's distress any longer, kidnaps him from the hospital and takes him back to Little Weirwold.
Back with Mister Tom, William is much damaged by his ordeal and is also blaming himself for the death of his sister as he had not been able to provide enough milk to feed her whilst locked away, and becomes very depressed. Later, when his favourite teacher Annie Hartridge has a baby, William is shocked to learn from Zach that a woman cannot conceive a child on her own, and realises that his mother was having a relationship with a man, even though she had previously told him that it was wrong for unmarried couples to live together or have children together (something which society in general had regarded as unacceptable at this time). Tom is traced by the authorities, who have come to tell William that his mother is dead, having committed suicide. They also offer him a place in a children's home, as they've been unable to trace any other relatives who may have been able to take care of him. Luckily the authorities realise that William has already found a good home and allow Tom to adopt him.
Tom, William and Zach then enjoy a holiday at the seaside village of Salmouth, where they stay in the house of a widow whose sons have been sent out to war. Zach then receives news that his father has been injured by a German bomb in London and he hurries home on the next train saying farewell to all his friends. Unfortunately this is the last time they see him. William later learns that Zach has been killed and is grief-stricken for some time, but his grief is later healed by another recluse, Geoffery Sanderton. Geoffery, a young man who had lost a leg during the war and takes William for private art lessons,recognises the signs of grief and gives William a pipe to paint along with a picture of two smiling young men. One of the men is Geoffery and he tells William about the loss of his own best friend, the other man in the picture and the owner of the pipe. This is when William starts to come to terms with Zach's death. Adding to this, Doctor Little, the village doctor, who was Zach's guardian while he was evacuated, is surprised but pleased when William asks to have Zach's bike. Through learning to ride it, William realises that Zach lives on inside him and he will never forget his wonderful companion that Zach was.
In the months following, William grows closer to Carrie, one of his friends. One night, on returning home to Tom (whom he now calls "Dad"), he thinks back on how much he has changed since arriving in Little Weirwold and realises that he is growing.
Goodnight Mr Tom Wiki.
Goodnight Mr Tom was published by Kestrel in 1981 and later on in that same year in the US by Harper and Row. The book won Author Michelle Magorian the annual Guardian Children's fiction prize. Magorian was also a runner up for the Carnegie Medal. The book has been adapted as a Movie, a play and a musical. The most recent theatrical adaption won the Laurence Olivier award for Best Entertainment.
I came across the book when I was 10/11 years old. I needed the book for English at primary school, since we needed to read the book and complete a series of assignments for our teacher. I have in the subsequent years read and re-read the book. The book is rather good and I recommand it for children from the ages of 9/10 upwards. The book is a good representation of what happened during WW2 in a fictional setting. And William and Mr Tom healing each other from what they both experienced (Tom loosing family to Scarlatina and William being abused by his mother). I give the book an 8/10.