Search
Search results
Henry Rollins recommended National Lampoon's Animal House (1978) in Movies (curated)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Table 19 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Mean spirited and atrocious.
I really hated this film. There. BOOM. Got it off my chest.
It all starts so promisingly, with a scene of Anna Kendrick (“The Accountant“, who can be a very good actress) rejecting a wedding invitation; then accepting it; then burning it; then blowing it out; then posting it. I laughed. This was a rarity. There are about five more smile-worthy moments in the movie, most of which are delivered by Stephen Merchant.
Anna plays Eloise who was SUPPOSED to be maid-of-honour at her best friend’s wedding, but then broke up – messily – with her brother (the best man). She stubbornly attends the wedding in a posh hotel and finds herself on “Table 19” – a socially unfavourable location, full of a bunch of misfits that everyone expected to say “no” but didn’t; a molly-coddled and awkward teen (Tony Revolori, “Spider-man: Homecoming“) with the single goal of getting laid; “The Kepps” – a bickering married couple (Lisa Kudrow (“The Girl on the Train“, “Friends”) and Craig Robinson (“Hot Tub Time Machine”)); a convicted fraudster serving his sentence in an open prison ( Stephen Merchant, “Logan“) and a druggie former nanny of the bride (June Squibb, “In and Out”).
The fundamental problem with the movie is that Jeffrey Blitz’s script (he also directs) is not only not very funny, but it is so fundamentally focused on the greedy and needy nature of the table’s American reprobates that at every turn it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Their motives are all utterly selfish and there’s an “if we get away with it, then that’s fine” attitude that pervades the plot.
The nadir for me happens when – after trashing (albeit accidently) a key part of the wedding they are attending, they cover their selfish backsides by (deliberately) trashing the same key part of another wedding going on in the same hotel.
This is kind of positioned as a “revenge” sort of thing, but (in analysis) no wrong seems to have actually been done: its just another misunderstanding of the self-obsessed Eloise.
The Kepp’s story is also sad and selfish rather than comedic, and the resolution of this (and in fact all of the other sub-stories) for a nicely gift-wrapped ending is just saccharine and vomit-inducing.
This is a wedding present that should have come with a label in big red writing: “DO NOT OPEN“.
It all starts so promisingly, with a scene of Anna Kendrick (“The Accountant“, who can be a very good actress) rejecting a wedding invitation; then accepting it; then burning it; then blowing it out; then posting it. I laughed. This was a rarity. There are about five more smile-worthy moments in the movie, most of which are delivered by Stephen Merchant.
Anna plays Eloise who was SUPPOSED to be maid-of-honour at her best friend’s wedding, but then broke up – messily – with her brother (the best man). She stubbornly attends the wedding in a posh hotel and finds herself on “Table 19” – a socially unfavourable location, full of a bunch of misfits that everyone expected to say “no” but didn’t; a molly-coddled and awkward teen (Tony Revolori, “Spider-man: Homecoming“) with the single goal of getting laid; “The Kepps” – a bickering married couple (Lisa Kudrow (“The Girl on the Train“, “Friends”) and Craig Robinson (“Hot Tub Time Machine”)); a convicted fraudster serving his sentence in an open prison ( Stephen Merchant, “Logan“) and a druggie former nanny of the bride (June Squibb, “In and Out”).
The fundamental problem with the movie is that Jeffrey Blitz’s script (he also directs) is not only not very funny, but it is so fundamentally focused on the greedy and needy nature of the table’s American reprobates that at every turn it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Their motives are all utterly selfish and there’s an “if we get away with it, then that’s fine” attitude that pervades the plot.
The nadir for me happens when – after trashing (albeit accidently) a key part of the wedding they are attending, they cover their selfish backsides by (deliberately) trashing the same key part of another wedding going on in the same hotel.
This is kind of positioned as a “revenge” sort of thing, but (in analysis) no wrong seems to have actually been done: its just another misunderstanding of the self-obsessed Eloise.
The Kepp’s story is also sad and selfish rather than comedic, and the resolution of this (and in fact all of the other sub-stories) for a nicely gift-wrapped ending is just saccharine and vomit-inducing.
This is a wedding present that should have come with a label in big red writing: “DO NOT OPEN“.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated An American Werewolf in London (1981) in Movies
Jun 4, 2017
Steps away from most of the stereotypes (2 more)
Comedic Horror
Great practical effects for the time, even better than some modern day films
One of the classic Werewolf Films that any horror fan should watch
An American Werewolf in London should always be apart of any Werewolf film or horror film Fan's collection. It's comedic, yes, but it's still a great horror as well especially for it's time.
The cast isn't full of big Hollywood names, but that's what makes this film so good. You don't expect anything from the cast so the film shows you something like you've never seen. Though there are a few cast members that have big names such as Rik Mayall (R.I.P), but he isn't a main cast member, and serves only as a background character in a pub.
The story of two Americans, on a tour of England, with some comedic humour towards the atmosphere of England as we begin the film in the countryside. David's friend complains about the weather, whilst David himself is enjoying his time being out in the open.
The films practical effects are incredible, from the large wolf itself to the actual transformation, which sees limbs being extended into unnatural form, and David's mouth extending into a about, using only practical effects and no CGI. This is what makes this film so damn good!
The soundtrack is one of the cheeriest IV heard for a horror film as it contains multiple versions of the classic song Blue Moon, as well as Creedance Clearwater Revival's classic song Bad Moon Rising. Which eases some of the horror but not by much.
The film also differs from other werewolf films as it mocks the supernatural myth elements such as silver bullets, but includes some of the lesser known myths about the pre-transformation period such as the bizarre nightmares which often involve the cursed being to see themselves naked in a woods stalking and sometimes eating an animal raw, often deer or rabbit, and this film includes that as well as another very bizarre nightmare involving Nazi Demons.
The other great aspect to this film is the appearance of Dave's dead friend throughout the film, as we discover he is trapped in purgatory unable to pass on until the curse is lifted (a.k.a David needs to die). It's not the fact that Jack appears though that makes this element of the film incredible, it's the way he looks when he appears. Everytime Jack shows up, his body is more and more decayed and he becomes very zombiefied during our last encounter with him in the film, and the practical effects and makeup truly add to the grim reality of this aspect. The makeup was so grim in fact, that Griffin Dunne, who portrays Jack, wasn't overly pleased that this gruesome makeup would mean that his mother wouldn't be able to watch the film because it was that horrifying. There were even pieces of dangling rotten flesh, which was accidental but left in because it looked more realistic.
The film is funny, it's gripping and it's horrifying as we watch the beast stalk the people of London and then the next morning, we see a normal man and as we begin to watch him lose his mind, we sympathise for him.
Highly recommend this to any horror fan of you haven't seen it already, and if you haven't...why not? It's brilliantly written and brilliantly directed by the amazing John Landis.
The cast isn't full of big Hollywood names, but that's what makes this film so good. You don't expect anything from the cast so the film shows you something like you've never seen. Though there are a few cast members that have big names such as Rik Mayall (R.I.P), but he isn't a main cast member, and serves only as a background character in a pub.
The story of two Americans, on a tour of England, with some comedic humour towards the atmosphere of England as we begin the film in the countryside. David's friend complains about the weather, whilst David himself is enjoying his time being out in the open.
The films practical effects are incredible, from the large wolf itself to the actual transformation, which sees limbs being extended into unnatural form, and David's mouth extending into a about, using only practical effects and no CGI. This is what makes this film so damn good!
The soundtrack is one of the cheeriest IV heard for a horror film as it contains multiple versions of the classic song Blue Moon, as well as Creedance Clearwater Revival's classic song Bad Moon Rising. Which eases some of the horror but not by much.
The film also differs from other werewolf films as it mocks the supernatural myth elements such as silver bullets, but includes some of the lesser known myths about the pre-transformation period such as the bizarre nightmares which often involve the cursed being to see themselves naked in a woods stalking and sometimes eating an animal raw, often deer or rabbit, and this film includes that as well as another very bizarre nightmare involving Nazi Demons.
The other great aspect to this film is the appearance of Dave's dead friend throughout the film, as we discover he is trapped in purgatory unable to pass on until the curse is lifted (a.k.a David needs to die). It's not the fact that Jack appears though that makes this element of the film incredible, it's the way he looks when he appears. Everytime Jack shows up, his body is more and more decayed and he becomes very zombiefied during our last encounter with him in the film, and the practical effects and makeup truly add to the grim reality of this aspect. The makeup was so grim in fact, that Griffin Dunne, who portrays Jack, wasn't overly pleased that this gruesome makeup would mean that his mother wouldn't be able to watch the film because it was that horrifying. There were even pieces of dangling rotten flesh, which was accidental but left in because it looked more realistic.
The film is funny, it's gripping and it's horrifying as we watch the beast stalk the people of London and then the next morning, we see a normal man and as we begin to watch him lose his mind, we sympathise for him.
Highly recommend this to any horror fan of you haven't seen it already, and if you haven't...why not? It's brilliantly written and brilliantly directed by the amazing John Landis.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Kong: Skull Island (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Beauty and the Beast
The fact that Legendary Pictures are busying themselves with an epic Godzilla vs King Kong showdown is one of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood. Naturally, this presented a problem for Peter Jackson’s Kong who simply doesn’t measure up against the giant lizard in 2013’s Godzilla.
And in Hollywood, size really does matter; therefore the monstrous ape has been given a monumental upgrade featuring an all-star cast and some serious talent behind the camera. But is Kong: Skull Island as bananas as its trailers would suggest? Or are we looking at something a little more mainstream?
At the climax of the Vietnam War, a team of explorers and mercenaries head to an unchartered island in the South Pacific in an effort to document its inhabitants. Little do they know they are crossing into the domain of vicious man-eating monsters and the legendary Kong.
With a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Samuel L Jackson and John C Reilly, you’d be forgiven for thinking everything is hunky dory over on Skull Island, but this spectacular film isn’t without its flaws. A lack of character development and a severe tonal imbalance mean it’s a beautiful near miss that thankfully manages to pull itself up from a crash landing.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts in his first big budget feature directs a film that is absolutely staggering to watch, with stunning cinematography and exceptionally well-choreographed battles between the gigantic ape and his many adversaries. Giving indie directors the chance to work with big studios to produce blockbusters is something that seems incredibly popular at the moment.
After all, Gareth Edwards took up the challenge of rebooting Godzilla in 2013 with stunning results and Colin Trevorrow was entrusted by Steven Spielberg to rekindle the public’s love affair with Jurassic Park back in 2015 and that worked a treat too.
Here, Vogt-Roberts utilises both of those franchises to great effect, even managing to shoehorn a tasteful reference to Samuel L Jackson’s Jurassic Park character, Ray Arnold. Elsewhere, though, the film falls a little flat. The constant switch in tone from comedy to action leaves a sour taste in the mouth, though John C Reilly’s stranded pilot is a pleasure to watch and lightens up proceedings.
Tom Hiddleston does well in the leading role, though as an SAS operative, he feels a little miscast and Samuel L Jackson’s Preston Packard is immensely dislikeable and his gripe with Kong is forced. It creates a subplot that doesn’t really need to be there.
The special effects, however, are top notch, helped by the splendid cinematography. The gorgeous sunsets and sweeping tropical landscapes have a whiff of Apocalypse Now and the misty terrain brings back memories of Jurassic Park’s first sequel, The Lost World.
Overall, Kong: Skull Island is a stunning film filled to the brim with colour, charming effects and great performances. However, it is a little light on character development and that tone issue is frustrating at times, but as a precursor to a mighty monster battle, it does a fine job in continuing the franchise and setting its future.
Leaving the cinema, though, I was left with a concern for when the two behemoths, Godzilla and Kong, finally meet. Each film has given their respective creature a ‘personality’, and if one of them must inevitably die, who on earth do you choose to perish?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/10/beauty-and-the-beast-kong-skull-island-review/
And in Hollywood, size really does matter; therefore the monstrous ape has been given a monumental upgrade featuring an all-star cast and some serious talent behind the camera. But is Kong: Skull Island as bananas as its trailers would suggest? Or are we looking at something a little more mainstream?
At the climax of the Vietnam War, a team of explorers and mercenaries head to an unchartered island in the South Pacific in an effort to document its inhabitants. Little do they know they are crossing into the domain of vicious man-eating monsters and the legendary Kong.
With a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Samuel L Jackson and John C Reilly, you’d be forgiven for thinking everything is hunky dory over on Skull Island, but this spectacular film isn’t without its flaws. A lack of character development and a severe tonal imbalance mean it’s a beautiful near miss that thankfully manages to pull itself up from a crash landing.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts in his first big budget feature directs a film that is absolutely staggering to watch, with stunning cinematography and exceptionally well-choreographed battles between the gigantic ape and his many adversaries. Giving indie directors the chance to work with big studios to produce blockbusters is something that seems incredibly popular at the moment.
After all, Gareth Edwards took up the challenge of rebooting Godzilla in 2013 with stunning results and Colin Trevorrow was entrusted by Steven Spielberg to rekindle the public’s love affair with Jurassic Park back in 2015 and that worked a treat too.
Here, Vogt-Roberts utilises both of those franchises to great effect, even managing to shoehorn a tasteful reference to Samuel L Jackson’s Jurassic Park character, Ray Arnold. Elsewhere, though, the film falls a little flat. The constant switch in tone from comedy to action leaves a sour taste in the mouth, though John C Reilly’s stranded pilot is a pleasure to watch and lightens up proceedings.
Tom Hiddleston does well in the leading role, though as an SAS operative, he feels a little miscast and Samuel L Jackson’s Preston Packard is immensely dislikeable and his gripe with Kong is forced. It creates a subplot that doesn’t really need to be there.
The special effects, however, are top notch, helped by the splendid cinematography. The gorgeous sunsets and sweeping tropical landscapes have a whiff of Apocalypse Now and the misty terrain brings back memories of Jurassic Park’s first sequel, The Lost World.
Overall, Kong: Skull Island is a stunning film filled to the brim with colour, charming effects and great performances. However, it is a little light on character development and that tone issue is frustrating at times, but as a precursor to a mighty monster battle, it does a fine job in continuing the franchise and setting its future.
Leaving the cinema, though, I was left with a concern for when the two behemoths, Godzilla and Kong, finally meet. Each film has given their respective creature a ‘personality’, and if one of them must inevitably die, who on earth do you choose to perish?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/10/beauty-and-the-beast-kong-skull-island-review/
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated Real Steel (2011) in Movies
May 30, 2018
This is a good film, not a great film but very good.
Contains spoilers, click to show
This film is the reason I decided to do my own movie reviews. After hearing a review for this film from BBC Radio 1's movie reviewer, I decided to start my own review page. She reviewed this film seeing nothing more than the robots. She totally missed out on the whole plot of the movie, and then her comment "the climax takes a long time to come and it happens right at the end" made me want to climb into the radio and tape her mouth shut. I know where I expect the climax of a film to be, and I know it is nowhere but at the end of the film. Yes this film has big giant robots in it, but the plot is way more than that, it is a story about redemption and doing the right thing no matter how hard the journey. I got that much from just seeing the trailer, she saw the whole thing and missed the whole point.
OK rant over.
This is a good film, not a great film but very good. Hugh Jackman is good in this but to be fair he is good in most things. He gets to show off a bigger range of his acting skills than he has in the X-Men films. He plays Charlie Kenton, a former boxer now heavily in debt due to pushing his fighting robots too hard and expecting more than they can give, like fighting a 300lb bull! This also stars Evangeline Lilly in I believe her first role since the series Lost ended. She is also very good in this. However, the star of the film is Dakota Goya as Max Kenton. He shines as the child thrown together with the father he doesn't know. He enters the world of robot fighting with his father and manages to rescue a robot from a scrap pile. He then convinces his father to enter the robot in the fights. You really get to experience the wonder of the Robots through him. The other star is the robot he rescues, Atom. Although not sentient, the director manages to bring him to life with good camera angles and subtle sounds. You really start to feel for the robot and you manage to forget the fights aren't real. The other very clever part of the film is the setting. It is set in the near future, but the only really futuristic thing is the robots. There are no fancy cars or clothes and this enables you to connect with the film easier.
The climax of the film (at the end!), is a big showdown with the undefeated champion. Instead of just two robots bashing each other, you get Atom, the underdog, controlled by Max, and helped by his father. You see and feel each blow the robot takes and through the acting skills of Dakota Goya, you forget it's a machine and you can't help but cheer him on.
This could have been an average film, but the fine performances by the cast and the skill of the director in bringing Atom to life with just the use of camera shots and clever subtle sounds turns this film in to a joy to watch as you take the journey with father, son and giant robot.
OK rant over.
This is a good film, not a great film but very good. Hugh Jackman is good in this but to be fair he is good in most things. He gets to show off a bigger range of his acting skills than he has in the X-Men films. He plays Charlie Kenton, a former boxer now heavily in debt due to pushing his fighting robots too hard and expecting more than they can give, like fighting a 300lb bull! This also stars Evangeline Lilly in I believe her first role since the series Lost ended. She is also very good in this. However, the star of the film is Dakota Goya as Max Kenton. He shines as the child thrown together with the father he doesn't know. He enters the world of robot fighting with his father and manages to rescue a robot from a scrap pile. He then convinces his father to enter the robot in the fights. You really get to experience the wonder of the Robots through him. The other star is the robot he rescues, Atom. Although not sentient, the director manages to bring him to life with good camera angles and subtle sounds. You really start to feel for the robot and you manage to forget the fights aren't real. The other very clever part of the film is the setting. It is set in the near future, but the only really futuristic thing is the robots. There are no fancy cars or clothes and this enables you to connect with the film easier.
The climax of the film (at the end!), is a big showdown with the undefeated champion. Instead of just two robots bashing each other, you get Atom, the underdog, controlled by Max, and helped by his father. You see and feel each blow the robot takes and through the acting skills of Dakota Goya, you forget it's a machine and you can't help but cheer him on.
This could have been an average film, but the fine performances by the cast and the skill of the director in bringing Atom to life with just the use of camera shots and clever subtle sounds turns this film in to a joy to watch as you take the journey with father, son and giant robot.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Addams Family (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
Can anyone ever say the name of this film without finger snapping?
When their home life is dislodged by pitchfork-wielding townsfolk the Addams pack up their car and hit the road for a new beginning. They come across a mansion on a hill, it's creepy and it's kooky, mysterious and spooky... it's perfect for the Addams family.
Years of idyllic isolation fly by but the outside world is closer than ever. Wednesday is intrigued by the perils that lay beyond their gates and the family can no longer ignore their neighbours in the valley, their very perky neighbours who live in their little cookie cuttered dream houses below.
What's not to love about the madness of the Addams family? You can pretty much guarantee entertainment, and that's what you get from this film.
There's a gripe... there's always a gripe... so let me get it out of the way first. It annoys me more because it's accurate to the source material so I should love that, but modern adaptations have ruined me! Gomez Addams, he's not what you see when you think Gomez. I have been brainwashed by films and it annoys me. He is a perfect representation of the original cartoons by Charles Addams, he's still suave, sophisticated and playful like we know him to be, but he's no Raul Julia or John Astin.
On a similar note, when I heard Oscar Isaac and Charlize Theron were playing Gomez and Morticia I was elated, imagine my disappointment to discover they were to be animated and not live action. You couldn't get better casting for a live action couple if you tried! Anyway, moving on.
The voice cast is littered with famous faces including Elsie Fisher of Eighth Grade fame and Bette Midler... BETTE MIDLER!! We've also got Allison Janney as out saccharine sweet villain, Janney has a knack for the villain roles and I wouldn't mind seeing more of them.
There's just one role I object to, and I found it to be an incredibly lazy decision on someone's part. Nick Kroll as Uncle Fester. While I understand the nice-but-dim style voice is perfect for Fester it has basically been recycled from Big Mouth's Coach Steve. There will be no real issues with this for the intended audience as Big Mouth comes in at a 15 compared to The Addams Family's more subtle PG, but as someone who's old enough to watch both, I was annoyed.
The artwork on this really does play a great homage to the cartoons and despite their age it works really well for a modern audience. The story also brings it nicely up to date with its reality TV slant and the perfect American dream town. There are lots of great touches throughout that amuse.
I understand that each new adaptation has to do its own thing, and I like how it brought an original story (of sorts) to us but I didn't feel like it took previous iterations of the characters into consideration... this is a daft thing to complain about too, I know that, but the Addams family are iconic. Wednesday has always been my spirit animal, but to see a rather lacklustre version here made me a little sad.
But, ultimately I still enjoyed my time watching it, I just don't think I'll be placing it higher up the ranking than any of the previous ghoulish outings.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-addams-family-movie-review.html
When their home life is dislodged by pitchfork-wielding townsfolk the Addams pack up their car and hit the road for a new beginning. They come across a mansion on a hill, it's creepy and it's kooky, mysterious and spooky... it's perfect for the Addams family.
Years of idyllic isolation fly by but the outside world is closer than ever. Wednesday is intrigued by the perils that lay beyond their gates and the family can no longer ignore their neighbours in the valley, their very perky neighbours who live in their little cookie cuttered dream houses below.
What's not to love about the madness of the Addams family? You can pretty much guarantee entertainment, and that's what you get from this film.
There's a gripe... there's always a gripe... so let me get it out of the way first. It annoys me more because it's accurate to the source material so I should love that, but modern adaptations have ruined me! Gomez Addams, he's not what you see when you think Gomez. I have been brainwashed by films and it annoys me. He is a perfect representation of the original cartoons by Charles Addams, he's still suave, sophisticated and playful like we know him to be, but he's no Raul Julia or John Astin.
On a similar note, when I heard Oscar Isaac and Charlize Theron were playing Gomez and Morticia I was elated, imagine my disappointment to discover they were to be animated and not live action. You couldn't get better casting for a live action couple if you tried! Anyway, moving on.
The voice cast is littered with famous faces including Elsie Fisher of Eighth Grade fame and Bette Midler... BETTE MIDLER!! We've also got Allison Janney as out saccharine sweet villain, Janney has a knack for the villain roles and I wouldn't mind seeing more of them.
There's just one role I object to, and I found it to be an incredibly lazy decision on someone's part. Nick Kroll as Uncle Fester. While I understand the nice-but-dim style voice is perfect for Fester it has basically been recycled from Big Mouth's Coach Steve. There will be no real issues with this for the intended audience as Big Mouth comes in at a 15 compared to The Addams Family's more subtle PG, but as someone who's old enough to watch both, I was annoyed.
The artwork on this really does play a great homage to the cartoons and despite their age it works really well for a modern audience. The story also brings it nicely up to date with its reality TV slant and the perfect American dream town. There are lots of great touches throughout that amuse.
I understand that each new adaptation has to do its own thing, and I like how it brought an original story (of sorts) to us but I didn't feel like it took previous iterations of the characters into consideration... this is a daft thing to complain about too, I know that, but the Addams family are iconic. Wednesday has always been my spirit animal, but to see a rather lacklustre version here made me a little sad.
But, ultimately I still enjoyed my time watching it, I just don't think I'll be placing it higher up the ranking than any of the previous ghoulish outings.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-addams-family-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Man Who Knew Infinity (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In 1914, Srinivasa Ramanujan (Dev Patel) traveled from his poverty-stricken existence in Madras, India to Trinity College, Cambridge in the hope that he would have his theories published and be recognized for the mathematical genius he was. While there, despite facing racism, hostility and severe illness, he formed an important relationship with G.H. Hardy (Jeremy Irons) that would lead to breakthroughs in mathematics that are still relevant today.
It would be easy to prattle on about the tremendous talent onscreen in The Man Who Knew Infinity and with a supporting cast that features some of Britain’s best; we get exactly what we’d expect from the likes of Jeremy Irons, Toby Jones and Kevin McNally. All at the top of their game, they serve the story well with nuanced and well-rounded performances, and I’m certainly not going to take anything away from the exceptional jobs they’ve all done here. All the praise this film deserves however, needs to be directed at Dev Patel. In his role as Ramanujan, he’s completely stepped out of the shadow of his big-screen debut in Slumdog Millionaire and has proved his worth as a leading man capable of carrying the weight of an entire feature. Distancing himself also from the lovable, bumbling hotel owner in The Best Exotic Marigold movies, with Ramanujan he is allowed the room to display an incredible range, from quiet intensity to outspoken, unbridled passion and determination. Kudos also to the writers for not going The Big Short route (e.g. talking down to the uninitiated with ridiculous cutaways), but by using simple logic and examples to help convey complex information relevant to the plot.
For the performances alone, this is a solid entry in the biopic genre, but structurally speaking, it’s the editing that lets the film down. This very easily could have emerged as the next A Beautiful Mind, but between a bloated first act, a middling and wandering second act and a truncated final third, The Man Who Knew Infinity falls just short of greatness. Not only is no attention paid to Ramanujan’s achievements as a child, but too much time is given to details and subplots that are arguably inconsequential to the main narrative. This is especially evident in the inclusion of Bertrand Russell (who lived such a rich and fascinating life himself, it would take several films to do that story justice) and his being here feels like just a hollow excuse to include a cameo from another figure of historical importance. The biggest disservice though comes with the ending where we are denied a much needed catharsis and are left to suffer through a slap-dash, halfhearted montage. A restructuring from a more seasoned hand would have undoubtedly led to stronger word-of-mouth and perhaps a wider release. I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is a case of “too many cooks” as the film has a staggering 43 credited producers. I get that independent features can be forced to source their funding from many places, but you can’t tell me that with all those opinions flying about that some of the original intent didn’t get lost in the noise.
As an aside, what Stephen Fry is doing here is beyond me. He’s given two scenes with perhaps a half a dozen lines, leaving his incomparable persona entirely wasted on a completely throwaway character. It’s a pity he wasn’t given a meatier role as one of Ramanujan’s antagonists.
It would be easy to prattle on about the tremendous talent onscreen in The Man Who Knew Infinity and with a supporting cast that features some of Britain’s best; we get exactly what we’d expect from the likes of Jeremy Irons, Toby Jones and Kevin McNally. All at the top of their game, they serve the story well with nuanced and well-rounded performances, and I’m certainly not going to take anything away from the exceptional jobs they’ve all done here. All the praise this film deserves however, needs to be directed at Dev Patel. In his role as Ramanujan, he’s completely stepped out of the shadow of his big-screen debut in Slumdog Millionaire and has proved his worth as a leading man capable of carrying the weight of an entire feature. Distancing himself also from the lovable, bumbling hotel owner in The Best Exotic Marigold movies, with Ramanujan he is allowed the room to display an incredible range, from quiet intensity to outspoken, unbridled passion and determination. Kudos also to the writers for not going The Big Short route (e.g. talking down to the uninitiated with ridiculous cutaways), but by using simple logic and examples to help convey complex information relevant to the plot.
For the performances alone, this is a solid entry in the biopic genre, but structurally speaking, it’s the editing that lets the film down. This very easily could have emerged as the next A Beautiful Mind, but between a bloated first act, a middling and wandering second act and a truncated final third, The Man Who Knew Infinity falls just short of greatness. Not only is no attention paid to Ramanujan’s achievements as a child, but too much time is given to details and subplots that are arguably inconsequential to the main narrative. This is especially evident in the inclusion of Bertrand Russell (who lived such a rich and fascinating life himself, it would take several films to do that story justice) and his being here feels like just a hollow excuse to include a cameo from another figure of historical importance. The biggest disservice though comes with the ending where we are denied a much needed catharsis and are left to suffer through a slap-dash, halfhearted montage. A restructuring from a more seasoned hand would have undoubtedly led to stronger word-of-mouth and perhaps a wider release. I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is a case of “too many cooks” as the film has a staggering 43 credited producers. I get that independent features can be forced to source their funding from many places, but you can’t tell me that with all those opinions flying about that some of the original intent didn’t get lost in the noise.
As an aside, what Stephen Fry is doing here is beyond me. He’s given two scenes with perhaps a half a dozen lines, leaving his incomparable persona entirely wasted on a completely throwaway character. It’s a pity he wasn’t given a meatier role as one of Ramanujan’s antagonists.
Ian Broudie recommended track Pure by The Lightning Seeds in Cloudcuckooland by The Lightning Seeds in Music (curated)
6.0
Album
Favorite
LeftSideCut (3778 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.
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)