Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated What We Do in the Shadows in TV
Jan 22, 2021
Anyone who watched and enjoyed the entirely silly, but mostly genius, original film version of this, written and directed by the same partnership of Jermaine Clement and Taika Waititi, should not miss this show! Although Clement and Waititi step down from acting duties (aside from cameo appearences), they are replaced by the ideal, if not actually better, pairing of Matt Berry and Kayvan Novak, whose previous experience in left-field comedy with an improvisational edge leaves them perfectly placed to make this comedy fly like a startled bat!
The lead duo are joined in all 20 episodes over 2 seasons so far by relative unknowns Natasia Demetriou, Harvey Guillén and Mark Proksch. The first two do adequate jobs of keeping the laughs rolling and the mood steady. But it is Proksch, who brings some knowledge of a working mockumentary farce from his role as Nate is the US version of The Office, who is the stand-out as Colin the energy vampire, who bores his victims to death, or leaves them drained of the will to live. The many ways that single joke is varied to hilarious effect is a thing of true comedic beauty at all times.
The fine balance between the bizarre and ridiculous world of vampires and other monsters with a situation of utter mundanity like flatsharing affords some wonderful moments of laugh out loud insanity. The writing is terrific all the way through, and the bite sized episode lengths ensure it zips along and the joke only wears thin if you gorge on too many in one go. In fact I would strongly recommend not bingeing this one, but rather savouring 2 or 3 in a sitting then leaving it a while. There is something about missing it and coming back to the joke after a break that works better for me.
Some of the things I love about it are the details of the visual world they live in. The paraphernalia of the flat they live in and the clothes they wear is joyous and ever rewarding. There will be things to spot in the background that you missed first time for sure – and that is a sign to me that they wanted to create a classic here and not something disposable. I also adore the opening credit sequence, and sing along every single time.
Then there is the fabulous use of creative swearing, that manages to reach new and surprising heights episode to episode. Berry is especially proficient in this art, leaving me spitting out my tea many times with the use of a profane phrase off the cuff. It is as much the way he says it as what he says, so it is no surprise to me he has been singled out at recent TV awards shows. I hope he gets the recognition he deserves with a shiny trophy or two.
The fact that it was nominated for 8 Emmys for season 2, after only two nods for season 1, also shows that this is an entity that gets better if you stick with it. At first the pattern of the humour may not gel, but the more you get used to it, the character quirks and various relationships, the rewards as a viewer are exponentially good. And if you watch long enough there are also some tasty cameo parts that turn up… but I won’t spoil the surprises here.
Is it a joke that can run and run? No probably not. But I would like to at least see a third season, to wrap it all up. Especially as season 2 ends on somewhat of a cliffhanger, as much as a puerile comedy like this can do. I am a fan. And I imagine I’ll always be able to go back and enjoy an episode here and there to cheer me up. Brilliant stuff, that has its heart and its funny bones in all the right places. Go on, stick your teeth into it!
The lead duo are joined in all 20 episodes over 2 seasons so far by relative unknowns Natasia Demetriou, Harvey Guillén and Mark Proksch. The first two do adequate jobs of keeping the laughs rolling and the mood steady. But it is Proksch, who brings some knowledge of a working mockumentary farce from his role as Nate is the US version of The Office, who is the stand-out as Colin the energy vampire, who bores his victims to death, or leaves them drained of the will to live. The many ways that single joke is varied to hilarious effect is a thing of true comedic beauty at all times.
The fine balance between the bizarre and ridiculous world of vampires and other monsters with a situation of utter mundanity like flatsharing affords some wonderful moments of laugh out loud insanity. The writing is terrific all the way through, and the bite sized episode lengths ensure it zips along and the joke only wears thin if you gorge on too many in one go. In fact I would strongly recommend not bingeing this one, but rather savouring 2 or 3 in a sitting then leaving it a while. There is something about missing it and coming back to the joke after a break that works better for me.
Some of the things I love about it are the details of the visual world they live in. The paraphernalia of the flat they live in and the clothes they wear is joyous and ever rewarding. There will be things to spot in the background that you missed first time for sure – and that is a sign to me that they wanted to create a classic here and not something disposable. I also adore the opening credit sequence, and sing along every single time.
Then there is the fabulous use of creative swearing, that manages to reach new and surprising heights episode to episode. Berry is especially proficient in this art, leaving me spitting out my tea many times with the use of a profane phrase off the cuff. It is as much the way he says it as what he says, so it is no surprise to me he has been singled out at recent TV awards shows. I hope he gets the recognition he deserves with a shiny trophy or two.
The fact that it was nominated for 8 Emmys for season 2, after only two nods for season 1, also shows that this is an entity that gets better if you stick with it. At first the pattern of the humour may not gel, but the more you get used to it, the character quirks and various relationships, the rewards as a viewer are exponentially good. And if you watch long enough there are also some tasty cameo parts that turn up… but I won’t spoil the surprises here.
Is it a joke that can run and run? No probably not. But I would like to at least see a third season, to wrap it all up. Especially as season 2 ends on somewhat of a cliffhanger, as much as a puerile comedy like this can do. I am a fan. And I imagine I’ll always be able to go back and enjoy an episode here and there to cheer me up. Brilliant stuff, that has its heart and its funny bones in all the right places. Go on, stick your teeth into it!
The Weather Channel: Forecast
Weather and Lifestyle
6.0
Rate It
App
The Weather Channel App for iPhone is your best option for accurate forecasts and timely local...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated American Made (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Cruise Flying High Again.
If you ask anyone to list the top 10 film actors, chance is that “Tom Cruise” would make many people’s lists. He’s in everything isn’t he? Well, actually, no. Looking at his imdb history, he’s only averaged just over a movie per year for several years. I guess he’s just traditionally made a big impact with the films he’s done. This all rather changed in the last year with his offerings of the rather lacklustre “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” (FFF) and the pretty dreadful “The Mummy” (Ff) as one of this summer’s big blockbuster disappointments. So Thomas Cruise Mapother IV was sorely in need of a upward turn and fortunately “American Made” delivers in spades.
A quick stop in Nicaragua to pick up some paperwork from Noriega.
“Based on a True Story” this is a biopic on the life of Barry Seal, a hot shot ‘maverick’ (pun intended) TWA pilot who gets drawn into a bizarre but highly lucrative spiral of gun- and drug-running to and from Central America at the behest of a CIA operative Monty Schafer (Domhnall Gleeson). All this is completely mystifying to Barry’s wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) who is, at least not initially, allowed to be ‘in’ on the covert activities.
Flying high over Latin America.
The film is a roller-coaster ride of unbelievable action from beginning to end. In the same manner as you might have thought “that SURELY can’t be true” when watching Spielberg’s “Catch Me If You Can”, this thought constantly flits through your mind. At each turn Seal can’t believe his luck, and Cruise brilliantly portrays the wide-eyed astonishment required. This is a role made for him.
Also delivering his best performance in years is Domhnall Gleeson (“Ex Machina“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the CIA man with the (whacky) plan. Large chunks of the film are powered by his manic grin.
Domhnall Gleeson as the CIA man with a sense of Contra-rhythm.
As an actress, Sarah Wright is new to me but as well as being just stunningly photogenic she works with Cruise really well (despite being 20 years his junior – not wanting to be ageist, but this is the second Cruise film in a row I’ve pointed that out!)). Wright also gets my honourary award for the best airplane sex scene this decade!
“Time to pack honey”. Seal (Cruise) delivering a midnight surprise to wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) – and not in a good way.
Written by Gary Spinelli (this being only his second feature) the script is full of wit and panache and – while almost certainly (judging from wiki) stretches the truth as far as Seal’s cash-storage facilities – never completely over-eggs the pudding.
Doug Liman (“Jason Bourne“, “Edge of Tomorrow“) directs brilliantly, giving space among the action for enough character development to make you invest in what happens to the players. The 80’s setting is lovingly crafted with a garish colour-palette with well-chosen documentary video inserts of Carter, Reagan, Oliver Stone, George Bush and others. It also takes really chutzpah to direct a film that (unless I missed it) had neither a title nor any credits until the end.
The real Barry Seal.
The only vaguely negative view I had about this film is that it quietly glosses over the huge pain, death and suffering that the smuggled drugs will be causing to thousands of Americans under the covers. And this mildly guilty thought lingers with you after the lights come up to slightly – just slightly – take the edge off the fun.
Stylish, thrilling, moving and enormously funny in places, this is action cinema at its best. A must see film.
A quick stop in Nicaragua to pick up some paperwork from Noriega.
“Based on a True Story” this is a biopic on the life of Barry Seal, a hot shot ‘maverick’ (pun intended) TWA pilot who gets drawn into a bizarre but highly lucrative spiral of gun- and drug-running to and from Central America at the behest of a CIA operative Monty Schafer (Domhnall Gleeson). All this is completely mystifying to Barry’s wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) who is, at least not initially, allowed to be ‘in’ on the covert activities.
Flying high over Latin America.
The film is a roller-coaster ride of unbelievable action from beginning to end. In the same manner as you might have thought “that SURELY can’t be true” when watching Spielberg’s “Catch Me If You Can”, this thought constantly flits through your mind. At each turn Seal can’t believe his luck, and Cruise brilliantly portrays the wide-eyed astonishment required. This is a role made for him.
Also delivering his best performance in years is Domhnall Gleeson (“Ex Machina“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the CIA man with the (whacky) plan. Large chunks of the film are powered by his manic grin.
Domhnall Gleeson as the CIA man with a sense of Contra-rhythm.
As an actress, Sarah Wright is new to me but as well as being just stunningly photogenic she works with Cruise really well (despite being 20 years his junior – not wanting to be ageist, but this is the second Cruise film in a row I’ve pointed that out!)). Wright also gets my honourary award for the best airplane sex scene this decade!
“Time to pack honey”. Seal (Cruise) delivering a midnight surprise to wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) – and not in a good way.
Written by Gary Spinelli (this being only his second feature) the script is full of wit and panache and – while almost certainly (judging from wiki) stretches the truth as far as Seal’s cash-storage facilities – never completely over-eggs the pudding.
Doug Liman (“Jason Bourne“, “Edge of Tomorrow“) directs brilliantly, giving space among the action for enough character development to make you invest in what happens to the players. The 80’s setting is lovingly crafted with a garish colour-palette with well-chosen documentary video inserts of Carter, Reagan, Oliver Stone, George Bush and others. It also takes really chutzpah to direct a film that (unless I missed it) had neither a title nor any credits until the end.
The real Barry Seal.
The only vaguely negative view I had about this film is that it quietly glosses over the huge pain, death and suffering that the smuggled drugs will be causing to thousands of Americans under the covers. And this mildly guilty thought lingers with you after the lights come up to slightly – just slightly – take the edge off the fun.
Stylish, thrilling, moving and enormously funny in places, this is action cinema at its best. A must see film.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Christine (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
If it bleeds, it leads.
Life is precious. Bad times always get good again eventually. Winter turns to spring and you feel the warmth of the sun on your face again. So what drives someone – anyone – to the point of despair sufficient for them to ignore all of the potential upturns and to take their own life?
Christine tells the tragic tale of Florida TV news reporter Christine Chubbuck who committed suicide live on air in 1974. Yes, this is a spoiler, but since most people have some sense of what a film is about before they go to see it, it’s not really a big one. And I think in this case, knowing the outcome is pretty essential since otherwise you will likely spend 2 hours getting increasingly irritated by the erratic behaviour of the lead character and may possibly turn it off. With this movie, the telling is in the journey – not the destination.
London-born Rebecca Hall (“The Town”) plays the 30 year old virgin Christine; a damaged article with past mental issues, she has been moved by her mother Peg (J Smith-Cameron) from Boston to Florida to make a fresh start. But the station is struggling and Christine’s insistence on pursuing dull but worthy stories, such as zoning disputes, isn’t helping: she is driving her boss (Tracy Letts) to distraction. Despite her spiky demeanour and unapproachable nature, her colleagues including Jean (Maria Dizzia), the show’s anchor (and potential deflowerer) George (Michael C Hall) and weatherman Steve (Timothy Simons from “Veep”) all do their best to support her. It is part of the true tragedy of the piece that her downward spiral continues despite their best efforts.
Hall is outstanding in the role. She portrays the crazily compulsive behaviour of Chubbuck extremely well: perfectionism gone wild as she attempts to edit out 3 seconds off a clip while the film is already in the machine. At times the other-worldliness and creepiness of her character become extremely unsettling; an excruciating scene with a married couple in a bar being a case in point. Overall it’s an extremely thoughtful portrayal that is as quiet and unassuming as Ruth Negga’s in “Loving” (but without the smiles or the charm). I would like to think that after the Oscars team picked the ‘obvious contenders’ of Portman, Stone and Huppert, and with a place ‘reserved’ for Streep, they were left with Negga and Hall and had a “dammit, we can only pick 1 out of 2 here” moment.
Letts as the crotchety station chief also delivers a fine performance, and it’s a shame that the script never gave us the chance to see his post-shooting reactions, since the ‘if only’ ramifications for him in particular must have been huge.
In retrospect, Chubbuck’s actions were bizarre: taking her life in such a public way (and insisting the show be recorded for her “reels”) strikes of narcissism and a bitter revenge. While the film is no doubt based on the true recollections of the real-life participants, the screenplay by Craig Shilowich, in an impressive writing debut, for me never quite closed that loop: why this way rather that a car and a hosepipe?
Directed by Antonio Campos, this is never an easy watch. It’s a bit like watching a car crash in ultra-slow motion, and pretty much mandates that you watch an episode of “Father Ted” afterwards to cheer yourself up! But it’s a fascinating study in mental decline, and it’s a useful reminder that it behoves all of us to pay more attention to others around us and reach out with real help if needed before the worst can happen.
Christine tells the tragic tale of Florida TV news reporter Christine Chubbuck who committed suicide live on air in 1974. Yes, this is a spoiler, but since most people have some sense of what a film is about before they go to see it, it’s not really a big one. And I think in this case, knowing the outcome is pretty essential since otherwise you will likely spend 2 hours getting increasingly irritated by the erratic behaviour of the lead character and may possibly turn it off. With this movie, the telling is in the journey – not the destination.
London-born Rebecca Hall (“The Town”) plays the 30 year old virgin Christine; a damaged article with past mental issues, she has been moved by her mother Peg (J Smith-Cameron) from Boston to Florida to make a fresh start. But the station is struggling and Christine’s insistence on pursuing dull but worthy stories, such as zoning disputes, isn’t helping: she is driving her boss (Tracy Letts) to distraction. Despite her spiky demeanour and unapproachable nature, her colleagues including Jean (Maria Dizzia), the show’s anchor (and potential deflowerer) George (Michael C Hall) and weatherman Steve (Timothy Simons from “Veep”) all do their best to support her. It is part of the true tragedy of the piece that her downward spiral continues despite their best efforts.
Hall is outstanding in the role. She portrays the crazily compulsive behaviour of Chubbuck extremely well: perfectionism gone wild as she attempts to edit out 3 seconds off a clip while the film is already in the machine. At times the other-worldliness and creepiness of her character become extremely unsettling; an excruciating scene with a married couple in a bar being a case in point. Overall it’s an extremely thoughtful portrayal that is as quiet and unassuming as Ruth Negga’s in “Loving” (but without the smiles or the charm). I would like to think that after the Oscars team picked the ‘obvious contenders’ of Portman, Stone and Huppert, and with a place ‘reserved’ for Streep, they were left with Negga and Hall and had a “dammit, we can only pick 1 out of 2 here” moment.
Letts as the crotchety station chief also delivers a fine performance, and it’s a shame that the script never gave us the chance to see his post-shooting reactions, since the ‘if only’ ramifications for him in particular must have been huge.
In retrospect, Chubbuck’s actions were bizarre: taking her life in such a public way (and insisting the show be recorded for her “reels”) strikes of narcissism and a bitter revenge. While the film is no doubt based on the true recollections of the real-life participants, the screenplay by Craig Shilowich, in an impressive writing debut, for me never quite closed that loop: why this way rather that a car and a hosepipe?
Directed by Antonio Campos, this is never an easy watch. It’s a bit like watching a car crash in ultra-slow motion, and pretty much mandates that you watch an episode of “Father Ted” afterwards to cheer yourself up! But it’s a fascinating study in mental decline, and it’s a useful reminder that it behoves all of us to pay more attention to others around us and reach out with real help if needed before the worst can happen.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania (2023) in Movies
Mar 18, 2023
Middle of the Road Marvel
The good news for long-time, hard core Marvel Cinematic Universe fans is that the next “big bad” in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been unleashed and we will now get to see “Kang The Conqueror” (in his permutations) battling our heroes for the foreseeable future.
The bad news is that for casual fans – and folks that are just plain tired of the MCU – things are going to get more complex and convoluted as the MCU heads deeper into the “Comic Bookiness” of their source material.
Such is the case with ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA, the 3rd standalone Ant Man film starring Paul Ruud, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Douglas. It is a very “Comic Bookie” film in that it takes the audience to the “Quantum Realm” and all the quirky characters and locations therein.
Director Peyton Reed (who helmed the previous 2 Ant-Man films) leans into this “Comic Bookieness” in that he accents the weird and bizarre and creates comic-book-like panels on the images on the screen. Consequently, this makes the film interesting to look at, but for the most part, there is not much substance under the surface.
For their part, Ruud, Lilly, Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer (returning from the 2nd Ant-Man film) and newcomer Kathryn Newton (taking over the role of Ruud’s daughter, Cassie) are game in what they are asked to work with and react to (mostly to a green screen with CGI filled in later) and they all are winning (enough) presences on screen to spend a very enjoyable time with.
Jonathan Majors is on-board as Kang the Conqueror (a version of him was seen at the end of the first season of the Disney+ series LOKI) and he brings his considerable acting chops, gravitas and weight to the proceedings. He is a force to be reckoned with which was apparent from almost the first time he commanded the screen in this film. It will be interesting to see where he takes things from here.
The problem with this film is that it is (mostly) style with very little substance. Necessarily, the plot drives a more dramatic, darker theme to this Ant-Man film than in previous outings and the film suffers because of it. One of the charms of the Ant-Man films is that Director Reed was able to lean into the inherent goofiness of Paul Ruud and the absurd idea of him being able to shrink. That quirkiness and sense of fun is gone – as are regular characters played in the past 2 films by the likes of Bobby Canavale, Judy Greer, Randall Park (who has a blink or you’ll miss him cameo) and (most egregiously) Michael Pena.
What they are replaced by are some quirky “Quantum Realm” characters – most of whom are CGI and are voiced by some very good voice performers – it just doesn’t hit the same, since the overall theme is darker. Katy M. O’Brian and William Jackson Harper (who is rounding into a very intriguing performer) bring gusto to their roles as a few members of the Quantum realm, which helps pick up the sagginess of this film, but not enough. Not even a Bill Murray appearance can elevate this film to something funner than it is.
All in all a “fine” entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – and one that will remind you very much that you are watching a film based on Comic Book characters – but it falls squarely in the middle of the MCU entries...a catalogue of which is becoming very deep (maybe too deep), indeed.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The bad news is that for casual fans – and folks that are just plain tired of the MCU – things are going to get more complex and convoluted as the MCU heads deeper into the “Comic Bookiness” of their source material.
Such is the case with ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA, the 3rd standalone Ant Man film starring Paul Ruud, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Douglas. It is a very “Comic Bookie” film in that it takes the audience to the “Quantum Realm” and all the quirky characters and locations therein.
Director Peyton Reed (who helmed the previous 2 Ant-Man films) leans into this “Comic Bookieness” in that he accents the weird and bizarre and creates comic-book-like panels on the images on the screen. Consequently, this makes the film interesting to look at, but for the most part, there is not much substance under the surface.
For their part, Ruud, Lilly, Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer (returning from the 2nd Ant-Man film) and newcomer Kathryn Newton (taking over the role of Ruud’s daughter, Cassie) are game in what they are asked to work with and react to (mostly to a green screen with CGI filled in later) and they all are winning (enough) presences on screen to spend a very enjoyable time with.
Jonathan Majors is on-board as Kang the Conqueror (a version of him was seen at the end of the first season of the Disney+ series LOKI) and he brings his considerable acting chops, gravitas and weight to the proceedings. He is a force to be reckoned with which was apparent from almost the first time he commanded the screen in this film. It will be interesting to see where he takes things from here.
The problem with this film is that it is (mostly) style with very little substance. Necessarily, the plot drives a more dramatic, darker theme to this Ant-Man film than in previous outings and the film suffers because of it. One of the charms of the Ant-Man films is that Director Reed was able to lean into the inherent goofiness of Paul Ruud and the absurd idea of him being able to shrink. That quirkiness and sense of fun is gone – as are regular characters played in the past 2 films by the likes of Bobby Canavale, Judy Greer, Randall Park (who has a blink or you’ll miss him cameo) and (most egregiously) Michael Pena.
What they are replaced by are some quirky “Quantum Realm” characters – most of whom are CGI and are voiced by some very good voice performers – it just doesn’t hit the same, since the overall theme is darker. Katy M. O’Brian and William Jackson Harper (who is rounding into a very intriguing performer) bring gusto to their roles as a few members of the Quantum realm, which helps pick up the sagginess of this film, but not enough. Not even a Bill Murray appearance can elevate this film to something funner than it is.
All in all a “fine” entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – and one that will remind you very much that you are watching a film based on Comic Book characters – but it falls squarely in the middle of the MCU entries...a catalogue of which is becoming very deep (maybe too deep), indeed.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Strange Weather in Books
May 16, 2018
Strange Weather is the first bit of fiction I’ve managed to snare by Joe Hill. I heard some pretty great things about his work, but it’s possible I took those praises a little too much to heart. Rating this book doesn’t come easily. To quote what I told a friend on Twitter, reading Strange Weather felt like an attempt at chewing the gristle on steak. That is, wrong and uncomfortable, but not in a good way. I’ve decided to divvy my review up based on each storry.
SNAPSHOT
“Snapshot,” though a bit lacking in style, is one of two stories in this small collection that I found myself capable of tolerating. I figure it’s because this short tale embodies a sort of Twilight Zone and Night Gallery feel. It read the quickest out of the four stories and I found myself nearly in tears at its conclusion, so the best I can say about it is that I either felt something, or my emotions went bonkers again.
LOADED
The second shorty story in Hill’s collection, “Loaded,” is a bunch of driveling bullshit, for lack of a better word. I’m all about our Second Amendment Rights; I even have a cup that says “Don’t ban guns, ban idiots,” but this story encompasses the stereotypical idea that every gun owner or enthusiast is a batshit crazy blowhard that’s just looking for a reason to go off. I have friends and family that appreciate this machinery, that agree people should under go background and mental wellness checks prior to purchase of a fire arm, but this? This story just adds fuel to a fire that seeks kindling via blame on inanimate objects, rather than the person behind them. The main guy of “Loaded” shows us exactly how restricting gun ownership will fail so hey, better hurry and make it entirely illegal right? Oh, and let’s not get started with the over-saturation of Social Justice Warriorness in this piece. I’m all for equality, but this? This just reeks of extremism in a way that I almost abandoned the book as a whole.
ALOFT
“Aloft” is by far the best in this collection of short stories. An embodiment of the collections title, the main character encounters something unusual while fulfilling a dead friend’s promise and from there, things really take a turn for the bizarre. While I feel Hill gives us a bit too much exposition in this tale, there are many things about it that I feel should be appreciated. For instance, the next time anyone asks me what it’s like to have ulcerative colitis, I’ll probably ask them if they’ve read “Aloft”‘ by Joe Hill, because let’s face it: the torment Aubrey goes through gastrically (is that even a word?) in this story is a pretty damned accurate depiction of the suffering people with Crohn’s and Colitis endure.
RAIN
The final story in Hill’s collection seemed like it could have had a loft of potential. “Rain” further supports the title of the collection when a torrent of crystal nails fall from the sky to impale poor, unexpecting citizens. So what’s the problem then? “Rain” is so fundamentally flawed that it’s just… no. First, Hill is more obsessed with making fun of Trump in this story than the events that occur. This isn’t a bad thing – I absolutely loathe Trump, especially considering his policies may very well shorten my lifespan significantly. “Rain” is more a mockery than the story it could be. At least the twist at the end was fairly amusing, but by that point all I could do is roll my eyes in frustration.
CONCLUSION
Joe Hill’s Strange Weather is probably a poor choice for first time introduction to his work. In fact, it’s almost a deterrent considering it’s the first book by him that I read and I was ecstatic about receiving a review copy. It is with a bit of a heavy heart for the sake of disappointment that I am forced to conclude my review with a largely poor rating. Part of my compliance with FTC guidelines as a reviewer requires that I disclose when I read a free book in exchange for an honest, unbiased review. In this case, I’d like to thank Edelweiss and HarperCollins/William Morrow for this opportunity.
SNAPSHOT
“Snapshot,” though a bit lacking in style, is one of two stories in this small collection that I found myself capable of tolerating. I figure it’s because this short tale embodies a sort of Twilight Zone and Night Gallery feel. It read the quickest out of the four stories and I found myself nearly in tears at its conclusion, so the best I can say about it is that I either felt something, or my emotions went bonkers again.
LOADED
The second shorty story in Hill’s collection, “Loaded,” is a bunch of driveling bullshit, for lack of a better word. I’m all about our Second Amendment Rights; I even have a cup that says “Don’t ban guns, ban idiots,” but this story encompasses the stereotypical idea that every gun owner or enthusiast is a batshit crazy blowhard that’s just looking for a reason to go off. I have friends and family that appreciate this machinery, that agree people should under go background and mental wellness checks prior to purchase of a fire arm, but this? This story just adds fuel to a fire that seeks kindling via blame on inanimate objects, rather than the person behind them. The main guy of “Loaded” shows us exactly how restricting gun ownership will fail so hey, better hurry and make it entirely illegal right? Oh, and let’s not get started with the over-saturation of Social Justice Warriorness in this piece. I’m all for equality, but this? This just reeks of extremism in a way that I almost abandoned the book as a whole.
ALOFT
“Aloft” is by far the best in this collection of short stories. An embodiment of the collections title, the main character encounters something unusual while fulfilling a dead friend’s promise and from there, things really take a turn for the bizarre. While I feel Hill gives us a bit too much exposition in this tale, there are many things about it that I feel should be appreciated. For instance, the next time anyone asks me what it’s like to have ulcerative colitis, I’ll probably ask them if they’ve read “Aloft”‘ by Joe Hill, because let’s face it: the torment Aubrey goes through gastrically (is that even a word?) in this story is a pretty damned accurate depiction of the suffering people with Crohn’s and Colitis endure.
RAIN
The final story in Hill’s collection seemed like it could have had a loft of potential. “Rain” further supports the title of the collection when a torrent of crystal nails fall from the sky to impale poor, unexpecting citizens. So what’s the problem then? “Rain” is so fundamentally flawed that it’s just… no. First, Hill is more obsessed with making fun of Trump in this story than the events that occur. This isn’t a bad thing – I absolutely loathe Trump, especially considering his policies may very well shorten my lifespan significantly. “Rain” is more a mockery than the story it could be. At least the twist at the end was fairly amusing, but by that point all I could do is roll my eyes in frustration.
CONCLUSION
Joe Hill’s Strange Weather is probably a poor choice for first time introduction to his work. In fact, it’s almost a deterrent considering it’s the first book by him that I read and I was ecstatic about receiving a review copy. It is with a bit of a heavy heart for the sake of disappointment that I am forced to conclude my review with a largely poor rating. Part of my compliance with FTC guidelines as a reviewer requires that I disclose when I read a free book in exchange for an honest, unbiased review. In this case, I’d like to thank Edelweiss and HarperCollins/William Morrow for this opportunity.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Us (2019) in Movies
Apr 10, 2019 (Updated Apr 10, 2019)
Fantastic performances all round (2 more)
Brilliant direction
Lighting is on point
Just You & I
Contains spoilers, click to show
I saw Us last night and I really enjoyed it. It's the latest movie by comedian turned horror auteur Jordan Peele and after how much I loved Get Out, I was very much looking forward to seeing this. I think that if Us had came before Get Out, I probably would have enjoyed it more, as for every element that I enjoyed in Us, I couldn't help but keep thinking that it had already been done better in Get Out.
Okay, from this point on I am going to dive into spoilers, so please make sure that you have seen the movie before you continue reading.
The main reason that I am having to go into spoilers pretty soon into my review is because the shit hits the fan in this film fairly early on. In Get Out the first 3 quarters of the movie was build up before things eventually got nuts in the last 30 minutes, whereas in Us we are only just at the end of the first act when crazy shit starts to go down. I get why Peele did this from a filmmaker's perspective; in Get Out, we didn't really know what we were in for and he had the benefit of keeping us in the dark for as long as he wanted to, whereas in Us we all went in expecting bizarre things to take place, so rather than messing about for too long building tension, Peele lets things get weird fairly early in the film. Whether you prefer the slower burn of Get Out like I did, or the faster pace in Us will be down to personal preference.
The worst thing about Us is that it is following Get Out. Even when something really cool happens, it was done better in Get Out. Take the score for example; it is pretty great in Us, but was superior in Get Out. The same goes for the editing, the script, the cinematography and a whole load of other technical elements. One thing that did stand out was the fantastic use of lighting. It was perfect in every scene throughout the film and conveyed the feelings that Peele was subjecting the audience to flawlessly.
The performances were also great. The whole cast did a fantastic job, (including the kids,) but the stand outs for me were Lupita Nyong'o and Elisabeth Moss. They were pretty good as the normal versions of their characters, but they really shone when they got to play the psychotic doppelgangers, for way more reasons than just how scary they were.
Another thing that I liked was that for the most part, the film doesn't treat you like you are dumb, with one exception. The film opens on a shot of an old CRT TV showing various adverts. One of these is an advert for Santa Cruz tourism and another tells us that the year is 1986. In the very next shot we are shown a title card reading, "Santa Cruz, 1986." This isn't an outrageous inclusion, just one that causes an eyeroll for anyone actually paying attention to what they are seeing onscreen.
Another thing that didn't quite work for me was the use of comedy. Where Get Out used comedy to cut away from the intensity and give the audience a breather, Us intertwined it more with the carnage, which made it come off as fairly messy in parts. Don't get me wrong, any comedic lines were well written and well delivered, I just feel that they could have been implemented a bit better.
Overall, Us is another great horror/thriller from Jordan Peele. I know that I compared it to Get Out all the way through this review, but even when watching it, it is extremely hard not to make comparisons. That does not mean that this is a bad movie by any stretch though and I am very much looking forward to seeing Peele's upcoming Twilight Zone series as well as any other projects he is working on.
Okay, from this point on I am going to dive into spoilers, so please make sure that you have seen the movie before you continue reading.
The main reason that I am having to go into spoilers pretty soon into my review is because the shit hits the fan in this film fairly early on. In Get Out the first 3 quarters of the movie was build up before things eventually got nuts in the last 30 minutes, whereas in Us we are only just at the end of the first act when crazy shit starts to go down. I get why Peele did this from a filmmaker's perspective; in Get Out, we didn't really know what we were in for and he had the benefit of keeping us in the dark for as long as he wanted to, whereas in Us we all went in expecting bizarre things to take place, so rather than messing about for too long building tension, Peele lets things get weird fairly early in the film. Whether you prefer the slower burn of Get Out like I did, or the faster pace in Us will be down to personal preference.
The worst thing about Us is that it is following Get Out. Even when something really cool happens, it was done better in Get Out. Take the score for example; it is pretty great in Us, but was superior in Get Out. The same goes for the editing, the script, the cinematography and a whole load of other technical elements. One thing that did stand out was the fantastic use of lighting. It was perfect in every scene throughout the film and conveyed the feelings that Peele was subjecting the audience to flawlessly.
The performances were also great. The whole cast did a fantastic job, (including the kids,) but the stand outs for me were Lupita Nyong'o and Elisabeth Moss. They were pretty good as the normal versions of their characters, but they really shone when they got to play the psychotic doppelgangers, for way more reasons than just how scary they were.
Another thing that I liked was that for the most part, the film doesn't treat you like you are dumb, with one exception. The film opens on a shot of an old CRT TV showing various adverts. One of these is an advert for Santa Cruz tourism and another tells us that the year is 1986. In the very next shot we are shown a title card reading, "Santa Cruz, 1986." This isn't an outrageous inclusion, just one that causes an eyeroll for anyone actually paying attention to what they are seeing onscreen.
Another thing that didn't quite work for me was the use of comedy. Where Get Out used comedy to cut away from the intensity and give the audience a breather, Us intertwined it more with the carnage, which made it come off as fairly messy in parts. Don't get me wrong, any comedic lines were well written and well delivered, I just feel that they could have been implemented a bit better.
Overall, Us is another great horror/thriller from Jordan Peele. I know that I compared it to Get Out all the way through this review, but even when watching it, it is extremely hard not to make comparisons. That does not mean that this is a bad movie by any stretch though and I am very much looking forward to seeing Peele's upcoming Twilight Zone series as well as any other projects he is working on.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 (2012) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Twilight Saga has had a tough time in its short screen life. Constant comparisons to Harry Potter and now The Hunger Games have ensured that it has taken a back seat to these franchises. After 3 bitterly disappointing instalments in the series, Breaking Dawn Part 1 which was released last year lifted the bar and promised a fine end to the series. One year later, Part 2 has been released, but can it keep up the momentum set by its predecessor?
The answer, unfortunately is no and as Robert Pattinson (Edward Cullen), Taylor Lautner, (Jacob Black) and Kristen Stewart (Bella Swan) pull the curtains over the long suffering franchise, you can’t help but feel a strange sense of sadness. These films haven’t been as good as they could’ve.
Breaking Dawn Part 2 starts immediately where the last film finished as Bella Swan (Stewart) gives birth to her half-human, half-vampire child. For some bizarre reason, the blood and childbirth elements of the last film have been completely thrown to the wind as Bella awakens as a vampire and is better than ever. Not reminding viewers of what went before was a major oversight on the part of director Bill Condon and those not familiar with the books will have a hard time remembering what happened last year.
It just so happens that Bella and Edward’s daughter Renesmee is growing at an astonishing rate. To show this, the producers have created her with a CGI layering effect which means using a real baby with a CGI face. Unfortunately, this means that Renesmee is the creepiest baby you will have ever had the misfortune to see. Surely there must’ve been some money left over from the $120m budget to create a real treat for fans. As it is, the first time you lay eyes on Renesmee, there is a gasp of horror rather than adoration.
Unfortunately, the sinister Volturi have gotten wind of Renesmee’s existence thanks to a brief cameo by Maggie Grace (Taken 2) as Irina. She mistakenly believes that the child is a pure vampire which is, under no circumstances allowed. Michael Sheen is a highlight as Aro, leader of the Volturi, his camp, unbelievably over the top performance, highlighted perfectly in the film’s finale, is a breath of fresh air against the heavy breathing, downtrodden characterisations from the rest of the cast.
Special effects have never been a strong point for this movie franchise and things really haven’t improved in this latest instalment. We’ve already mentioned the horror of Bella’s demon baby, but the werewolves are pretty bad too and really don’t move the game on at all. In fact, in some sequences it’s like we’re back in the 90s.
It’s not all bad news however; a real highlight for me throughout the course of the films has been the excellent cinematography. The setting is absolutely wonderful, from the snow-capped peaks and plains, to the cliff edges and forests, everything looks fantastic and director Bill Condon really knows how to maximise the environment he has been given to work with.
Unfortunately, no amount of scenery can save a film which, ultimately is a bit of a damp squib. This is more apparent in the finale, which I can honestly say is one of the worst I have ever seen in a film franchise. This is, partly down to Stephenie Meyer’s amateurish writing in the novel, which ensures the final scenes which should’ve been a joy to watch, are completely disregarded and frankly, stupid.
So, there we have it, The Twilight Saga has ended and what a saga it has been. Three average films at best gave way to Breaking Dawn Part 1, which showed promise and could possibly have been the saviour of the franchise. However, the release of Breaking Dawn Part 2 has pushed things back to where it was before the 3rd instalment, Eclipse. The series’ passionate fans have deserved much better and when it should’ve been going out with a bit of bite, instead, we leave Twilight on a bit of a whimper.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/12/03/twilight-breaking-dawn-pt-2-review/
The answer, unfortunately is no and as Robert Pattinson (Edward Cullen), Taylor Lautner, (Jacob Black) and Kristen Stewart (Bella Swan) pull the curtains over the long suffering franchise, you can’t help but feel a strange sense of sadness. These films haven’t been as good as they could’ve.
Breaking Dawn Part 2 starts immediately where the last film finished as Bella Swan (Stewart) gives birth to her half-human, half-vampire child. For some bizarre reason, the blood and childbirth elements of the last film have been completely thrown to the wind as Bella awakens as a vampire and is better than ever. Not reminding viewers of what went before was a major oversight on the part of director Bill Condon and those not familiar with the books will have a hard time remembering what happened last year.
It just so happens that Bella and Edward’s daughter Renesmee is growing at an astonishing rate. To show this, the producers have created her with a CGI layering effect which means using a real baby with a CGI face. Unfortunately, this means that Renesmee is the creepiest baby you will have ever had the misfortune to see. Surely there must’ve been some money left over from the $120m budget to create a real treat for fans. As it is, the first time you lay eyes on Renesmee, there is a gasp of horror rather than adoration.
Unfortunately, the sinister Volturi have gotten wind of Renesmee’s existence thanks to a brief cameo by Maggie Grace (Taken 2) as Irina. She mistakenly believes that the child is a pure vampire which is, under no circumstances allowed. Michael Sheen is a highlight as Aro, leader of the Volturi, his camp, unbelievably over the top performance, highlighted perfectly in the film’s finale, is a breath of fresh air against the heavy breathing, downtrodden characterisations from the rest of the cast.
Special effects have never been a strong point for this movie franchise and things really haven’t improved in this latest instalment. We’ve already mentioned the horror of Bella’s demon baby, but the werewolves are pretty bad too and really don’t move the game on at all. In fact, in some sequences it’s like we’re back in the 90s.
It’s not all bad news however; a real highlight for me throughout the course of the films has been the excellent cinematography. The setting is absolutely wonderful, from the snow-capped peaks and plains, to the cliff edges and forests, everything looks fantastic and director Bill Condon really knows how to maximise the environment he has been given to work with.
Unfortunately, no amount of scenery can save a film which, ultimately is a bit of a damp squib. This is more apparent in the finale, which I can honestly say is one of the worst I have ever seen in a film franchise. This is, partly down to Stephenie Meyer’s amateurish writing in the novel, which ensures the final scenes which should’ve been a joy to watch, are completely disregarded and frankly, stupid.
So, there we have it, The Twilight Saga has ended and what a saga it has been. Three average films at best gave way to Breaking Dawn Part 1, which showed promise and could possibly have been the saviour of the franchise. However, the release of Breaking Dawn Part 2 has pushed things back to where it was before the 3rd instalment, Eclipse. The series’ passionate fans have deserved much better and when it should’ve been going out with a bit of bite, instead, we leave Twilight on a bit of a whimper.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/12/03/twilight-breaking-dawn-pt-2-review/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Flight Attendant in Books
Feb 26, 2018
Compulsively readable (1 more)
Fascinating, befuddling story
Unpredictable book that sucks you in from the start
Cassandra Bowen is a flight attendant with a history of bad decisions--most of them tied to her predilection to heavy drinking. Mostly her drinking leads to sexual encounters with dubious men, topless dancing, and a few bouts of blackouts. But when Cassie's work takes her to Dubai, she spends the night with a gentleman she met on the plane, drinking heavily with him all evening; in the morning she wakes up next to him in bed and finds him dead, covered in blood. Alone and female in Dubai, Cassie sneaks out of the hotel room and returns home on the plane with her fellow flight attendants, setting off a trail of lies that will haunt her. And in the back of her mind, she fears the worst: could she have killed Alex while drunk? And what will happen when the authorities discover her deception?
This novel starts off with a bang, with Cassie waking up next to a dead man. Once Cassie gets back to the States, I found myself fascinated what could possibly happen for the other 80% of the book. (My mistake, a lot can happen.) The entire novel kept me wondering what on earth would come next. This is a crazy, unpredictable book that sucks you in and never lets you go. I was constantly wondering who the various characters were--who really was Alex, for instance? Is there more to Cassie than we are being told? I was honestly confused for a good portion of the book, which doesn't happen often when I read.
It was really fun and befuddling to piece things together in this one. The book was rather stressful, trying to decipher all the various characters and to deal with Cassie's high-risk behavior. As the end nears, I was actually shocked by a couple of twists, which I really appreciated. It's rare that a thriller truly shocks me anymore. I was truly impressed with this one. The ending was a little odd, but as I pondered it more, I think I'm good with it.
As for Cassie, she was a hard character to like, and there's certainly been no shortage of unreliable drunken female narrators in contemporary fiction as of late. Still, you can't help but get caught up in her story. It's compulsively readable. There are also lots of good flight attendant stories; Chris Bohjalian always well researches his books.
Cassie's chapters also alternate with a woman named Elena, which is an effective storytelling device, and only ratchets up the suspense. Her tale is just as befuddling as Cassie's--perhaps even more so--and just added to my desire to turn the pages and find out what on earth was going on and how these people were all connected. Bohjalian really weaved a fascinating story here, and I love how all of his books are so different. Whereas some can be emotional, this one was truly a thriller, and focused so much on the story and mystery. It wasn't exactly what I was expecting, but it was great.
I also found some amusing little personal tidbits in the book: references to Charlottesville (the second in a row in the novels I read--it's my hometown) and Cassie's Kentucky references, including her attendance at the University of Kentucky. We are, in fact, a UK and UVA household--my five-year-old twins are very divided between the two. It's funny how little things stick with you when you read a novel.
Overall, this was a great read. Completely befuddling, but incredibly suspenseful and just sort of fun. Not at all what I expected from Bohjalian, but a fascinating, enjoyable thriller. I was completely lost in Cassie and Elena's bizarre world for a few days--the sign of a great book. 4 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review; more at http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.
This novel starts off with a bang, with Cassie waking up next to a dead man. Once Cassie gets back to the States, I found myself fascinated what could possibly happen for the other 80% of the book. (My mistake, a lot can happen.) The entire novel kept me wondering what on earth would come next. This is a crazy, unpredictable book that sucks you in and never lets you go. I was constantly wondering who the various characters were--who really was Alex, for instance? Is there more to Cassie than we are being told? I was honestly confused for a good portion of the book, which doesn't happen often when I read.
It was really fun and befuddling to piece things together in this one. The book was rather stressful, trying to decipher all the various characters and to deal with Cassie's high-risk behavior. As the end nears, I was actually shocked by a couple of twists, which I really appreciated. It's rare that a thriller truly shocks me anymore. I was truly impressed with this one. The ending was a little odd, but as I pondered it more, I think I'm good with it.
As for Cassie, she was a hard character to like, and there's certainly been no shortage of unreliable drunken female narrators in contemporary fiction as of late. Still, you can't help but get caught up in her story. It's compulsively readable. There are also lots of good flight attendant stories; Chris Bohjalian always well researches his books.
Cassie's chapters also alternate with a woman named Elena, which is an effective storytelling device, and only ratchets up the suspense. Her tale is just as befuddling as Cassie's--perhaps even more so--and just added to my desire to turn the pages and find out what on earth was going on and how these people were all connected. Bohjalian really weaved a fascinating story here, and I love how all of his books are so different. Whereas some can be emotional, this one was truly a thriller, and focused so much on the story and mystery. It wasn't exactly what I was expecting, but it was great.
I also found some amusing little personal tidbits in the book: references to Charlottesville (the second in a row in the novels I read--it's my hometown) and Cassie's Kentucky references, including her attendance at the University of Kentucky. We are, in fact, a UK and UVA household--my five-year-old twins are very divided between the two. It's funny how little things stick with you when you read a novel.
Overall, this was a great read. Completely befuddling, but incredibly suspenseful and just sort of fun. Not at all what I expected from Bohjalian, but a fascinating, enjoyable thriller. I was completely lost in Cassie and Elena's bizarre world for a few days--the sign of a great book. 4 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review; more at http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated We're The Millers (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Life for petty drug dealer David Clark (Jason Sudeikes) is a fairly routine existence. He has his regular customers and makes his living selling small quantities of marijuana to his regulars while maintaining his ethical standards not to sell to children. David had fallen into this line of work in college and is managed to get by and save $20,000 for himself. David’s former college cohort Brad (Ed Helms) is his major supplier and unlike David, Brad has grown extremely wealthy and powerful through letting people like David do the dirty work.
David has long held a torch for his neighbor Rose (Jennifer Aniston), a stripper with a heart of gold who seems only successful at attracting loser boyfriends and maintaining her disdain for David.
When a local homeless girl named Casey (Emma Roberts), is accosted in front of his apartment building, David reluctantly comes to the aid of a well-intentioned dork named Kenny (Will Poulter), who has a habit of acting without thinking. Since Kenny is one of David’s neighbors and despite his geeky nature a good kid, David reluctantly becomes involved and soon finds himself the target of the assailants. Adding insult to injury, the robbers take all his money and drug supplies, including his savings.
Unable to pay Brad for what was taken, David reluctantly enters into an agreement where he traveled to Mexico and return a quantity of marijuana for Brad who in turn will wipe his debts clean and pay him for his efforts. Not wanting to end up in jail but seeing no other way out of his predicament, David enlists Casey, Kenny, and a reluctant but desperate Rose to pose as his all-American family for the trip in an effort to throw off any customs or law enforcement officials would be suspicious of David traveling alone.
Things seem to go smoothly at first despite tensions amongst the ad hoc family and despite a rendezvous with some scary individuals; they soon find their R.V. loaded to the max with bundles of drugs. This development panics David as he was expecting to transport only a modest amount across the border and realizes that being discovered with the quantities he’s attempting to smuggle into the country would result in some serious jail time.
Undaunted, the family who dubbed themselves the Miller’s continue with the plan which results in a series of humorous misfortunes along the way him including an overzealous RV couple (Nick Offerman and Katheryn Hahn), who just happens to be an active DEA agent with a knack for showing up no matter where the Miller’s go. You race against time with some serious bad guys in pursuit; the Miller’s must come together and put aside their dysfunctions to accomplish their bizarre and wacky mission.
While most people will be able to see the romantic subplots from a mile away what really makes this film shine is the outrageous comedy that is persistent throughout. The best laughs have not been wasted in the trailers which is unfortunately all too common for films of this type and the supporting work of Offerman and Poulter nearly steal the movie. Aniston is essentially playing the same character she plays in almost every one of her performances but at least she gets to take a little bit wilder edge that she teased in last year’s “Horrible Bosses”. Her repair shop striptease is definitely one of the more memorable scenes in the film that has nothing on the tender yet humorous scene or she decides to help Kenny out in regard to his awkwardness with women.
Sudeikes has really been on a roll of late as he not only had a hit with the previously mentioned “Horrible Bosses”, but has done solid work in the interim not the least of which is his outing as the sympathetic Dave. One would think film about drug smugglers, strippers, and other social undesirables would not be so enjoyable nor would characters come across is so endearing and sympathetic. That being said the film was definitely very pleasant supriserites and if you set your expectations accordingly you may find yourself not only laughing along at the outrageous antics but looking forward to spending more time with this crazy group in the future.
http://sknr.net/2013/08/07/were-the-millers/
David has long held a torch for his neighbor Rose (Jennifer Aniston), a stripper with a heart of gold who seems only successful at attracting loser boyfriends and maintaining her disdain for David.
When a local homeless girl named Casey (Emma Roberts), is accosted in front of his apartment building, David reluctantly comes to the aid of a well-intentioned dork named Kenny (Will Poulter), who has a habit of acting without thinking. Since Kenny is one of David’s neighbors and despite his geeky nature a good kid, David reluctantly becomes involved and soon finds himself the target of the assailants. Adding insult to injury, the robbers take all his money and drug supplies, including his savings.
Unable to pay Brad for what was taken, David reluctantly enters into an agreement where he traveled to Mexico and return a quantity of marijuana for Brad who in turn will wipe his debts clean and pay him for his efforts. Not wanting to end up in jail but seeing no other way out of his predicament, David enlists Casey, Kenny, and a reluctant but desperate Rose to pose as his all-American family for the trip in an effort to throw off any customs or law enforcement officials would be suspicious of David traveling alone.
Things seem to go smoothly at first despite tensions amongst the ad hoc family and despite a rendezvous with some scary individuals; they soon find their R.V. loaded to the max with bundles of drugs. This development panics David as he was expecting to transport only a modest amount across the border and realizes that being discovered with the quantities he’s attempting to smuggle into the country would result in some serious jail time.
Undaunted, the family who dubbed themselves the Miller’s continue with the plan which results in a series of humorous misfortunes along the way him including an overzealous RV couple (Nick Offerman and Katheryn Hahn), who just happens to be an active DEA agent with a knack for showing up no matter where the Miller’s go. You race against time with some serious bad guys in pursuit; the Miller’s must come together and put aside their dysfunctions to accomplish their bizarre and wacky mission.
While most people will be able to see the romantic subplots from a mile away what really makes this film shine is the outrageous comedy that is persistent throughout. The best laughs have not been wasted in the trailers which is unfortunately all too common for films of this type and the supporting work of Offerman and Poulter nearly steal the movie. Aniston is essentially playing the same character she plays in almost every one of her performances but at least she gets to take a little bit wilder edge that she teased in last year’s “Horrible Bosses”. Her repair shop striptease is definitely one of the more memorable scenes in the film that has nothing on the tender yet humorous scene or she decides to help Kenny out in regard to his awkwardness with women.
Sudeikes has really been on a roll of late as he not only had a hit with the previously mentioned “Horrible Bosses”, but has done solid work in the interim not the least of which is his outing as the sympathetic Dave. One would think film about drug smugglers, strippers, and other social undesirables would not be so enjoyable nor would characters come across is so endearing and sympathetic. That being said the film was definitely very pleasant supriserites and if you set your expectations accordingly you may find yourself not only laughing along at the outrageous antics but looking forward to spending more time with this crazy group in the future.
http://sknr.net/2013/08/07/were-the-millers/