Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Murder on the Orient Express is a mystery drama directed by, and starring, Kenneth Branagh and is based on the 1934 Agatha Christie novel of the same name. The film brings in a spectacular cast alongside Branagh, including Penelope Cruz, Willem Dafoe, Judi Dench, Johnny Depp, Josh Gad, Michelle Pfeiffer and Daisy Ridley. Also part of the main cast, while not well known, but equally as talented, are Tom Bateman, Derek Jacobi, Leslie Odom Jr. and Lucy Boynton.
For those unfamiliar with the novel, or the 1974 and 2001 adaptations, Murder tells the story of, well… a murder. On a train. It’s really a lot more than that. Branagh portrays Hercule Poirot, a famed Belgian detective who is looking forward to some time off. But during his travels, a most unfortunate thing happens. Two things actually. Someone is murdered aboard the train he is traveling on, the Orient Express (naturally). And the murderer would’ve gotten away free and clear had storm not caused an avalanche, which thanks to a derailed engine, caused the train to become stuck and the body to be discovered. Poirot’s friend, Bouc (Bateman), runs the train and requested that Poirot solve the mystery before the police arrive in fear of someone innocent being accused, and to save himself from a heyday with his father. Can Poirot find out who is the killer between the star-studded cast?
I’ve read the novel. Seen both adaptations. This film blows those earlier adaptations out of the water. There is no contest here. Now clearly, nothing can beat the book. But Murder is about as great a film you can get in the murky land of Hollywood these days. As mentioned, Branagh directed and starred in the film, which he shot on 65 mm. The last time he did this was with Hamlet in 1996. It looked good then, and it looks even better now. With eye-popping visuals throughout the entirety of the film, and a masterful soundtrack that seamlessly blended with the tones and themes of each scene, the film is a modern masterpiece.
It wasn’t without its faults. (Most) every film has them. And there are a lot of people who are upset with Branagh’s portrayal of Poirot, particularly the representation of his eccentric facial hair. I am not one of those people. I believe it, along with other amazing moments, lent a bit of humor to the movie to break up what should otherwise be, and is, a serious whodunit mystery. Also, I felt they changed a few things in the adaptation that didn’t necessarily need to be changed.
I found it hard to sit and write about the film though. Given the nature of a great mystery, I can’t tell you too much about it without risk of giving out crucial details to the plot and outcome. So I will leave you with this, boys, girls, and everything in between and beyond… with a great and talented cast (bravo to Michelle Pfeiffer in particular) who nailed home their characters, to great visuals, and a great score, this movie is definitely one you want to catch.
For those unfamiliar with the novel, or the 1974 and 2001 adaptations, Murder tells the story of, well… a murder. On a train. It’s really a lot more than that. Branagh portrays Hercule Poirot, a famed Belgian detective who is looking forward to some time off. But during his travels, a most unfortunate thing happens. Two things actually. Someone is murdered aboard the train he is traveling on, the Orient Express (naturally). And the murderer would’ve gotten away free and clear had storm not caused an avalanche, which thanks to a derailed engine, caused the train to become stuck and the body to be discovered. Poirot’s friend, Bouc (Bateman), runs the train and requested that Poirot solve the mystery before the police arrive in fear of someone innocent being accused, and to save himself from a heyday with his father. Can Poirot find out who is the killer between the star-studded cast?
I’ve read the novel. Seen both adaptations. This film blows those earlier adaptations out of the water. There is no contest here. Now clearly, nothing can beat the book. But Murder is about as great a film you can get in the murky land of Hollywood these days. As mentioned, Branagh directed and starred in the film, which he shot on 65 mm. The last time he did this was with Hamlet in 1996. It looked good then, and it looks even better now. With eye-popping visuals throughout the entirety of the film, and a masterful soundtrack that seamlessly blended with the tones and themes of each scene, the film is a modern masterpiece.
It wasn’t without its faults. (Most) every film has them. And there are a lot of people who are upset with Branagh’s portrayal of Poirot, particularly the representation of his eccentric facial hair. I am not one of those people. I believe it, along with other amazing moments, lent a bit of humor to the movie to break up what should otherwise be, and is, a serious whodunit mystery. Also, I felt they changed a few things in the adaptation that didn’t necessarily need to be changed.
I found it hard to sit and write about the film though. Given the nature of a great mystery, I can’t tell you too much about it without risk of giving out crucial details to the plot and outcome. So I will leave you with this, boys, girls, and everything in between and beyond… with a great and talented cast (bravo to Michelle Pfeiffer in particular) who nailed home their characters, to great visuals, and a great score, this movie is definitely one you want to catch.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Devil Wears Prada (2006) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
I was watching The Devil Wears Prada the other day on ITV2 and forgot just how brilliant a film it is, it really did exceed expectations back then in 2006 and even now in 2011. Here’s the review I wrote all those years ago. Enjoy!
David Frankel, a rather unknown television director makes his debut on the silver screen in this stunning adaptation of Lauren Weisberger’s not so stunning novel, The Devil Wears Prada.
Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep join a mesmerising cast in this surprisingly brilliant rom-com. The premise is simple and kept that way to ensure all detail is carried across in depth without missing any major points from the novel. Weisberger should be astounded that Frankel managed to turn her rather lacklustre book into a first-rate movie.
Anne Hathaway plays ‘Andy Sax’, an unknown journalist with no eye for fashion who wants to get her foot on the bottom ladder of the media industry. Her character simply leaps off the screen, from her dopey, lovable personality to her cheap, second rate clothing; she is truly a joy to watch. Emily Blunt plays the fashion conscious assistant who would do anything and everything to get as high as possible in the clothing industry; again, her character is played with a love/hate finesse that few actresses of 2006 can match.
However, by far the best performance is given by Meryl Streep as ‘Miranda Priestly’, editor and chief of ‘Runway’ magazine. Sly, career obsessed with a dash of emotionality added in, she is exceptional in her role and should be seriously considered for an Oscar at this years awards. Her dialogue is spoken with a heartless brilliance that no other actress could even hold a candle to, she is perfectly cast in this role.
Stanley Tucci plays a somewhat flat member of the team, possibly due to his little screen time, but he is by no means dull, with personality abound.
The soundtrack is genius, and perfectly matched to the film, from the outset right up until the closing credits, each song is flawlessly integrated into the feature. Camera-work is also on par with the best of this year and really helps the characters stand out in their roles.
Where most rom-coms use cheap gags to gain laughs from the audience, Prada expects you to think a little more about what you’re laughing at, a deep message about ones self discovery is incorporated, but well hidden in the film. Of course there are a few laughs of the cheap kind, but unusually, they are actually funny. Comedy really doesn’t get much better than right here.
Some scenes in the film have been directed so well, that the more emotional among us may be reaching for the tissues. The transition from comedy to seriousness is exceptionally watertight, you’ll be laughing one minute and on the edge of your seat the next.
The ending of the film is perhaps of a slight anti-climax, but it portrays a wonderfully deep message about inner emotion, leaving a huge smile on your face as the credits role.
To put it simply, The Devil Wears Prada is a practically faultless movie which should appeal to a huge and diverse range of people. The acting, direction and soundtrack are all absolutely perfect and I think we may have a found a future classic character in ‘Miranda Priestly.’ It’s a joy to watch. Be a devil and go see it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/01/19/a-blast-from-the-past-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
David Frankel, a rather unknown television director makes his debut on the silver screen in this stunning adaptation of Lauren Weisberger’s not so stunning novel, The Devil Wears Prada.
Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep join a mesmerising cast in this surprisingly brilliant rom-com. The premise is simple and kept that way to ensure all detail is carried across in depth without missing any major points from the novel. Weisberger should be astounded that Frankel managed to turn her rather lacklustre book into a first-rate movie.
Anne Hathaway plays ‘Andy Sax’, an unknown journalist with no eye for fashion who wants to get her foot on the bottom ladder of the media industry. Her character simply leaps off the screen, from her dopey, lovable personality to her cheap, second rate clothing; she is truly a joy to watch. Emily Blunt plays the fashion conscious assistant who would do anything and everything to get as high as possible in the clothing industry; again, her character is played with a love/hate finesse that few actresses of 2006 can match.
However, by far the best performance is given by Meryl Streep as ‘Miranda Priestly’, editor and chief of ‘Runway’ magazine. Sly, career obsessed with a dash of emotionality added in, she is exceptional in her role and should be seriously considered for an Oscar at this years awards. Her dialogue is spoken with a heartless brilliance that no other actress could even hold a candle to, she is perfectly cast in this role.
Stanley Tucci plays a somewhat flat member of the team, possibly due to his little screen time, but he is by no means dull, with personality abound.
The soundtrack is genius, and perfectly matched to the film, from the outset right up until the closing credits, each song is flawlessly integrated into the feature. Camera-work is also on par with the best of this year and really helps the characters stand out in their roles.
Where most rom-coms use cheap gags to gain laughs from the audience, Prada expects you to think a little more about what you’re laughing at, a deep message about ones self discovery is incorporated, but well hidden in the film. Of course there are a few laughs of the cheap kind, but unusually, they are actually funny. Comedy really doesn’t get much better than right here.
Some scenes in the film have been directed so well, that the more emotional among us may be reaching for the tissues. The transition from comedy to seriousness is exceptionally watertight, you’ll be laughing one minute and on the edge of your seat the next.
The ending of the film is perhaps of a slight anti-climax, but it portrays a wonderfully deep message about inner emotion, leaving a huge smile on your face as the credits role.
To put it simply, The Devil Wears Prada is a practically faultless movie which should appeal to a huge and diverse range of people. The acting, direction and soundtrack are all absolutely perfect and I think we may have a found a future classic character in ‘Miranda Priestly.’ It’s a joy to watch. Be a devil and go see it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/01/19/a-blast-from-the-past-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
The Insider's Guide to Independent Film Distribution
Book
Innovation in technology means that almost anyone can make an independent film these days. Although...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Assistant (2020) in Movies
May 24, 2020
Julia Garner's performance (1 more)
The tension that manages to be created through a portrayal of the mundane
The movie seems to have a lot of haters on IMDB (a rating at the time of writing of 5.9)... but I refuse to follow "the pack" on this one... I thought it was great. It manages to make the mundane incredibly tense. This is this first (semi-)fictional feature from documentary-maker Kitty Green.... and in my book she does a knock-out job.
We first meet Jane (Julia Garner) at 'God-knows-what-o-clock' in the morning as she arrives at her workplace - a New York film-production company. First to arrive every morning, she turns on the lights, turns on the screens, makes the pot of coffee and cleans off stains from her boss's couch. The stain isn't coffee. A lost gold bracelet is recovered.
For we are in a truly toxic working environment here. 'The boss' - clearly modelled on Harvey Weinstein - is a bullying tyrant who can reduce Jane and her two male assistants (Jon Orsini and Noah Robbins) to quivering wrecks. "WHAT THE F*** DID YOU SAY TO HER" barks the boss down the phone at Jane, after she has had a perfectly reasonable phone conversation with the estranged Mrs Boss.
The toxicity is pervasive though throughout Miram..., sorry...., 'the company'. Jane is almost invisible to her other co-workers who don't give her eye-contact even when she's talking to them and barely register her presence when sharing a lift.
But bullying and workplace toxicity is just part of this story. A steady stream of starlets arrive in the office, like meat deliveries to a butcher. In a chilling sequence, the photocopier churns out photos of beautiful actresses.... a paper-based equivalent of swiping-left or -right in the selection process. None of the "if you... I will" discussions are shown, but they don't need to be: the inference is clear.
Jane is smart, slim and pretty... but not in an obvious 'Hollywood way'. "You'll be OK..." says a co-worker "you're not his type".
But someone who distinctly is "his type" is Sienna (Kristine Froseth), a "very very young" aspiring waitress-come-actress from Boise, who suddenly and unexpectedly arrives as a "new assistant"... to be promptly put up in a swanky hotel room. It's time to act... and Jane approaches the company HR manager (Matthew Macfadyen)....
An old Spielberg trick is to increase tension by keeping the "monster" hidden from view: cue the tanker driver from "Duel" and (for most of the film) the shark from "Jaws". Here, the boss is felt only as a malevolent force and never seen on screen. It's an approach that works brilliantly, focusing the emotion on the effect he has on those flamed.
There is also recognition that these powerful people are also hugely intelligent and manipulative. Seeing that Jane is a valuable asset, the public berating is sometimes followed up with a private email apology.... dripping a few words of encouragement and praise like a few drops of Methadone to a drug-addict.
This is an excellent movie and thoughtfully and elegantly directed. Following a normal day in Jane's work life.... albeit a day where perhaps the penny finally drops... is immersive and engaging. And at only 88 minutes long, the movie never outstays its welcome.
The performances are first rate. Julia Garner is magnificent, and in a year where the Oscars will be "interesting", here's a good candidate for Best Actress I would suggest if not Best Picture. Garner's an actress I'm unfamiliar with: the only one of her previous flicks I've seen was Sin City 2.
Also oily and impressive is Matthew Macfadyen as the HR manager. There's also a sparse but well-used score by Tamar-kali.
The one area I found poor was in the sound design. It's clearly filmed in an office environment, rather than on a sound stage, and unfortunately the combination of the acoustics and the New York accents makes some of the dialogue really difficult to hear. An example is a discussion between two co-workers in an office kitchen, which was completely indecipherable for me.
Should I watch this? In my view, definitely, yes. It's chilling and an insight into the terrible ordeal that many professional women in the film industry, and other industries, have had to put up with before the "Me Too" lid was blown off (and many probably still do). The most telling line in the film? At the end of the "Thanks" in the end-titles: "All those who shared their experiences".
(See the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/05/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-assistant-2020/ . Thanks).
We first meet Jane (Julia Garner) at 'God-knows-what-o-clock' in the morning as she arrives at her workplace - a New York film-production company. First to arrive every morning, she turns on the lights, turns on the screens, makes the pot of coffee and cleans off stains from her boss's couch. The stain isn't coffee. A lost gold bracelet is recovered.
For we are in a truly toxic working environment here. 'The boss' - clearly modelled on Harvey Weinstein - is a bullying tyrant who can reduce Jane and her two male assistants (Jon Orsini and Noah Robbins) to quivering wrecks. "WHAT THE F*** DID YOU SAY TO HER" barks the boss down the phone at Jane, after she has had a perfectly reasonable phone conversation with the estranged Mrs Boss.
The toxicity is pervasive though throughout Miram..., sorry...., 'the company'. Jane is almost invisible to her other co-workers who don't give her eye-contact even when she's talking to them and barely register her presence when sharing a lift.
But bullying and workplace toxicity is just part of this story. A steady stream of starlets arrive in the office, like meat deliveries to a butcher. In a chilling sequence, the photocopier churns out photos of beautiful actresses.... a paper-based equivalent of swiping-left or -right in the selection process. None of the "if you... I will" discussions are shown, but they don't need to be: the inference is clear.
Jane is smart, slim and pretty... but not in an obvious 'Hollywood way'. "You'll be OK..." says a co-worker "you're not his type".
But someone who distinctly is "his type" is Sienna (Kristine Froseth), a "very very young" aspiring waitress-come-actress from Boise, who suddenly and unexpectedly arrives as a "new assistant"... to be promptly put up in a swanky hotel room. It's time to act... and Jane approaches the company HR manager (Matthew Macfadyen)....
An old Spielberg trick is to increase tension by keeping the "monster" hidden from view: cue the tanker driver from "Duel" and (for most of the film) the shark from "Jaws". Here, the boss is felt only as a malevolent force and never seen on screen. It's an approach that works brilliantly, focusing the emotion on the effect he has on those flamed.
There is also recognition that these powerful people are also hugely intelligent and manipulative. Seeing that Jane is a valuable asset, the public berating is sometimes followed up with a private email apology.... dripping a few words of encouragement and praise like a few drops of Methadone to a drug-addict.
This is an excellent movie and thoughtfully and elegantly directed. Following a normal day in Jane's work life.... albeit a day where perhaps the penny finally drops... is immersive and engaging. And at only 88 minutes long, the movie never outstays its welcome.
The performances are first rate. Julia Garner is magnificent, and in a year where the Oscars will be "interesting", here's a good candidate for Best Actress I would suggest if not Best Picture. Garner's an actress I'm unfamiliar with: the only one of her previous flicks I've seen was Sin City 2.
Also oily and impressive is Matthew Macfadyen as the HR manager. There's also a sparse but well-used score by Tamar-kali.
The one area I found poor was in the sound design. It's clearly filmed in an office environment, rather than on a sound stage, and unfortunately the combination of the acoustics and the New York accents makes some of the dialogue really difficult to hear. An example is a discussion between two co-workers in an office kitchen, which was completely indecipherable for me.
Should I watch this? In my view, definitely, yes. It's chilling and an insight into the terrible ordeal that many professional women in the film industry, and other industries, have had to put up with before the "Me Too" lid was blown off (and many probably still do). The most telling line in the film? At the end of the "Thanks" in the end-titles: "All those who shared their experiences".
(See the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/05/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-assistant-2020/ . Thanks).
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Under Rose-Tainted Skies in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Norah is a mentally ill teen struggling with agoraphobia and OCD. She lives with her mom and hasn't attended school in over four years -- in fact, she really hasn't had what society would deem a "normal" outing in that time. Her interactions are with her mom, her therapist, and the online world: watching her former friends live their lives via social media. When a new boy moves in next door, Norah doesn't expect much to change. But when Luke catches Norah trying to fish in groceries left outside on her porch, he helps her. The two slowly begin to interact, and a friendship blossoms. Still, despite the movie "dates" they have at Norah's house and their many chats, Norah is trapped in her own insecurities and fears: Luke deserves a "normal" girl, who can go outside to parties, and who isn't too scared of germs to kiss. What does the future hold in store for Norah and Luke?
This was a lyrical novel offering a rather unflinching portrait of mental illness. (I must point out up front that there's a self-harm/cutting trigger.) The writing is beautiful, almost falling over the line of too flowery at times. Norah is an engaging heroine: a real person living her life with mental illness. The novel truly tries to portray her OCD and agoraphobia in a real (yet humorous at times - it's not just as if you're reading a medical manual) manner. There are some incredibly important passages in this book about how, while Norah may not look sick or mentally ill, she is. I enjoyed her character immensely.
Unfortunately, some of my love of Norah was diminished by slightly unrealistic and odd plotlines. Maybe it's just me, but I was immensely bothered by little things - Luke's dad getting a job at the TSA for 8 weeks (unless that was a long time ago, basically impossible in the security clearance era). In turn, Norah's mom undergoes a hospital stay that seems oddly inserted; further, if the family has money, why is poor, scared Norah forced to stay alone for huge chunks of time without any assistance or company? Luke also comes across as too good to be true sometimes, making me question his character, even when I wanted to buy into the love story. Finally, the ending hinges on a weird twist and seemed to tie things up a little too easily for how strongly the book was presenting Norah's illness throughout.
The angsty teen love genre is certainly in full swing lately and adding in mental illness is popular as well (I think [b:Everything, Everything|18692431|Everything, Everything|Nicola Yoon|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1450515891s/18692431.jpg|26540216] is my favorite, where it worked so beautifully). Still, I certainly wouldn't not recommend this novel. It's well-written, portrays its mental illnesses very well, and the character of Norah is worth the read alone. There are some flaws, yes, but I did enjoy the book overall. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available as of 01/03/2017.
This was a lyrical novel offering a rather unflinching portrait of mental illness. (I must point out up front that there's a self-harm/cutting trigger.) The writing is beautiful, almost falling over the line of too flowery at times. Norah is an engaging heroine: a real person living her life with mental illness. The novel truly tries to portray her OCD and agoraphobia in a real (yet humorous at times - it's not just as if you're reading a medical manual) manner. There are some incredibly important passages in this book about how, while Norah may not look sick or mentally ill, she is. I enjoyed her character immensely.
Unfortunately, some of my love of Norah was diminished by slightly unrealistic and odd plotlines. Maybe it's just me, but I was immensely bothered by little things - Luke's dad getting a job at the TSA for 8 weeks (unless that was a long time ago, basically impossible in the security clearance era). In turn, Norah's mom undergoes a hospital stay that seems oddly inserted; further, if the family has money, why is poor, scared Norah forced to stay alone for huge chunks of time without any assistance or company? Luke also comes across as too good to be true sometimes, making me question his character, even when I wanted to buy into the love story. Finally, the ending hinges on a weird twist and seemed to tie things up a little too easily for how strongly the book was presenting Norah's illness throughout.
The angsty teen love genre is certainly in full swing lately and adding in mental illness is popular as well (I think [b:Everything, Everything|18692431|Everything, Everything|Nicola Yoon|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1450515891s/18692431.jpg|26540216] is my favorite, where it worked so beautifully). Still, I certainly wouldn't not recommend this novel. It's well-written, portrays its mental illnesses very well, and the character of Norah is worth the read alone. There are some flaws, yes, but I did enjoy the book overall. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available as of 01/03/2017.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Thoughts on Toy Story 4
Characters – Woody is struggling with not being in control of the room anymore, he still wants to help make Bonnie happy, which sees him acting selfishly, he does try to fix his own mistakes which will see him facing a second chance, meeting an old friend and distancing himself from his current friends. Woody is the key figure in this film, this is very much his story. Forky is the newly created toy out of a spork and is learning everything as it unfolds even though he believes he is trash. Buzz Lightyear is trying to step up when Woody goes off, he does feel like a bigger idiot than we are used to, using his voice commands to help him, which seems like a huge step back on his character. Bo Peep coming back to the franchise is fun, she shows Woody a new life away from kids, where she helps toys, she is Woody’s big love in life too, kick ass fighter too. Gabby Gabby is an older toy like Woody, she has been damaged and is searching for something to hope she can be taken home one day, she is painted as the villain, though she is the weakest villain in the franchise. Duke Caboom is the best addition to the film a stuntman that has failed as a toy, he is always up for trying something new and is filled with confidence.
Story – The story here follows Woody trying to find himself a place in the world after becoming a smaller part in the life of his new owner Bonnie, he gets too involved and spends most of the story trying to make up for his mistake of letting Bonnie create a new toy, caught in the middle saving the day or breaking free. Now this is the 4th part of the franchise which did tie up nicely after the third one. The supporting characters do take a big back burner in the story which even sees Buzz getting less screen time, this is a full Woody story trying to figure out where his life is going on next. We do try to play on the heart strings, though it just doesn’t get to the levels it could have and has been there before. The new characters to bring the bright spark to the story, but we do end up going down the road, where this is becoming too unbelievable that these toys are acting like this.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure side of this film comes from the idea that Woody will need to go on a new adventure to save Forky, only to see Buzz on his own adventure which does cross paths with Woody, only his feels like a simple side to everything. the comedy from the new characters hits very well, its just old character seem to fall short.
Settings – Having the film use an Antique story is great idea because we get to see known toys that could add comedy in places, the carnival also adds potential new characters too.
Animation – The animation is Pixar at its very best, it looks perfect like we know they are used to bring us, bringing us larger scale environment to everything going on.
Scene of the Movie – Duke Caboom.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Buzz seems to be dumber.
Final Thoughts – This does end up feeling like a cash grab sequel, it doesn’t have the heart the previous films do and fails to use the original characters well enough.
Overall: By the book sequel.
Characters – Woody is struggling with not being in control of the room anymore, he still wants to help make Bonnie happy, which sees him acting selfishly, he does try to fix his own mistakes which will see him facing a second chance, meeting an old friend and distancing himself from his current friends. Woody is the key figure in this film, this is very much his story. Forky is the newly created toy out of a spork and is learning everything as it unfolds even though he believes he is trash. Buzz Lightyear is trying to step up when Woody goes off, he does feel like a bigger idiot than we are used to, using his voice commands to help him, which seems like a huge step back on his character. Bo Peep coming back to the franchise is fun, she shows Woody a new life away from kids, where she helps toys, she is Woody’s big love in life too, kick ass fighter too. Gabby Gabby is an older toy like Woody, she has been damaged and is searching for something to hope she can be taken home one day, she is painted as the villain, though she is the weakest villain in the franchise. Duke Caboom is the best addition to the film a stuntman that has failed as a toy, he is always up for trying something new and is filled with confidence.
Story – The story here follows Woody trying to find himself a place in the world after becoming a smaller part in the life of his new owner Bonnie, he gets too involved and spends most of the story trying to make up for his mistake of letting Bonnie create a new toy, caught in the middle saving the day or breaking free. Now this is the 4th part of the franchise which did tie up nicely after the third one. The supporting characters do take a big back burner in the story which even sees Buzz getting less screen time, this is a full Woody story trying to figure out where his life is going on next. We do try to play on the heart strings, though it just doesn’t get to the levels it could have and has been there before. The new characters to bring the bright spark to the story, but we do end up going down the road, where this is becoming too unbelievable that these toys are acting like this.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure side of this film comes from the idea that Woody will need to go on a new adventure to save Forky, only to see Buzz on his own adventure which does cross paths with Woody, only his feels like a simple side to everything. the comedy from the new characters hits very well, its just old character seem to fall short.
Settings – Having the film use an Antique story is great idea because we get to see known toys that could add comedy in places, the carnival also adds potential new characters too.
Animation – The animation is Pixar at its very best, it looks perfect like we know they are used to bring us, bringing us larger scale environment to everything going on.
Scene of the Movie – Duke Caboom.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Buzz seems to be dumber.
Final Thoughts – This does end up feeling like a cash grab sequel, it doesn’t have the heart the previous films do and fails to use the original characters well enough.
Overall: By the book sequel.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Fun With Dick and Jane (2005) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Fun with Dick and Jane starts as we meet Dick (Carrey) who is about to get a promotion to vice president of the company he has worked for, for year. The problem comes that this promotion is designed to put the blame on the company’s problems on him instead of the men who really are involved, Jack (Baldwin) and Frank (Jenkins).
Dick loses his job and his wife Jane (Leoni) has quit her job, the two struggle to find new jobs and before long they are facing being evicted, which turns them to a life of crime to save their home.
Thoughts on Fun with Dick and Jane
Characters – Dick has been working for a company for his whole working career, he has been waiting for a chance to get to the next step which he gets only to see himself become the fall guy, making him unemployable in the field. He can’t get a job anywhere and out of pure desperation he turns to a life a crime to support his family. Jane is the wife of Dick who quits her job with his new promotion and can’t get a new job, she believes in Dick and ends up teaming up with Dick to commit crime. Jack and Frank are the CEOs that have taken advantage of Dick to get away clean after their illegal trading.
Performances – Jim Carrey gets to play into the full energy comedy that he is known for here, this isn’t the best he has given, but his fans will enjoy what he does, Tea Leoni does struggle with comedy and it is clear to see because she just doesn’t work with Carrey’s comedy. Alec Baldwin and Richard Jenkins get to enjoy their roles in the film playing into what they could be for these real people.
Story – The story follows a couple that are forced into a life of crime after losing everything when a business they are employed with gets closed down with the CEOs leaving the employees broke. This is a remake which has been bought into the modern era of greedy businessman who have taken advantage of their employees only to be left nothing. The story does seem to be going in fast forward with the crime montage flashing over what is happening. This does have a good outcome for everyone involved, but just doesn’t engage for the audience.
Comedy/Crime – The comedy in the film mostly revolves around Jim Carrey bringing in his routine which is enjoyed by people who are fans of his work, the crime side of the film shows just how CEOs can try and get away with things and how one couple looks to crime to survive.
Settings – The film doesn’t give us any settings which feel overly iconic which the film could have had to make us become more invested in what is happening.
Scene of the Movie – The first robbery.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Crime montage.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the book crime comedy that skips over too much of the interesting material only to leave us feeling like we blinked and missed too much.
Overall: Basic crime comedy.
Dick loses his job and his wife Jane (Leoni) has quit her job, the two struggle to find new jobs and before long they are facing being evicted, which turns them to a life of crime to save their home.
Thoughts on Fun with Dick and Jane
Characters – Dick has been working for a company for his whole working career, he has been waiting for a chance to get to the next step which he gets only to see himself become the fall guy, making him unemployable in the field. He can’t get a job anywhere and out of pure desperation he turns to a life a crime to support his family. Jane is the wife of Dick who quits her job with his new promotion and can’t get a new job, she believes in Dick and ends up teaming up with Dick to commit crime. Jack and Frank are the CEOs that have taken advantage of Dick to get away clean after their illegal trading.
Performances – Jim Carrey gets to play into the full energy comedy that he is known for here, this isn’t the best he has given, but his fans will enjoy what he does, Tea Leoni does struggle with comedy and it is clear to see because she just doesn’t work with Carrey’s comedy. Alec Baldwin and Richard Jenkins get to enjoy their roles in the film playing into what they could be for these real people.
Story – The story follows a couple that are forced into a life of crime after losing everything when a business they are employed with gets closed down with the CEOs leaving the employees broke. This is a remake which has been bought into the modern era of greedy businessman who have taken advantage of their employees only to be left nothing. The story does seem to be going in fast forward with the crime montage flashing over what is happening. This does have a good outcome for everyone involved, but just doesn’t engage for the audience.
Comedy/Crime – The comedy in the film mostly revolves around Jim Carrey bringing in his routine which is enjoyed by people who are fans of his work, the crime side of the film shows just how CEOs can try and get away with things and how one couple looks to crime to survive.
Settings – The film doesn’t give us any settings which feel overly iconic which the film could have had to make us become more invested in what is happening.
Scene of the Movie – The first robbery.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Crime montage.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the book crime comedy that skips over too much of the interesting material only to leave us feeling like we blinked and missed too much.
Overall: Basic crime comedy.
The Academy Awards: The Complete Unofficial History - Revised and Up-to-Date
Jim Piazza and Gail Kinn
Book
Updated to include the 2014 Academy Awards, this is the definitive guide to 86 years of the Oscars,...
Sarah Blythe (22 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Aug 24, 2019
Characterisation (2 more)
Theming
Atmosphere
Continuity (1 more)
World canon
It's the Wizarding World, but not quite as we know it...
Contains spoilers, click to show
OK. So. I loved this movie as a continuation of the fantastic beasts universe. I think that the cast does an amazing job of portraying the characters, and I honestly can't imagine anyone other than Eddie Redmayne playing Newt. The atmosphere of the whole thing was built up really well, and the American and European Wizarding worlds that have been created are visually stunning and full of depth.
However, I have a few niggles. I have some minor misgivings about the idea of Jude Law as Dumbledore, not because I dont think he'll do a good job, but because his Dumbledore is so far removed from the one we know and love. I mean, seriously, how do you get from suits to full blown robes? They're opposite ends of the style scale! I think my biggest issue with the whole thing is the lack of continuity from the potter series. I don't understand the back story of Nagini, I want to know what happened between Albus and Grindelwald, and don't get me started on the revelation at the end?!? There was a whole story arc about a hidden Dumbledore child in the HP book series (I love Ariana) and yet here we are, supposed to believe there's another one! I just don't get it!
Overall it's a great film as part of the Fantastic Beasts franchise, and as part of the Wizarding World, but let's not link it too closely to the events of Harry Potter. If we try to work out that labyrinth, I fear all our brains may just explode!
However, I have a few niggles. I have some minor misgivings about the idea of Jude Law as Dumbledore, not because I dont think he'll do a good job, but because his Dumbledore is so far removed from the one we know and love. I mean, seriously, how do you get from suits to full blown robes? They're opposite ends of the style scale! I think my biggest issue with the whole thing is the lack of continuity from the potter series. I don't understand the back story of Nagini, I want to know what happened between Albus and Grindelwald, and don't get me started on the revelation at the end?!? There was a whole story arc about a hidden Dumbledore child in the HP book series (I love Ariana) and yet here we are, supposed to believe there's another one! I just don't get it!
Overall it's a great film as part of the Fantastic Beasts franchise, and as part of the Wizarding World, but let's not link it too closely to the events of Harry Potter. If we try to work out that labyrinth, I fear all our brains may just explode!
The Blood of Emmett Till
Book
This extraordinary New York Times bestseller reexamines a pivotal event of the civil rights...
History Politics