Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Jem and the Holograms (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Being a teenager is a confusing time, we want to be accepted, popular, and, at times, invisible. In a world where you feel overlooked and ignored, it is gratifying to have a voice, an identity, some special aspect that is going to make you stand out and be accepted. Jem and the Holograms attempts to make this a theme. Creating your identity and having the ability to shape and form it into a way that it becomes your own shield against the ills of the world. It is a very promising concept and idea when attempting to update the series for today’s audience. Unfortunately there isn’t much substance to the film. The substance that is apparent is quite shallow and undeveloped.
Instead of sticking with the original premise and backstory of the popular cartoon series of the 1980s, it tries to modernize itself in a way that holds onto little of its origin other than the name of some of the characters. There is no heart with this film, there is no feeling driving the movie that makes you want to cheer for the characters to become successful. This is mainly due to the film not giving audiences a chance to like the characters or even learn who they really are. The film makes everything look so easy within the music industry. The basic understanding is that if you post a video online, you might be discovered and are immediately offered a recording contract. This storyline will resonate with many of the “Generation Me” and “Kardashian Culture” crowd that is filled dreams of becoming famous for doing little to nothing.
The story is beyond far-fetched in that it every problem, riddle, issue, and negative moment is resolved in the next scene. There is no struggle for any of the characters other than the possibility that their aunt and foster mother may lose their house, but even this is solved within two minutes.
The one shining light in the film is Juliette Lewis as Erica Raymond, CEO of Starlight Records who gives Jem and her sisters the opportunity to take over the spotlight. She is not only the comic relief, but serves the role as a conniving, manipulative recording manager. This is pretty much the only similarity that exists between this film and the original series. Erica prompts older audiences to think of the Misfits (the nemesis to the Holograms) who were continuously trying to sabotage their careers. The rest of the cast, leaves one not feeling connected to them or their storylines. There is no development for any of the people throughout the film. It almost seems as though when making the film, the production team sat around thinking, “It’s Jem, the music will carry the story.” Unfortunately, the music that is included goes no further than being the typical pop music similar to that which is on every station today. There is nothing that stands out about the music, as catchy as it is, that makes you feel as though you should become invested in who these girls are or even that they have something that makes them stand out. With the time that has passed since the cartoon appeared on television, there should have been more investment in who these girls are and why we should care about them. Audiences don’t have that opportunity, as they become famous, seemingly overnight. It almost makes one want to root against them.
There is a real opportunity missed with this film to combine the original show, catering to older audiences who watched the show as children, and update it for a newer generation. The film would have been much better served with inclusion of many of the elements that made the series have such appeal. The approach is very juvenile and rushed. The original show was more than music, it was about the relationships formed by many of the characters and the various adventures that they would pursue. There were stories with depth and continuity which reinforced the aspects of working hard and achievement of goals. The whole movie looks like a diary entry of what an American tween would see as their life in entertainment. The one positive note about the film is the way that it incorporates social media in the development of the story. It demonstrates the connection that is and can be made through music and pop culture.
Sadly, in contrast to the original series, the film demeans and belittles women. Its approach is short-sighted and does not deal with any aspect of reality that one would expect. Jem is nothing more than a manufactured pop music story. There is little that audiences could relate to. In a sense, it is anti-music, and anti-intellectual. The film itself, is filler and a corruption of the origin story and the time that has passed since it first debuted. Audiences of Jem the TV series may be appalled at what they witness, if they do decide to actually watch the film. For younger audiences, this film reinforces the belief that all kids should get participation trophies because they tried. There is the sense that if you just show up, the opportunity will be handed to you. There is no real work on the screen and it seems as though there was no real work or effort put into creating this film. Younger audiences will tout the music and friendship displayed. Older audiences who were fans of the television show will be soundly disappointed in what they witness on the screen. It is a bastardization of what Jem should be in a modern age. There is no soul to this film. Every note that it hits is flat.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/23/jem-and-the-holograms/
Instead of sticking with the original premise and backstory of the popular cartoon series of the 1980s, it tries to modernize itself in a way that holds onto little of its origin other than the name of some of the characters. There is no heart with this film, there is no feeling driving the movie that makes you want to cheer for the characters to become successful. This is mainly due to the film not giving audiences a chance to like the characters or even learn who they really are. The film makes everything look so easy within the music industry. The basic understanding is that if you post a video online, you might be discovered and are immediately offered a recording contract. This storyline will resonate with many of the “Generation Me” and “Kardashian Culture” crowd that is filled dreams of becoming famous for doing little to nothing.
The story is beyond far-fetched in that it every problem, riddle, issue, and negative moment is resolved in the next scene. There is no struggle for any of the characters other than the possibility that their aunt and foster mother may lose their house, but even this is solved within two minutes.
The one shining light in the film is Juliette Lewis as Erica Raymond, CEO of Starlight Records who gives Jem and her sisters the opportunity to take over the spotlight. She is not only the comic relief, but serves the role as a conniving, manipulative recording manager. This is pretty much the only similarity that exists between this film and the original series. Erica prompts older audiences to think of the Misfits (the nemesis to the Holograms) who were continuously trying to sabotage their careers. The rest of the cast, leaves one not feeling connected to them or their storylines. There is no development for any of the people throughout the film. It almost seems as though when making the film, the production team sat around thinking, “It’s Jem, the music will carry the story.” Unfortunately, the music that is included goes no further than being the typical pop music similar to that which is on every station today. There is nothing that stands out about the music, as catchy as it is, that makes you feel as though you should become invested in who these girls are or even that they have something that makes them stand out. With the time that has passed since the cartoon appeared on television, there should have been more investment in who these girls are and why we should care about them. Audiences don’t have that opportunity, as they become famous, seemingly overnight. It almost makes one want to root against them.
There is a real opportunity missed with this film to combine the original show, catering to older audiences who watched the show as children, and update it for a newer generation. The film would have been much better served with inclusion of many of the elements that made the series have such appeal. The approach is very juvenile and rushed. The original show was more than music, it was about the relationships formed by many of the characters and the various adventures that they would pursue. There were stories with depth and continuity which reinforced the aspects of working hard and achievement of goals. The whole movie looks like a diary entry of what an American tween would see as their life in entertainment. The one positive note about the film is the way that it incorporates social media in the development of the story. It demonstrates the connection that is and can be made through music and pop culture.
Sadly, in contrast to the original series, the film demeans and belittles women. Its approach is short-sighted and does not deal with any aspect of reality that one would expect. Jem is nothing more than a manufactured pop music story. There is little that audiences could relate to. In a sense, it is anti-music, and anti-intellectual. The film itself, is filler and a corruption of the origin story and the time that has passed since it first debuted. Audiences of Jem the TV series may be appalled at what they witness, if they do decide to actually watch the film. For younger audiences, this film reinforces the belief that all kids should get participation trophies because they tried. There is the sense that if you just show up, the opportunity will be handed to you. There is no real work on the screen and it seems as though there was no real work or effort put into creating this film. Younger audiences will tout the music and friendship displayed. Older audiences who were fans of the television show will be soundly disappointed in what they witness on the screen. It is a bastardization of what Jem should be in a modern age. There is no soul to this film. Every note that it hits is flat.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/23/jem-and-the-holograms/
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
When best friends Sonny (Jeremy Ray Taylor) and Sam (Caleel Harris) find a hidden room, in a spooky old house, they think they have just stumbled upon a treasure. This is exactly they were hoping for when they started a junk removal business. But those hopes are quickly dashed as they discover what they really have found is an unreleased and unfinished R.L. Stine novel. The book is locked so they unlock it hoping to find a treasure map or some money but alas it is just a book by an author they have never heard of. Disappointed they return to the rest of the items they found and is surprised to see a ventriloquist dummy sitting next to the book. In the pocket of the dummy is a card that says its name is Slappy (voiced by Jack Black). Unknowingly these two friends have now unleashed a malicious that is about to unleash a bevy of monsters on their home town. Now they, with the help of Sonny’s older sister Sarah (Madison Iseman), have to try to stop Slappy from destroying their town and maybe even the world, especially before Sonny and Sarah’s mom (Wendy McLendon-Covey) finds out.
This film is a follow up to the 2015 Goosebumps, all based on the popular children’s horror fiction novels of the same name by author R.L. Stine. The book series, over 60 novels, and the films are all geared to bring horror to a younger audience.
Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween is a lighthearted horror film. This will probably do well with a young audience but doesn’t really go beyond that. I thought for the genre the cast did okay. Ken Jeong as the wacky neighbor was very over the top but in a fun way. Even though Jack Black is the voice of Slappy his R.L. Stine character was mostly missing from the film. The story is predictable. The film is full of cheesy one liners, some good, some bad and some so bad they might be good. Also if you are looking for a well put together plot with streamlined scenes this is not the film. At one point the three teens are being helped by Jeong’s character but the scene cuts and the kids are alone with no mention of their neighbor. I thought that the Slappy character was definitely creepy at times and could be nightmare inducing but the rest of the monsters were more cartoon like that really scary.
Of films made for young audiences this I have seen recently this is not one of the better films. I would say that it had a few moments but really lacked a clear message and cohesive story. I think it would be something young audience would enjoy but not go back to as often as other films that have come out recently. Renting or streaming would be the way to go for this film not worth the ticket price for the theaters for me.
This film is a follow up to the 2015 Goosebumps, all based on the popular children’s horror fiction novels of the same name by author R.L. Stine. The book series, over 60 novels, and the films are all geared to bring horror to a younger audience.
Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween is a lighthearted horror film. This will probably do well with a young audience but doesn’t really go beyond that. I thought for the genre the cast did okay. Ken Jeong as the wacky neighbor was very over the top but in a fun way. Even though Jack Black is the voice of Slappy his R.L. Stine character was mostly missing from the film. The story is predictable. The film is full of cheesy one liners, some good, some bad and some so bad they might be good. Also if you are looking for a well put together plot with streamlined scenes this is not the film. At one point the three teens are being helped by Jeong’s character but the scene cuts and the kids are alone with no mention of their neighbor. I thought that the Slappy character was definitely creepy at times and could be nightmare inducing but the rest of the monsters were more cartoon like that really scary.
Of films made for young audiences this I have seen recently this is not one of the better films. I would say that it had a few moments but really lacked a clear message and cohesive story. I think it would be something young audience would enjoy but not go back to as often as other films that have come out recently. Renting or streaming would be the way to go for this film not worth the ticket price for the theaters for me.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Full disclosure, I grew up a huge X-Men fan. As a kid it was one of the few comics that I would try read as often as I could. I would borrow my friends books, convince my mom to buy me an issue every chance I got and like so many growing up in the early 90s, never miss a Saturday morning episode of the fantastic X-Men cartoon.
As such, I have been waiting for the films to capture the X-Men team dynamic while creating interesting fleshed out characters for the mass audiences to appreciate. I felt the franchise was headed in that direction with the last two films, X-Men: First class and X-Men: Days of Futures Past. Unfortunately, X-Men: Apocalypse takes a bit of a stumble in this department when it tries to introduce several fan favorite characters to this X-Men Universe. However it sacrifices solid character development in order to introduce them all in this one story. That’s not to say that this decision makes a bad film, it’s just that the characters are somewhat hollow and we never really connect with any of them. Not even the older characters who we already know. In the 2016 landscape of superhero/comic movies, when you have too many hollow characters the film often feels like we are just going through the motions of fan service, rather than telling a good story though film. This shallow character development makes me wish that instead of making more X-Men movies, Fox would team up with Netflix and produce an episodic series that can really dig down into the story of these characters and the missions they go on to help all of humanity…sigh…one can hope.
As for the rest of this film, it is safe to say that it is a fun popcorn adventure just in time for the summer blockbuster season. The first act suffers from a bit of pacing issues, but once the film starts to pick up steam, it becomes a full action packed adventure filled with all the mutant powers you would expect from an X-Men film. We receive excellent performances we have come to expect from James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence and the rest of the standard cast. As far as the new characters added to this film, Sophie Turner (Game of Thrones) is the stand out as Jean Gery. She delivers one of the few nuanced performances of the whole film and I look forward to her continuing to build on the roll in future X-Men films.
X-Men: Apocalypse is more of what you would expect from the X-Men series. Not terrible but not all that great either. Fans will be exited and enjoy this entry to the series while casual viewers will enjoy the blockbuster elements.
As such, I have been waiting for the films to capture the X-Men team dynamic while creating interesting fleshed out characters for the mass audiences to appreciate. I felt the franchise was headed in that direction with the last two films, X-Men: First class and X-Men: Days of Futures Past. Unfortunately, X-Men: Apocalypse takes a bit of a stumble in this department when it tries to introduce several fan favorite characters to this X-Men Universe. However it sacrifices solid character development in order to introduce them all in this one story. That’s not to say that this decision makes a bad film, it’s just that the characters are somewhat hollow and we never really connect with any of them. Not even the older characters who we already know. In the 2016 landscape of superhero/comic movies, when you have too many hollow characters the film often feels like we are just going through the motions of fan service, rather than telling a good story though film. This shallow character development makes me wish that instead of making more X-Men movies, Fox would team up with Netflix and produce an episodic series that can really dig down into the story of these characters and the missions they go on to help all of humanity…sigh…one can hope.
As for the rest of this film, it is safe to say that it is a fun popcorn adventure just in time for the summer blockbuster season. The first act suffers from a bit of pacing issues, but once the film starts to pick up steam, it becomes a full action packed adventure filled with all the mutant powers you would expect from an X-Men film. We receive excellent performances we have come to expect from James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence and the rest of the standard cast. As far as the new characters added to this film, Sophie Turner (Game of Thrones) is the stand out as Jean Gery. She delivers one of the few nuanced performances of the whole film and I look forward to her continuing to build on the roll in future X-Men films.
X-Men: Apocalypse is more of what you would expect from the X-Men series. Not terrible but not all that great either. Fans will be exited and enjoy this entry to the series while casual viewers will enjoy the blockbuster elements.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Call Of The Wild (2020) in Movies
Feb 22, 2020 (Updated Feb 23, 2020)
A Sheep In Wolf's Clothing
Call Of The Wild is such a lovely heartfelt movie that will leave everyone that goes to see it with that warm tingly feeling inside their chest and a nice big smile on thier face. Ive seen this film is getting a lot of hate because of its over reliance on cgi animals and while I will admit I found it very distracting to start with after 10 minutes I became accustom and think the movie is much better for using it. Why you ask? well the movie to me is obviously aimed at children and the over all feel of it to me was very much like a classic Disney animated cartoon. Let me explain, theres just something so lovely, peaceful and magical about the whole thing and the way its structured, how exaggerated the characters are, the world it builds and the story. See they all just all come together to give you those same feelings you had when you watched a fairytale like beauty and the beast for the first time. Having the dog be cgi lets him have more cartoonish/exaggerated animations and a way more expressive face really helps us to relate to him better, clearly see how hes feeling and to add to this constant sense of warmth/magic thats present throughout. Theres also a fantastic sense of adventure here and the film uses stunning locations to constantly wow us and keep us in this picturesque perfect dream or tranquil fantasy kind of state. Harrison ford is splendid here playing a lonely man whos almost given up hope of being truly happy until Buck comes along. His perfomance is so touching and you can clearly hear in his Blade Runner style narrations the sadness and pain in his heart which immediately helps you to feel sympathy towards him. Bucks story is equally as sad too, he longs to be part of a pack/family of his own and to one day become a leader answering to no one but himself. His motivations are shown in the form of a powerful and strong black wolf that keeps his confidence up and his determination strong and theres so many messages about never giving up, pushing forward and trusting in your destiny too that its hard not to become fully engrossed in his journey. It may be a simple tale but its an absolute joy to watch and its motivational themes are guaranteed to make anyone think positively about thier own life while watching. I also can not go without mentioning Dan Stevens, boy is this guy talented. His acting here is devilishly cartoonish, over the top wicked and had me grinning constantly in pure delight. Call Of The Wild is an all out beautiful, fun, adorable and exciting adventure for all the family to enjoy and I can not wait till it comes out to buy on 4k.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
This Phoenix Failed To Rise From It's Ashes
Dark Phoenix is a superhero movie based on the Marvel Comics X-Men and the Dark Phoenix Saga story arc. It was produced by 20th Century Fox and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The movie was written and directed by Simon Kinberg. It stars James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult, and Sophie Turner.
In 1975, Professor Charles Xavier takes 8 year-old Jean Grey to his School for Gifted Youngsters, when she inadvertently kills her parents causing a car crash with her telekinesis. In 1992, the space shuttle Endeavor is critically damaged by a solar flare and the X-Men respond to save the astronauts. While rescuing the astronauts, Jean becomes stranded as the shuttle is struck by the energy. To save the X-Men's aircraft from destruction, she absorbs all of it into her body and as a result, her psychic powers are greatly amplified when she survives. Jean spirals out of control, wrestling with her personal demons and this increasingly unstable power that begins tearing her X-Men family apart.
This movie makes me so upset as a long time Marvel fan. If you never heard of the X-Men or watched any of the movies, you could probably say this movie was good. And honestly it was "okay" when I saw it in theaters, I guess with all the bad reviews coming out I thought, wow, it could have been worse. But no, after sitting down and discussing it with my brother and him bringing up some points as well as others that I brought up to him. As well as seeing some reviews, where critics brought up A Lot of other points as well, and this movie was actually pretty bad. Now the special effects were pretty good for the most part, and the acting was good but it was really weird because I felt that so many characters were acting out of character. Or that their motivations didn't match their actions compared to how their characters should actually be. Once again the Dark Phoenix story gets butchered and doesn't come close to the greatness of the cartoon episodes let alone the comics. Stupidest part (and I'm trying really hard to not put spoilers) was from the trailer where Cyclops says the kids are calling you Phoenix. Because after that, they couldn't say that her powers were the Phoenix because it would be like some kind of weird coincidence. The villains were very boring and dull and cliche motivations, Sophie Turner's acting wasn't bad but she just didn't pull off a believable Jean Grey. And the music was good but really out of place in times. Don't even get me started on how they totally didn't take into account how the X-Men and others powers are supposed to work. I give this movie a 5/10. It's just average.
In 1975, Professor Charles Xavier takes 8 year-old Jean Grey to his School for Gifted Youngsters, when she inadvertently kills her parents causing a car crash with her telekinesis. In 1992, the space shuttle Endeavor is critically damaged by a solar flare and the X-Men respond to save the astronauts. While rescuing the astronauts, Jean becomes stranded as the shuttle is struck by the energy. To save the X-Men's aircraft from destruction, she absorbs all of it into her body and as a result, her psychic powers are greatly amplified when she survives. Jean spirals out of control, wrestling with her personal demons and this increasingly unstable power that begins tearing her X-Men family apart.
This movie makes me so upset as a long time Marvel fan. If you never heard of the X-Men or watched any of the movies, you could probably say this movie was good. And honestly it was "okay" when I saw it in theaters, I guess with all the bad reviews coming out I thought, wow, it could have been worse. But no, after sitting down and discussing it with my brother and him bringing up some points as well as others that I brought up to him. As well as seeing some reviews, where critics brought up A Lot of other points as well, and this movie was actually pretty bad. Now the special effects were pretty good for the most part, and the acting was good but it was really weird because I felt that so many characters were acting out of character. Or that their motivations didn't match their actions compared to how their characters should actually be. Once again the Dark Phoenix story gets butchered and doesn't come close to the greatness of the cartoon episodes let alone the comics. Stupidest part (and I'm trying really hard to not put spoilers) was from the trailer where Cyclops says the kids are calling you Phoenix. Because after that, they couldn't say that her powers were the Phoenix because it would be like some kind of weird coincidence. The villains were very boring and dull and cliche motivations, Sophie Turner's acting wasn't bad but she just didn't pull off a believable Jean Grey. And the music was good but really out of place in times. Don't even get me started on how they totally didn't take into account how the X-Men and others powers are supposed to work. I give this movie a 5/10. It's just average.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Feb 23, 2020
A complete mess, but kids will probably love it.
With the words of Mark Kermode's review ringing in my ears ("It's shockingly poor... and that's the same in any language") I was bracing myself when I went to see this latest incarnation of Hugh Lofting's famous animal-chatting character. And I have to agree that it is a shocking mess of a film, given $175 million was poured into this thing. But, and I say this cautiously without first-hand empirical evidence, I *think* this is a movie that kids in the 6 to 10 age range might fall in love with.
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Incredibles 2 (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2018
Not just a good "kids" movie, but a good "movie" movie
INCREDIBLES 2 is one of the best movies that has been released, thus far, in 2018.
Now...there is some debate as to whether that is praise of this film, or a damnation of the lackluster year (thus far) in film.
But...let's start with praising this film. Coming into Cinemas 14 years after the original film, this sequel picks up the story where the first INCREDIBLES film left off (the beauty of cartoon films - the actors don't age) and starts right off with a fun action sequence that, then, sets up the rest of the story.
Brad Bird (THE IRON GIANT) returns as the Director and Writer of this film (he also wrote and directed the first Incredibles film) and his deft touch shows through usage of humor, character, plot and action - all nicely blended to keep the film rolling along. He also was able to get wonderful performances from his talented voice cast.
Holly Hunter and Craig T. Nelson reprise their roles as "Mr & Mrs. Incredible" and hearing them banter back and forth - and seeing these two characters back on the screen - was like pulling on a pair of comfortable shoes. It was good to see/hear them again. Samuel L. Jackson is perfectly cast as their best friend/Allie Frozone and Brad Bird himself is wonderfully funny as Edna. Joining these two is Bob Odekenirk and Katherine Keener as brother and sister Winston and Evelyn Deavor - the duo that hires the Incredibles. Both are terrifically talented character performers and slid right into the swing of things here. Eli Fucile continues the "baby-talk" of Jack-Jack Incredible and Huck Milner takes over the role of Dash Incredible - both are good.
But it is the work of Sarah Vowell as angsty teen Violet Incredible that stood out for me. I had no idea who performed this character - and had vague recollections of Violet from the first film - but she is front and center and was so extremely entertainingly real as the teenage daughter that I had to look up who is the voice. To my surprise, this teenager was voiced (yet, again) by a now almost 50 year old radio journalist, critic, reporter and editor (best know for her work on NPR's THIS AMERICAN LIFE). I had no clue that I wasn't listening to a teenage girl - she is that good, and that believable. And I should know, I HAVE a teenage daughter!
While the first INCREDIBLES is my #1 Pixar film, I'll have to sit on this one for awhile to see where this one lands - pretty high up the list, I'm sure. I could quibble on a few things - the motivations of the "bad guy" is paper thin and the humor relies just a bit too much on the Jack-Jack character, but all-in-all this is a top notch Pixar film - and a top notch SuperHero film. Proving that a good Pixar movie isn't just a good "kid" movie, but a good "movie" movie as well.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars - and you take that to the BankofMarquis
Now...there is some debate as to whether that is praise of this film, or a damnation of the lackluster year (thus far) in film.
But...let's start with praising this film. Coming into Cinemas 14 years after the original film, this sequel picks up the story where the first INCREDIBLES film left off (the beauty of cartoon films - the actors don't age) and starts right off with a fun action sequence that, then, sets up the rest of the story.
Brad Bird (THE IRON GIANT) returns as the Director and Writer of this film (he also wrote and directed the first Incredibles film) and his deft touch shows through usage of humor, character, plot and action - all nicely blended to keep the film rolling along. He also was able to get wonderful performances from his talented voice cast.
Holly Hunter and Craig T. Nelson reprise their roles as "Mr & Mrs. Incredible" and hearing them banter back and forth - and seeing these two characters back on the screen - was like pulling on a pair of comfortable shoes. It was good to see/hear them again. Samuel L. Jackson is perfectly cast as their best friend/Allie Frozone and Brad Bird himself is wonderfully funny as Edna. Joining these two is Bob Odekenirk and Katherine Keener as brother and sister Winston and Evelyn Deavor - the duo that hires the Incredibles. Both are terrifically talented character performers and slid right into the swing of things here. Eli Fucile continues the "baby-talk" of Jack-Jack Incredible and Huck Milner takes over the role of Dash Incredible - both are good.
But it is the work of Sarah Vowell as angsty teen Violet Incredible that stood out for me. I had no idea who performed this character - and had vague recollections of Violet from the first film - but she is front and center and was so extremely entertainingly real as the teenage daughter that I had to look up who is the voice. To my surprise, this teenager was voiced (yet, again) by a now almost 50 year old radio journalist, critic, reporter and editor (best know for her work on NPR's THIS AMERICAN LIFE). I had no clue that I wasn't listening to a teenage girl - she is that good, and that believable. And I should know, I HAVE a teenage daughter!
While the first INCREDIBLES is my #1 Pixar film, I'll have to sit on this one for awhile to see where this one lands - pretty high up the list, I'm sure. I could quibble on a few things - the motivations of the "bad guy" is paper thin and the humor relies just a bit too much on the Jack-Jack character, but all-in-all this is a top notch Pixar film - and a top notch SuperHero film. Proving that a good Pixar movie isn't just a good "kid" movie, but a good "movie" movie as well.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars - and you take that to the BankofMarquis
Ronyell (38 KP) rated How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000) in Movies
Jul 24, 2020
The Jim Carrey Grinch!
In the town of Whoville, all the Whos were getting ready it celebrate Christmas, but there was one Who that was curious about the true meaning of Christmas and that was Cindy Lou Who herself. Not only was Cindy Lou wondering about the true meaning of Christmas, but she was curious about one person who doesn't live in Whoville and that's the Grinch himself. The Whos almost never talk about the Grinch or want to be reminded of him, but Cindy Lou wanted to be friends with the Grinch and tried to invite him to the Whoville celebration. But, when the Grinch is humiliated at the celebration, he decided that he will steal all the Whos' presents on Christmas Eve.
Wow! I was actually pretty surprised that I enjoyed this movie! I never would have thought that Jim Carrey would do a great job at portraying the Grinch! Jim Carrey made the Grinch's character much more humorous and hammy, which made the film much funnier in tone and the Grinchs' jokes easily land at the right times. Taylor Momsen was fantastic as Cindy Lou Who as Cindy is shown as being a friendly and determined girl who only wanted to be friends with the Grinch and I liked the fact that she truly cares for the Grinch and only wanted to make him happy. James Horner's music was probably the highlight of this film as it surprisingly goes well with the emotional scenes in the movie, such as during the scene where we learn about the Grinch's tragic backstory. The special effects were surprisingly well done for the year 2000 and the film did a fantastic job at showcasing the bizarre yet beautiful world of Whoville and greatly captured the creative style from the original Dr. Seuss book.
My biggest issue with this movie is that the Whos seem to be portrayed in a negative way as they are much more cruel towards the Grinch in this version than in the original book and the 1960s cartoon special. Also, there were times where Jim Carrey's performance as the Grinch got so hammy that I couldn't take his more emotional scenes seriously, like he constantly gets upset whenever the Whos teased him. I also didn't like the fact that Martha, the Grinch's love interest, didn't have much of a role in the film other than just standing around and looking at the scenery and being a love interest.
I always have a problem with certain love interests not having much to do in the film other than just being defined as a love interest to the protagonist and not having a personality of their own. It would have been great if Martha had more scenes with the Grinch so that their relationship would be much more believable to me.
Overall, "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" is one of the most hilarious interpretations of the Grinch ever made on film and it is definitely worth the watch!
Originally posted on: https://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/movie-review-how-grinch-stole-christmas.html
Wow! I was actually pretty surprised that I enjoyed this movie! I never would have thought that Jim Carrey would do a great job at portraying the Grinch! Jim Carrey made the Grinch's character much more humorous and hammy, which made the film much funnier in tone and the Grinchs' jokes easily land at the right times. Taylor Momsen was fantastic as Cindy Lou Who as Cindy is shown as being a friendly and determined girl who only wanted to be friends with the Grinch and I liked the fact that she truly cares for the Grinch and only wanted to make him happy. James Horner's music was probably the highlight of this film as it surprisingly goes well with the emotional scenes in the movie, such as during the scene where we learn about the Grinch's tragic backstory. The special effects were surprisingly well done for the year 2000 and the film did a fantastic job at showcasing the bizarre yet beautiful world of Whoville and greatly captured the creative style from the original Dr. Seuss book.
My biggest issue with this movie is that the Whos seem to be portrayed in a negative way as they are much more cruel towards the Grinch in this version than in the original book and the 1960s cartoon special. Also, there were times where Jim Carrey's performance as the Grinch got so hammy that I couldn't take his more emotional scenes seriously, like he constantly gets upset whenever the Whos teased him. I also didn't like the fact that Martha, the Grinch's love interest, didn't have much of a role in the film other than just standing around and looking at the scenery and being a love interest.
I always have a problem with certain love interests not having much to do in the film other than just being defined as a love interest to the protagonist and not having a personality of their own. It would have been great if Martha had more scenes with the Grinch so that their relationship would be much more believable to me.
Overall, "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" is one of the most hilarious interpretations of the Grinch ever made on film and it is definitely worth the watch!
Originally posted on: https://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/movie-review-how-grinch-stole-christmas.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Jungle Cruise (2021) in Movies
Jul 30, 2021
A Ton of Fun - Reminiscent of the first PIRATES film
Are you looking for a family friendly action/adventure/comedy that will be good entertainment for the entire family? Then look no further than the Disney Live Action film JUNGLE BOOK.
Yes…Disney has made another movie based on one of it’s them park rides and this one is more like the first PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN film than most of the other attempts.
Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra (several Liam Neeson action flicks like NON-STOP), JUNGLE CRUISE is part PIRATES, part INDIANA JONES and part AFRICAN QUEEN (look it up, kids) as we follow an adventurous young lady in the 1910’s. She heads to the Amazon and hires a ne’er do well Jungle Cruise skipper to take her up river.
Pretty standard set-up, right? We’ve seen this “mis-matched” frenemies premise before but in the hands of Emily Blunt and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, it is a very entertaining (albeit familiar) ride with 2 tremendously charismatic performers working off each other very well and they look like they are having as good a time in this film as we are.
They are joined by a bevy of assorted characters that help fill out this journey. Edgar Ramirez and Veronica Falcon are enjoyable enough as a couple of characters along the way, while Jack Whitehall surprised the heck out of me as the wimpy brother to Blunt’s character who becomes more and more three dimensional as the film progressed - something I didn’t think this film would even think about doing.
A pair of wiley veterans - Jesse Plemons and good ol’ Paul Giamatti - are also on board and each add some (but not a lot) to this film. Plemons is the main villain and he just wasn’t villainous enough for my tastes while I wanted much, much more of Giamatti’s character than was in this film (and it is a rare film, indeed, that you are left wanting more with a Giamatti character).
But make no mistake, this is a Rock and Blunt flick and these two professionals hold the center of this film together very, very well.
Director Collet-Serra keeps the action (and comedy) moving along at about the right pace, never dwelling too long on any of the plot points (for if you were to think too much about any of it, it would fall apart) and (for the most part) keeps the action sequences fun and coherent and avoiding over-directing, over-CGI-ing and over-loading these sequences.
Speaking of CGI, the main issue with this film is the special effects work - it is not the best (probably a budget issue) and, at times, you really need to suspend disbelief in watching the CGI and convincing yourself that it is a Live Action film you are watching and not a cartoon.
But, since the intended audience for this film are families, the less-than-perfect CGI (at times) is forgivable as JUNGLE CRUISE provides plenty of PG-Rated action and fun that the entire family will enjoy.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes…Disney has made another movie based on one of it’s them park rides and this one is more like the first PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN film than most of the other attempts.
Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra (several Liam Neeson action flicks like NON-STOP), JUNGLE CRUISE is part PIRATES, part INDIANA JONES and part AFRICAN QUEEN (look it up, kids) as we follow an adventurous young lady in the 1910’s. She heads to the Amazon and hires a ne’er do well Jungle Cruise skipper to take her up river.
Pretty standard set-up, right? We’ve seen this “mis-matched” frenemies premise before but in the hands of Emily Blunt and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, it is a very entertaining (albeit familiar) ride with 2 tremendously charismatic performers working off each other very well and they look like they are having as good a time in this film as we are.
They are joined by a bevy of assorted characters that help fill out this journey. Edgar Ramirez and Veronica Falcon are enjoyable enough as a couple of characters along the way, while Jack Whitehall surprised the heck out of me as the wimpy brother to Blunt’s character who becomes more and more three dimensional as the film progressed - something I didn’t think this film would even think about doing.
A pair of wiley veterans - Jesse Plemons and good ol’ Paul Giamatti - are also on board and each add some (but not a lot) to this film. Plemons is the main villain and he just wasn’t villainous enough for my tastes while I wanted much, much more of Giamatti’s character than was in this film (and it is a rare film, indeed, that you are left wanting more with a Giamatti character).
But make no mistake, this is a Rock and Blunt flick and these two professionals hold the center of this film together very, very well.
Director Collet-Serra keeps the action (and comedy) moving along at about the right pace, never dwelling too long on any of the plot points (for if you were to think too much about any of it, it would fall apart) and (for the most part) keeps the action sequences fun and coherent and avoiding over-directing, over-CGI-ing and over-loading these sequences.
Speaking of CGI, the main issue with this film is the special effects work - it is not the best (probably a budget issue) and, at times, you really need to suspend disbelief in watching the CGI and convincing yourself that it is a Live Action film you are watching and not a cartoon.
But, since the intended audience for this film are families, the less-than-perfect CGI (at times) is forgivable as JUNGLE CRUISE provides plenty of PG-Rated action and fun that the entire family will enjoy.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Jungle Book (2016) in Movies
Jul 21, 2017
Incredible CGI (2 more)
Amazing voice acting
New versions of classic songs
The King Of The Swingers
I was sceptical going in, as I’m not a huge fan of the original Disney cartoon version and the fact that the only live action performance in the movie was being delivered by a child actor definitely made me fairly dubious. However I actually enjoyed this movie. The young actor portraying Mowgli is a bit cringeworthy at times, but when you think that all he had to work with was a bunch of green screens and voiceovers, he did a remarkably good job, especially considering his age. He wasn’t anywhere near as good as Jaeden Lieberher was in Midnight Special, but he did a decent job of carrying the movie’s plot along. The CG work in this movie is mind blowing. Disney have gone all out and went for a hyper realistic style of animation and at times, even as an animator myself, I forgot that these animals and environments were cartoons and totally bought them as real world objects and environments. Also the cast is made up of Hollywood gold and all of the voice performances are spot on. Ben Kingsley does a great job as the parental panther who guides Mowgli along his journey and whoever decided to cast Bill Murray as Baloo deserves a raise, as that is a stroke of casting genius. Murray is hilarious here and his relationship with Mowgli is also fantastic. Scarlett Johannsen does a decent job as the snake, but to be honest it is more of a cameo role as she is in the movie for under five minutes. Of course it would be a crime not to mention the legend that is Christopher Walken and his fantastic performance as King Louie. He gives off a perfect blend of charm and villainy and his rendition of King Of The Swingers is also very entertaining. However, although all of the above voice performances were great, there is one that completely steals the show and that is Idris Elba as the antagonist Lion, Sher Khan. The command that Elba has over his vocal performance is incredible, he is such a threatening presence throughout the entire movie and he completely steals every single scene that he is in. Several people have also complained about the use of the music in the film, but that was actually one of my favourite parts of the film, Bare Necessities is used as more of a shanty than an actual song, and King Of The Swingers performed by Walken, is in my opinion very well implemented and serves as an awesome new take on the classic song. The one gripe that I have about the film is that, it is quite slow at times and I was left fairly bored several times, as were a lot of the kids in the theatre by the looks of it. If I didn’t have to keep an eye on the kids we were looking after I probably would have drifted off and to be honest I don’t know if they really enjoyed much either, they seemed to either be scared by Sher Khan and hiding their eyes or bored and fidgety. Although it’s hard to deny that this is a very well made movie and while not totally faithful to its source material, it is a fresh new take on the classic story for a new generation. I would like to see the film again without a wriggling child on my knee, but I did enjoy myself with this movie overall.