Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Five years after Godzilla saved us from the MUTO attack the world (or some of it at least) wants to see an end to the potential threat of the Titans. Monarch are studying them and hiding them away from the world, but there are calls to destroy the monsters before more devastation befalls the planet?
Dr Emma Russell has developed the Orca, a device that communicates with the Titans and can be used to calm them and stop any further destruction. Not everyone has the same idea about how to use the Orca though and it's taken, along with Dr Russell and her daughter Madison, after its successful test run. The race is on to recover the device and avert the impending crisis.
Godzilla is one of my favourite monsters. For years the 1998 film with Matthew Broderick and Jean Reno in it was one of my favourite films. I also love the "proper" Godzilla movies where they destroy Tokyo at every given opportunity. To have new films felt like a wonderful thing... until I saw 2014 Godzilla. I rewatched it before going to see King Of The Monsters and I remembered how underwhelmed I was. The characters didn't grab me and I found the whole thing uninspiring. The prospect of a second wasn't great, but then I saw the trailers, they were spectacular.
I really enjoyed this and went to see it again in 3D, a much more peaceful screening than the first viewing. The girl who was sitting a couple of seats away was animatedly jumping at every opportunity, her reaction was far scarier than anything that happened on the screen.
This was much improved on the last instalment. I loved that it embraced the original films and the fact that it switched its focus more to the monsters than the humans. You go to a monster movie to see monsters, and Godzilla 2014 felt like it had forgotten that fact.
If I had to describe this film to someone I'd say it was a combination of Infinity War and Jurassic Park, just with slightly larger monsters... yep, I'm fairly happy with that comparison. I may have been imagining it but I felt like there were a few nods to JP jumbled in there... maybe that's just me.
There's a collection of recognisable faces in the cast and I don't think there's a single person who underperforms. I thought that Millie Bobby Brown gave a great performance as Madison, she managed to give us a child character that wasn't particularly annoying, which may actually be a first in creature features.
Charles Dance makes an excellent bad guy, there's something about his look, a cross between a vampire and the restaurant critic from Ratatouille that works for me. He also gets to have a great moment of silent humour with Brown when they're in a lift together, it was very unexpected for their potential on-screen relationship.
We get to see four of our Titans in this movie as main players. Godzilla, obvs, Mothra, Rodan and Monster Zero, or King Ghidorah to his friends. The sheer scale they've gone to is amazing, and I thought the way they were created with their individual traits was beautiful. The one drawback to the beautiful glowing monster bodies is that the scenes have to be fairly dark to appreciate that aspect. They manage to use those aspects of the creatures to give the extra lighting the scenes need meaning that you get something that's both dark and scary as well as light and hopeful. The colours were something that really stood out to me in the advertising, the lightness of the blue and green against the anger of the orange and yellow, it shows the good and evil relationship really well.
The size of the creatures is mad and sometimes a little impossible to gauge, we get a few moments where we're given some perspective with man-made structures but they do a good job of trying to get it across in basic visual techniques too. You see a lot of them from "human" angles, from the ground running, from buildings and vehicles. It feels like an exercise in shock and awe and takes you back to Dr Serizawa's point at the beginning of the film that we're Godzilla's pets, it's not the other way around.
The effects/animation looked solid, at no point did I see anything on-screen that drew my attention away from the action. One moment in particular stood out and that was a large explosion somewhere in the middle of the movie. It was given an old fashioned kind of a look and it gave me the impression that they'd really looked at things that had come before it for inspiration.
You have to obviously accept the facts that in these sorts of films, parents will willingly put their children in immense danger, bad guys will always have prepared a short video presentation to explain their motivations and just because there's destruction happening all around you does not mean you will die. It's got all the classic monster/disaster movie moments that you love to hate in it. "Movie Reality" is awesome.
If you couldn't already tell, I loved this. Much improvement from the last instalment and an entertaining action-packed addition to the monsterverse. Oscar winner? Probably not. Entertaining escapism? Most definitely. I am a little concerned about how the story will progress from here. They had plenty of scope for lots of movies after some of the things they showed in the film, but the events of KotM mean that there's little room to move with it all, we'll have to see what happens in Godzilla Vs Kong next year.
What you should do
This really deserves to be seen on the big screen. The sound and the effects combine to make some great viewing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If they could adapt the Orca for human use I'd be interested.
Dr Emma Russell has developed the Orca, a device that communicates with the Titans and can be used to calm them and stop any further destruction. Not everyone has the same idea about how to use the Orca though and it's taken, along with Dr Russell and her daughter Madison, after its successful test run. The race is on to recover the device and avert the impending crisis.
Godzilla is one of my favourite monsters. For years the 1998 film with Matthew Broderick and Jean Reno in it was one of my favourite films. I also love the "proper" Godzilla movies where they destroy Tokyo at every given opportunity. To have new films felt like a wonderful thing... until I saw 2014 Godzilla. I rewatched it before going to see King Of The Monsters and I remembered how underwhelmed I was. The characters didn't grab me and I found the whole thing uninspiring. The prospect of a second wasn't great, but then I saw the trailers, they were spectacular.
I really enjoyed this and went to see it again in 3D, a much more peaceful screening than the first viewing. The girl who was sitting a couple of seats away was animatedly jumping at every opportunity, her reaction was far scarier than anything that happened on the screen.
This was much improved on the last instalment. I loved that it embraced the original films and the fact that it switched its focus more to the monsters than the humans. You go to a monster movie to see monsters, and Godzilla 2014 felt like it had forgotten that fact.
If I had to describe this film to someone I'd say it was a combination of Infinity War and Jurassic Park, just with slightly larger monsters... yep, I'm fairly happy with that comparison. I may have been imagining it but I felt like there were a few nods to JP jumbled in there... maybe that's just me.
There's a collection of recognisable faces in the cast and I don't think there's a single person who underperforms. I thought that Millie Bobby Brown gave a great performance as Madison, she managed to give us a child character that wasn't particularly annoying, which may actually be a first in creature features.
Charles Dance makes an excellent bad guy, there's something about his look, a cross between a vampire and the restaurant critic from Ratatouille that works for me. He also gets to have a great moment of silent humour with Brown when they're in a lift together, it was very unexpected for their potential on-screen relationship.
We get to see four of our Titans in this movie as main players. Godzilla, obvs, Mothra, Rodan and Monster Zero, or King Ghidorah to his friends. The sheer scale they've gone to is amazing, and I thought the way they were created with their individual traits was beautiful. The one drawback to the beautiful glowing monster bodies is that the scenes have to be fairly dark to appreciate that aspect. They manage to use those aspects of the creatures to give the extra lighting the scenes need meaning that you get something that's both dark and scary as well as light and hopeful. The colours were something that really stood out to me in the advertising, the lightness of the blue and green against the anger of the orange and yellow, it shows the good and evil relationship really well.
The size of the creatures is mad and sometimes a little impossible to gauge, we get a few moments where we're given some perspective with man-made structures but they do a good job of trying to get it across in basic visual techniques too. You see a lot of them from "human" angles, from the ground running, from buildings and vehicles. It feels like an exercise in shock and awe and takes you back to Dr Serizawa's point at the beginning of the film that we're Godzilla's pets, it's not the other way around.
The effects/animation looked solid, at no point did I see anything on-screen that drew my attention away from the action. One moment in particular stood out and that was a large explosion somewhere in the middle of the movie. It was given an old fashioned kind of a look and it gave me the impression that they'd really looked at things that had come before it for inspiration.
You have to obviously accept the facts that in these sorts of films, parents will willingly put their children in immense danger, bad guys will always have prepared a short video presentation to explain their motivations and just because there's destruction happening all around you does not mean you will die. It's got all the classic monster/disaster movie moments that you love to hate in it. "Movie Reality" is awesome.
If you couldn't already tell, I loved this. Much improvement from the last instalment and an entertaining action-packed addition to the monsterverse. Oscar winner? Probably not. Entertaining escapism? Most definitely. I am a little concerned about how the story will progress from here. They had plenty of scope for lots of movies after some of the things they showed in the film, but the events of KotM mean that there's little room to move with it all, we'll have to see what happens in Godzilla Vs Kong next year.
What you should do
This really deserves to be seen on the big screen. The sound and the effects combine to make some great viewing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If they could adapt the Orca for human use I'd be interested.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated The Circus of Dr Lao in Books
Jun 29, 2018
Somewhat mixed feelings about this book. I became interested due to the film with Tony Randall, which keeps the book's dark humor while adding on a layer of optimism and sentimentality. However, this layer is completely absent from the book. Instead, one feels the palpable cynicism and hatred for humanity and God of a military and newspaper man who obviously witnessed more than his fair share of suffering and inhumanity.
The cynicism does not always feel unwarranted, nor does the bitter but humorous style of much of the book fail to be entertaining. It vacilates between being a sardonic delight and a heavy (and even heavy-handed) piece of short literature that has to be digested in multiple sittings.
The author, himself the grandson and namesake of the great evangelist and abolitionist Charles Finney, if he believes in a God, seems to find Him distant, petty, and hateful. One begins to wonder why the circus seems to provide such fodder for this kind of nihilism (as in Bradbury's Something Wicked This Way Comes and Anton LaVey's biographical details), and perhaps it's because it puts on display those things that we think of as deserving to be hidden where we must face them and despair. The Circus of Dr. Lao puts God through a theodicy trial that Finney doesn't seem to think the Deity survives, but Finney's nihilism is hardly a palatable alternative.
Funny at times, interesting often, and very well-written, the life-as-a-meaningless-freakshow motif still sullies what this book could be. An interesting counterpoint to the film, but on the whole I still much prefer the cinematic rendering.
The cynicism does not always feel unwarranted, nor does the bitter but humorous style of much of the book fail to be entertaining. It vacilates between being a sardonic delight and a heavy (and even heavy-handed) piece of short literature that has to be digested in multiple sittings.
The author, himself the grandson and namesake of the great evangelist and abolitionist Charles Finney, if he believes in a God, seems to find Him distant, petty, and hateful. One begins to wonder why the circus seems to provide such fodder for this kind of nihilism (as in Bradbury's Something Wicked This Way Comes and Anton LaVey's biographical details), and perhaps it's because it puts on display those things that we think of as deserving to be hidden where we must face them and despair. The Circus of Dr. Lao puts God through a theodicy trial that Finney doesn't seem to think the Deity survives, but Finney's nihilism is hardly a palatable alternative.
Funny at times, interesting often, and very well-written, the life-as-a-meaningless-freakshow motif still sullies what this book could be. An interesting counterpoint to the film, but on the whole I still much prefer the cinematic rendering.
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 Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020
Power-house female lead roles, times 3. (1 more)
John Lithgow (who should have got a supporting actor nom)
Sleazy old Fox.
This is a curious one. I wonder whether the audience reaction to this one will polarize along gender lines as it did for my wife and I? For I thought this one was "good, but nothing special"... but the illustrious Mrs Movie Man thought it was excellent and would be "memorable".
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A film for all those women who dream of chivalry, but want to kick some ass.
Contains spoilers, click to show
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains."
A mysterious plague has fallen across England. The countryside is a relative haven, where the city has become a playground for unmentionables. The oriental arts have become the fashion and a desirable young lady no longer needs to be the prim and proper wife, unless your name is Mr Collins.
The Bennet's lovely daughters, beautiful and strong of body and mind are accustomed to a regimented life of training, until the handsome stranger Mr Bingley comes to the country. A whirlwind of romance and the undead lead them into a battle for family and love.
Heaving bosoms, country estates. Brain eating corpses and assorted weaponry. Everything you'd expect when the undead meets Jane Austen. As if on cue my playlist has shuffled to Zombie by The Cranberries. I can't deny enjoying this film, I should point out that I was always going to enjoy it, be it Oscar or Razzie worthy. It definitely had the potential to be an epic re-watchable classic or the B-movie winner that shone from the book.
When it was first published I picked it up almost instantly and soon found Quirk Books and other crossover books developing a little shrine-like area. [Now given pride of place in my nerd room.] Having a dislike of classics embedded in me from school and enjoying the general kick-assery of action films, it was a great crossover to bring those classics back into my life.
Admission time, while I've read the book I can't actually remember when, it was dozens of books ago. I loved it but not everyone did. I'm going to make a big sweeping statement. [Sorry, not sorry] It's not a Jane Austen book people, get over it. "He's ruined Elizabeth Bennet!" No he's taken a strong minded female character and put her in a new fantasy setting. I'm sure there would have been less objections if all the names were different (and the title too) and it was just described as "loosely based on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice". But swings and roundabouts, because it probably wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Sam Riley's Mr Darcy was no Colin Firth, but it was still very good. It did kind of seem like they threw him in a lake because they felt they should pay homage to Firth's dunking.
Note to those who see the film, Liz Bennet's heaving bosom is seen on a regular basis and is entirely distracting. I'm not sure there's a plot line linked to them, they're just always there, they probably should have got their own credit for the part.
I think my favourite scene was where Darcy came to Elizabeth to proclaim his love... and then they proceed to beat each other with sticks, books, basically whatever is to hand. Heated and packed with sexual tension it made for entertaining viewing. It also reminded me of the scene in Buffy where the slayer and Spike fight in an abandoned building, and the amount of sexual tension between the pair results in breaking the building, amongst other things... but those other things probably wouldn't work so well in Austen's time.
Even with all the bits that brought a smile to my face and made for enjoyable watching, there were some things I couldn't help but be annoyed with.
Firstly, Matt Smith, my dear number 11... [insert long silence here] I know Mr Collins is there for the annoying comic relief and awkwardness but oh my god. It was too much and I was overcome with annoyance. The cast is made up of relatively unknown people, with the exceptions of Charles Dance, Sally Phillips and Matt Smith. I can't help but wonder if Mr Collins would have been easier to deal with if he was an unknown actor.
The camera work had its own peculiarities. Some shots were taken from the zombies point of view. They were blurred and frustrating to watch, I can't really tell what it added. I'm sure it would have added a bit more drama if you'd seen the potential victim being run at. Again, I'm not an expert in showbiz filming but I'm fairly certain that making your audience want to throw up is not the idea. Right near the end there is a shot that perfectly portrays the devastation of the situation...
"How should we get across the devastation of the city and cut out to the next scene?"
"Spin the camera round until people want to vomit?"
"GENIUS!"
I sat there feeling a bit woozy, trying to avoid looking at the screen for the whole thing. I'm not sure either of the fancy styles really improved anything.
My only other wonder about the film is whether it should have gone all out spoof. This was a sensible spoof [relatively speaking], in that it wasn't made specifically for laughs. It did have some, but there were also some moments of emotion too. Should they have played the film out for more comedy? Who knows, but I feel the scene where Darcy and Elizabeth are stabbing a field to kill zombies that are buried underneath was completely wasted in a sensible spoof!
All in all I did enjoy it, but for those of you looking to see it at the cinema I'm not sure it's worth a £10 ticket. Well worth it if you have an offer of some description though. Just remember going in to it that it isn't Jane Austen, it's just your run of the mill zombie period drama... wow, never thought I'd say that sentence.
A mysterious plague has fallen across England. The countryside is a relative haven, where the city has become a playground for unmentionables. The oriental arts have become the fashion and a desirable young lady no longer needs to be the prim and proper wife, unless your name is Mr Collins.
The Bennet's lovely daughters, beautiful and strong of body and mind are accustomed to a regimented life of training, until the handsome stranger Mr Bingley comes to the country. A whirlwind of romance and the undead lead them into a battle for family and love.
Heaving bosoms, country estates. Brain eating corpses and assorted weaponry. Everything you'd expect when the undead meets Jane Austen. As if on cue my playlist has shuffled to Zombie by The Cranberries. I can't deny enjoying this film, I should point out that I was always going to enjoy it, be it Oscar or Razzie worthy. It definitely had the potential to be an epic re-watchable classic or the B-movie winner that shone from the book.
When it was first published I picked it up almost instantly and soon found Quirk Books and other crossover books developing a little shrine-like area. [Now given pride of place in my nerd room.] Having a dislike of classics embedded in me from school and enjoying the general kick-assery of action films, it was a great crossover to bring those classics back into my life.
Admission time, while I've read the book I can't actually remember when, it was dozens of books ago. I loved it but not everyone did. I'm going to make a big sweeping statement. [Sorry, not sorry] It's not a Jane Austen book people, get over it. "He's ruined Elizabeth Bennet!" No he's taken a strong minded female character and put her in a new fantasy setting. I'm sure there would have been less objections if all the names were different (and the title too) and it was just described as "loosely based on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice". But swings and roundabouts, because it probably wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Sam Riley's Mr Darcy was no Colin Firth, but it was still very good. It did kind of seem like they threw him in a lake because they felt they should pay homage to Firth's dunking.
Note to those who see the film, Liz Bennet's heaving bosom is seen on a regular basis and is entirely distracting. I'm not sure there's a plot line linked to them, they're just always there, they probably should have got their own credit for the part.
I think my favourite scene was where Darcy came to Elizabeth to proclaim his love... and then they proceed to beat each other with sticks, books, basically whatever is to hand. Heated and packed with sexual tension it made for entertaining viewing. It also reminded me of the scene in Buffy where the slayer and Spike fight in an abandoned building, and the amount of sexual tension between the pair results in breaking the building, amongst other things... but those other things probably wouldn't work so well in Austen's time.
Even with all the bits that brought a smile to my face and made for enjoyable watching, there were some things I couldn't help but be annoyed with.
Firstly, Matt Smith, my dear number 11... [insert long silence here] I know Mr Collins is there for the annoying comic relief and awkwardness but oh my god. It was too much and I was overcome with annoyance. The cast is made up of relatively unknown people, with the exceptions of Charles Dance, Sally Phillips and Matt Smith. I can't help but wonder if Mr Collins would have been easier to deal with if he was an unknown actor.
The camera work had its own peculiarities. Some shots were taken from the zombies point of view. They were blurred and frustrating to watch, I can't really tell what it added. I'm sure it would have added a bit more drama if you'd seen the potential victim being run at. Again, I'm not an expert in showbiz filming but I'm fairly certain that making your audience want to throw up is not the idea. Right near the end there is a shot that perfectly portrays the devastation of the situation...
"How should we get across the devastation of the city and cut out to the next scene?"
"Spin the camera round until people want to vomit?"
"GENIUS!"
I sat there feeling a bit woozy, trying to avoid looking at the screen for the whole thing. I'm not sure either of the fancy styles really improved anything.
My only other wonder about the film is whether it should have gone all out spoof. This was a sensible spoof [relatively speaking], in that it wasn't made specifically for laughs. It did have some, but there were also some moments of emotion too. Should they have played the film out for more comedy? Who knows, but I feel the scene where Darcy and Elizabeth are stabbing a field to kill zombies that are buried underneath was completely wasted in a sensible spoof!
All in all I did enjoy it, but for those of you looking to see it at the cinema I'm not sure it's worth a £10 ticket. Well worth it if you have an offer of some description though. Just remember going in to it that it isn't Jane Austen, it's just your run of the mill zombie period drama... wow, never thought I'd say that sentence.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in Movies
Jul 4, 2021
80s horror is its own unique thing, and nothing quite encapsulates the era as well as A Nightmare On Elm Street. Another series that spawned a whole bunch of sequels, the original holds the crown, and still stands the test of time.
For one, iconic slasher villain Freddy Krueger is a scary motherfucker here. There are glimpses of the more comedic elements that would encompass his personality in later entries, but here, for the most part, he's a no nonsense, nasty SOB. Of course Robert Englund relishes in his role, and it's hard to see anyone else effectively filling his shoes.
Opposite Freddy is Nancy Thompson (a fantastic Heather Langenkamp), a well written and hugely likable final girl, a final girl who rivals Laurie Strode in the pantheon of horror protagonists.
The premise of ANOES is wonderfully simple. Don't fall asleep. This film scared the living shit out of me when I was a young teenager. Wes Craven was extremely successful in doing for sleep what Jaws did for swimming in the ocean. As an adult, it's less scary sure, but still makes me feel uneasy. This is thanks to a wonderfully creepy score by Charles Bernstein, and the of course, the incredibly executed, and imaginative kill scenes. The gory moments are paced out nicely, and hit hard when they arrive. The first kill in particular is a solid all timer, and then the infamous scene where Johnny Depp meets his demise is so otherworldly. It really drives home the near impossible odds that the good guys are facing.
ANOES is obviously a genre classic, and I personally think it just gets better with age. One of the all time greats, from one of the all time greats.
For one, iconic slasher villain Freddy Krueger is a scary motherfucker here. There are glimpses of the more comedic elements that would encompass his personality in later entries, but here, for the most part, he's a no nonsense, nasty SOB. Of course Robert Englund relishes in his role, and it's hard to see anyone else effectively filling his shoes.
Opposite Freddy is Nancy Thompson (a fantastic Heather Langenkamp), a well written and hugely likable final girl, a final girl who rivals Laurie Strode in the pantheon of horror protagonists.
The premise of ANOES is wonderfully simple. Don't fall asleep. This film scared the living shit out of me when I was a young teenager. Wes Craven was extremely successful in doing for sleep what Jaws did for swimming in the ocean. As an adult, it's less scary sure, but still makes me feel uneasy. This is thanks to a wonderfully creepy score by Charles Bernstein, and the of course, the incredibly executed, and imaginative kill scenes. The gory moments are paced out nicely, and hit hard when they arrive. The first kill in particular is a solid all timer, and then the infamous scene where Johnny Depp meets his demise is so otherworldly. It really drives home the near impossible odds that the good guys are facing.
ANOES is obviously a genre classic, and I personally think it just gets better with age. One of the all time greats, from one of the all time greats.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated 4 Minute Mile (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Once again, Skewed & Reviewed has granted me the good fortune to screen another film for
you. An ‘underdog story’ that gives most others a ‘run for their money’ but keeps us, the
viewers’ glued to our seats with it’s drama and intensity. What makes the film more unqiue
is that not only does it take place in the city of Seattle but was also film in the great
city!
‘4 Minute Mile’ premiered at the Seattle International Film Festival on June 5th and is
set for a theatrical release on August 1st. ‘4 Minute Mile’ stars Kelly Blatz, Richard Jenkins,
Analeigh Tipton, Cam Gigandet, Rhys Coiro, and Kim Basinger. Directed by Charles-Oliver
Michaud, ‘4 Minute Mile’ tells the story of Drew (Blatz). An smart teenager from the wrong
side of the tracks doing his best to help his mother (Basinger) while doing everything
possible to avoid the fate of his older brother, an ex-con out on parole who pressures
Drew into running ‘errands’ which are presumably illegal in nature. Drew also happens
to be a fast runner. He runs like hell. The very same day he quits his school’s track team,
a reclusive track coach (Jenkins) scouts him and agrees to train him. The two soon form a
‘Rocky/Mickey’- like bond. However, tragedy soon strikes and Drew finds himself facing
the fear of losing everything hes’ worked and fought for.
I honestly don’t think I can describe how amazing I thoughtnthis movie was. I really can’t
see myself writing anything that would do it justice. It’s like ‘Good Will Hunting’ meets
‘Rocky 1′. This is no major hollywood production. This film is an intense drama with A LOT
of heart in it. These folks obviously believed in the film and it shows in every aspect from
the story, to the acting, and the way it was filmed. Theres’ also ‘realism’ to it. It doesn’t
have a ‘perfect ending’. Drew, the main character, overcomes tragedy after defeat after tragedy
and in the end … he succeeds but at great cost. It’s like with an quest or journey. You’re
not going to succeed without lose. Being from the Pacific Northwest, I also have to give
the film mad props for actually shooting the film in Seattle where the movie takes place
rather than saying it takes place here and then going to shoot it in Canada which has
sadly become ‘standard procedure’ for Hollywood to the dismay of many.
My recommendation? If you like a down-to-earth movie with heart, go see this one.
See it in the theater, see it at home, but go see it. It’s worth seeing and its worth
spending your hard-earned money in my opinion. I personally give the movie 4 out of 5 stars.
The film is PG-13 and it clocks in at about an hour and 36 minutes.
On behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed, this is your fellow movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’
thanks for reading, and i’ll see you folks at the movies ….
you. An ‘underdog story’ that gives most others a ‘run for their money’ but keeps us, the
viewers’ glued to our seats with it’s drama and intensity. What makes the film more unqiue
is that not only does it take place in the city of Seattle but was also film in the great
city!
‘4 Minute Mile’ premiered at the Seattle International Film Festival on June 5th and is
set for a theatrical release on August 1st. ‘4 Minute Mile’ stars Kelly Blatz, Richard Jenkins,
Analeigh Tipton, Cam Gigandet, Rhys Coiro, and Kim Basinger. Directed by Charles-Oliver
Michaud, ‘4 Minute Mile’ tells the story of Drew (Blatz). An smart teenager from the wrong
side of the tracks doing his best to help his mother (Basinger) while doing everything
possible to avoid the fate of his older brother, an ex-con out on parole who pressures
Drew into running ‘errands’ which are presumably illegal in nature. Drew also happens
to be a fast runner. He runs like hell. The very same day he quits his school’s track team,
a reclusive track coach (Jenkins) scouts him and agrees to train him. The two soon form a
‘Rocky/Mickey’- like bond. However, tragedy soon strikes and Drew finds himself facing
the fear of losing everything hes’ worked and fought for.
I honestly don’t think I can describe how amazing I thoughtnthis movie was. I really can’t
see myself writing anything that would do it justice. It’s like ‘Good Will Hunting’ meets
‘Rocky 1′. This is no major hollywood production. This film is an intense drama with A LOT
of heart in it. These folks obviously believed in the film and it shows in every aspect from
the story, to the acting, and the way it was filmed. Theres’ also ‘realism’ to it. It doesn’t
have a ‘perfect ending’. Drew, the main character, overcomes tragedy after defeat after tragedy
and in the end … he succeeds but at great cost. It’s like with an quest or journey. You’re
not going to succeed without lose. Being from the Pacific Northwest, I also have to give
the film mad props for actually shooting the film in Seattle where the movie takes place
rather than saying it takes place here and then going to shoot it in Canada which has
sadly become ‘standard procedure’ for Hollywood to the dismay of many.
My recommendation? If you like a down-to-earth movie with heart, go see this one.
See it in the theater, see it at home, but go see it. It’s worth seeing and its worth
spending your hard-earned money in my opinion. I personally give the movie 4 out of 5 stars.
The film is PG-13 and it clocks in at about an hour and 36 minutes.
On behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed, this is your fellow movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’
thanks for reading, and i’ll see you folks at the movies ….
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Bad Boys for Life (2020) in Movies
Jan 18, 2020
Bad Boys, Bad Boys, Whatchu gonna do? Whatchu gonna do when they come for you? Bad Boys premiered in 1995, the sequel way back in 2003. Bad Boys for Life, the third movie in the franchise takes us back to Miami, where Mike Lowrey (Will Smith) and Marcus Burnett (Martin Lawrence) have been partners in the force for over 25 years.
Marcus certainly is feeling his age, having been married with grown kids, and Mike is still ready to go and take down criminals with his own style. Marcus is eyeing retirement and his partner Lowrey, does not want any part of it. They are going by the motto of “Bad Boys for Life”. Captain Howard (Joe Pantoliano) is still running the precinct and a new tactical team has been established to carry out quick responses. This small team is led by Rita (Paola Nunez) who has had some history with Mike Lowrey.
Rita’s team is comprised by Kelly (Vanessa Hudgens) the team badass. Rafe (Charles Melton) the resident smart ass who immediately chafes Mike’s hide and Dorn (Alexander Ludwig), the IT specialist and gentle giant. It is as if the recruiter got Rafe and Dorn from an Abercrombie catalogue. They are AMMO, the rapid response team assigned to take on immediate issues that affect Miami.
The current problem is an assassin taking out members of Miami’s law enforcement community. We learn that there is a Mexican drug cartel looking for retribution and it is led by Isabel Aretas, the widow of the Kingpin (Kate de Castillo, playing the character with such seething hatred) and her son Armando (Jacob Scipio)
Bad Boys 3 is co-directed by the team of Adil and Bilall, who have worked together on film for the past ten years. Taking over the franchise from Michael Bay. There are plenty of chases and gunfights in the movie. The action is fantastic, the rapport between Marcus and Lowrey is just plain hilarious. The chemistry of their partnership is still there, and their timing is on point. I did not expect to laugh so hard or so much.
The movie took a minute to find it’s pacing at the beginning. Once the story was set, the timing was quick, but steady and the humor came on one after another. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, it had all the elements that I would have expected from a Bad Boys sequel: a logical story line, action, humor, eye candy and car chases. I would recommend this movie for anyone who wants to lose themselves in an action film with a large side order of humor.
Marcus certainly is feeling his age, having been married with grown kids, and Mike is still ready to go and take down criminals with his own style. Marcus is eyeing retirement and his partner Lowrey, does not want any part of it. They are going by the motto of “Bad Boys for Life”. Captain Howard (Joe Pantoliano) is still running the precinct and a new tactical team has been established to carry out quick responses. This small team is led by Rita (Paola Nunez) who has had some history with Mike Lowrey.
Rita’s team is comprised by Kelly (Vanessa Hudgens) the team badass. Rafe (Charles Melton) the resident smart ass who immediately chafes Mike’s hide and Dorn (Alexander Ludwig), the IT specialist and gentle giant. It is as if the recruiter got Rafe and Dorn from an Abercrombie catalogue. They are AMMO, the rapid response team assigned to take on immediate issues that affect Miami.
The current problem is an assassin taking out members of Miami’s law enforcement community. We learn that there is a Mexican drug cartel looking for retribution and it is led by Isabel Aretas, the widow of the Kingpin (Kate de Castillo, playing the character with such seething hatred) and her son Armando (Jacob Scipio)
Bad Boys 3 is co-directed by the team of Adil and Bilall, who have worked together on film for the past ten years. Taking over the franchise from Michael Bay. There are plenty of chases and gunfights in the movie. The action is fantastic, the rapport between Marcus and Lowrey is just plain hilarious. The chemistry of their partnership is still there, and their timing is on point. I did not expect to laugh so hard or so much.
The movie took a minute to find it’s pacing at the beginning. Once the story was set, the timing was quick, but steady and the humor came on one after another. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, it had all the elements that I would have expected from a Bad Boys sequel: a logical story line, action, humor, eye candy and car chases. I would recommend this movie for anyone who wants to lose themselves in an action film with a large side order of humor.
Darren (64 KP) rated Midnight Run (1988) in Movies
Oct 28, 2019
An under-rated Masterpiece
Midnight Run is an Action/Comedy masterpiece.
A modest hit at the box office way back in 1988, Midnight Run, Is the perfect buddy buddy movie. Robert De NIro stars as Jack Walsh, an ex Chicago cop turned bounty hunter, who is hire by his slimy bail bondsman Eddie Moscone (played by Joe Pantoliano) to bring in Jonathan Mardukas aka The Duke ~(fantastically played by Charles Grodin) a former mafia accountant who has jumped bail and is wanted by the FBI and the Mafia themselves.
Walsh succeeds in easily finding The Duke in New York which embarrasses the FBI. Walsh plans to bring back "The Duke" on a plane but, An incident on the plane leads Jack having just 5 days to travel cross country to bring in Mardukas from New York.
Moscone, not sure that Walsh can deliver Mardukas in 5 days, hires another bounty hunter Marvin Dorfler ( John Ashton) to take Mardukas from Walsh. Not only is Marvin trying to Mardukas for a payday but Walsh also has FBI agent Alonzo Mosely (Yaphet Kotto) on his tail so that they can bring him in.
On top of all of that, Mafia Boss Jimmy Serrano (The late great Dennis Farina) has his guys hunting Walsh and Mardukas so, they can have them dead before reaching LA as Mardukas was Jimmy's accountant and has damning evidence which can land Jimmy and his pals in prison for a very long time.
I really can't say enough good things about Midnight Run. Never at any point do you get bored or fed up of this film. In fact, at 2hrs and 6mins i wished it had gone on a little more.
How many films can you say that about?
De Niro and Grodin play off each other wonderfully. Their relationship goes from hunter and hunted to a nicely played out bromance of mutual respect.
John Ashton as Marvin, always thinking he's one step ahead of Walsh when he is actually one step behind. Joe Pantoliano is a fine character actor and here once again, As Eddie Moscone he plays slimy brilliantly. Yaphet Kotto never puts in a bad performance and finally, Dennis Farina as Jimmy Serrano has some of the best lines in the film.
Martin Brest delivers an absolute all time classic as director. It's a shame that after Gigli he decided to never direct again. Understandable i suppose because of the reviews but, Lets not forget he did bring us Beverley Hills Cop and Scent of A Woman and only ever directed 9 films in his career.
As for the 18 rating, That was down to the language! There are a lot of FUCKS in this film and it really isn't a violent film.
If you have not seen it, I implore you to take a chance! I promise you will not be disappointed.
A modest hit at the box office way back in 1988, Midnight Run, Is the perfect buddy buddy movie. Robert De NIro stars as Jack Walsh, an ex Chicago cop turned bounty hunter, who is hire by his slimy bail bondsman Eddie Moscone (played by Joe Pantoliano) to bring in Jonathan Mardukas aka The Duke ~(fantastically played by Charles Grodin) a former mafia accountant who has jumped bail and is wanted by the FBI and the Mafia themselves.
Walsh succeeds in easily finding The Duke in New York which embarrasses the FBI. Walsh plans to bring back "The Duke" on a plane but, An incident on the plane leads Jack having just 5 days to travel cross country to bring in Mardukas from New York.
Moscone, not sure that Walsh can deliver Mardukas in 5 days, hires another bounty hunter Marvin Dorfler ( John Ashton) to take Mardukas from Walsh. Not only is Marvin trying to Mardukas for a payday but Walsh also has FBI agent Alonzo Mosely (Yaphet Kotto) on his tail so that they can bring him in.
On top of all of that, Mafia Boss Jimmy Serrano (The late great Dennis Farina) has his guys hunting Walsh and Mardukas so, they can have them dead before reaching LA as Mardukas was Jimmy's accountant and has damning evidence which can land Jimmy and his pals in prison for a very long time.
I really can't say enough good things about Midnight Run. Never at any point do you get bored or fed up of this film. In fact, at 2hrs and 6mins i wished it had gone on a little more.
How many films can you say that about?
De Niro and Grodin play off each other wonderfully. Their relationship goes from hunter and hunted to a nicely played out bromance of mutual respect.
John Ashton as Marvin, always thinking he's one step ahead of Walsh when he is actually one step behind. Joe Pantoliano is a fine character actor and here once again, As Eddie Moscone he plays slimy brilliantly. Yaphet Kotto never puts in a bad performance and finally, Dennis Farina as Jimmy Serrano has some of the best lines in the film.
Martin Brest delivers an absolute all time classic as director. It's a shame that after Gigli he decided to never direct again. Understandable i suppose because of the reviews but, Lets not forget he did bring us Beverley Hills Cop and Scent of A Woman and only ever directed 9 films in his career.
As for the 18 rating, That was down to the language! There are a lot of FUCKS in this film and it really isn't a violent film.
If you have not seen it, I implore you to take a chance! I promise you will not be disappointed.