Search
Search results
Neil Goddard (3 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Feb 27, 2020
No Actors Required
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have a theory about movies that are 100% CGI; when someone isn’t a great actor and they are required only to supply a voice and they still aren’t very good, it really stands out.
Now, imagine you’re watching a film. I don’t know, maybe a bit creature epic, larger than life with whole cities being destroyed. The creature’s look amazing and the carnage they are wreaking is fabulous; buildings, helicopters, cars, all flying around the screen with a swish of a mighty reptilian tale. Now imagine that the actors, real people, not CGI, are, at best, bland and in some instances just outright terrible.
Annoying isn’t it?
It would lead one to believe that the film makers didn’t really put any stock in the human interactions, rather just gave a huge wad of cash to an SFX company and said, “Fill your boots, the more the merrier, make everything f---ing enormous!”
Godzilla (2014) was the second time Hollywood has attempted to make a film featuring Japan’s kaiju supremo and it was the first successful attempt from Hollywood, given that the 1998 Roland Emmerich attempt was basically Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) but with added daddy issues (Roland Emmerich’s trademark).
Gareth Edwards 2014 first entry in the MonsterVerse was a huge success, financially and artistically. We saw a Godzilla that was of a scale we’d always wanted, towering over buildings, a reptilian God and we’re just the ants trying to not get squished.
Godzilla: King of Monsters attempts to up the ante by throwing a dozen or so monsters at the story. “Godzilla fought two MUTO’s did he, well… hold my beer!” Yeah, we’ll hold your beer while you get Millie Bobby Brown to stand there teary eyed for most of the film (a waste), Vera Farmiga to go from bereaved workaholic, to eco-terrorist to pointless self-sacrifice (unfathomable), and for Kyle Chandler to… well, Christ knows what Kyle Chandler was doing, apart from spitting terrible dialogue badly and then standing/sitting/walking looking angry but unconvincingly. Bradley Whitford provided some nice comic relief, he does droll sarcasm immensely well, Charles Dance is underused (and then forgotten about) and Zhang Ziyi tries to out-Kyle-Chandler Kyle Chandler in the bland, borderline useless stakes.
Worse than any failing on the human emotion side of the story are the huge liberties they take with global travel, like, one of side of the world to the other in a very short space of time. I mean Godzilla can do it because of some tunnels under the sea that he uses, possible the ones used in the science-denying sci-fi car crash abomination The Core (2003), but for the humans to just pop to Venezuela or the Antarctic is unforgivable.
This kind of leaps of reality always leads me to lose interest in the events in a film and start thinking around the script. In a film where everything everyone says is of dire emergency or import and then we see them in another part of the world some time later, what have they been talking about for all that time. Have they been napping? If so, it’s hasn’t eased any of the pointless angry posturing. Have they been chatting about boring everyday stuff? There is no hint of a relationship between any of these people who are spending potentially their last moments on earth together with alarming regularity. The world is possible about to get destroyed and you are in direct harm’s way! Shut up and nut up.
Now, imagine you’re watching a film. I don’t know, maybe a bit creature epic, larger than life with whole cities being destroyed. The creature’s look amazing and the carnage they are wreaking is fabulous; buildings, helicopters, cars, all flying around the screen with a swish of a mighty reptilian tale. Now imagine that the actors, real people, not CGI, are, at best, bland and in some instances just outright terrible.
Annoying isn’t it?
It would lead one to believe that the film makers didn’t really put any stock in the human interactions, rather just gave a huge wad of cash to an SFX company and said, “Fill your boots, the more the merrier, make everything f---ing enormous!”
Godzilla (2014) was the second time Hollywood has attempted to make a film featuring Japan’s kaiju supremo and it was the first successful attempt from Hollywood, given that the 1998 Roland Emmerich attempt was basically Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) but with added daddy issues (Roland Emmerich’s trademark).
Gareth Edwards 2014 first entry in the MonsterVerse was a huge success, financially and artistically. We saw a Godzilla that was of a scale we’d always wanted, towering over buildings, a reptilian God and we’re just the ants trying to not get squished.
Godzilla: King of Monsters attempts to up the ante by throwing a dozen or so monsters at the story. “Godzilla fought two MUTO’s did he, well… hold my beer!” Yeah, we’ll hold your beer while you get Millie Bobby Brown to stand there teary eyed for most of the film (a waste), Vera Farmiga to go from bereaved workaholic, to eco-terrorist to pointless self-sacrifice (unfathomable), and for Kyle Chandler to… well, Christ knows what Kyle Chandler was doing, apart from spitting terrible dialogue badly and then standing/sitting/walking looking angry but unconvincingly. Bradley Whitford provided some nice comic relief, he does droll sarcasm immensely well, Charles Dance is underused (and then forgotten about) and Zhang Ziyi tries to out-Kyle-Chandler Kyle Chandler in the bland, borderline useless stakes.
Worse than any failing on the human emotion side of the story are the huge liberties they take with global travel, like, one of side of the world to the other in a very short space of time. I mean Godzilla can do it because of some tunnels under the sea that he uses, possible the ones used in the science-denying sci-fi car crash abomination The Core (2003), but for the humans to just pop to Venezuela or the Antarctic is unforgivable.
This kind of leaps of reality always leads me to lose interest in the events in a film and start thinking around the script. In a film where everything everyone says is of dire emergency or import and then we see them in another part of the world some time later, what have they been talking about for all that time. Have they been napping? If so, it’s hasn’t eased any of the pointless angry posturing. Have they been chatting about boring everyday stuff? There is no hint of a relationship between any of these people who are spending potentially their last moments on earth together with alarming regularity. The world is possible about to get destroyed and you are in direct harm’s way! Shut up and nut up.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Chief Zabu (2016) in Movies
Oct 8, 2020
“Chief Zabu” Captures 80s America With A Comedic Twist
Greetings & Salutations Everyone!
It’s perplexing how so very few people seem to comprehend the grand efforts that go into the production of a movie. The numerous individuals involved, the various disciplines and skill sets, the length of production time, etc. The film I have the good fortune to share with you today has essentially been on one of the longest journeys I’ve ever heard of. A journey so lengthy in scope, it was the subject of a recurring gag during the tenure of ‘Mystery Science Theater 3000’. 30 years. That’s right. It actually didn’t take 30 years to literally make/film the movie. Production for the film began in 1986. But due to an unforeseen series of circumstances, production was unable to be completed until 2016. Now if you’re a ‘die hard disciple’ of MST3K, obligations don’t matter. The fact that they thought enough of it to make it the subject of a running joke is advertisement enough to make you want to see the film. So … without further adieu I present for your consideration, “Chief Zabu”
“Chief Zabu” is a socio-political comedy that takes place primarily in New York during the mid-1980s and follows a determined New York businessman who believes his dreams of wealth and political power can be secured by cornering the economic future of a newly independent Polynesian country. The film was directed, produced, and written by Zack Norman (credited as Howard Zuker) and Neil Cohen. The film stars Allen Garfield, Zack Norman, Manu Tupou, Ed Lauter, Marianna Hill, Allan Arbus, Harsh Nayyar, Joseph Warren, Betty Karlen, Tom Nardini, Charles Siegal, Shirley Stoler, Lucianne Buchanan, and Ferdinand Mayne.
Chief Henri Zabu (Tupou) is the leader of a Polynesian country who has been thrust into the world of politics and has journeyed to New York City to secure recognition for his country from the United Nations. Secretly, he has come to hopefully secure investors and the finical backing to kickstart his country’s economy and infrastructure. Ben Sydney (Garfield) and his longtime friend and partner Sammy Brooks (Norman), are a pair of devious and crafty New York realtors going from one mediocre deal to the next while fantasizing about that ‘deal of a lifetime’ that will one day hopefully ‘find them’. It does. Sort of. Through a series of almost unreal interactions with a series of characters ranging from con artists to wealthy individuals who would likely push a family member into a pool if properly motivated, Ben and Sammy believe they’ve got the political and finance connections to make their ambitions a reality. And then, just when things are going so well … the proverbial rug looks as though it’s going to get pulled out from under them. So it would seem. New York realtors with political aspirations and possibly questionable morals. Does this ring any bells anyone?
Setting aside the comedic aspects of the film, it’s a fictional yet not unrealistic representation some of the political and economic influences that surrounded the arena of the United Nations in the mid to late 80’s. An interesting side story that depicts how first world nations would seize the opportunity to try and capitalize on newly independent or weaker nations by securing footholds in their economic and political power bases. Thereby funneling a nation’s resources and wealth away from those nations.
In the end, the film captures the 80’s in America much for what it was with a comedic twist. Celebrity worship, political backstabbing, and materialism. The only other film I can think of off the top of my head that did better would be ‘American Psycho’. Thankfully and perhaps gratefully, ‘Chief Zabu’ accomplished this WITHOUT the excessive and unprecedented depictions of violence. I’d give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The only way to one-up the movie is if we could take it back in time and give it the ‘MST3K’ treatment.
It’s perplexing how so very few people seem to comprehend the grand efforts that go into the production of a movie. The numerous individuals involved, the various disciplines and skill sets, the length of production time, etc. The film I have the good fortune to share with you today has essentially been on one of the longest journeys I’ve ever heard of. A journey so lengthy in scope, it was the subject of a recurring gag during the tenure of ‘Mystery Science Theater 3000’. 30 years. That’s right. It actually didn’t take 30 years to literally make/film the movie. Production for the film began in 1986. But due to an unforeseen series of circumstances, production was unable to be completed until 2016. Now if you’re a ‘die hard disciple’ of MST3K, obligations don’t matter. The fact that they thought enough of it to make it the subject of a running joke is advertisement enough to make you want to see the film. So … without further adieu I present for your consideration, “Chief Zabu”
“Chief Zabu” is a socio-political comedy that takes place primarily in New York during the mid-1980s and follows a determined New York businessman who believes his dreams of wealth and political power can be secured by cornering the economic future of a newly independent Polynesian country. The film was directed, produced, and written by Zack Norman (credited as Howard Zuker) and Neil Cohen. The film stars Allen Garfield, Zack Norman, Manu Tupou, Ed Lauter, Marianna Hill, Allan Arbus, Harsh Nayyar, Joseph Warren, Betty Karlen, Tom Nardini, Charles Siegal, Shirley Stoler, Lucianne Buchanan, and Ferdinand Mayne.
Chief Henri Zabu (Tupou) is the leader of a Polynesian country who has been thrust into the world of politics and has journeyed to New York City to secure recognition for his country from the United Nations. Secretly, he has come to hopefully secure investors and the finical backing to kickstart his country’s economy and infrastructure. Ben Sydney (Garfield) and his longtime friend and partner Sammy Brooks (Norman), are a pair of devious and crafty New York realtors going from one mediocre deal to the next while fantasizing about that ‘deal of a lifetime’ that will one day hopefully ‘find them’. It does. Sort of. Through a series of almost unreal interactions with a series of characters ranging from con artists to wealthy individuals who would likely push a family member into a pool if properly motivated, Ben and Sammy believe they’ve got the political and finance connections to make their ambitions a reality. And then, just when things are going so well … the proverbial rug looks as though it’s going to get pulled out from under them. So it would seem. New York realtors with political aspirations and possibly questionable morals. Does this ring any bells anyone?
Setting aside the comedic aspects of the film, it’s a fictional yet not unrealistic representation some of the political and economic influences that surrounded the arena of the United Nations in the mid to late 80’s. An interesting side story that depicts how first world nations would seize the opportunity to try and capitalize on newly independent or weaker nations by securing footholds in their economic and political power bases. Thereby funneling a nation’s resources and wealth away from those nations.
In the end, the film captures the 80’s in America much for what it was with a comedic twist. Celebrity worship, political backstabbing, and materialism. The only other film I can think of off the top of my head that did better would be ‘American Psycho’. Thankfully and perhaps gratefully, ‘Chief Zabu’ accomplished this WITHOUT the excessive and unprecedented depictions of violence. I’d give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The only way to one-up the movie is if we could take it back in time and give it the ‘MST3K’ treatment.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Me Before You (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“You are scored on my heart Clark”
“Me Before You” is a bit of a queer fish of a movie. It never quite decides whether it wants to be a romantic weepy, a drama, or a rom-com and as such ends up rather falling between all three stools.
Emelia Clarke (“Game of Thrones”, “Terminator: Genesys”) plays Lou Clark, an ‘invisible’ girl “with potential” who is trapped – due to unemployment-led poverty – living with her parents in a provincial castle town (a picturesque Pembroke, though notably hardly a Welsh accent in earshot). Her boyfriend Patrick (“Harry Potter”’s Matthew Lewis) is a running nut that doesn’t play to her romantic needs in any way. Circumstance leads her into the job of a carer for a quadriplegic, Will Traynor (Sam Claflin, from “The Hunger Games” sequels) who also happens to be the son of the local millionaire couple (played by Charles Dance and Janet McTeer). They own the castle, a large mansion and most of the surrounding countryside too.
Will – previously a sports jock – is paralyzed from the neck down after an accident and is a frustrated and suicidal mind in a useless body. Can the quirky and vivacious Lou bring him out of his morbid shell and find him a life worth living again?
From this outline, you might think the story almost writes itself, and for most of the film it does. But the writers have a number of twists and turns in store which – depending on your sentiments – might entertain or appall.
As her first leading actress role in a non-action feature it’s a bit difficult to sum up Emilia Clarke’s performance. At face value it could be described as an advanced case of over-acting, with an extensive array of kooky looks and gurning facial expressions. (Those eyebrows! At some point we’re going to have to see her acting opposite Cara DeLevingne in a “Batman v Superman” eye-brow-off). On the other hand, she plays the part with such vivacity and charm – and notably in a manner so in keeping with the character she portrays – that it is hard not to be enchanted by her: I certainly was.
Claflin plays the brooding and resentful Traynor well and Matthew Lewis shows he is growing into a really professional jobbing actor as he enters his mid-20’s.
Also radiant (she always is… sorry to break it to the wife like this… but I am basically in love with her!!) is the ever-gorgeous Jenna Coleman (“Dr Who”, “Victoria”) in what is to date a rare outing for her onto the big screen (she previously has only had a small role in the first “Captain America” film: she really needs a breakout movie like Carey Mulligan’s “An Education”). Coleman and Clarke make a very credible pair of sisters, with the “bed” discussion scene being very touching.
Elsewhere a number of other well-known faces crop up including Brendan Coyle (“Downton Abbey”) as Lou’s father and Joanna Lumley as a wedding guest with a handy line in references.
The soundtrack by Craig (“Love Actually”) Armstrong is top notch with pleasing songs from Ed Sheeran, Imagine Dragons, Cloves and We The Kings.
The production quality is as professional as you would expect from a British-made movie, although the Mallorca and Paris locations are not particularly well exploited, since for a large chunk of these scenes I was convinced they hadn’t left Pinewood!
So, a bit of a mixed bag, but enjoyable nonetheless. A guilty pleasure. If you like a romantic piece of escapism this is one for a wet Sunday afternoon, provided you have a box of tissues handy.
Emelia Clarke (“Game of Thrones”, “Terminator: Genesys”) plays Lou Clark, an ‘invisible’ girl “with potential” who is trapped – due to unemployment-led poverty – living with her parents in a provincial castle town (a picturesque Pembroke, though notably hardly a Welsh accent in earshot). Her boyfriend Patrick (“Harry Potter”’s Matthew Lewis) is a running nut that doesn’t play to her romantic needs in any way. Circumstance leads her into the job of a carer for a quadriplegic, Will Traynor (Sam Claflin, from “The Hunger Games” sequels) who also happens to be the son of the local millionaire couple (played by Charles Dance and Janet McTeer). They own the castle, a large mansion and most of the surrounding countryside too.
Will – previously a sports jock – is paralyzed from the neck down after an accident and is a frustrated and suicidal mind in a useless body. Can the quirky and vivacious Lou bring him out of his morbid shell and find him a life worth living again?
From this outline, you might think the story almost writes itself, and for most of the film it does. But the writers have a number of twists and turns in store which – depending on your sentiments – might entertain or appall.
As her first leading actress role in a non-action feature it’s a bit difficult to sum up Emilia Clarke’s performance. At face value it could be described as an advanced case of over-acting, with an extensive array of kooky looks and gurning facial expressions. (Those eyebrows! At some point we’re going to have to see her acting opposite Cara DeLevingne in a “Batman v Superman” eye-brow-off). On the other hand, she plays the part with such vivacity and charm – and notably in a manner so in keeping with the character she portrays – that it is hard not to be enchanted by her: I certainly was.
Claflin plays the brooding and resentful Traynor well and Matthew Lewis shows he is growing into a really professional jobbing actor as he enters his mid-20’s.
Also radiant (she always is… sorry to break it to the wife like this… but I am basically in love with her!!) is the ever-gorgeous Jenna Coleman (“Dr Who”, “Victoria”) in what is to date a rare outing for her onto the big screen (she previously has only had a small role in the first “Captain America” film: she really needs a breakout movie like Carey Mulligan’s “An Education”). Coleman and Clarke make a very credible pair of sisters, with the “bed” discussion scene being very touching.
Elsewhere a number of other well-known faces crop up including Brendan Coyle (“Downton Abbey”) as Lou’s father and Joanna Lumley as a wedding guest with a handy line in references.
The soundtrack by Craig (“Love Actually”) Armstrong is top notch with pleasing songs from Ed Sheeran, Imagine Dragons, Cloves and We The Kings.
The production quality is as professional as you would expect from a British-made movie, although the Mallorca and Paris locations are not particularly well exploited, since for a large chunk of these scenes I was convinced they hadn’t left Pinewood!
So, a bit of a mixed bag, but enjoyable nonetheless. A guilty pleasure. If you like a romantic piece of escapism this is one for a wet Sunday afternoon, provided you have a box of tissues handy.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Last Duel (2021) in Movies
Oct 28, 2021
Three nuanced perspectives on a winter’s tale.
In Ridley Scott’s new movie “The Last Duel” we are in the late 14th century in France. And – apart from in one scene – it appears to be perpetual winter!
Plot Summary:
Widowed Jean de Carrouges (Matt Damon) is a battle-hardened warrior, loyal to King Charles VI of France (Alex Lawther). He is becoming progressively estranged from his one-time friend Jacques Le Gris (Adam Driver), a personal favourite of Normandy ruler Pierre d’Alençon (Ben Affleck).
But Carrouges’ lovely new wife Marguerite (Jodie Comer) accuses Le Gris of a terrible crime. But who is telling the truth? Only God can decide, as Carrouges and Le Gris must duel to the death.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 18.
Talent:
Starring: Jodie Comer, Matt Damon, Adam Driver, Ben Affleck.
Directed by: Ridley Scott.
Written by: Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Nicole Holofcener.
“The Last Duel” Review: Positives:
It’s an intriguing script – the first collaboration between Damon and Affleck since their Oscar-winning “Good Will Hunting” from 25 years ago. It presents 3 different versions of “the truth” from three different perspectives. (One of these – Marguerite’s version – is suggested as being the ‘actual’ truth through a clever delayed fade of the chapter title). Many of the same scenes are repeated in each variant: sometimes with obvious differences in fact; sometimes with the slightest nuance of tone or expression; and sometimes with no change to the visuals, but with the benefit of hearing the dialogue being spoken. Very clever.
“Killing Eve”‘s Jodie Comer is just brilliant here. She is the master of nuanced expression, and she genuinely deserves an Oscar nomination for this work. Combined with her great and fun role in the surprise summer hit “Free Guy“, Comer is surely on a path to movie acting greatness.
Damon, Driver and Affleck also have great fun with their roles: they are all eminently watchable and this is a study in acting greatness. But I particularly loved Alex Lawther’s turn as the king: all excitable childish power in the body of a young adult.
Battle scenes and the final duel are delivered in visceral nature reminiscent of Ridley Scott’s famous battle and arena scenes in “Gladiator”.
Excellent production design and special effects on show here. Another Oscar nomination perhaps? The movie was filmed in the Dordogne region of France and also – after a 2020 Covid lockdown – in Ireland.
Negatives:
At two and a half hours it’s another long film (is October 2021 designated long film month??). And although the nuances between the different versions of reality are fascinating, there’s a degree of tedium involved in rehashing the same scenes (in some cases) for the third time. Arguably I think a few of these re-versions could have been omitted to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
Summary Thoughts on “The Last Duel”
This is Ridley Scott back on top form again. I found this a gripping watch. As the film opens, we are teased with the start of the ‘boss level’ duel between Damon and Driver. But these final dramatic scenes are the emotional lynchpin of the movie since only then do you understand the background and the ramifications of the fight.
Evidently, 14th Century France was NOT a great time for sexual equality. Women were merely chattels, denied not only fair play and self-determination, but also the bedroom niceties of foreplay and, in most cases, orgasms. As the story was based on real events, the courage and determination of Marguerite of Carrouges were extraordinary. And Jodie Comer’s portrayal of her wonderfully demonstrates, yet again, why she is the UK’s most exciting acting export for many years.
Plot Summary:
Widowed Jean de Carrouges (Matt Damon) is a battle-hardened warrior, loyal to King Charles VI of France (Alex Lawther). He is becoming progressively estranged from his one-time friend Jacques Le Gris (Adam Driver), a personal favourite of Normandy ruler Pierre d’Alençon (Ben Affleck).
But Carrouges’ lovely new wife Marguerite (Jodie Comer) accuses Le Gris of a terrible crime. But who is telling the truth? Only God can decide, as Carrouges and Le Gris must duel to the death.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 18.
Talent:
Starring: Jodie Comer, Matt Damon, Adam Driver, Ben Affleck.
Directed by: Ridley Scott.
Written by: Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Nicole Holofcener.
“The Last Duel” Review: Positives:
It’s an intriguing script – the first collaboration between Damon and Affleck since their Oscar-winning “Good Will Hunting” from 25 years ago. It presents 3 different versions of “the truth” from three different perspectives. (One of these – Marguerite’s version – is suggested as being the ‘actual’ truth through a clever delayed fade of the chapter title). Many of the same scenes are repeated in each variant: sometimes with obvious differences in fact; sometimes with the slightest nuance of tone or expression; and sometimes with no change to the visuals, but with the benefit of hearing the dialogue being spoken. Very clever.
“Killing Eve”‘s Jodie Comer is just brilliant here. She is the master of nuanced expression, and she genuinely deserves an Oscar nomination for this work. Combined with her great and fun role in the surprise summer hit “Free Guy“, Comer is surely on a path to movie acting greatness.
Damon, Driver and Affleck also have great fun with their roles: they are all eminently watchable and this is a study in acting greatness. But I particularly loved Alex Lawther’s turn as the king: all excitable childish power in the body of a young adult.
Battle scenes and the final duel are delivered in visceral nature reminiscent of Ridley Scott’s famous battle and arena scenes in “Gladiator”.
Excellent production design and special effects on show here. Another Oscar nomination perhaps? The movie was filmed in the Dordogne region of France and also – after a 2020 Covid lockdown – in Ireland.
Negatives:
At two and a half hours it’s another long film (is October 2021 designated long film month??). And although the nuances between the different versions of reality are fascinating, there’s a degree of tedium involved in rehashing the same scenes (in some cases) for the third time. Arguably I think a few of these re-versions could have been omitted to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
Summary Thoughts on “The Last Duel”
This is Ridley Scott back on top form again. I found this a gripping watch. As the film opens, we are teased with the start of the ‘boss level’ duel between Damon and Driver. But these final dramatic scenes are the emotional lynchpin of the movie since only then do you understand the background and the ramifications of the fight.
Evidently, 14th Century France was NOT a great time for sexual equality. Women were merely chattels, denied not only fair play and self-determination, but also the bedroom niceties of foreplay and, in most cases, orgasms. As the story was based on real events, the courage and determination of Marguerite of Carrouges were extraordinary. And Jodie Comer’s portrayal of her wonderfully demonstrates, yet again, why she is the UK’s most exciting acting export for many years.
Darren (1599 KP) rated AVP - Alien Vs. Predator (2004) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: AVP: Alien vs. Predator starts by taking us around the world fron Antarctica to space to Nebraska to Nepal where we meet the mountain climbing expert Alexa Woods (Lathan) onto Mexico where we meet the archaeologist Sebastian (Bova) who both get a visit from Maxwell Stafford (Salmon) who represents Charles Bishop Weyland (Henriksen).
Weyland has discovered an ancient pyramid buried under the ice of Bouvetoya Island in Antarctica and has built a team including Alexa, Sebastian, Miller (Bremner), Mark (Flanagan), Joe (Rye) and Adele (Boulaye) to mention a few. To travel to the island to enter into the pyramid for what could well be a massive discovery for whoever finds it.
What starts out as a simple exhibition turns into a nightmare when above ground the men get attacked by Predators but inside the pyramid they must battle aliens in a battle for survival stuck in the middle of these iconic villains.
Thoughts on AVP: Alien vs. Predator
Characters/Performance – Alexa Woods is the expert climber hired to lead the team into the pyramid using her experience on climb ice surfaces, she reluctantly agrees knowing she is the only available person to do the job safely. Sebastian is the archaeologist that is an expert on many ancient cultures. Weyland is the man funding and seeking technology inside the pyramid. The rest of the characters get a proper introduction only to be killed off in about a ten-minute sequence.
Performance was Lathan is good and the highlight of the human characters with everyone else just coming off fine not getting the time to make an impact.
Story – When you look at this story you are left thinking this is Alien on Earth, just without any suspense, horror or interesting stuff going on. This sounds harsh because this is an easy watch and people are going to be happy to watch aliens and predators fight, the problem I have was the introducing us to countless humans only to be disposable for these villains. Certain elements of the story telling do work though, looking at the idea of ancient civilizations worshiping the predators in exchange for the pyramids I did like.
Action/Horror/Sci-Fi – The action is all what you would come to expect, large body counts and alien or predator kills we have seen before. The horror is almost gone which disappoints with the sci-fi edge working on the level it needs to only.
Settings – After taking us around the world in the opening sequences we do settle down nicely for the setting inside the pyramid under the ice with little escape.
Special Effects – We have good effects when we keep things small scale but bad effects when things get to the large scale.
Final Thoughts – This is just fine nothing more, it is an easy watch and brings together icons of film, but this just isn’t as fun as Freddy v Jason.
Overall: Easy to watch all actioner horrorless movie.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/11/18/franchise-weekend-avp-alien-vs-predator-2004/
Weyland has discovered an ancient pyramid buried under the ice of Bouvetoya Island in Antarctica and has built a team including Alexa, Sebastian, Miller (Bremner), Mark (Flanagan), Joe (Rye) and Adele (Boulaye) to mention a few. To travel to the island to enter into the pyramid for what could well be a massive discovery for whoever finds it.
What starts out as a simple exhibition turns into a nightmare when above ground the men get attacked by Predators but inside the pyramid they must battle aliens in a battle for survival stuck in the middle of these iconic villains.
Thoughts on AVP: Alien vs. Predator
Characters/Performance – Alexa Woods is the expert climber hired to lead the team into the pyramid using her experience on climb ice surfaces, she reluctantly agrees knowing she is the only available person to do the job safely. Sebastian is the archaeologist that is an expert on many ancient cultures. Weyland is the man funding and seeking technology inside the pyramid. The rest of the characters get a proper introduction only to be killed off in about a ten-minute sequence.
Performance was Lathan is good and the highlight of the human characters with everyone else just coming off fine not getting the time to make an impact.
Story – When you look at this story you are left thinking this is Alien on Earth, just without any suspense, horror or interesting stuff going on. This sounds harsh because this is an easy watch and people are going to be happy to watch aliens and predators fight, the problem I have was the introducing us to countless humans only to be disposable for these villains. Certain elements of the story telling do work though, looking at the idea of ancient civilizations worshiping the predators in exchange for the pyramids I did like.
Action/Horror/Sci-Fi – The action is all what you would come to expect, large body counts and alien or predator kills we have seen before. The horror is almost gone which disappoints with the sci-fi edge working on the level it needs to only.
Settings – After taking us around the world in the opening sequences we do settle down nicely for the setting inside the pyramid under the ice with little escape.
Special Effects – We have good effects when we keep things small scale but bad effects when things get to the large scale.
Final Thoughts – This is just fine nothing more, it is an easy watch and brings together icons of film, but this just isn’t as fun as Freddy v Jason.
Overall: Easy to watch all actioner horrorless movie.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/11/18/franchise-weekend-avp-alien-vs-predator-2004/
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Turn of the Screw in Books
Mar 24, 2020 (Updated Mar 24, 2020)
Well written (1 more)
Ahead of its time
Overly descriptive (1 more)
Vague
The ghost stories of the Victorian era are full of scares and mysteries- - - from the karma-ridden future, past and present ghosts of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" to the comedic ghost story by Oscar Wilde called 'the Canterville Ghost." But among all of them, Henry James found another subject to add to the pot in the novella 'the Turn of the Screw.'
With only 93 pages and the viewpoint of a governess, the story is one that has been up for debate as to its meaning for over a century, a story that blends child abuse and ghostly possession way ahead of its time. But even with its great plot, the story falls short and becomes bland throughout most of its short pages.
So why is the meaning of the Turn of the Screw still being debated? There's only one thing that has caused that --- it's in the way that James wrote the story, nothing is explained and everything is vague, these being very important parts that can keep this book from being enjoyable to many readers. Here's a summary of the story: a woman becomes governess of two children, one of which is sent home from school (technically expelled, in today's terms), the entire book has this woman trying to figure out why the child was sent home, but with ghosts thrown into the mix.
The story starts off with a man telling this ghost story from letters he received from a woman (the governess). But, even at the end of the book, the story never turns back to the man finishing the letters, yet this was done so masterfully that when you are done with the book, you completely forget about the man at the beginning, something that isn't easily done today in most writing. The man is reading these letters to a small audience that is also never revealed why, something that will seem completely irrelevant for the reader.
Readers finally get their paranormal fix when our main character, the governess, sees her first ghost in the Turn of the Screw. Our governess goes on an isolated walk when she spots an older man staring at her from a tower on the estate. But not until after a second encounter with this man, she decides to tell a housemaid about it, who quickly knows whom she speaks of. The maid is very certain that the man the governess has spotted twice is a deceased man that used to work for the family, but the maid is terrified by this because this man seems to have been abusive towards the son of the family and now seems to be continuing to torment him even after death.
Our governess seems to go down a path of paranoia as she seems to believe that the children are seeing the ghosts, too, but refusing to tell her so, and she becomes convinced that the key to getting them to confess is to finding out why the boy was sent home from school in the first place. She tries many times to get him to tell her why, but lets him take control of the conversations where he is able to divert the attention to something else. When things seem to be too much for the governess and housemaid to handle, they decide to try to write the childrens' uncle, and ask him to visit - - - this being the uncle that hired the governess and asked to never be bothered by her again, and that he wants nothing to do with his niece and nephew ever again, and especially don't write to him about any problems.
James is considered one of the greatest authors of the English language, but although this novella did very well, he wasn't known for ghost stories. His most popular book is 'the Portrait of a Lady,' which is about a young woman who comes into a large amount of money only to have it stolen by two con-men. Being that he is a Victorian-era writer, you can expect the overly long paragraphs and descriptions that the time was known for in 'the Turn of the Screw.' I personally felt the story had too many interludes of the governess' thoughts and ideas, which border on rambling. There seemed no point in the governess obsessing over why the boy was sent home from school when there are ghosts tormenting them at home- - - how this mode was suppose to work has left me clueless.
It's a usual horror trope to have children being possessed as the core of a book because it's something that can shake adults to their core at the thought that their own children could be that vulnerable. But James was way ahead of his time in the Turn of the Screw. He was able to put together psychological standpoints that weren't even discussed in his time, bouncing between child abuse with those children acting out to the power that abusers can still hold over their victims, even after death.
I'm giving the story a high rating, although I really didn't enjoy it. Why? Because it was a great idea and it was well written. If James hadn't been so vague on key parts, and hadn't left readers with a shocking unexplained ending, then maybe I would have liked it more. I can only recommend this book to people who like Victorian ghost stories, but for paranormal lovers, I think it falls short.
With only 93 pages and the viewpoint of a governess, the story is one that has been up for debate as to its meaning for over a century, a story that blends child abuse and ghostly possession way ahead of its time. But even with its great plot, the story falls short and becomes bland throughout most of its short pages.
So why is the meaning of the Turn of the Screw still being debated? There's only one thing that has caused that --- it's in the way that James wrote the story, nothing is explained and everything is vague, these being very important parts that can keep this book from being enjoyable to many readers. Here's a summary of the story: a woman becomes governess of two children, one of which is sent home from school (technically expelled, in today's terms), the entire book has this woman trying to figure out why the child was sent home, but with ghosts thrown into the mix.
The story starts off with a man telling this ghost story from letters he received from a woman (the governess). But, even at the end of the book, the story never turns back to the man finishing the letters, yet this was done so masterfully that when you are done with the book, you completely forget about the man at the beginning, something that isn't easily done today in most writing. The man is reading these letters to a small audience that is also never revealed why, something that will seem completely irrelevant for the reader.
Readers finally get their paranormal fix when our main character, the governess, sees her first ghost in the Turn of the Screw. Our governess goes on an isolated walk when she spots an older man staring at her from a tower on the estate. But not until after a second encounter with this man, she decides to tell a housemaid about it, who quickly knows whom she speaks of. The maid is very certain that the man the governess has spotted twice is a deceased man that used to work for the family, but the maid is terrified by this because this man seems to have been abusive towards the son of the family and now seems to be continuing to torment him even after death.
Our governess seems to go down a path of paranoia as she seems to believe that the children are seeing the ghosts, too, but refusing to tell her so, and she becomes convinced that the key to getting them to confess is to finding out why the boy was sent home from school in the first place. She tries many times to get him to tell her why, but lets him take control of the conversations where he is able to divert the attention to something else. When things seem to be too much for the governess and housemaid to handle, they decide to try to write the childrens' uncle, and ask him to visit - - - this being the uncle that hired the governess and asked to never be bothered by her again, and that he wants nothing to do with his niece and nephew ever again, and especially don't write to him about any problems.
James is considered one of the greatest authors of the English language, but although this novella did very well, he wasn't known for ghost stories. His most popular book is 'the Portrait of a Lady,' which is about a young woman who comes into a large amount of money only to have it stolen by two con-men. Being that he is a Victorian-era writer, you can expect the overly long paragraphs and descriptions that the time was known for in 'the Turn of the Screw.' I personally felt the story had too many interludes of the governess' thoughts and ideas, which border on rambling. There seemed no point in the governess obsessing over why the boy was sent home from school when there are ghosts tormenting them at home- - - how this mode was suppose to work has left me clueless.
It's a usual horror trope to have children being possessed as the core of a book because it's something that can shake adults to their core at the thought that their own children could be that vulnerable. But James was way ahead of his time in the Turn of the Screw. He was able to put together psychological standpoints that weren't even discussed in his time, bouncing between child abuse with those children acting out to the power that abusers can still hold over their victims, even after death.
I'm giving the story a high rating, although I really didn't enjoy it. Why? Because it was a great idea and it was well written. If James hadn't been so vague on key parts, and hadn't left readers with a shocking unexplained ending, then maybe I would have liked it more. I can only recommend this book to people who like Victorian ghost stories, but for paranormal lovers, I think it falls short.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Jane Steele in Books
May 24, 2017
Classic Retelling
This eBook was provided by the author in exchange for an honest review
“Reader, I murdered him.” Jane Steele is a gothic retelling of the renowned Jane Eyre written by the celebrated Charlotte Bronte. Crime writer, Lyndsay Faye, creates an entirely new story, whilst appropriating the skeletal structure of the original classic. However, Jane Steele is nothing like the Miss Eyre everyone is familiar with. She is far more headstrong and independent, and also a murderer.
Before readers are discouraged to hear that their beloved Jane is portrayed as a criminal, the murders that occur are more of a homicidal or self-defense nature, as opposed to premeditated serial killing. In fact the first death, occurring when she is a nine year old orphan, is not her fault at all, however it prompts Jane’s wealthy aunt to pack her off to boarding school, and thus the similarities with Jane Eyre commence.
Written in an autobiographical manner, Jane describes her years at the virulent school, where she and the other girls experience abuse at the hands of the ignoble schoolmaster. As readers will recall, Eyre’s life improves in her later school years, however Jane Steele’s education comes to a premature end, resulting in her fending for herself in 19th century London.
As the blurb indicates, Jane returns to the house she grew up in after the death of her aunt, affecting to be a governess for the current owner’s ward. Mr. Charles Thornfield, a bachelor, is Jane Steele’s version of Rochester, minus the wife in the attic. The contents of the cellar, on the other hand, are a different matter…
From a romantic point of view, all happens in a similar manner to Jane Eyre, however this is where the comparisons end. With concealed crimes and secrets, as well as an unsolved murder, the story becomes the thriller it initially proposed to be. The incisive Jane Steele takes matters into her own hands – figuratively and literally – as she determines to resolve the unanswered questions.
Although not written with the intent to be comical, the stark contrasts between original and retelling create humorous scenarios. The nature of the main character in comparison with the time frame, a period where women had very little rights, makes the narrative far more exciting and amusing than the earlier novel – although not necessarily better.
Lyndsay Faye maintains the atmosphere of the 1800s with her affinity for eloquent turns of phrase and choice of words. She is a prolific author full of wonderful ideas; her ability to create a new story out of a well-known classic is a formidable skill. What is admirable is they way in which Faye has made Jane Steele a novel in its own right, and not merely a rip-off of Bronte’s work.
The skillful composition and wording will likely be loved by all, its only downfall being the reaction of hardcore Jane Eyre fans. Those who wish for the classics to be left alone and not pulled apart by contemporary authors or film directors may adopt a negative attitude towards to publication of Jane Steele. On the other hand, many will absolutely love this gothic retelling, appreciate the similarities and enjoy the new twist to the storyline. Personally, I am with the latter group.
“Reader, I murdered him.” Jane Steele is a gothic retelling of the renowned Jane Eyre written by the celebrated Charlotte Bronte. Crime writer, Lyndsay Faye, creates an entirely new story, whilst appropriating the skeletal structure of the original classic. However, Jane Steele is nothing like the Miss Eyre everyone is familiar with. She is far more headstrong and independent, and also a murderer.
Before readers are discouraged to hear that their beloved Jane is portrayed as a criminal, the murders that occur are more of a homicidal or self-defense nature, as opposed to premeditated serial killing. In fact the first death, occurring when she is a nine year old orphan, is not her fault at all, however it prompts Jane’s wealthy aunt to pack her off to boarding school, and thus the similarities with Jane Eyre commence.
Written in an autobiographical manner, Jane describes her years at the virulent school, where she and the other girls experience abuse at the hands of the ignoble schoolmaster. As readers will recall, Eyre’s life improves in her later school years, however Jane Steele’s education comes to a premature end, resulting in her fending for herself in 19th century London.
As the blurb indicates, Jane returns to the house she grew up in after the death of her aunt, affecting to be a governess for the current owner’s ward. Mr. Charles Thornfield, a bachelor, is Jane Steele’s version of Rochester, minus the wife in the attic. The contents of the cellar, on the other hand, are a different matter…
From a romantic point of view, all happens in a similar manner to Jane Eyre, however this is where the comparisons end. With concealed crimes and secrets, as well as an unsolved murder, the story becomes the thriller it initially proposed to be. The incisive Jane Steele takes matters into her own hands – figuratively and literally – as she determines to resolve the unanswered questions.
Although not written with the intent to be comical, the stark contrasts between original and retelling create humorous scenarios. The nature of the main character in comparison with the time frame, a period where women had very little rights, makes the narrative far more exciting and amusing than the earlier novel – although not necessarily better.
Lyndsay Faye maintains the atmosphere of the 1800s with her affinity for eloquent turns of phrase and choice of words. She is a prolific author full of wonderful ideas; her ability to create a new story out of a well-known classic is a formidable skill. What is admirable is they way in which Faye has made Jane Steele a novel in its own right, and not merely a rip-off of Bronte’s work.
The skillful composition and wording will likely be loved by all, its only downfall being the reaction of hardcore Jane Eyre fans. Those who wish for the classics to be left alone and not pulled apart by contemporary authors or film directors may adopt a negative attitude towards to publication of Jane Steele. On the other hand, many will absolutely love this gothic retelling, appreciate the similarities and enjoy the new twist to the storyline. Personally, I am with the latter group.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Death Wish (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
For Dr. Paul Kersey (Bruce Willis), life is good but at a crossroads. With his birthday coming up, his daughter Jordan (Camila Morrone) is preparing to leave their affluent Chicago home to start college in New York.
His wife Lucy (Elisabeth Shue) knows this is a good thing for their daughter but also knows that it is a turning point in their lives as they will soon be facing an empty nest.
Sadly their ideal life is turned upside down when a home invasion and robbery turns unexpectedly violent leaving Lucy dead and Jordan in a coma. A distraught Paul finds little solace in therapy or in the support of his brother Frank (Vincent D’Onofrio) who is putting his own life back together.
Frustrated by the inability of the police to find those responsible and bring them to justice; Paul becomes even more and more frustrated as the weeks pass. Paul eventually comes into possession of a gun and begins to practice with it which eventually leads him to taking to the streets in a Hoody. When a chance encounters has him gun down two criminals, Paul finds a sudden rush from his experience, especially when it was captured by an onlooker and posted online. Thanks to his face being hidden, the media dubs him the “Grim Reaper” and Paul begins a campaign of vigilante justice as he tracks down those responsible for his suffering and looks to exact a brutal revenge.
The movie directed by horror icon Eli Roth is a faithful update of the Charles Bronson classic. Paul is now Doctor Vs an Architect and Chicago not New York serves as the setting, but the tone and subject matter of the film is very much the same. Roth does show his horror background with a couple of killings that are a bit gruesome but they are not overly gratuitous as he cuts away from the carnage instead of lingering on it.
What I found most satisfying is how the film moved at a slow and almost deliberate pace. This was not a run and gun action film like many of the past films Willis has done. His Kersey is an everyman who decides to take extraordinary measures when he believes the law has failed him.
He moves at a steady pace and even in the most frantic moments, moves with the speed one would expect of a man of his years who has only recently fired a gun. Although effective he is at times unsteady with his shorts and actions and his inexperience shows.
It was refreshing to see combat on screen by a character that seemed real vs a polished officer or combat vet.
The cast was solid and really worked well with one another and you could see the struggle they faced with the situations presented to them. The audience at my press screening responded well to the film and seemed to get behind Paul as he embarked on his crusade. I am very curious to see in this time of controversy about gun laws how the film will be received.
For me, “Death Wish” is a very entertaining retelling of a well-known story that still holds up and still asks many difficult questions about our society and how to best protect the ones we love.
http://sknr.net/2018/03/01/death-wish/
His wife Lucy (Elisabeth Shue) knows this is a good thing for their daughter but also knows that it is a turning point in their lives as they will soon be facing an empty nest.
Sadly their ideal life is turned upside down when a home invasion and robbery turns unexpectedly violent leaving Lucy dead and Jordan in a coma. A distraught Paul finds little solace in therapy or in the support of his brother Frank (Vincent D’Onofrio) who is putting his own life back together.
Frustrated by the inability of the police to find those responsible and bring them to justice; Paul becomes even more and more frustrated as the weeks pass. Paul eventually comes into possession of a gun and begins to practice with it which eventually leads him to taking to the streets in a Hoody. When a chance encounters has him gun down two criminals, Paul finds a sudden rush from his experience, especially when it was captured by an onlooker and posted online. Thanks to his face being hidden, the media dubs him the “Grim Reaper” and Paul begins a campaign of vigilante justice as he tracks down those responsible for his suffering and looks to exact a brutal revenge.
The movie directed by horror icon Eli Roth is a faithful update of the Charles Bronson classic. Paul is now Doctor Vs an Architect and Chicago not New York serves as the setting, but the tone and subject matter of the film is very much the same. Roth does show his horror background with a couple of killings that are a bit gruesome but they are not overly gratuitous as he cuts away from the carnage instead of lingering on it.
What I found most satisfying is how the film moved at a slow and almost deliberate pace. This was not a run and gun action film like many of the past films Willis has done. His Kersey is an everyman who decides to take extraordinary measures when he believes the law has failed him.
He moves at a steady pace and even in the most frantic moments, moves with the speed one would expect of a man of his years who has only recently fired a gun. Although effective he is at times unsteady with his shorts and actions and his inexperience shows.
It was refreshing to see combat on screen by a character that seemed real vs a polished officer or combat vet.
The cast was solid and really worked well with one another and you could see the struggle they faced with the situations presented to them. The audience at my press screening responded well to the film and seemed to get behind Paul as he embarked on his crusade. I am very curious to see in this time of controversy about gun laws how the film will be received.
For me, “Death Wish” is a very entertaining retelling of a well-known story that still holds up and still asks many difficult questions about our society and how to best protect the ones we love.
http://sknr.net/2018/03/01/death-wish/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Johnny English Strikes Again (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Spy spoof caper that’s only passably amusing.
It’s a HILARIOUS concept. It’s Bond but not as we know it: a suave, sophisticated, well-dressed hero but someone who’s a complete klutz when it comes to the spy business. Rowan Atkinson is perfect in the role: because when he plays his face ”straight” he IS strangely good-looking and certainly pulls off the air of confidence, intelligence and sophistication well.
So it was that 2003’s Johnny English was a refreshing novelty. Roll forwards 15 years (via 2011’s “Johnny English Reborn”) and the concoction needs… you know… actual JOKES.
For “Johnny English Strikes Again” is unfortunately a pretty lame affair.
The Plot
Johnny English (Atkinson) is retired from MI7 and living life as a Geography teacher at a public school. Aside from teaching them about sheep farming in Australia and magma, English delights in teaching his young pupils the tricks of the spy trade: “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight”, with a twinkle and a vodka martini in hand. “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight” repeats the class.
But the quiet life of English is about to end, since a cyber-attack has exposed all of MI7’s current agents and the Prime Minister (Emma Thompson) needs to re-hire a retired agent who is currently ‘off the grid’. But noone – friend or foe – is safe when the bumbling English and his faithful helper Bough (Ben Miller) go back into the field.
The Turns
As UK comedy professionals, Atkinson and Miller deliver their English/Bough schtick serviceably enough. The brilliant Emma Thompson though is woefully underused as a straight-woman, being asked to do little more than an exasperated Theresa May impersonation.
If you need a sexy and sophisticated femme fatale for a Bond spoof, what better than a real ex-Bond girl? So the extremely sexy and sophisticated Olga Kurylenko (Camille from “Quantum of Solace”) plays Ophelia Bhuletova, which sounds much funnier when pronounced by Atkinson. And a very good job she does too.
The Review
To emphasise the positive for a moment, the film is suitably glossy, which are table stakes for a spy caper like this or Austin Powers.
But the script by William Davies (who did the previous Johnny Englishes, but nothing much since “Reborn”) doesn’t deliver any real laugh-out-loud moments. My hopes were raised when the “pensioner interviews” happened and Charles Dance, Edward Fox and Michael Gambon turned up. Great, I thought… having the old timers play off Atkinson will be fun. But unfortunately they were nothing but cameos and (although one of the film’s comedy highlights) they came and went in the blink of an eye.
Elsewhere the film relied too much on a few running jokes: ostensibly the need for health and safety in MI7, where guns are rather frowned upon, given their potential to caused injury or worse. A ‘virtual reality’ training mission also delivers smiles but outstays its welcome.
The film is a first-time feature for TV-comedy director David Kerr.
Final thoughts
There are films which are wildly offensive. There are films that are just plain bad. This is neither: it is as Douglas Adams might have described it as “Mostly Harmless”. But to get any more than the rating I have given it, a comedy film has to make me laugh and this one failed miserably. It’s a watchable TV film for a rainy afternoon, but not worth heading out to the cinema to watch.
So it was that 2003’s Johnny English was a refreshing novelty. Roll forwards 15 years (via 2011’s “Johnny English Reborn”) and the concoction needs… you know… actual JOKES.
For “Johnny English Strikes Again” is unfortunately a pretty lame affair.
The Plot
Johnny English (Atkinson) is retired from MI7 and living life as a Geography teacher at a public school. Aside from teaching them about sheep farming in Australia and magma, English delights in teaching his young pupils the tricks of the spy trade: “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight”, with a twinkle and a vodka martini in hand. “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight” repeats the class.
But the quiet life of English is about to end, since a cyber-attack has exposed all of MI7’s current agents and the Prime Minister (Emma Thompson) needs to re-hire a retired agent who is currently ‘off the grid’. But noone – friend or foe – is safe when the bumbling English and his faithful helper Bough (Ben Miller) go back into the field.
The Turns
As UK comedy professionals, Atkinson and Miller deliver their English/Bough schtick serviceably enough. The brilliant Emma Thompson though is woefully underused as a straight-woman, being asked to do little more than an exasperated Theresa May impersonation.
If you need a sexy and sophisticated femme fatale for a Bond spoof, what better than a real ex-Bond girl? So the extremely sexy and sophisticated Olga Kurylenko (Camille from “Quantum of Solace”) plays Ophelia Bhuletova, which sounds much funnier when pronounced by Atkinson. And a very good job she does too.
The Review
To emphasise the positive for a moment, the film is suitably glossy, which are table stakes for a spy caper like this or Austin Powers.
But the script by William Davies (who did the previous Johnny Englishes, but nothing much since “Reborn”) doesn’t deliver any real laugh-out-loud moments. My hopes were raised when the “pensioner interviews” happened and Charles Dance, Edward Fox and Michael Gambon turned up. Great, I thought… having the old timers play off Atkinson will be fun. But unfortunately they were nothing but cameos and (although one of the film’s comedy highlights) they came and went in the blink of an eye.
Elsewhere the film relied too much on a few running jokes: ostensibly the need for health and safety in MI7, where guns are rather frowned upon, given their potential to caused injury or worse. A ‘virtual reality’ training mission also delivers smiles but outstays its welcome.
The film is a first-time feature for TV-comedy director David Kerr.
Final thoughts
There are films which are wildly offensive. There are films that are just plain bad. This is neither: it is as Douglas Adams might have described it as “Mostly Harmless”. But to get any more than the rating I have given it, a comedy film has to make me laugh and this one failed miserably. It’s a watchable TV film for a rainy afternoon, but not worth heading out to the cinema to watch.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Director Quentin Tarantino is well known for his language and excessive violence-based movies. All one needs to do is look at some of his earlier works such as Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction to really get an understanding of how over-the-top they really can be. So, when I saw the initial previews for his latest dramatic comedy Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I wasn’t sure what to expect. This only fueled the expectation and interest I had going into the film.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars