Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated The Muppets (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
As a child, I have fond memories of watching The Muppet Show and enjoying the mix of comedy, music, and dance with my family and recapping the show with my friends the following day. Kermit, Ms. Piggy, Fozzie the Bear, and the whole gang were my childhood icons and provided countless hours of entertainment with their brilliant and inspired variety show as well as the three movies that followed. It is hard to believe that 1989 was the last time the gang graced the big screen with “The Muppets in Space”. Thankfully they are back in a big way to delight fans, old and new, this holiday season.
The new films stars Jason Segel as Gary, a mild-mannered guy who has a swell life in his small community. He has been dating the lovely Mary (Amy Adams) for ten years and they are excited to plan their first visit to Los Angeles. Gary has a younger brother named Walter who is a huge fan of the Muppets, having grown up watching the beloved show with Gary. The fact that Walter actually is a Muppet might explain his utter devotion to the show and characters. So when Gary invites Walter to accompany Mary and him on their trip, Walter is ecstatic. At long last, he can visit The Muppet Studios.
Upon their arrival in L.A., Walter is shocked to find the studio in shambles and disrepair. Undaunted, Walter sneaks into Kermit’s old office and accidentally overhears a businessman named Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) plotting to steal the property from the Muppets. Determined to thwart Richman, Walter and Gary look up Kermit the Frog who, despite his reluctance, agrees to reunite the gang to put on a tele-thon to raise the needed money to save the theater.
Along the way there are some great and touching segments where we see what many of the characters have been up to in the recent years, and more than a few laughs and musical numbers also follow. In a race against time, and despite the lack of confidence the network has in their relevance, Kermit must whip the cast and theater into shape for an epic performance.
The movie was an absolute joy. It was so refreshing to see how Segel and director James Bobin have brought the Muppets to a new generation without losing the previous ones and staying very faithful to the characters and to Jim Henson’s vision. Segel, who came up with the story and co-wrote the script, seems to be having the time of his life as he sings and dances his way through several production numbers and gives a very funny, and in turns, tender performance.
Adams is a joy as the sweet, yet determined Mary, and the addition of the new Muppet Walter was a treat. Sure the plot may have been fairly formulaic but there were more than enough moments to keep the adults happy. At our screener, the adults were laughing even lauder than the kids in attendance, especially at the numerous pop culture reference, celebrity cameos, and nostalgic nods to the show.
I do not want to spoil the film but from Beaker doing his take on the Nirvana classic “Smells Like Teen Spirit”, to the Swedish Chef channeling Tony Montana from “Scarface” I was thoroughly entertained. I can honestly say this is not only one of the best of the Muppet movies but it is a perfect film to take the family. Just don’t be surprised if you find yourself enjoying the magic as much, if not more, than the kids.
The new films stars Jason Segel as Gary, a mild-mannered guy who has a swell life in his small community. He has been dating the lovely Mary (Amy Adams) for ten years and they are excited to plan their first visit to Los Angeles. Gary has a younger brother named Walter who is a huge fan of the Muppets, having grown up watching the beloved show with Gary. The fact that Walter actually is a Muppet might explain his utter devotion to the show and characters. So when Gary invites Walter to accompany Mary and him on their trip, Walter is ecstatic. At long last, he can visit The Muppet Studios.
Upon their arrival in L.A., Walter is shocked to find the studio in shambles and disrepair. Undaunted, Walter sneaks into Kermit’s old office and accidentally overhears a businessman named Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) plotting to steal the property from the Muppets. Determined to thwart Richman, Walter and Gary look up Kermit the Frog who, despite his reluctance, agrees to reunite the gang to put on a tele-thon to raise the needed money to save the theater.
Along the way there are some great and touching segments where we see what many of the characters have been up to in the recent years, and more than a few laughs and musical numbers also follow. In a race against time, and despite the lack of confidence the network has in their relevance, Kermit must whip the cast and theater into shape for an epic performance.
The movie was an absolute joy. It was so refreshing to see how Segel and director James Bobin have brought the Muppets to a new generation without losing the previous ones and staying very faithful to the characters and to Jim Henson’s vision. Segel, who came up with the story and co-wrote the script, seems to be having the time of his life as he sings and dances his way through several production numbers and gives a very funny, and in turns, tender performance.
Adams is a joy as the sweet, yet determined Mary, and the addition of the new Muppet Walter was a treat. Sure the plot may have been fairly formulaic but there were more than enough moments to keep the adults happy. At our screener, the adults were laughing even lauder than the kids in attendance, especially at the numerous pop culture reference, celebrity cameos, and nostalgic nods to the show.
I do not want to spoil the film but from Beaker doing his take on the Nirvana classic “Smells Like Teen Spirit”, to the Swedish Chef channeling Tony Montana from “Scarface” I was thoroughly entertained. I can honestly say this is not only one of the best of the Muppet movies but it is a perfect film to take the family. Just don’t be surprised if you find yourself enjoying the magic as much, if not more, than the kids.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Irresistible (2020) in Movies
Jun 23, 2020
Jon Stewart has been fairly quiet since his retirement from The Daily Show. In a recent interview with Howard Stern he talked about being content on a farm for rescued animals and enjoying more time with his family. He also sent to that he would be doing projects that interested him. In “Irresistible” Stewart working as both Writer and Director has crafted a funny, informative, and expansive look at the political process.
Steve Carell stars as Gary Zimmer; a senior advisor to the Clinton’s who is still smarting over the recent election particularly his insistence that the “Rust Belt” was firmly in their hands and therefore opted not to devote a significant amount of time campaigning there which in turn was a key reason for their defeat.
An online video from a small farming community in Wisconsin catches Gary’s eye as it shows a former Marine farmer named Jack Hastings (Chris Cooper) challenging the local mayor at a town hall over immigration related issues and other hot topics.
Convinced that he can bring Jack over to the Democratic Party and use him as a starting point to restore the party in Wisconsin; Gary heads to the small town to make his pitch.
He quickly finds himself out of his element as the small-town community with friendly townsfolk to watch out for one another is very different than what he is used to. Gary eventually convinces Jack to run for Mayor and his involvement soon attracts the big money from the opposing side that seem to be rattled by what appears to be an insignificant small-town campaign.
Gary soon realizes that his nemesis Faith (Rose Byrne) who is his opposite for the Republican Party.
Gary and Faith have a clear history with one another and there is clearly plenty of animosity between them as each one is determined to succeed and broke their success in the face of the other.
As the campaign unfolds viewers are given a very direct look at how the political machine works from polling, demographics, special interests, fund raising, campaigning, muckraking, and using the media.
While this is often presented in a humorous way; Stewart uses a lot of simple but direct approaches to the various topics as he did on The Daily Show as a basis for further discussion.
The film takes some unexpected twists as it unfolds and the conclusion helps underscore that all parties involved often have an angle that they’re trying to work. One of the biggest messages that I took from the film was that the amount of money poured into campaigns has become more about one side beating the other rather than addressing the issues and putting the best possible people forward to represent the population.
Stewart handles the very complicated topics of the film through humor but above all used generally likable characters on all sides. Nobody was truly evil and you could clearly see much of their motivations.
The closing credits contains an interview with a political expert who discusses Superpacs and their lack of oversight and how people with ulterior motives can generate large amounts of money by manipulating the system completely within the law.
From a strong cast and entertaining story. Stewart has crafted a very solid and enjoyable film that will make you think.
Steve Carell stars as Gary Zimmer; a senior advisor to the Clinton’s who is still smarting over the recent election particularly his insistence that the “Rust Belt” was firmly in their hands and therefore opted not to devote a significant amount of time campaigning there which in turn was a key reason for their defeat.
An online video from a small farming community in Wisconsin catches Gary’s eye as it shows a former Marine farmer named Jack Hastings (Chris Cooper) challenging the local mayor at a town hall over immigration related issues and other hot topics.
Convinced that he can bring Jack over to the Democratic Party and use him as a starting point to restore the party in Wisconsin; Gary heads to the small town to make his pitch.
He quickly finds himself out of his element as the small-town community with friendly townsfolk to watch out for one another is very different than what he is used to. Gary eventually convinces Jack to run for Mayor and his involvement soon attracts the big money from the opposing side that seem to be rattled by what appears to be an insignificant small-town campaign.
Gary soon realizes that his nemesis Faith (Rose Byrne) who is his opposite for the Republican Party.
Gary and Faith have a clear history with one another and there is clearly plenty of animosity between them as each one is determined to succeed and broke their success in the face of the other.
As the campaign unfolds viewers are given a very direct look at how the political machine works from polling, demographics, special interests, fund raising, campaigning, muckraking, and using the media.
While this is often presented in a humorous way; Stewart uses a lot of simple but direct approaches to the various topics as he did on The Daily Show as a basis for further discussion.
The film takes some unexpected twists as it unfolds and the conclusion helps underscore that all parties involved often have an angle that they’re trying to work. One of the biggest messages that I took from the film was that the amount of money poured into campaigns has become more about one side beating the other rather than addressing the issues and putting the best possible people forward to represent the population.
Stewart handles the very complicated topics of the film through humor but above all used generally likable characters on all sides. Nobody was truly evil and you could clearly see much of their motivations.
The closing credits contains an interview with a political expert who discusses Superpacs and their lack of oversight and how people with ulterior motives can generate large amounts of money by manipulating the system completely within the law.
From a strong cast and entertaining story. Stewart has crafted a very solid and enjoyable film that will make you think.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) in Movies
May 10, 2019
"He may have been your father boy but he wasn't your daddy"
The follow-up chapter to Guardians of the Galaxy and fifteenth instalment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is bigger in both scale & scope and continues the journey of this oddball gang of extra-terrestrial misfits while also bringing more figures from their past into the spotlight and although its vibrant use of colour palette & another tightly curated soundtrack are notable highlights, the film as a whole lacks the freshness of the original.
The story of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 finds Peter Quill, Gamora, Drax, Rocket & Baby Groot embracing their new roles of the Guardians as they are hired by a galactic race to save a valuable item from an inter-dimensional beast, a mission they successfully accomplish, but when Rocket steals some of the very items they just fought to protect, they're attacked by a fleet of drones and crash-land on a planet where they meet a mysterious figure who may have answers to Quill's true origin.
Written & directed by James Gunn, the film opens with a flashback but it is the main title sequence where it gets into the groove and wholeheartedly evokes the pleasant delights of the original. And while there are more flashes of it down the line, Gunn's writing & direction falls short of achieving the same feat twice, for not all attempts at humour hit the right spot this time and one can easily tell that the director is trying a tad too hard to match the consistent vibe & free-flowing wit of its predecessor.
The set pieces are more extravagant than last time and they are beautifully designed & gorgeously rendered on the screen. Cinematography makes vivid use of all existing colours and the resulting frames flourish with radiant hues from start to finish. Pacing isn't a big issue but Editing does lack the smoothness of its predecessor. Every moment in the movie relies heavily on visual effects and the VFX team leaves no stone unturned to make sure there is nothing to complain about, whether it's the celestial bodies or CGI characters or any set piece.
Coming to the performances, Guardians of the Galaxies Vol. 2 features Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, Michael Rooker & Karen Gillan in their reprising roles while new additions include Kurt Russell & Pom Klementieff. But of all the big names, it's Rooker who impresses the most and his character of Yondu easily stands out as a show-stealer. One of the best things about the first film was its eclectic soundtrack and this sequel delivers in that field yet again with another awesome mix that seamlessly blends into the narrative.
On an overall scale, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 may not be a better film than its predecessor but it is still a worthy sequel that offers its own set of thrills & amusement, and happens to be just as much fun & entertaining an experience, if not more. It certainly earns its spot in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and its colourful images, dazzling visuals & first-rate soundtrack, in addition to its witty plot, idiosyncratic characters & wonderful performances, puts it right up there with Marvel Studios' better sequels. Enjoyable, entertaining & a whole lot of fun, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is definitely a solid summer blockbuster extravaganza.
The story of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 finds Peter Quill, Gamora, Drax, Rocket & Baby Groot embracing their new roles of the Guardians as they are hired by a galactic race to save a valuable item from an inter-dimensional beast, a mission they successfully accomplish, but when Rocket steals some of the very items they just fought to protect, they're attacked by a fleet of drones and crash-land on a planet where they meet a mysterious figure who may have answers to Quill's true origin.
Written & directed by James Gunn, the film opens with a flashback but it is the main title sequence where it gets into the groove and wholeheartedly evokes the pleasant delights of the original. And while there are more flashes of it down the line, Gunn's writing & direction falls short of achieving the same feat twice, for not all attempts at humour hit the right spot this time and one can easily tell that the director is trying a tad too hard to match the consistent vibe & free-flowing wit of its predecessor.
The set pieces are more extravagant than last time and they are beautifully designed & gorgeously rendered on the screen. Cinematography makes vivid use of all existing colours and the resulting frames flourish with radiant hues from start to finish. Pacing isn't a big issue but Editing does lack the smoothness of its predecessor. Every moment in the movie relies heavily on visual effects and the VFX team leaves no stone unturned to make sure there is nothing to complain about, whether it's the celestial bodies or CGI characters or any set piece.
Coming to the performances, Guardians of the Galaxies Vol. 2 features Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, Michael Rooker & Karen Gillan in their reprising roles while new additions include Kurt Russell & Pom Klementieff. But of all the big names, it's Rooker who impresses the most and his character of Yondu easily stands out as a show-stealer. One of the best things about the first film was its eclectic soundtrack and this sequel delivers in that field yet again with another awesome mix that seamlessly blends into the narrative.
On an overall scale, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 may not be a better film than its predecessor but it is still a worthy sequel that offers its own set of thrills & amusement, and happens to be just as much fun & entertaining an experience, if not more. It certainly earns its spot in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and its colourful images, dazzling visuals & first-rate soundtrack, in addition to its witty plot, idiosyncratic characters & wonderful performances, puts it right up there with Marvel Studios' better sequels. Enjoyable, entertaining & a whole lot of fun, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is definitely a solid summer blockbuster extravaganza.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Feb 5, 2020
A Worthy Adaptation
There have been many adaptations of Louisa May Alcott's 19th Century Classic novel LITTLE WOMEN following the adventures, loves and losses of the 4 March sisters - Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth.. My favorite is the Orono High School's production of the musical version of LITTLE WOMEN (starring my daughter as Jo), but coming in a close second is the 1933 version with Katherine Hepburn starring as Jo (the quintessential Jo, in my book). So was there really a need for ANOTHER version of this?
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Wow. Just wow. It feels like there are no words that could describe how great Guardians of the Galaxy is. This is the first movie in a while where I walked in with high expectations, and yet they still managed to exceed them. OK. Enough gushing. Time to get to the dirt.
Guardians, while a movie about a group of people, follows Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) as he loses his mother and then is suddenly whisked away (kidnapped) by an (at first) unknown space ship. Then we fast forward 26 years later and we see what the young kid who couldn’t handle the death of his mother has become. A quick-witted, sort of goofy, outlaw who likes to refer to himself as Star Lord. He double crosses the same people who have helped raise him to be the man he has become, and so sets off a series of events that brings Star Lord, Rocket Raccoon (Bradley Cooper), Groot (Vin Diesel), Gamora (Zoe Saldana) and Drax (Dave Bautista) together to go an insane adventure in an attempt to save the galaxy. In order to do this, they must stop Ronan, a Lieutenant in Thanos’ army, from obtaining a mysterious orb. The gang comes together through unlikely circumstances, and ultimately work very well together as a team, but do they have what it takes to get the job done?
This movie is all around genius. While I did have high expectations for the film, I was a little reticent about James Gunn directing. He has not had anything on this scale in the past, but man did he knock it out of the park. Every element of this world was working together perfectly… the soundtrack and score helped set the quirky, adventurous tone of the film. The cinematography combined with the visual effects was captivating. The acting was superb, with the standout being Dave Bautista as Drax. Who knew he had it in him? Apparently James Gunn did. But every actor played their part as if it were meant for them specifically. If I have one gripe in the department, it’s that Nebula (Karen Gillan) did not have as much screen time as she should have. You also some surprise supporting cast in their too with the likes of Michael Rooker, Djimon Hounsou, Glenn Close and Benicio Del Toro, the movie is definitely Gunn-ing for gold. (I am so sorry. That was cheesy I know).
We saw this movie in 3D. I am not a big fan of “everything has to be 3D”, and typically space-based movies tend to overdo the 3D effects. However, I think that the 3D in this movie was slightly understated, which is a definite good thing. Sure, there were scenes that you could tell were made specifically because it would be shown in 3D, but they didn’t make you sick of the effect 5 seconds into the scene. It was very artfully done, and not too overwhelming for a space film.
This is definitely the film to see this summer. Great action, good story arch, great setup for the next movie, and a multitude of tie-ins to the other Marvel universe films. I am definitely going to be seeing this in theaters again, especially since we did not get the bonus scene at the press screening, and it will be a definite buy on Blu-Ray. Even in 3D.
I also wanted to address the rumor of Nathan Fillion being in this film. No, he is not Nova. However, he is in the film. But blink… and you will miss it. I am curious to see if anyone else can find him in the film. Please let us know in the comments!
Guardians, while a movie about a group of people, follows Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) as he loses his mother and then is suddenly whisked away (kidnapped) by an (at first) unknown space ship. Then we fast forward 26 years later and we see what the young kid who couldn’t handle the death of his mother has become. A quick-witted, sort of goofy, outlaw who likes to refer to himself as Star Lord. He double crosses the same people who have helped raise him to be the man he has become, and so sets off a series of events that brings Star Lord, Rocket Raccoon (Bradley Cooper), Groot (Vin Diesel), Gamora (Zoe Saldana) and Drax (Dave Bautista) together to go an insane adventure in an attempt to save the galaxy. In order to do this, they must stop Ronan, a Lieutenant in Thanos’ army, from obtaining a mysterious orb. The gang comes together through unlikely circumstances, and ultimately work very well together as a team, but do they have what it takes to get the job done?
This movie is all around genius. While I did have high expectations for the film, I was a little reticent about James Gunn directing. He has not had anything on this scale in the past, but man did he knock it out of the park. Every element of this world was working together perfectly… the soundtrack and score helped set the quirky, adventurous tone of the film. The cinematography combined with the visual effects was captivating. The acting was superb, with the standout being Dave Bautista as Drax. Who knew he had it in him? Apparently James Gunn did. But every actor played their part as if it were meant for them specifically. If I have one gripe in the department, it’s that Nebula (Karen Gillan) did not have as much screen time as she should have. You also some surprise supporting cast in their too with the likes of Michael Rooker, Djimon Hounsou, Glenn Close and Benicio Del Toro, the movie is definitely Gunn-ing for gold. (I am so sorry. That was cheesy I know).
We saw this movie in 3D. I am not a big fan of “everything has to be 3D”, and typically space-based movies tend to overdo the 3D effects. However, I think that the 3D in this movie was slightly understated, which is a definite good thing. Sure, there were scenes that you could tell were made specifically because it would be shown in 3D, but they didn’t make you sick of the effect 5 seconds into the scene. It was very artfully done, and not too overwhelming for a space film.
This is definitely the film to see this summer. Great action, good story arch, great setup for the next movie, and a multitude of tie-ins to the other Marvel universe films. I am definitely going to be seeing this in theaters again, especially since we did not get the bonus scene at the press screening, and it will be a definite buy on Blu-Ray. Even in 3D.
I also wanted to address the rumor of Nathan Fillion being in this film. No, he is not Nova. However, he is in the film. But blink… and you will miss it. I am curious to see if anyone else can find him in the film. Please let us know in the comments!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Groot Expectations.
James Gunn is back writing and directing the sequel to his surprise 2014 summer hit. And it might be a fresh mix tape slammed into the Walkman, but it’s much of the same again. Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing.
In terms of the story, it’s almost a remake of the worst Star Trek film ever made! However, this time its all done for ‘laffs’ and so works much, much better. We join Quill (Chris Pratt, “Jurassic World“), Gamora (Zoe Saldana, “Star Trek Beyond“), Drax (Dave Bautista, “Spectre“) and Rocket (the voice of Bradley Cooper) ‘ever ready’ (LOL) to save the priceless Anulax batteries of their current employees, the Sovereigns, from the ravages of some multi-dimensional being. ‘Helping’ them is Baby Groot, a twig off the old branch from the first film, again voiced (in what must be the easiest money in Hollywood) by Vin Diesel (“Fast and Furious 8“).
The Sovereign’s High Priestess (Elizabeth Debicki, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) provides payment to Gamora in the form of her chained-up evil sister Nebula (a deliciously sulky Karen Gillen, “Dr Who”, “Oculus”) but is then less than impressed when the mercenary Rocket pockets a knapsack full of the batteries. So starts a chase across the galaxy leading Quill to meet Ego (Kurt Russell, “The Hateful 8“) on the planet Ego (LOL) at the very base of his family tree.
The great thing about these films is that they don’t even TRY to be realistic. Characters get towed behind crashing spaceships and – literally- dragged through a wood backwards; others fall hundreds of feet to certain death… no, sorry, a “superhero landing”; and planets and characters are painted with a garishness never ever to be found in nature. You’ll even believe Kurt Russell is 18 again – oh that these effects were available on the NHS!
But the other saving grace for this film is the soundtrack, put together by Tyler Bates as an ode to the 80’s, with wonderful tracks by ELO, Fleetwood Mac, Cat Stevens and a host of others. The film matches the music with the action superbly.
I won’t bother commenting on the acting… who cares with this sort of film! But everyone seems to have fun with Michael Rooker (“Cliffhanger”) being particularly good in reprising his role of Yondu. There are also a wealth of memorable cameos, some of them being laugh out loud moments. While some of the pop culture references might go over a younger audience’s heads, there are still enough great one-liners and comic moments to provide general appeal. Bad guys silhouetted against the moon, ET style, was particularly memorable.
One criticism I would have though is that it’s just too darn long for an “action comedy”. The original film just about scraped into my good books by coming in under the two hour curfew. The sequel however adds another 15 minutes, which should have found its way either onto the cutting room floor or onto the “Blu Ray collector’s edition”. In particular, the final never-ending showdown of CGI manicness went on too long for my liking.
Looking back at the original 2014 review, I gave it a rather stingy FFF rating, which in retrospect I think was a bit mean given its novelty. This time the novelty has worn off, but if anything this is an even more enjoyable romp that the first outing.
James Gunn be warned though: I am unlikely to be so generous with “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3” (as threatened) which in my view might be a trip too far for this franchise. My advice would be to take a leaf out of Peter Kay’s “Car Share” book and quit while you’re ahead.
By the way, for those who are interested, the film had a reported budget of $200 million (an impressive “BvS quotient” of 80%!) and the end titles have four “monkeys“, with a humorous reprise of Stan Lee’s astronaut.
In terms of the story, it’s almost a remake of the worst Star Trek film ever made! However, this time its all done for ‘laffs’ and so works much, much better. We join Quill (Chris Pratt, “Jurassic World“), Gamora (Zoe Saldana, “Star Trek Beyond“), Drax (Dave Bautista, “Spectre“) and Rocket (the voice of Bradley Cooper) ‘ever ready’ (LOL) to save the priceless Anulax batteries of their current employees, the Sovereigns, from the ravages of some multi-dimensional being. ‘Helping’ them is Baby Groot, a twig off the old branch from the first film, again voiced (in what must be the easiest money in Hollywood) by Vin Diesel (“Fast and Furious 8“).
The Sovereign’s High Priestess (Elizabeth Debicki, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) provides payment to Gamora in the form of her chained-up evil sister Nebula (a deliciously sulky Karen Gillen, “Dr Who”, “Oculus”) but is then less than impressed when the mercenary Rocket pockets a knapsack full of the batteries. So starts a chase across the galaxy leading Quill to meet Ego (Kurt Russell, “The Hateful 8“) on the planet Ego (LOL) at the very base of his family tree.
The great thing about these films is that they don’t even TRY to be realistic. Characters get towed behind crashing spaceships and – literally- dragged through a wood backwards; others fall hundreds of feet to certain death… no, sorry, a “superhero landing”; and planets and characters are painted with a garishness never ever to be found in nature. You’ll even believe Kurt Russell is 18 again – oh that these effects were available on the NHS!
But the other saving grace for this film is the soundtrack, put together by Tyler Bates as an ode to the 80’s, with wonderful tracks by ELO, Fleetwood Mac, Cat Stevens and a host of others. The film matches the music with the action superbly.
I won’t bother commenting on the acting… who cares with this sort of film! But everyone seems to have fun with Michael Rooker (“Cliffhanger”) being particularly good in reprising his role of Yondu. There are also a wealth of memorable cameos, some of them being laugh out loud moments. While some of the pop culture references might go over a younger audience’s heads, there are still enough great one-liners and comic moments to provide general appeal. Bad guys silhouetted against the moon, ET style, was particularly memorable.
One criticism I would have though is that it’s just too darn long for an “action comedy”. The original film just about scraped into my good books by coming in under the two hour curfew. The sequel however adds another 15 minutes, which should have found its way either onto the cutting room floor or onto the “Blu Ray collector’s edition”. In particular, the final never-ending showdown of CGI manicness went on too long for my liking.
Looking back at the original 2014 review, I gave it a rather stingy FFF rating, which in retrospect I think was a bit mean given its novelty. This time the novelty has worn off, but if anything this is an even more enjoyable romp that the first outing.
James Gunn be warned though: I am unlikely to be so generous with “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3” (as threatened) which in my view might be a trip too far for this franchise. My advice would be to take a leaf out of Peter Kay’s “Car Share” book and quit while you’re ahead.
By the way, for those who are interested, the film had a reported budget of $200 million (an impressive “BvS quotient” of 80%!) and the end titles have four “monkeys“, with a humorous reprise of Stan Lee’s astronaut.
Darren (1599 KP) rated All Cheerleaders Die (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: All Cheerleaders Die starts with a look at head cheerleader Alexis (Cooper) who literally thinks she has the whole school under her finger but while performing she dies. The girls hold auditions for new role in the squad which Alexis old friend Maddy takes a chance with a deeper quest to get her own revenge on Terry.
Once a member of the cheer-leading team we see how she starts pushing them away from the football stars including the captain Terry (Williamson) who ends up causing the deaths of members of the team, but when Leena (Smit-McPhee) a witch brings them back to life, but now they have a craving for human flesh and target Terry for the ultimate revenge.cheerleader
All Cheerleaders Die starts off very slowly for my liking trying to introduce the characters and tease at a massive revenge angle before anything happens. Once the cheerleaders get killed the film steps up and unloads all the horror comedy. I would like to see less from the start and more from the end because that is the part of the film you want to watch. I think this is a real entertaining film that really does keep you guessing just what will happen next.
Actor Review
Caitlin Stasey: Maddy is the newest addition to the cheer-leading squad who has been against the team captain of the football team for years. When she is killed she comes back with the rest of the team to get revenge on the football team. Caitlin does a good job in the leading role taking a more risky role that goes against most horror clichés.
Tom Williamson: Terry is the captain of the football team and an all around asshole, when he gets into a fight with his girlfriend he runs the cheerleaders off the road killing them all. When they return he ends up becoming the target of their vengeance. Tom creates the asshole persona really well in this film that could make this the most entertaining part when he gets what he deserves.terry
Sianoa Smit-McPhee: Leena is the witch who likes to work with dark magic but when she sees her friends die she brings them all back to life where she doesn’t understand the power she holds. Sianoa does a good job in this role being a completely different image to the rest of the cast.lenna
Brooke Butler: Tracy is the lead cheerleader who lets Maddy into the team, she is dating Terry but she is very insecure. She ends up thinking everyone is her friend but they turn on her quickly. Brooke does a good job in an early role for the young actress with a brave performance.
Support Cast: All Cheerleaders Die has a supporting cast that all play their part be it the football players or the dead cheerleaders who become disposable characters for the main ones to learn their powers.
Director Review: Lucky McKee, Chris Sivertson – The pair bring us a horror comedy that is fun once it all gets going.
Comedy: All Cheerleaders Die has solid comedy throughout which is mostly to do with the reactions of the cheerleaders to what is happening to them.
Horror: All Cheerleaders Die has plenty of blood splatter for all the kills for what the cheerleaders get up to on their revenge path.
Settings: All Cheerleaders Die using the settings all around the high school with the hang outs being away from public viewing which all work for the film.
Special Effects: All Cheerleaders Die has solid special effects with the problems being all too CGI for my liking.
Suggestion: All Cheerleaders Die is one I think the horror fans will enjoy because of the fun gore filled storyline. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Final battle against Terry.
Worst Part: Slow starting.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Left open for one.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 29 Minutes
Tagline: You can’t kill their spirit
Overall: Horror comedy that has laughs and blood for all the fans to enjoy
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/01/01/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-all-cheerleaders-die-2013/
Once a member of the cheer-leading team we see how she starts pushing them away from the football stars including the captain Terry (Williamson) who ends up causing the deaths of members of the team, but when Leena (Smit-McPhee) a witch brings them back to life, but now they have a craving for human flesh and target Terry for the ultimate revenge.cheerleader
All Cheerleaders Die starts off very slowly for my liking trying to introduce the characters and tease at a massive revenge angle before anything happens. Once the cheerleaders get killed the film steps up and unloads all the horror comedy. I would like to see less from the start and more from the end because that is the part of the film you want to watch. I think this is a real entertaining film that really does keep you guessing just what will happen next.
Actor Review
Caitlin Stasey: Maddy is the newest addition to the cheer-leading squad who has been against the team captain of the football team for years. When she is killed she comes back with the rest of the team to get revenge on the football team. Caitlin does a good job in the leading role taking a more risky role that goes against most horror clichés.
Tom Williamson: Terry is the captain of the football team and an all around asshole, when he gets into a fight with his girlfriend he runs the cheerleaders off the road killing them all. When they return he ends up becoming the target of their vengeance. Tom creates the asshole persona really well in this film that could make this the most entertaining part when he gets what he deserves.terry
Sianoa Smit-McPhee: Leena is the witch who likes to work with dark magic but when she sees her friends die she brings them all back to life where she doesn’t understand the power she holds. Sianoa does a good job in this role being a completely different image to the rest of the cast.lenna
Brooke Butler: Tracy is the lead cheerleader who lets Maddy into the team, she is dating Terry but she is very insecure. She ends up thinking everyone is her friend but they turn on her quickly. Brooke does a good job in an early role for the young actress with a brave performance.
Support Cast: All Cheerleaders Die has a supporting cast that all play their part be it the football players or the dead cheerleaders who become disposable characters for the main ones to learn their powers.
Director Review: Lucky McKee, Chris Sivertson – The pair bring us a horror comedy that is fun once it all gets going.
Comedy: All Cheerleaders Die has solid comedy throughout which is mostly to do with the reactions of the cheerleaders to what is happening to them.
Horror: All Cheerleaders Die has plenty of blood splatter for all the kills for what the cheerleaders get up to on their revenge path.
Settings: All Cheerleaders Die using the settings all around the high school with the hang outs being away from public viewing which all work for the film.
Special Effects: All Cheerleaders Die has solid special effects with the problems being all too CGI for my liking.
Suggestion: All Cheerleaders Die is one I think the horror fans will enjoy because of the fun gore filled storyline. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Final battle against Terry.
Worst Part: Slow starting.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Left open for one.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 29 Minutes
Tagline: You can’t kill their spirit
Overall: Horror comedy that has laughs and blood for all the fans to enjoy
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/01/01/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-all-cheerleaders-die-2013/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Dec 13, 2019
"Anything mentionable is manageable"
Tom Hanks' new movie is a film I personally struggled to fully engage with. But some I suspect will truly LOVE it's gentle and feel-good nature.
Who WAS Fred Rogers? Based on a true story this movie very quickly makes you realise that Fred Rogers, who died in 2003, was an American legend. This is supported by the GLOWING reviews here on IMDB by US viewers. Rogers was a children's TV presenter that used puppets and song to help children work through their fears and psychological issues. I suspect, like me, most Brits would say "WHO?" (Just as if a 60's born Brit like me saying "Let's look through the arched window" will similarly get a "WHAT?" from nearly all Americans!)
Here the story revolves not around Fred (Tom Hanks) helping a child with issues, but with Fred's fixation with 'Esquire' journo Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), who is fighting his own demons of anger, resentment and pain. For Lloyd is struggling not only with his feelings about fatherhood, with the normal strains that is placing on the relationship with wife and mother Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson), but also with the reemergence on the scene of his estranged and hard-drinking father Jerry (Chris Cooper).
The movie starts (and continues) with model sets reminiscent of the brilliantly barmy "Welcome to Marwen" and (the rather more subtle) "Game Night". Fun is had with matchbox-car freeways and planes flying off and clunking down on model runways.
We join Mr Rogers on set filming his series: and the movie sloooooows to match Rogers' leisurely pace. This was a movie I went into completely blind (which is unusual for me): I knew precisely zip about it. No knowledge of Rogers. No knowledge of the story. No sight of the trailer. Nothing. So these opening scenes were a real "WTF" moment as my brain struggled to work out what the story was all about.
There was undeniably something creepy about seeing the saintly Fred Rogers engaging with sick and vulnerable children. And I realised just what damage the likes of the convicted-paedophiles Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris have done to my suspicions against all such entertainers. I feared - without any background knowledge on Rogers - that the story would take a darker turn. But no! That's not the story....
For as mentioned earlier, this is the story of Lloyd. And it's a relatively simple and linear story of familial stress that we've seen in movies throughout the decades. Whether you will buy into this story-within-the-story, or not, will flavour your overall enjoyment of the film.
Many who are into analysis and 'talking treatments' will - I think - appreciate the script. But I personally didn't really warm to any of the players - other than Rogers - so this was a negative for me. And I found the pace so slow that I ended up a bit fidgety and bored moving into the second reel of the film. Two women got up and walked out at that point - - it was clearly not for them (this was a Cineworld "Unlimited" pre-release screening).
The third reel rather pulled it together again, and established an "It's a Wonderful Life" style of feelgood that I warmed to much more.
This is a movie I predict the Academy will love. And everyone loves Hanks already. Read the tea-leaves. It's a brilliant performance from Hanks in its stillness and quietness.
No more so than in one particular scene....
This is the follow up movie from Marielle Heller to the impressive "Can You Ever Forgive Me?". And this particular scene - let's call it the "Anti-When-Harry-Met-Sally" moment - is a massively brave and striking piece of cinema.
It's truly extraordinary and worth the price of a ticket alone.
In summary, I enjoyed this movie, primarily for watching the master Hanks at work. The pacing for me was somewhat off though. But I can't be overly critical of such a warm-hearted movie. I predict you will see this and go home with a big dose of the warm-fuzzies.
See here for the full graphical review - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-2019/
Who WAS Fred Rogers? Based on a true story this movie very quickly makes you realise that Fred Rogers, who died in 2003, was an American legend. This is supported by the GLOWING reviews here on IMDB by US viewers. Rogers was a children's TV presenter that used puppets and song to help children work through their fears and psychological issues. I suspect, like me, most Brits would say "WHO?" (Just as if a 60's born Brit like me saying "Let's look through the arched window" will similarly get a "WHAT?" from nearly all Americans!)
Here the story revolves not around Fred (Tom Hanks) helping a child with issues, but with Fred's fixation with 'Esquire' journo Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), who is fighting his own demons of anger, resentment and pain. For Lloyd is struggling not only with his feelings about fatherhood, with the normal strains that is placing on the relationship with wife and mother Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson), but also with the reemergence on the scene of his estranged and hard-drinking father Jerry (Chris Cooper).
The movie starts (and continues) with model sets reminiscent of the brilliantly barmy "Welcome to Marwen" and (the rather more subtle) "Game Night". Fun is had with matchbox-car freeways and planes flying off and clunking down on model runways.
We join Mr Rogers on set filming his series: and the movie sloooooows to match Rogers' leisurely pace. This was a movie I went into completely blind (which is unusual for me): I knew precisely zip about it. No knowledge of Rogers. No knowledge of the story. No sight of the trailer. Nothing. So these opening scenes were a real "WTF" moment as my brain struggled to work out what the story was all about.
There was undeniably something creepy about seeing the saintly Fred Rogers engaging with sick and vulnerable children. And I realised just what damage the likes of the convicted-paedophiles Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris have done to my suspicions against all such entertainers. I feared - without any background knowledge on Rogers - that the story would take a darker turn. But no! That's not the story....
For as mentioned earlier, this is the story of Lloyd. And it's a relatively simple and linear story of familial stress that we've seen in movies throughout the decades. Whether you will buy into this story-within-the-story, or not, will flavour your overall enjoyment of the film.
Many who are into analysis and 'talking treatments' will - I think - appreciate the script. But I personally didn't really warm to any of the players - other than Rogers - so this was a negative for me. And I found the pace so slow that I ended up a bit fidgety and bored moving into the second reel of the film. Two women got up and walked out at that point - - it was clearly not for them (this was a Cineworld "Unlimited" pre-release screening).
The third reel rather pulled it together again, and established an "It's a Wonderful Life" style of feelgood that I warmed to much more.
This is a movie I predict the Academy will love. And everyone loves Hanks already. Read the tea-leaves. It's a brilliant performance from Hanks in its stillness and quietness.
No more so than in one particular scene....
This is the follow up movie from Marielle Heller to the impressive "Can You Ever Forgive Me?". And this particular scene - let's call it the "Anti-When-Harry-Met-Sally" moment - is a massively brave and striking piece of cinema.
It's truly extraordinary and worth the price of a ticket alone.
In summary, I enjoyed this movie, primarily for watching the master Hanks at work. The pacing for me was somewhat off though. But I can't be overly critical of such a warm-hearted movie. I predict you will see this and go home with a big dose of the warm-fuzzies.
See here for the full graphical review - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-2019/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020 (Updated Jan 3, 2020)
Saoirse Ronan - just mesmeric. What screen presence! (2 more)
Great supporting cast.
Alexandre Desplat soundtrack.
"God hasn't met my will yet"
Greta Gerwig's follow up to her Oscar-praised "Lady Bird" from 2017 looks set to repeat the job this year. For it's nothing short of a masterpiece of cinema.
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Ending The Game
Contains spoilers, click to show
Avengers: Endgame - the concluding installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's 'Infinity Saga', has made box office history, breaking a number of records on its' journey (thus far) of becoming the second highest grossing movie ever in a short period of time. Bringing together the story threads of 21 films before it 'Endgame' had a number of hurdles to overcome - not only did the Russo Brothers have to find a satisfying way to reverse the effects of 'The Decimation' (if you have to ask then you're probably reading the wrong review!) but they had to do so in a way that did not lessen the impact of 'Infinity War', whilst bringing to a close a number of character arcs for many well respected and founding members of Marvel's flagship superhero team and setting the course and direction for whatever comes next.
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!