Search
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
May 26, 2020 (Updated Jun 18, 2020)
Alita: Battle Angel is great. Is there a good helping of sci-fi dumbfuckery to be found? Of course. But the positives far outweigh any negatives in this instance.
Based on a Manga series and subsequent Anime from the early nineties, Alita brings the signature Japanese comic style to life in style, as a whole heap of (mostly) decent digital effects collides with real-life.
The world of A:BA is really well realised, with the film taking place in the 26th Century, a future that sees man and cyborg live side by side. The plot takes place in The Iron City on the ground, eclipsed by the floating city of Zalem above. It's a striking aesthetic that reminded me of something from a Final Fantasy game. The main narrative follows Dr. Ido (Christoph Waltz) who finds the remains of a deactivated cyborg in a trash heap. He gives the cyborg a new body and a new life, and gives her the name Alita. She has no memory of who she was before, but as she begins to explore the world, her memories slowly return. Alita (Rosa Salazar) is a stupidly likable protagonist. She's a fiery, lethal weapon who has a child like innocence. The motion capture combined with Salazar's performance work really well. In fact, the whole cast is great. Christoph Waltz, Mahershala Ali, Jennifer Connelly, Jackie Earl-Hailey - it's a stellar line up. The only cast member I couldn't get on with was Hugo (Keean Johnson) who mainly serves as Alita's love interest. I didn't particularly like his character and as a result didn't fully buy their romance side plot.
The main issue I had was the pacing. The plot is trying to pack so much into 2 hours, that it moved forward at breakneck speed at times. Some plot points become a bit lost in the whole thing, and a few of the characters seemed inconsequential as a result.
It does go a bit CGI overload at times but that's to be expected by the very nature of what A:BA is. The effects on some of the other cyborg characters are ropey as well, but honestly, these are small gripes against a film that I found myself really enjoying.
I sincerely hope a sequel gets green lit as I for one want more of this world to be explored.
Based on a Manga series and subsequent Anime from the early nineties, Alita brings the signature Japanese comic style to life in style, as a whole heap of (mostly) decent digital effects collides with real-life.
The world of A:BA is really well realised, with the film taking place in the 26th Century, a future that sees man and cyborg live side by side. The plot takes place in The Iron City on the ground, eclipsed by the floating city of Zalem above. It's a striking aesthetic that reminded me of something from a Final Fantasy game. The main narrative follows Dr. Ido (Christoph Waltz) who finds the remains of a deactivated cyborg in a trash heap. He gives the cyborg a new body and a new life, and gives her the name Alita. She has no memory of who she was before, but as she begins to explore the world, her memories slowly return. Alita (Rosa Salazar) is a stupidly likable protagonist. She's a fiery, lethal weapon who has a child like innocence. The motion capture combined with Salazar's performance work really well. In fact, the whole cast is great. Christoph Waltz, Mahershala Ali, Jennifer Connelly, Jackie Earl-Hailey - it's a stellar line up. The only cast member I couldn't get on with was Hugo (Keean Johnson) who mainly serves as Alita's love interest. I didn't particularly like his character and as a result didn't fully buy their romance side plot.
The main issue I had was the pacing. The plot is trying to pack so much into 2 hours, that it moved forward at breakneck speed at times. Some plot points become a bit lost in the whole thing, and a few of the characters seemed inconsequential as a result.
It does go a bit CGI overload at times but that's to be expected by the very nature of what A:BA is. The effects on some of the other cyborg characters are ropey as well, but honestly, these are small gripes against a film that I found myself really enjoying.
I sincerely hope a sequel gets green lit as I for one want more of this world to be explored.
Blazing Minds (92 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Nov 1, 2021 (Updated Nov 3, 2021)
Downsizing starts when scientists discover how to shrink humans to five inches tall as part of a solution to the world’s overpopulation, Paul (played by Matt Damon) and his wife Audrey (played by Kristen Wiig) decide to abandon their stressed lives in order to get small and move to a new downsized community – a choice that triggers life-changing adventures.
So we start as the with an introduction to the scientist testing out the Downsizing, then we are introduced to the first to be shrunk. When we first meet Paul, he is looking after his mother a task which has taken up much of his life and has made him make decisions in life.
Downsizing isn’t an effect-laden film as you would think from the trailer, it seems like any other movie, there are several memorable moments, such as Christoph Waltz‘s character, Dusan Mirkovic, who lives upstairs from Paul, Waltz’s character certainly brings some comedic moments to the film to lighten it up when needed. Joining Waltz is Udo Kier who plays Konrad who both visit the original Downsizing team in Norway from time to time.
So we start as the with an introduction to the scientist testing out the Downsizing, then we are introduced to the first to be shrunk. When we first meet Paul, he is looking after his mother a task which has taken up much of his life and has made him make decisions in life.
Downsizing isn’t an effect-laden film as you would think from the trailer, it seems like any other movie, there are several memorable moments, such as Christoph Waltz‘s character, Dusan Mirkovic, who lives upstairs from Paul, Waltz’s character certainly brings some comedic moments to the film to lighten it up when needed. Joining Waltz is Udo Kier who plays Konrad who both visit the original Downsizing team in Norway from time to time.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Legend of Tarzan (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
CPR Needed
As tends to be the case with Hollywood, studios pay very close attention to their rivals release schedules, eyeing up potential competition to pit their films against, maxing box-office returns in the process.
And when Disney announced they were rebooting The Jungle Book in March this year, Warner Bros quickly responded with another jungle-themed film; The Legend of Tarzan. But does this interpretation on the classic character swing or fall?
It’s been nearly a decade since Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård), aka John Clayton III, left Africa to live in Victorian England with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie). Danger lurks on the horizon as Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), a treacherous envoy for King Leopold, devises a scheme that lures the couple and friend George Williams (Samuel L Jackson) to the Congo. Rom plans to capture Tarzan and deliver him to an old enemy in exchange for diamonds. When Jane becomes a pawn in his devious plot, Tarzan must return to the jungle to save the woman he loves.
Directed by David Yates (Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows), Legend of Tarzan features committed performances from its lead cast, immersive scenery and impressive special effects, but all of the glitz can’t save a film that plods along at a dreadful pace. Not since Peter Jackson’s King Kong has there been a movie that wastes so much of its opening act.
Alexander Skarsgård is likeable and commanding as the titular character, but lacks enough acting prowess to tackle the deeper, more emotional side that writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer have brought to the table here. Therefore, the scenes featuring a solo Tarzan suffer somewhat and Samuel L Jackson feels wasted in a poorly written and half-hearted role.
It is in Margot Robbie and Christoph Waltz that we find the film’s saving graces. Their characters leap off the screen with Waltz in particular being a highlight throughout. It’s unfortunate that one of our greatest living actors is lambasted with poor dialogue however, though the script just about keeps him afloat.
David Yates brings a similar filming style here to that of his foray into Harry Potter. The action is confidently filmed, but he avoids the use of shaky-cam that many directors seem to find appealing nowadays. The CGI is on the whole very good, especially in the finale which is breath-taking to watch.
It’s just a shame the rest of the film is such a drag. The first hour is incredibly poorly paced with very brief, albeit well-filmed, action sequences not doing enough to brighten Legend of Tarzan up. Elsewhere, the use of flashbacks is at first a decent way of giving the audience some exposition, but after the tenth one, they’re a nuisance.
Overall, The Legend of Tarzan does a lot more with its iconic character than other films have done, but that doesn’t excuse its poor pacing. Thankfully, the exciting finale lifts the final act above the standard of the first hour, and commanding performances from all the cast sustain interest just about enough to see it through to the end.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/07/cpr-needed-the-legend-of-tarzan-review/
And when Disney announced they were rebooting The Jungle Book in March this year, Warner Bros quickly responded with another jungle-themed film; The Legend of Tarzan. But does this interpretation on the classic character swing or fall?
It’s been nearly a decade since Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård), aka John Clayton III, left Africa to live in Victorian England with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie). Danger lurks on the horizon as Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), a treacherous envoy for King Leopold, devises a scheme that lures the couple and friend George Williams (Samuel L Jackson) to the Congo. Rom plans to capture Tarzan and deliver him to an old enemy in exchange for diamonds. When Jane becomes a pawn in his devious plot, Tarzan must return to the jungle to save the woman he loves.
Directed by David Yates (Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows), Legend of Tarzan features committed performances from its lead cast, immersive scenery and impressive special effects, but all of the glitz can’t save a film that plods along at a dreadful pace. Not since Peter Jackson’s King Kong has there been a movie that wastes so much of its opening act.
Alexander Skarsgård is likeable and commanding as the titular character, but lacks enough acting prowess to tackle the deeper, more emotional side that writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer have brought to the table here. Therefore, the scenes featuring a solo Tarzan suffer somewhat and Samuel L Jackson feels wasted in a poorly written and half-hearted role.
It is in Margot Robbie and Christoph Waltz that we find the film’s saving graces. Their characters leap off the screen with Waltz in particular being a highlight throughout. It’s unfortunate that one of our greatest living actors is lambasted with poor dialogue however, though the script just about keeps him afloat.
David Yates brings a similar filming style here to that of his foray into Harry Potter. The action is confidently filmed, but he avoids the use of shaky-cam that many directors seem to find appealing nowadays. The CGI is on the whole very good, especially in the finale which is breath-taking to watch.
It’s just a shame the rest of the film is such a drag. The first hour is incredibly poorly paced with very brief, albeit well-filmed, action sequences not doing enough to brighten Legend of Tarzan up. Elsewhere, the use of flashbacks is at first a decent way of giving the audience some exposition, but after the tenth one, they’re a nuisance.
Overall, The Legend of Tarzan does a lot more with its iconic character than other films have done, but that doesn’t excuse its poor pacing. Thankfully, the exciting finale lifts the final act above the standard of the first hour, and commanding performances from all the cast sustain interest just about enough to see it through to the end.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/07/cpr-needed-the-legend-of-tarzan-review/
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Legend of Tarzan (2016) in Movies
Mar 30, 2019
Better than I thought it would be
On the recommendation from a friend I bought this movie used for like 3 bucks and it was worth every penny! ?
This isn't really an origin story of Tarzan, more of him coming back to where he was raised to attempt to save the day. His origins are revealed in flashback which helps the audience understand his motivations and reservations for returning to his homeland.
When the bankrupt king summons an evil henchman to help him cleanse the land of its inhabitants for the raw diamond lot, our heroes are summoned to stop them.
Alexander Skarsgård, Margot Robbie and Samuel L. Jackson were all really good and believable. For some reason I normally love Christoph Waltz, but I think he's played the villain too many times now and this time it felt a little generic to me.
CGI for the most part was acceptable, although any CGI gorillas will always be compared to the recent Apes reboot trilogy which is still far superior.
The action scenes were decent if you can accept humans battling giant gorillas an kept me entertained throughout.
You will certainly not be disappointed with this one in my opinion.
This isn't really an origin story of Tarzan, more of him coming back to where he was raised to attempt to save the day. His origins are revealed in flashback which helps the audience understand his motivations and reservations for returning to his homeland.
When the bankrupt king summons an evil henchman to help him cleanse the land of its inhabitants for the raw diamond lot, our heroes are summoned to stop them.
Alexander Skarsgård, Margot Robbie and Samuel L. Jackson were all really good and believable. For some reason I normally love Christoph Waltz, but I think he's played the villain too many times now and this time it felt a little generic to me.
CGI for the most part was acceptable, although any CGI gorillas will always be compared to the recent Apes reboot trilogy which is still far superior.
The action scenes were decent if you can accept humans battling giant gorillas an kept me entertained throughout.
You will certainly not be disappointed with this one in my opinion.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Spectre (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
In the latest cinematic outing for James Bond (Daniel Craig), Director Sam Mendes has crafted a thrilling and deep film which deftly combines the threads of the three previous Craig outings and sets the stage very well for future outings for the series.
In “Spectre” Bond finds himself operating alone when the 007 division is in danger of being shut down due to his latest unsanctioned actions and a change in the political landscape back home.
With the powers that be convinced that surveillance is the way of the future not agents with a license to kill, Bond is racing against time to get the truth behind a mysterious figure named Franz Oberhausen (Christoph Waltz), who is the head of a very mysterious, large, and deadly organization.
From locales ranging from Mexico City, London, Rome, Austria, and North Africa, Bond stalks his target in a deadly game of cat and mouse as his every move seems to have been anticipated by the deadly organization.
Further complicating matters is that Bond is not able to call upon his resources as M (Ralph Fiennes), is unable to do little more than watch due to the pending end of the division and his new superior.
In the trademark style that the series is known for, we have exotic locale, beautiful women, gadgets, fast cars, and thrilling and intense action sequences that combine for a winning formula.
I had been a bit disappointed with Craig’s earlier films as I found them to be a bit muddled and did not find his take on Bond to mesh with the suave agent I had grown up following. That being said, “Skyfall” helped turn things around and with the plot elements of “Spectre” in place; it clearly shows a connection between the earlier films and sets the stage very well for future outings in the series.
Waltz is fantastic as the lead villain as his less than imposing stature is highly deceptive to the danger the man empowers. Audience learn more about the backstory of Bond and how he became the man that his is and Dave Bautista makes a fantastic henchman echoing shades of Odd job and a train sequence from “From Russia With Love”.
In all, thanks to the intense action, great characters and compelling story, “Spectre” is the best of the Craig Bond films and I cannot wait to see what they do next.
http://sknr.net/2015/11/05/spectre/
In “Spectre” Bond finds himself operating alone when the 007 division is in danger of being shut down due to his latest unsanctioned actions and a change in the political landscape back home.
With the powers that be convinced that surveillance is the way of the future not agents with a license to kill, Bond is racing against time to get the truth behind a mysterious figure named Franz Oberhausen (Christoph Waltz), who is the head of a very mysterious, large, and deadly organization.
From locales ranging from Mexico City, London, Rome, Austria, and North Africa, Bond stalks his target in a deadly game of cat and mouse as his every move seems to have been anticipated by the deadly organization.
Further complicating matters is that Bond is not able to call upon his resources as M (Ralph Fiennes), is unable to do little more than watch due to the pending end of the division and his new superior.
In the trademark style that the series is known for, we have exotic locale, beautiful women, gadgets, fast cars, and thrilling and intense action sequences that combine for a winning formula.
I had been a bit disappointed with Craig’s earlier films as I found them to be a bit muddled and did not find his take on Bond to mesh with the suave agent I had grown up following. That being said, “Skyfall” helped turn things around and with the plot elements of “Spectre” in place; it clearly shows a connection between the earlier films and sets the stage very well for future outings in the series.
Waltz is fantastic as the lead villain as his less than imposing stature is highly deceptive to the danger the man empowers. Audience learn more about the backstory of Bond and how he became the man that his is and Dave Bautista makes a fantastic henchman echoing shades of Odd job and a train sequence from “From Russia With Love”.
In all, thanks to the intense action, great characters and compelling story, “Spectre” is the best of the Craig Bond films and I cannot wait to see what they do next.
http://sknr.net/2015/11/05/spectre/
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
May 15, 2020
Beautiful to look at
I never got to see this film on the big screen, which I'm rather sad about now considering how visually stunning it is. The effects in this are beautiful and simply amazing, and I really think this film is worth watching purely for these alone. It's just a shame the story is a little weak.
You can't fault a film that has Christoph Waltz in it, who is wonderful as always. The rest of the cast too are good although I think some of their characters are let down by the story. And this is the big problem - the story is rather weak. It makes sense to a point, but it seems rather lacklustre and is full of silly character actions and blink and you'll miss it deaths. The romance side too is very OTT and cheesy.
The story is also majorly letdown by the anticlimactic ending and this is my biggest issue. The film seems to build up to wait promises to be an exciting ending and instead just falters and winds down unnecessarily, where they've obviously decided to do a sequel baiting ending rather than giving us all the ending we probably wanted to see. Personally I was rather enjoying this film and would've happily watched another half an hour of them wrapping the story up satisfactorily rather than cut short with disappointment. Even the star name cameo couldn't make the ending better.
This is undoubtedly an amazing looking film and rather entertaining, it's just a huge shame about the ending. If it had been different I would've scored this higher.
You can't fault a film that has Christoph Waltz in it, who is wonderful as always. The rest of the cast too are good although I think some of their characters are let down by the story. And this is the big problem - the story is rather weak. It makes sense to a point, but it seems rather lacklustre and is full of silly character actions and blink and you'll miss it deaths. The romance side too is very OTT and cheesy.
The story is also majorly letdown by the anticlimactic ending and this is my biggest issue. The film seems to build up to wait promises to be an exciting ending and instead just falters and winds down unnecessarily, where they've obviously decided to do a sequel baiting ending rather than giving us all the ending we probably wanted to see. Personally I was rather enjoying this film and would've happily watched another half an hour of them wrapping the story up satisfactorily rather than cut short with disappointment. Even the star name cameo couldn't make the ending better.
This is undoubtedly an amazing looking film and rather entertaining, it's just a huge shame about the ending. If it had been different I would've scored this higher.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Good visuals, not much else to recommend it
A few of my loyal readers recommended that I check out ALITA: BATTLE ANGEL in the biggest screen I could find, and in 3D. And...I'm glad I did for this film is a visual feast for the eyes, filled with eye-popping CGI and an interesting futuristic world on which the events of the film take place.
Unfortunately...that is all that there is to this film, for the rest of the movie does not live up to the fantastical elements laid forth visually.
Adapted to the screen from filmmakers James Cameron and Robert Rodriguez, ALITA: BATTLE ANGEL is a combination of the first 4 of Yukito Kishiro's series of 9 manga books, and (hopefully) the first in a trilogy of films that follows a robot, Alita, who is put back together by the mysterious Dr. Ido. When she awakens, she does not know what her past was, but as events transpire, it soon becomes apparent that Alita is much more than the sweet, young girl robot that her outward appearance would suggest.
Rosa Salazar is winning enough as the completely CGI creation of Alita, but no so charismatic that she can carry the film on her own, she will need help - and that's where this film falls down. Christoph Waltz is mediocre in the underwritten part of Dr. Ido. Instead of being interesting and mysterious, he is bland and boring. I'm beginning to think that Waltz needs the words of Quentin Tarantino to shine (because he does shine in Tarantino films) but is just so-so when speaking someone else's lines. Jennifer Connelly is wasted as Ido's ex-wife, somehow connected to the power elite of the Universe and Marashala Ali (who will soon win his 2nd Oscar) is completely shutdown and "one-note" as the big bad guy. Ed Skrein, Jackie Earle Haley (completely unrecognizable in voice or character as the CGI bad guy Grewishka) and Keean Johnson are all very forgettable as others in this world. Only Jeff Fahey (as a robot-Cowboy bounty hunter) is able to jump off the screen with what is the beginnings of an interesting character.
The battles, races, action and plot twists and turns are all "standard issue", pretty predictable and unsurprising. It is clear that Cameron and Rodriguez were so focused on the CGI and world building that they did not spend enough time on the plot, dialogue or pacing. And that's too bad, for besides the impressive visuals and graphics (and they are impressive), there is not much else to recommend from this film.
Letter Grade: B- (for the visuals)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Unfortunately...that is all that there is to this film, for the rest of the movie does not live up to the fantastical elements laid forth visually.
Adapted to the screen from filmmakers James Cameron and Robert Rodriguez, ALITA: BATTLE ANGEL is a combination of the first 4 of Yukito Kishiro's series of 9 manga books, and (hopefully) the first in a trilogy of films that follows a robot, Alita, who is put back together by the mysterious Dr. Ido. When she awakens, she does not know what her past was, but as events transpire, it soon becomes apparent that Alita is much more than the sweet, young girl robot that her outward appearance would suggest.
Rosa Salazar is winning enough as the completely CGI creation of Alita, but no so charismatic that she can carry the film on her own, she will need help - and that's where this film falls down. Christoph Waltz is mediocre in the underwritten part of Dr. Ido. Instead of being interesting and mysterious, he is bland and boring. I'm beginning to think that Waltz needs the words of Quentin Tarantino to shine (because he does shine in Tarantino films) but is just so-so when speaking someone else's lines. Jennifer Connelly is wasted as Ido's ex-wife, somehow connected to the power elite of the Universe and Marashala Ali (who will soon win his 2nd Oscar) is completely shutdown and "one-note" as the big bad guy. Ed Skrein, Jackie Earle Haley (completely unrecognizable in voice or character as the CGI bad guy Grewishka) and Keean Johnson are all very forgettable as others in this world. Only Jeff Fahey (as a robot-Cowboy bounty hunter) is able to jump off the screen with what is the beginnings of an interesting character.
The battles, races, action and plot twists and turns are all "standard issue", pretty predictable and unsurprising. It is clear that Cameron and Rodriguez were so focused on the CGI and world building that they did not spend enough time on the plot, dialogue or pacing. And that's too bad, for besides the impressive visuals and graphics (and they are impressive), there is not much else to recommend from this film.
Letter Grade: B- (for the visuals)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Inglourious Basterds (2009) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
Should we be allowed to laugh at brutality? Is there room for comedy in a film about the Second World War? These are just some of the questions Quentin Tarantino’s latest film “Inglorious Bastards” is sure to bring to mind.
“Inglorious Bastards” is composed of two intertwined stories broken into chapters combining fictitious and factual historic events. The two stories, the tragic tale of orphaned Jewish girl Shosanna (Mélanie Laurent) and that of an oddly funny group of American soldiers, called “the Bastards”, create introspections into the meaning of glory, destruction, and propaganda.
Familiar faces are scattered throughout the film from creator of “the Office” B.J. Norvak to “Austin Powers“ star Mike Myers. The standout performance of Lieutenant Aldo Raine, played by the always-evolving Brad Pitt, is both comical and clever and the role of Nazi Colonel Hans Landa, Christoph Waltz, is so evil that, within the scope of the film, he some how manages to overshadow Hitler.
While the film is visually graphic, it is the ideas of violence rather than explicit visuals that litter the film. These violent scenes, from scalping to strangulation, are more dramatic than visually accurate.
The film did drag in parts such, as the dark Cinderella-like bar scene, and there was definitely room for further character development for “the Bastards”, yet the sly structure of the film shatters these minor faults but keeping viewers completely invested in the plotline.
“Inglorious Bastards” mixes classic film elements with techniques hauntingly David Lynch in style. From elements of television westerns to the hauntingly familiar sound of David Bowie, Tarintino has created a new way of looking at the past, all while using a time generally perceived as too awful to mention as a background for laughter.
Twisted, tortured, glorious and not “Inglorious Bastards” delivers as a film bound to become classic Tarantino. Fans will be elated and those who oppose the film’s adult themes will not walk away without at least thinking about the meaning of this one-of-kind feature.
“Inglorious Bastards” is composed of two intertwined stories broken into chapters combining fictitious and factual historic events. The two stories, the tragic tale of orphaned Jewish girl Shosanna (Mélanie Laurent) and that of an oddly funny group of American soldiers, called “the Bastards”, create introspections into the meaning of glory, destruction, and propaganda.
Familiar faces are scattered throughout the film from creator of “the Office” B.J. Norvak to “Austin Powers“ star Mike Myers. The standout performance of Lieutenant Aldo Raine, played by the always-evolving Brad Pitt, is both comical and clever and the role of Nazi Colonel Hans Landa, Christoph Waltz, is so evil that, within the scope of the film, he some how manages to overshadow Hitler.
While the film is visually graphic, it is the ideas of violence rather than explicit visuals that litter the film. These violent scenes, from scalping to strangulation, are more dramatic than visually accurate.
The film did drag in parts such, as the dark Cinderella-like bar scene, and there was definitely room for further character development for “the Bastards”, yet the sly structure of the film shatters these minor faults but keeping viewers completely invested in the plotline.
“Inglorious Bastards” mixes classic film elements with techniques hauntingly David Lynch in style. From elements of television westerns to the hauntingly familiar sound of David Bowie, Tarintino has created a new way of looking at the past, all while using a time generally perceived as too awful to mention as a background for laughter.
Twisted, tortured, glorious and not “Inglorious Bastards” delivers as a film bound to become classic Tarantino. Fans will be elated and those who oppose the film’s adult themes will not walk away without at least thinking about the meaning of this one-of-kind feature.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Horrible Bosses 2 (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Kurt, Nick and Dale are back, and with them comes all the rest in Horrible Bosses 2. This time around, we see our would-be criminals (Jason Sudekis, Jason Bateman and Charlie Dale, respectively) as their own bosses.
Horrible Bosses 2 opens on the trio as a guest on a cheesy day-time talk show. They are there to show off their new invention, the Shower Buddy. This spot gets them some notice from the head of a big time, SkyMall-esque, corporation who wants to place a large order. But when the deal goes south, our boys have to figure out a way to save their own skin, and get back at the corporation.
The greatest thing about this sequel? It was not just a rehashing of the first movie. Yes, there are a lot of the elements there, but the plot was different enough that it could have been a movie of its own and not a prequel. Of course, there were some great call backs to the first movie during the film and the closing credits. But there were new things introduced, and not just the same old re-hashing.
Sudekis, Bateman and Day have such a great chemistry together, too. They played very well off each other, and had near perfect timing through the whole movie. Add to this the returning cast from the first film (Jennifer Aniston, Kevin Spacey, and Jamie Foxx), and introduce Chris Pine and Christoph Waltz to the mix, and it only increases the fun. Our newcomers blew me away too, because I am not used to seeing them in roles such as this.
There is not a lot bad that I can say about this movie. Great performances by main and supporting cast, a well-rounded plot, with the exception of one part of the wrap-up in the end (I won’t spoil it for you), and a very complimentary soundtrack makes this one of the best comedies I have seen in a while. Thumbs up to these guys! I’m hoping they might be able to find the same magic for a third film!
4.5 Stars out of 5
Horrible Bosses 2 opens on the trio as a guest on a cheesy day-time talk show. They are there to show off their new invention, the Shower Buddy. This spot gets them some notice from the head of a big time, SkyMall-esque, corporation who wants to place a large order. But when the deal goes south, our boys have to figure out a way to save their own skin, and get back at the corporation.
The greatest thing about this sequel? It was not just a rehashing of the first movie. Yes, there are a lot of the elements there, but the plot was different enough that it could have been a movie of its own and not a prequel. Of course, there were some great call backs to the first movie during the film and the closing credits. But there were new things introduced, and not just the same old re-hashing.
Sudekis, Bateman and Day have such a great chemistry together, too. They played very well off each other, and had near perfect timing through the whole movie. Add to this the returning cast from the first film (Jennifer Aniston, Kevin Spacey, and Jamie Foxx), and introduce Chris Pine and Christoph Waltz to the mix, and it only increases the fun. Our newcomers blew me away too, because I am not used to seeing them in roles such as this.
There is not a lot bad that I can say about this movie. Great performances by main and supporting cast, a well-rounded plot, with the exception of one part of the wrap-up in the end (I won’t spoil it for you), and a very complimentary soundtrack makes this one of the best comedies I have seen in a while. Thumbs up to these guys! I’m hoping they might be able to find the same magic for a third film!
4.5 Stars out of 5
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
This little film has big shoes to fill
Alexander Payne was clearly vying for Oscars attention when it came to penning the screenplay for Downsizing. And why not, he’s certainly got form in the awards department. A two-time Oscar winner with a further three nominations, his films have been bold and topical.
That topical trademark shows no signs of dissipating with Downsizing, as Payne takes on the themes of overpopulation and the effects it’ll have on us in the future. But is the resulting film one of his best works? Or are we looking at a bit of a dud?
When scientists discover how to shrink humans to five inches tall as a solution to overpopulation, Paul (Matt Damon) and his wife Audrey (Kristen Wiig) decide to abandon their cash-strapped and stressed lives in order to get small and move to a new downsized community — a choice that triggers life-changing adventures in more ways than one.
The film certainly gets off to a good start before it even begins. Just look at the cast! With Matt Damon, Kristen Wiig, Laura Dern, Christoph Waltz, Neil Patrick Harris and Jason Sudeikis being just some of the actors on the roster here, there’s certainly a lot of talent about. And things continue to look very good indeed.
Downsizing starts out great. In fact, it has one of the best first acts of any film I’ve seen as we are introduced to the concept of downsizing and the lives in which its partakers lead. Damon is a magnetic leading presence and oozes charm throughout the film. It’s also genuinely funny with a script that knows how to garner laughs from the audience without delving into unnecessary slapstick.
To look at, Downsizing is really rather lovely. Filled with clever special effects, it’s a pleasure to watch and fascinating to sit there and think about all the camera trickery required to pull it off. Watching a miniature ship pull bottles of vodka is strangely satisfying.
And then, about 45 minutes in, things start to go rapidly downhill. So downhill that I left the cinema wondering how on earth a movie that began so positively, could result in a middle and final act so disappointingly ordinary. On the journey home, I used that time to think of the reasons.
That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end
Firstly, that talented cast I spoke about earlier is completely and utterly wasted. Outside of Damon, each of the brilliant actors is given a glorified cameo that makes little-to-no difference on the final outcome. Laura Dern is in the film for less than 3 minutes – in fact, her scene is exactly what you see in the trailer. Christoph Waltz plays a bizarre Serbian playboy who is funny and irritating in equal measure and the less said about Kristen Wiig’s part the better.
Secondly, the story just doesn’t do enough with its fascinating premise. We get a vague environmental message about the beauty of nature and the fragility of life, but the idea of downsizing and the beautiful residences of “Leisureland” are merely a shell for Damon to go from scene to scene. His adventures with Hong Chau, which make up the bulk of the overstuffed 132-minute runtime, are pleasant enough, but we want to see more of the people who have decided to shrink themselves.
Thirdly, the tone is an absolute mess. Is it a comedy? What about a drama? Perhaps a rom-com? Who knows! That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end.
Finally, the ending is absolutely dreadful and one of the worst ever put to film. I’m not sure if Payne thought it would be a good idea to leave the movie open to a sequel but there is absolutely no payoff to the previous 130-or-so minutes whatsoever. It just falls flat.
Overall, Downsizing has a brilliant premise and a wonderfully talented cast, but each of those is wasted and that’s unforgivable. What starts out as a clever piece of social commentary about the issues we, as a species, currently face, ends up becoming one of the most ordinary films you’ll ever see and a bit of a misstep for the usually superb Alexander Payne. It’s certainly his worst film to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/27/downsizing-review-this-little-film-has-big-shoes-to-fill/
That topical trademark shows no signs of dissipating with Downsizing, as Payne takes on the themes of overpopulation and the effects it’ll have on us in the future. But is the resulting film one of his best works? Or are we looking at a bit of a dud?
When scientists discover how to shrink humans to five inches tall as a solution to overpopulation, Paul (Matt Damon) and his wife Audrey (Kristen Wiig) decide to abandon their cash-strapped and stressed lives in order to get small and move to a new downsized community — a choice that triggers life-changing adventures in more ways than one.
The film certainly gets off to a good start before it even begins. Just look at the cast! With Matt Damon, Kristen Wiig, Laura Dern, Christoph Waltz, Neil Patrick Harris and Jason Sudeikis being just some of the actors on the roster here, there’s certainly a lot of talent about. And things continue to look very good indeed.
Downsizing starts out great. In fact, it has one of the best first acts of any film I’ve seen as we are introduced to the concept of downsizing and the lives in which its partakers lead. Damon is a magnetic leading presence and oozes charm throughout the film. It’s also genuinely funny with a script that knows how to garner laughs from the audience without delving into unnecessary slapstick.
To look at, Downsizing is really rather lovely. Filled with clever special effects, it’s a pleasure to watch and fascinating to sit there and think about all the camera trickery required to pull it off. Watching a miniature ship pull bottles of vodka is strangely satisfying.
And then, about 45 minutes in, things start to go rapidly downhill. So downhill that I left the cinema wondering how on earth a movie that began so positively, could result in a middle and final act so disappointingly ordinary. On the journey home, I used that time to think of the reasons.
That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end
Firstly, that talented cast I spoke about earlier is completely and utterly wasted. Outside of Damon, each of the brilliant actors is given a glorified cameo that makes little-to-no difference on the final outcome. Laura Dern is in the film for less than 3 minutes – in fact, her scene is exactly what you see in the trailer. Christoph Waltz plays a bizarre Serbian playboy who is funny and irritating in equal measure and the less said about Kristen Wiig’s part the better.
Secondly, the story just doesn’t do enough with its fascinating premise. We get a vague environmental message about the beauty of nature and the fragility of life, but the idea of downsizing and the beautiful residences of “Leisureland” are merely a shell for Damon to go from scene to scene. His adventures with Hong Chau, which make up the bulk of the overstuffed 132-minute runtime, are pleasant enough, but we want to see more of the people who have decided to shrink themselves.
Thirdly, the tone is an absolute mess. Is it a comedy? What about a drama? Perhaps a rom-com? Who knows! That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end.
Finally, the ending is absolutely dreadful and one of the worst ever put to film. I’m not sure if Payne thought it would be a good idea to leave the movie open to a sequel but there is absolutely no payoff to the previous 130-or-so minutes whatsoever. It just falls flat.
Overall, Downsizing has a brilliant premise and a wonderfully talented cast, but each of those is wasted and that’s unforgivable. What starts out as a clever piece of social commentary about the issues we, as a species, currently face, ends up becoming one of the most ordinary films you’ll ever see and a bit of a misstep for the usually superb Alexander Payne. It’s certainly his worst film to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/27/downsizing-review-this-little-film-has-big-shoes-to-fill/