Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Fred Flarksy is a controversial journalist who likes to uncover the evil and corrupt in the world, when his paper is brought by a company that they themselves have uncovered as the "bad guy" he quits on the spot. Lance, his best friend, knows exactly what he needs to feel better, drink, steak, and a fundraiser with Boyz II Men.
It's fair to say that Fred didn't expect leaving his job to lead him to a chance reunion and such a wild ride.
It's fair to say that I wasn't too sure what this one was going to be like. I've never been a massive fan of Seth Rogen, a lot of his roles seem pointlessly crude. I don't mind that particularly, but too much of it just isn't my cup of tea. The line-up of him and Theron seemed a little mad, and a bit off balance, but the trailers looked like they had something to them so I was willing to have my mind changed... and oh boy did I change my mind.
At this point I've seen the movie twice and it really is great fun, and surprisingly heartwarming.
The odd headlining duo actually work wonderfully together, they bounce off each other so well throughout and that chemistry has shot this up into my favourite rom-coms.
Seth Rogen seems to have a knack for the outraged outbursts in films and we get a few of those at the beginning of the film. We quickly see Fred become a loveable character when he first sees Charlotte across the room at the fundraiser. He's sweet, he's vulnerable and he's funny. That's when you really start rooting for him.
Had you asked me to sum up Charlize Theron's previous acting roles I'd have said they were all of the dramatic and action persuasion, and mostly they are, I'd completely forgotten things like Gringo and A Million Ways To Die In The West. I hope we'll see more of her doing this sort of comedy, she's obviously well suited for it.
It's not just the lead roles though, the support cast are brilliant. June Diane Raphael as Charlotte's right-hand woman was so snippy with Fred to great effect, and O'Shea Jackson Jr. as Lance was the sort of supportive friend we all need. The highlight though was Tristan D. Lalla as secret service Agent M, he takes adorable to a whole new level.
My only negative on the casting was Alexander Skarsgård, but that's not because of his acting, it's because of what they did to him... that slurping, that laugh... why would you do that?! Why!!? After the wonder of him in The Aftermath this has ruined the image of him for me.
Long Shot's plot is entirely predictable. Two people are reunited after years, they catch feelings, something gets in the way, they split up, then they get back together. The fact you know where it's leading just means that you can sit back and enjoy it more. I was expecting the funny, but I really wasn't expecting to cry... yes, I know I'm a wreck. There are some surprisingly touching moments involved and the way they brought the film together at the end was perfect.
This probably deserves 5 stars, and I would give it that extra half star in a heartbeat if it wasn't for the Skarsgård thing and the fact that there's no way I could watch this with my parents even though I know dad would find it hilarious.
What you should do
It's definitely one to see, it doesn't need the big screen but you certainly won't be wasting your money if you went and saw it at the cinema.
It's fair to say that Fred didn't expect leaving his job to lead him to a chance reunion and such a wild ride.
It's fair to say that I wasn't too sure what this one was going to be like. I've never been a massive fan of Seth Rogen, a lot of his roles seem pointlessly crude. I don't mind that particularly, but too much of it just isn't my cup of tea. The line-up of him and Theron seemed a little mad, and a bit off balance, but the trailers looked like they had something to them so I was willing to have my mind changed... and oh boy did I change my mind.
At this point I've seen the movie twice and it really is great fun, and surprisingly heartwarming.
The odd headlining duo actually work wonderfully together, they bounce off each other so well throughout and that chemistry has shot this up into my favourite rom-coms.
Seth Rogen seems to have a knack for the outraged outbursts in films and we get a few of those at the beginning of the film. We quickly see Fred become a loveable character when he first sees Charlotte across the room at the fundraiser. He's sweet, he's vulnerable and he's funny. That's when you really start rooting for him.
Had you asked me to sum up Charlize Theron's previous acting roles I'd have said they were all of the dramatic and action persuasion, and mostly they are, I'd completely forgotten things like Gringo and A Million Ways To Die In The West. I hope we'll see more of her doing this sort of comedy, she's obviously well suited for it.
It's not just the lead roles though, the support cast are brilliant. June Diane Raphael as Charlotte's right-hand woman was so snippy with Fred to great effect, and O'Shea Jackson Jr. as Lance was the sort of supportive friend we all need. The highlight though was Tristan D. Lalla as secret service Agent M, he takes adorable to a whole new level.
My only negative on the casting was Alexander Skarsgård, but that's not because of his acting, it's because of what they did to him... that slurping, that laugh... why would you do that?! Why!!? After the wonder of him in The Aftermath this has ruined the image of him for me.
Long Shot's plot is entirely predictable. Two people are reunited after years, they catch feelings, something gets in the way, they split up, then they get back together. The fact you know where it's leading just means that you can sit back and enjoy it more. I was expecting the funny, but I really wasn't expecting to cry... yes, I know I'm a wreck. There are some surprisingly touching moments involved and the way they brought the film together at the end was perfect.
This probably deserves 5 stars, and I would give it that extra half star in a heartbeat if it wasn't for the Skarsgård thing and the fact that there's no way I could watch this with my parents even though I know dad would find it hilarious.
What you should do
It's definitely one to see, it doesn't need the big screen but you certainly won't be wasting your money if you went and saw it at the cinema.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Official Secrets (2019) in Movies
Oct 16, 2019
Should this tense, dramatic thriller remain a Secret?
I was lucky enough to be invited to an advanced screening of this film, ahead of it's general release.
"Official Secrets (2019)" is a tense and clever thriller based on real events that occurred during the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003. Keira Knightley plays Katherine Gun, a British spy-turned-whistleblower who worked for GCHQ at the time. She leaked confidential information to the press, exposing illegal activities at the highest levels of government intended to falsely justify the invasion of Iraq. Backed by a high-calibre support cast, which includes Matt Smith and Ralph Fiennes, this film serves to show you the true story of what happened during this shadowy and questionable chapter in our history.
The film uses actual news footage from the time to great effect, making you feel as if you're watching a biographical documentary on the History Channel. Knightley is captivating as the Robin Hood-esque lead, delivering a truly believable and heartfelt performance throughout. It wasn't until the credits began to roll and they showed you footage of the real Katherine Gun from news reels at the time that you realise just how good Knightley's performance really was. From the way she dressed to the tone in which she spoke and the small mannerisms of her personality, it was a very, very good portrayal.
As with most films like this, I imagine certain events and aspects of the story were dramatised or exaggerated for the purposes of cinema, but at no point did it ever feel like it. Any changes to real events were subtle enough that you couldn't spot them without detailed knowledge of what really happened at the time - something, it turns out, very few people actually had.
Matt Smith is both charming and uncompromising as the stubborn reporter who champions Gun's crusade for the truth, giving her support and a platform to get her message out to the world. Similarly, Ralph Fiennes looks right at home as the lawyer who defends her in the public eye.
I admit that certain aspects and legalities within the plot felt, at times, a little far-fetched, but honestly, the film did such a good job of telling this story, I'm inclined to think that's still how things actually happened.
Spoilers aren't as much of an issue for films like this, as you already know the outcome. But this film isn't about the destination, it's about the journey. It shines a spotlight on the down-and-dirty world of global politics, as well as how difficult it can sometimes be to choose to do the right thing.
The film moves along at a slow yet perfect pace. It doesn't look or feel like a Hollywood movie, which I think is a very good thing. Instead, it feels like a BBC drama, similar to Line of Duty or Luther or Spooks, and that's exactly the kind of approach this film needed to work.
I went into this admittedly understanding very little of what went on back in 2003. I was much younger and wasn't interested in geopolitics, or even the news in general. But seeing this film piqued my interest, and after a few hours of Googling the events depicted in the film, I'm even more in awe of just how well made this was. Kudos to everyone involved.
My only criticism, if I had to give one, would be the number of times people had to say "Official Secrets Act"... I get that's what the film is about, but it seemed like every character had a quota for the number of times they had to mention it! But that's just nit-picking for nit-picking's sake. This truly is a cracking film. One of the gems of the year that's not to be missed!
"Official Secrets (2019)" is a tense and clever thriller based on real events that occurred during the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003. Keira Knightley plays Katherine Gun, a British spy-turned-whistleblower who worked for GCHQ at the time. She leaked confidential information to the press, exposing illegal activities at the highest levels of government intended to falsely justify the invasion of Iraq. Backed by a high-calibre support cast, which includes Matt Smith and Ralph Fiennes, this film serves to show you the true story of what happened during this shadowy and questionable chapter in our history.
The film uses actual news footage from the time to great effect, making you feel as if you're watching a biographical documentary on the History Channel. Knightley is captivating as the Robin Hood-esque lead, delivering a truly believable and heartfelt performance throughout. It wasn't until the credits began to roll and they showed you footage of the real Katherine Gun from news reels at the time that you realise just how good Knightley's performance really was. From the way she dressed to the tone in which she spoke and the small mannerisms of her personality, it was a very, very good portrayal.
As with most films like this, I imagine certain events and aspects of the story were dramatised or exaggerated for the purposes of cinema, but at no point did it ever feel like it. Any changes to real events were subtle enough that you couldn't spot them without detailed knowledge of what really happened at the time - something, it turns out, very few people actually had.
Matt Smith is both charming and uncompromising as the stubborn reporter who champions Gun's crusade for the truth, giving her support and a platform to get her message out to the world. Similarly, Ralph Fiennes looks right at home as the lawyer who defends her in the public eye.
I admit that certain aspects and legalities within the plot felt, at times, a little far-fetched, but honestly, the film did such a good job of telling this story, I'm inclined to think that's still how things actually happened.
Spoilers aren't as much of an issue for films like this, as you already know the outcome. But this film isn't about the destination, it's about the journey. It shines a spotlight on the down-and-dirty world of global politics, as well as how difficult it can sometimes be to choose to do the right thing.
The film moves along at a slow yet perfect pace. It doesn't look or feel like a Hollywood movie, which I think is a very good thing. Instead, it feels like a BBC drama, similar to Line of Duty or Luther or Spooks, and that's exactly the kind of approach this film needed to work.
I went into this admittedly understanding very little of what went on back in 2003. I was much younger and wasn't interested in geopolitics, or even the news in general. But seeing this film piqued my interest, and after a few hours of Googling the events depicted in the film, I'm even more in awe of just how well made this was. Kudos to everyone involved.
My only criticism, if I had to give one, would be the number of times people had to say "Official Secrets Act"... I get that's what the film is about, but it seemed like every character had a quota for the number of times they had to mention it! But that's just nit-picking for nit-picking's sake. This truly is a cracking film. One of the gems of the year that's not to be missed!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Cats (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
[Nostalgia enters the room looking cheery. A cat lurks in the background. Nostalgia starts tapdancing. Suddenly a red dot appears on Nostalgia's back and the cat savagely attacks it, leaving it bloody and beaten on the ground.]
As I've been saying to people... this film isn't good, but it's also not entirely bad, it has its moments.
Let's talk about the CGI first. You know what? It's not all that bad. Take out whatever you think about the concept of the human cats the fur in the second trailer looked much better than its first outing. During the film, Old Deuteronomy looked so fluffy I just wanted to pet her. The ear movements were pretty good, if a little consistent, it felt a little like they'd looked up cat actions in a book and taken the textbook description to animate rather than watching an actual cat. The cats as a whole could probably been a little larger compared to the "life-sized" staging around them because the ratio did feel a little off, but it wasn't really enough to make it off-putting.
Ever since I saw Cats at the cinema I've been singing the songs, but that's off the back of me listening to the stage recordings on Spotify and not the film versions. They don't quite have the same pep of the originals, watching them wasn't the wondrous experience I was hoping for. There are small exceptions. Taylor Swift was excellent and set a perfect tone for her number. Jason Derulo is a showman in this and after his Red Dwarf Cat-like clip in the trailer I was excited for his full numbers, they didn't disappoint.
Memory has to be my favourite song since seeing it on the stage and I was keen to see the talented Jennifer Hudson perform it. When it surfaced briefly I was worried, there was no impact, no heart... potential disaster. Finally the full number happened at the end and I was convinced. I listened to Hudson sing with such emotion that I cried, streams of tears and a quivering lip. It was beautiful.
The rest of the cast, while chockful of talent, didn't have quite the same buzz about it.
Francesca Hayward is a massively talented ballerina but the acting portion of the performance didn't quite hit the spot. This wasn't helped by the advert that has been running with her and Jennifer Hudson before the trailer was running before every film I watched for about two weeks.
I love Dame Judi and Sir Ian, and it was fun seeing them in this, but both had their issues. I wasn't a fan of Dench's moments of singing and the melancholy role of Gus for McKellen was a little unsettling. Who doesn't love seeing an Idris Elba film? He does the bad "guy" well but there was something wrong here too, I think that was partly to do with that fur torso.
It would be entirely possible to go on and on about this and all its ins and outs, but I don't think either of us have the time for that. I do feel that having the previous knowledge of Cats on the stage will help immensely when seeing this. That does also have some drawbacks though, when we saw it at the theatre it was a very interactive experience with the cats in the aisles with the audience and that's something the film can't compete with. I'm tempted to say that they should have forgone CGI aspects for the most part and had costumed cast. Making something more realistic when everything around it is unrealistic (in that it's not quite what we're used to as regular-sized humans) makes everything more confusing, perhaps the low tech angle would have made it a little less scary to some.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/cats-movie-review.html
As I've been saying to people... this film isn't good, but it's also not entirely bad, it has its moments.
Let's talk about the CGI first. You know what? It's not all that bad. Take out whatever you think about the concept of the human cats the fur in the second trailer looked much better than its first outing. During the film, Old Deuteronomy looked so fluffy I just wanted to pet her. The ear movements were pretty good, if a little consistent, it felt a little like they'd looked up cat actions in a book and taken the textbook description to animate rather than watching an actual cat. The cats as a whole could probably been a little larger compared to the "life-sized" staging around them because the ratio did feel a little off, but it wasn't really enough to make it off-putting.
Ever since I saw Cats at the cinema I've been singing the songs, but that's off the back of me listening to the stage recordings on Spotify and not the film versions. They don't quite have the same pep of the originals, watching them wasn't the wondrous experience I was hoping for. There are small exceptions. Taylor Swift was excellent and set a perfect tone for her number. Jason Derulo is a showman in this and after his Red Dwarf Cat-like clip in the trailer I was excited for his full numbers, they didn't disappoint.
Memory has to be my favourite song since seeing it on the stage and I was keen to see the talented Jennifer Hudson perform it. When it surfaced briefly I was worried, there was no impact, no heart... potential disaster. Finally the full number happened at the end and I was convinced. I listened to Hudson sing with such emotion that I cried, streams of tears and a quivering lip. It was beautiful.
The rest of the cast, while chockful of talent, didn't have quite the same buzz about it.
Francesca Hayward is a massively talented ballerina but the acting portion of the performance didn't quite hit the spot. This wasn't helped by the advert that has been running with her and Jennifer Hudson before the trailer was running before every film I watched for about two weeks.
I love Dame Judi and Sir Ian, and it was fun seeing them in this, but both had their issues. I wasn't a fan of Dench's moments of singing and the melancholy role of Gus for McKellen was a little unsettling. Who doesn't love seeing an Idris Elba film? He does the bad "guy" well but there was something wrong here too, I think that was partly to do with that fur torso.
It would be entirely possible to go on and on about this and all its ins and outs, but I don't think either of us have the time for that. I do feel that having the previous knowledge of Cats on the stage will help immensely when seeing this. That does also have some drawbacks though, when we saw it at the theatre it was a very interactive experience with the cats in the aisles with the audience and that's something the film can't compete with. I'm tempted to say that they should have forgone CGI aspects for the most part and had costumed cast. Making something more realistic when everything around it is unrealistic (in that it's not quite what we're used to as regular-sized humans) makes everything more confusing, perhaps the low tech angle would have made it a little less scary to some.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/cats-movie-review.html
Darren (1599 KP) rated Dolls (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Story: Dolls starts when alcoholic children’s book author Robert Holbrook (Downey) moves into his recently deceased mother’s home to start work on his latest work, when he is joined by his teenage daughter Sammey (Simpson) who wants to get away from her mother.
When Robert and Sammey discover three creepy dolls in the attic, Robert decides that he wants to use these characters to create his latest story, known as the Attic Dolls. When a sister of a former patient Margaret (Wallace) appears, she warns Sammey about the evil inside the dolls that come out to play when you look away.
Thoughts on Dolls
Characters – Robert is an alcoholic children’s author, he has made mistakes in his life which has left his family facing financial ruin, his daughter struggle to be able to face a college future, he has moved out to focus on his new book, which will see him being joined by his daughter. The latest book idea uses the creepy dolls found in the attic of his mother’s home, which will see him suffer nightmares as he looks to withdraw from his drinking problems. Sammey is his 17-year-old daughter who wants to live with him over her mother, she has been on certain medications, though it is unclear what is wrong with her to need them. She first gets scared by the dolls believing the story she hears about them, while trying to remain rebellious about her future. Margaret was the sister of one of the patient’s of Robert’s mother, she warns the family about the evil from the dolls which might be connected to the deaths.
Performances – Thomas Downey is strong through the film, we believe that he is going through troubles. Trinity Simpson is entertaining in her role, she brings the fear of what is going on to make us believe everything happening. Dee Wallace is the biggest name in the film, she is in a supporting role, which lets her bring the experience to the film.
Story – The story here follows a family that move into a house of a deceased relative only to discover three creepy dolls in the attic, soon strange things start happening around the house as it appears the dolls come to life when people aren’t looking. This story does play into the creepy dolls genre of horror which does to use mental health and addiction to try and reflect the situation going on through the events of the film. It does start by going in one direction, but it does feel like it is going to target on a rampage, then throws another twist to them in and it does seem to rush a lot of the story going on through the film. it does end in a very confusing manor which could make most of the film feel almost redundant.
Horror – The horror in this comes from the dolls which do feel creepy and make us feel uneasy wondering what they will be doing next.
Settings – The film is set in the one location which is the house, it is filled with locations where the dolls could sneak around without being seen, only heard, which does play into the rules created.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are only used when they are needed, they are simply with certain small movements which does help the film unfold.
Scene of the Movie – The dolls appearance.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The ending.
Final Thoughts – This is a new creepy doll movie, which has been the it feature at the moment, with Child’s Play and Annabelle in the cinema, this one does have a creepy feel to it even if the story does seem to be rushed.
Overall: Creepy Fun horror.
When Robert and Sammey discover three creepy dolls in the attic, Robert decides that he wants to use these characters to create his latest story, known as the Attic Dolls. When a sister of a former patient Margaret (Wallace) appears, she warns Sammey about the evil inside the dolls that come out to play when you look away.
Thoughts on Dolls
Characters – Robert is an alcoholic children’s author, he has made mistakes in his life which has left his family facing financial ruin, his daughter struggle to be able to face a college future, he has moved out to focus on his new book, which will see him being joined by his daughter. The latest book idea uses the creepy dolls found in the attic of his mother’s home, which will see him suffer nightmares as he looks to withdraw from his drinking problems. Sammey is his 17-year-old daughter who wants to live with him over her mother, she has been on certain medications, though it is unclear what is wrong with her to need them. She first gets scared by the dolls believing the story she hears about them, while trying to remain rebellious about her future. Margaret was the sister of one of the patient’s of Robert’s mother, she warns the family about the evil from the dolls which might be connected to the deaths.
Performances – Thomas Downey is strong through the film, we believe that he is going through troubles. Trinity Simpson is entertaining in her role, she brings the fear of what is going on to make us believe everything happening. Dee Wallace is the biggest name in the film, she is in a supporting role, which lets her bring the experience to the film.
Story – The story here follows a family that move into a house of a deceased relative only to discover three creepy dolls in the attic, soon strange things start happening around the house as it appears the dolls come to life when people aren’t looking. This story does play into the creepy dolls genre of horror which does to use mental health and addiction to try and reflect the situation going on through the events of the film. It does start by going in one direction, but it does feel like it is going to target on a rampage, then throws another twist to them in and it does seem to rush a lot of the story going on through the film. it does end in a very confusing manor which could make most of the film feel almost redundant.
Horror – The horror in this comes from the dolls which do feel creepy and make us feel uneasy wondering what they will be doing next.
Settings – The film is set in the one location which is the house, it is filled with locations where the dolls could sneak around without being seen, only heard, which does play into the rules created.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are only used when they are needed, they are simply with certain small movements which does help the film unfold.
Scene of the Movie – The dolls appearance.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The ending.
Final Thoughts – This is a new creepy doll movie, which has been the it feature at the moment, with Child’s Play and Annabelle in the cinema, this one does have a creepy feel to it even if the story does seem to be rushed.
Overall: Creepy Fun horror.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Frozen II (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019 (Updated Nov 25, 2019)
Just as enjoyable as the original
I'm sure you don't need me to tell you how big a hit 2013 movie Frozen was. For a long while after it was released, you couldn't go on social media, or even turn on a TV, without seeing mention of Frozen in some form. And you couldn't really avoid hearing somebody bash out their rendition of 'Let It Go', arguably one of the biggest and most recognisable songs of this decade. Frozen became the highest-grossing animated film ever and a sequel was always inevitable. But, with any sequel, there's always a high chance that they'll fail to live up to the original, simply coming across as nothing more than a cash grab. Frozen 2 had a lot to live up to!
Following the events of the first Frozen movie, Arendelle is once again a calm, happy and carefree place. Elsa and Anna are close sisters once more. Anna and Kristoff are a couple, although in a running theme throughout the movie, Kristoff is now keen to try and propose to Anna. Meanwhile, some magic from Elsa means that Olaf now has a permafrost, no longer needing his own snow cloud and able to freely go around without fear of melting. He's also extremely keen to learn - becoming more thoughtful and aware of the world, asking existential questions, and sharing new found facts with his friends.
An early scene shows a young Elsa and Anna being told a bedtime story by their parents. The story involves an enchanted forest and their grandfather, who went to the forest as king in order to make peace with it's inhabitants, the Northuldra, and to sweeten the deal by building them a shiny new dam. But a betrayal caused the elemental forces of the forest - air, earth, fire and water - to become angered, resulting in a fierce battle and the entire forest being sealed for all time beneath a magical shield of mist. Clearly this story is being told in order to set the scene for a major plot point in this sequel, so it's not long before present day Elsa begins to hear voices - a mysterious siren, beckoning her with a beautiful melody. And when the terrifying elemental spirits strike the town of Arendelle, forcing its residents to flee for safety, she remembers the story we've just heard and heads off to the enchanted forest to look for answers and a resolution, closely followed by Anna, Kristoff, Sven and Olaf.
What follows is an epic adventure involving all of the main characters as they work together, or separately at times, to try and regain order and peace to this expanding world we're being introduced to. It becomes a quest to uncover the sisters ancestry and an attempt to undo damage caused by past generations with each character deals with their own personal transformation and growth. It's all beautifully animated, as you'd expect, full of peril, action and fun. And Olaf still manages to generate big laughs in pretty much every scene he's in!
Once again, Frozen 2 boasts an impressive soundtrack of songs. At least one is extremely powerful and catchy, knocking loudly at the door of 'Let It Go' in terms of memorability (admittedly, I've already listened to it a few times since leaving the cinema!), and there are more fun songs for Olaf to sing too. Kristoff comes up short though, getting dealt the worst of the songs, but that's not to say they're not still enjoyable.
Like Toy Story 4 earlier this year, Frozen 2 is a sequel that wasn't really necessary. But, as with Toy Story, it is still wonderful to be back in the company of such great characters. Having re-watched the original Frozen the day before seeing Frozen 2, I can honestly say that the sequel for me was just as enjoyable and entertaining as the first. Highly recommended.
Following the events of the first Frozen movie, Arendelle is once again a calm, happy and carefree place. Elsa and Anna are close sisters once more. Anna and Kristoff are a couple, although in a running theme throughout the movie, Kristoff is now keen to try and propose to Anna. Meanwhile, some magic from Elsa means that Olaf now has a permafrost, no longer needing his own snow cloud and able to freely go around without fear of melting. He's also extremely keen to learn - becoming more thoughtful and aware of the world, asking existential questions, and sharing new found facts with his friends.
An early scene shows a young Elsa and Anna being told a bedtime story by their parents. The story involves an enchanted forest and their grandfather, who went to the forest as king in order to make peace with it's inhabitants, the Northuldra, and to sweeten the deal by building them a shiny new dam. But a betrayal caused the elemental forces of the forest - air, earth, fire and water - to become angered, resulting in a fierce battle and the entire forest being sealed for all time beneath a magical shield of mist. Clearly this story is being told in order to set the scene for a major plot point in this sequel, so it's not long before present day Elsa begins to hear voices - a mysterious siren, beckoning her with a beautiful melody. And when the terrifying elemental spirits strike the town of Arendelle, forcing its residents to flee for safety, she remembers the story we've just heard and heads off to the enchanted forest to look for answers and a resolution, closely followed by Anna, Kristoff, Sven and Olaf.
What follows is an epic adventure involving all of the main characters as they work together, or separately at times, to try and regain order and peace to this expanding world we're being introduced to. It becomes a quest to uncover the sisters ancestry and an attempt to undo damage caused by past generations with each character deals with their own personal transformation and growth. It's all beautifully animated, as you'd expect, full of peril, action and fun. And Olaf still manages to generate big laughs in pretty much every scene he's in!
Once again, Frozen 2 boasts an impressive soundtrack of songs. At least one is extremely powerful and catchy, knocking loudly at the door of 'Let It Go' in terms of memorability (admittedly, I've already listened to it a few times since leaving the cinema!), and there are more fun songs for Olaf to sing too. Kristoff comes up short though, getting dealt the worst of the songs, but that's not to say they're not still enjoyable.
Like Toy Story 4 earlier this year, Frozen 2 is a sequel that wasn't really necessary. But, as with Toy Story, it is still wonderful to be back in the company of such great characters. Having re-watched the original Frozen the day before seeing Frozen 2, I can honestly say that the sequel for me was just as enjoyable and entertaining as the first. Highly recommended.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) in Movies
Jan 23, 2020
In this day and age, where Star Wars is beloved by so many, and more recently met with sighs and trepidation by just as many, it's a franchise that easily faces scrutiny.
We can look at both the prequel and sequel trilogies to plainly see that it doesn't take much to piss off Star Wars fans in one way or another.
The announcement of Rogue One was met with said scrutiny, some saying it wasn't needed, some feeling fatigued by the sheer amount of Star Wars being thrown at us, sentiments that I can understand.
But I truly believe that Rogue One was a surprising win, and I left the cinema feeling that it belonged up there with the top tier SW films, and my opinion hasn't budged on repeat viewings.
The story revolves around a rag tag group of mercenaries, smugglers, and outcasts, and how they managed to secure the Death Star plans that set off the events of A New Hope back in 1977.
The cast of heroes aren't fleshed out a huge deal, but were given enough backstory to understand them adequately and back their campaign against the Empire.
Just like TFA, it's great to have another female lead in the SW universe. Felicity Jones is likable enough as Jyn Erso, even if her character is a little on the vanilla side.
The duo of Chirrut Imwe and Baze Malbus (Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang) work great next to one another, and provide a lot of the films humour and emotional impact.
The droid K2-SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk) is also a surprising highlight, his dry sense of humour works fantastically with the more serious tone of the movie.
We also have Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) which is the only character from the main group I struggled to like. He's written like a poor man's Han Solo, and I just didn't care about him at all, an aspect that can hopefully be rectified in the upcoming Disney+ series.
We also have Forest Whitaker as Saw Gerrera - a concrete connection to Star Wars: Rebels no less!, Mads Mikkelsen as Jyn's father Galen, and Ben Mendelsohn as this films villain, Orson Krennic.
It's a really strong cast if mostly enjoyable characters that earn their place in the SW pantheon.
In terms of cinematography, Star Wars has arguably never looked so good. Gorgeous and colourful locations like Scarif contrast against the classic Whit and greys of the original Empire design beautifully. All of the CG effects are more or less perfect, (with a huge exception that I'll get to in a second) and the action set pieces are thrilling. The whole final act is spectacular, and then just when it's seems like it's all over, we get THAT ending sequence - Gareth Edwards knows just the right amount of nostalgia to ensure the audience laps it up, and it's one of the best minutes of any Star Wars film ever.
The exception I mentioned above is of course going to be the subject of bringing back real actors from the dead. The inclusion of Grand Moff Tarkin makes sense in this particular narrative, but it does feel a bit odd seeing Peter Cushing, who died over 20 years ago, back on screen. Another cameo late on that includes a younger version of a legendary Star Wars character looks really off as well.
Overall though, these are just nit picks at an otherwise terrific sci-fi adventure.
Rogue One is bonafide great entry into the Star Wars canon, and its my personal favourite of the Disney era so far. Top stuff.
We can look at both the prequel and sequel trilogies to plainly see that it doesn't take much to piss off Star Wars fans in one way or another.
The announcement of Rogue One was met with said scrutiny, some saying it wasn't needed, some feeling fatigued by the sheer amount of Star Wars being thrown at us, sentiments that I can understand.
But I truly believe that Rogue One was a surprising win, and I left the cinema feeling that it belonged up there with the top tier SW films, and my opinion hasn't budged on repeat viewings.
The story revolves around a rag tag group of mercenaries, smugglers, and outcasts, and how they managed to secure the Death Star plans that set off the events of A New Hope back in 1977.
The cast of heroes aren't fleshed out a huge deal, but were given enough backstory to understand them adequately and back their campaign against the Empire.
Just like TFA, it's great to have another female lead in the SW universe. Felicity Jones is likable enough as Jyn Erso, even if her character is a little on the vanilla side.
The duo of Chirrut Imwe and Baze Malbus (Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang) work great next to one another, and provide a lot of the films humour and emotional impact.
The droid K2-SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk) is also a surprising highlight, his dry sense of humour works fantastically with the more serious tone of the movie.
We also have Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) which is the only character from the main group I struggled to like. He's written like a poor man's Han Solo, and I just didn't care about him at all, an aspect that can hopefully be rectified in the upcoming Disney+ series.
We also have Forest Whitaker as Saw Gerrera - a concrete connection to Star Wars: Rebels no less!, Mads Mikkelsen as Jyn's father Galen, and Ben Mendelsohn as this films villain, Orson Krennic.
It's a really strong cast if mostly enjoyable characters that earn their place in the SW pantheon.
In terms of cinematography, Star Wars has arguably never looked so good. Gorgeous and colourful locations like Scarif contrast against the classic Whit and greys of the original Empire design beautifully. All of the CG effects are more or less perfect, (with a huge exception that I'll get to in a second) and the action set pieces are thrilling. The whole final act is spectacular, and then just when it's seems like it's all over, we get THAT ending sequence - Gareth Edwards knows just the right amount of nostalgia to ensure the audience laps it up, and it's one of the best minutes of any Star Wars film ever.
The exception I mentioned above is of course going to be the subject of bringing back real actors from the dead. The inclusion of Grand Moff Tarkin makes sense in this particular narrative, but it does feel a bit odd seeing Peter Cushing, who died over 20 years ago, back on screen. Another cameo late on that includes a younger version of a legendary Star Wars character looks really off as well.
Overall though, these are just nit picks at an otherwise terrific sci-fi adventure.
Rogue One is bonafide great entry into the Star Wars canon, and its my personal favourite of the Disney era so far. Top stuff.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Sweeping up a few older films that I wanted to see but missed at the cinema in the last few years. My current IMDb watch list sits at 488, and, unlike this movie, never seems to shrink! There is a lot to keep up with. Bad reviews have kept me away from Alexander Payne’s Downsizing until now. I have to say, without the burden of expectation, it is a lot better than I thought it would be.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Call Me by Your Name (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
There are a swathe of European film-makers like Luca Guadagnino and Paolo Sorrentino that have the skill to make every image they print to film look like a work of art, giving you the feeling you are on the most idyllic holiday you ever had. Watching a largely silent image of a beautiful lake or a tree in the breeze, or an al fresco dinner where family and friends talk freely whilst the wine and olive oil flow is a treat I am not immune to.
Continuing to catch up on Oscar nominated films of recent years I have missed, I went on holiday in 1982 Italy for 2 hours last night. There was culture, architecture, piano music, food, nature, and a big peachy dollop of sensuality – thinly veiled as dramatic cinema. It washed over me like a daydream! And if I say nothing really happens, I wouldn’t necessarily call it a criticism. It ambles along at such a languid pace at times, with such little conflict or incident, but to call it insignificant would be a disservice to the power of love at its palpable heart.
Essentially, it is a right of passage movie, that defies gloriously every hollywood habit of over egging the souffle. For minutes on end we watch Elio, the formidable natural talent of Timothée Chalamet, read a book, go for a swim, ride a bike, play the piano, or fuck some fruit, as he gradually descends into obsession, and ultimately love, for the older Armie Hammer as the aloof and seemingly worldly Oliver, his father’s research assistant for the Summer.
It feels for a long, long time like you might not care, such a tale of rich privilege as it is; but, by the final moments you do realise you have been drawn into the depth of feeling that is often hidden in plain sight, and that you may after all relate to the heartbreak contained in loving an idea of love and passion that is never attainable in reality. The self discovery of a passion within you as a life force is a melancholy reward in and of itself.
I know already that I must return to this film from time to time in a variety of moods, because it has a depth of subtlety that may catch me differently every time; and that is its main power. The key to which is Chalamet. His eyes and body language are so filled with hidden wonders that his words don’t always convey, that his work seems more like a strange dance than your average screen performance, that often simply takes the script and merely reads it aloud.
The remarkable career of Michael Stuhlbarg, as Elio’s father, is also noteworthy here. Take a look at how many great films he has now been a part of and gasp to think, oh wow, that is the same guy! His paternal speech to Elio at the end of this film was a highlight for me. Such gorgeous writing, that combines character with wisdom and weakness in a tapestry of care and regret. Just wonderful.
You know, I came into writing this review feeling that I had found the experience quite disposable and slight. That clearly isn’t the case. This is obviously a film you must watch again, meeting it where it wants to meet you. Not to mention I have always been a Sufjan Stevens fan, and found his contribution to the musical landscape near perfect. In conclusion, there is a banquet here masquerading as a taste of something sweet brushing the lips. I will be back for a second bite in time.
Continuing to catch up on Oscar nominated films of recent years I have missed, I went on holiday in 1982 Italy for 2 hours last night. There was culture, architecture, piano music, food, nature, and a big peachy dollop of sensuality – thinly veiled as dramatic cinema. It washed over me like a daydream! And if I say nothing really happens, I wouldn’t necessarily call it a criticism. It ambles along at such a languid pace at times, with such little conflict or incident, but to call it insignificant would be a disservice to the power of love at its palpable heart.
Essentially, it is a right of passage movie, that defies gloriously every hollywood habit of over egging the souffle. For minutes on end we watch Elio, the formidable natural talent of Timothée Chalamet, read a book, go for a swim, ride a bike, play the piano, or fuck some fruit, as he gradually descends into obsession, and ultimately love, for the older Armie Hammer as the aloof and seemingly worldly Oliver, his father’s research assistant for the Summer.
It feels for a long, long time like you might not care, such a tale of rich privilege as it is; but, by the final moments you do realise you have been drawn into the depth of feeling that is often hidden in plain sight, and that you may after all relate to the heartbreak contained in loving an idea of love and passion that is never attainable in reality. The self discovery of a passion within you as a life force is a melancholy reward in and of itself.
I know already that I must return to this film from time to time in a variety of moods, because it has a depth of subtlety that may catch me differently every time; and that is its main power. The key to which is Chalamet. His eyes and body language are so filled with hidden wonders that his words don’t always convey, that his work seems more like a strange dance than your average screen performance, that often simply takes the script and merely reads it aloud.
The remarkable career of Michael Stuhlbarg, as Elio’s father, is also noteworthy here. Take a look at how many great films he has now been a part of and gasp to think, oh wow, that is the same guy! His paternal speech to Elio at the end of this film was a highlight for me. Such gorgeous writing, that combines character with wisdom and weakness in a tapestry of care and regret. Just wonderful.
You know, I came into writing this review feeling that I had found the experience quite disposable and slight. That clearly isn’t the case. This is obviously a film you must watch again, meeting it where it wants to meet you. Not to mention I have always been a Sufjan Stevens fan, and found his contribution to the musical landscape near perfect. In conclusion, there is a banquet here masquerading as a taste of something sweet brushing the lips. I will be back for a second bite in time.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bloodshot (2020) in Movies
Mar 21, 2020
It's nice to get a different side of the comic book genre for once, I'm still suffering from Marvel/Avengers fatigue so this was a welcome diversion.
After a successful operation, soldier Ray Garrison has come home to take his beautiful wife of a well deserved break. What he doesn't realise is that he's being tracked by a team who are looking for information, and they'll do anything it takes to get it.
Waking up in a high tech lab with no memory Ray discovers that his body has been donated to a company after his death. RSC are pioneers in enhancements to the human body, taking people who might otherwise be given up on and giving them a new lease of life.
When you've had one of those days and you need some gratuitous violence you can't really go wrong with a Vin Diesel films... can you?
I can't say I ever go into films like this expecting a "masterpiece" of cinema, I was just hoping for some solid entertainment and it certainly gives that.
Enhanced humans always offer that level of escapism that allows for a few faux pas to come across as less obvious, but the trailer made me raise an eyebrow. The effects didn't look great in the few snippets we got, luckily, on seeing the final product thought I was pleasantly surprised. The close up action that wouldn't require major stunts were excellent and believable, I didn't feel like there were any holes to pick... until the elevator scene. You'll clearly see the graphic work and it's a real shame it is so bad in comparison to the rest, there's also a terrible chase scene that has no natural movement in it either.
It's not often Vin strays from a certain type of character so we get exactly what you'd expect from his portrayal of Ray Garrison, a driven "bad guy" with a reason to be mad at a lot of stuff. It's not groundbreaking but it's always fun to see.
Eiza Gonzalez as KT gets a good range to work with, she gives us an excellent character with a reasonable amount of depth compared to her counterparts... who I had to call Legs and Eyes in my notes because at no point did I notice if they had names or not.
Our bad guy was obviously Guy Pearce seems about right for him. It wasn't really out of his comfort zone either though and despite him being great as Dr Emil Harting it wasn't really pushing any boundaries.
Visually this film is pretty good, the fight sequence we get glimpses of during the trailer uses colour well and has some amusing little touches in it. A bit of humour and some shots that I'd associate with horror/thriller movies build that excitement and tension well. There's also a well edited montage that's used to great effect to show the audience an event succinctly without it becoming boring, which is always greatly appreciated in films.
There are a few comments I have but they definitely constitute spoilers so I'll keep them to myself, but there's nothing that majorly added or detracted from the film for me beyond what I've mentioned already.
As I said at the beginning, it's nice to have a different comic book entity on our screens and I think the story is a good one, we're thankfully given an interesting set of characters to focus on and that helps the story stay a little lighter. You know how I like an origin tale though and this seems a bit short on that bit of discovery. I've got the graphic novel to read though so I'm interested to see where it deviates. Despite its minor (and slightly major action CGI) issues I really enjoyed Bloodshot, Ray's anger issues really helped get out some frustration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/bloodshot-movie-review.html
After a successful operation, soldier Ray Garrison has come home to take his beautiful wife of a well deserved break. What he doesn't realise is that he's being tracked by a team who are looking for information, and they'll do anything it takes to get it.
Waking up in a high tech lab with no memory Ray discovers that his body has been donated to a company after his death. RSC are pioneers in enhancements to the human body, taking people who might otherwise be given up on and giving them a new lease of life.
When you've had one of those days and you need some gratuitous violence you can't really go wrong with a Vin Diesel films... can you?
I can't say I ever go into films like this expecting a "masterpiece" of cinema, I was just hoping for some solid entertainment and it certainly gives that.
Enhanced humans always offer that level of escapism that allows for a few faux pas to come across as less obvious, but the trailer made me raise an eyebrow. The effects didn't look great in the few snippets we got, luckily, on seeing the final product thought I was pleasantly surprised. The close up action that wouldn't require major stunts were excellent and believable, I didn't feel like there were any holes to pick... until the elevator scene. You'll clearly see the graphic work and it's a real shame it is so bad in comparison to the rest, there's also a terrible chase scene that has no natural movement in it either.
It's not often Vin strays from a certain type of character so we get exactly what you'd expect from his portrayal of Ray Garrison, a driven "bad guy" with a reason to be mad at a lot of stuff. It's not groundbreaking but it's always fun to see.
Eiza Gonzalez as KT gets a good range to work with, she gives us an excellent character with a reasonable amount of depth compared to her counterparts... who I had to call Legs and Eyes in my notes because at no point did I notice if they had names or not.
Our bad guy was obviously Guy Pearce seems about right for him. It wasn't really out of his comfort zone either though and despite him being great as Dr Emil Harting it wasn't really pushing any boundaries.
Visually this film is pretty good, the fight sequence we get glimpses of during the trailer uses colour well and has some amusing little touches in it. A bit of humour and some shots that I'd associate with horror/thriller movies build that excitement and tension well. There's also a well edited montage that's used to great effect to show the audience an event succinctly without it becoming boring, which is always greatly appreciated in films.
There are a few comments I have but they definitely constitute spoilers so I'll keep them to myself, but there's nothing that majorly added or detracted from the film for me beyond what I've mentioned already.
As I said at the beginning, it's nice to have a different comic book entity on our screens and I think the story is a good one, we're thankfully given an interesting set of characters to focus on and that helps the story stay a little lighter. You know how I like an origin tale though and this seems a bit short on that bit of discovery. I've got the graphic novel to read though so I'm interested to see where it deviates. Despite its minor (and slightly major action CGI) issues I really enjoyed Bloodshot, Ray's anger issues really helped get out some frustration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/bloodshot-movie-review.html
vouchercloud: vouchers offers
Lifestyle and Shopping
7.4
Rate It
App
Get the best savings and offers for your favourite restaurants, high-street stores, supermarkets and...