Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated Street Fighter (1994) in Movies
Aug 24, 2019
Verdict: Basic Action Nonsense
Story: Street Fighter starts as the evil tyrant Bison (Julia) has been controlling the country of Shadaloo, Col William Guile (Van Damme) is leading the assault to bring him down after his latest demand is 20 Billion Dollars, to save the hostages he has taken. Chun-Li (Wen) has been reporting the story only for herself to have a personal investment in taking him down too.
Colonel Guile recruits Ken (Chapa) and Ryu (Mann) to go undercover to locate the secret base, before it is too late giving Guile a chance to go face to face with Bison in an ultimate fight between the two men.
Thoughts on Street Fighter
Characters – Colonel Guile is part of the Allied Nations a soldier that is trying a bring an end to the evil tyrant Bison, he is an expert in martial arts and will put himself in the line of fire in an attempt to stop this man. Bison is the dictator tyrant holding the country hostage, he is willing to offer anybody a chance to fight for their freedom, but his skills are beyond anything any normal person can handle, he is almost waiting for Guile to arrive for a worthy opponent. Chun-Li is a journalist with her own reasons for hunting down Bison, she is able to handle herself in a fight and willing to take just as many chances as Guile in finding the truth. Ken is involved in his own dealings with one of Bison’s supplies, he is used to get close to Bison to help locate the base of operations, while being one of the best fighters in the world.
Performances – Jean-Claude Van Damme is nowhere near his best in this role, he might handle the fighting, but everything else just looks out of place. Raul Julia is easily the best thing in this film, he is so wildly over the top you just want to see where he takes this character next. Ming-Na Wen does bring her character to life which is entertaining, though she seems to vanish for parts of the second half. We do get plenty of different characters from the history of the games, the performances are mixed as they look to bring these generic figures to life.
Story – The story follows the Allied Nations trying to bring down a tyrant trying to take over a country with his ludicrous demands, we see the favourite fighters from the game come into battle on both sides as they look to bring the end to the war for the country. This was one of the first attempts to bring a video game to life, we do get the characters, though as I am not a fan of the game, I can’t tell you how accurate the characters are. This isn’t a difficult story to follow, though it does feel like it wants to put all the favourite characters in scenes even if they aren’t always written strongly. This is however a good alcohol story because you can make a drinking game out of it.
Action/Comedy – The action in the film is countless numbers of fights, each fighter does have their own style, only for the scenes not being shot in the strongest style. This film does have comedy, though I am not sure if it is meant to be a comedy or not.
Settings – The film uses the typical locations with the secret base for the villain being a major part of the settings, it is filled with the gadgets you would expect to see from a video game style location.
Special Effects – The effects are low budget without being anything that will be remembered for being strong.
Scene of the Movie – The final showdown.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too many characters not getting enough time to shine.
Final Thoughts –This is the typical video game movie that just didn’t work, we have too many iconic characters that don’t get their time to shine which would only disappoint the fans of the game.
Overall: Disappointing video game movie.
Story: Street Fighter starts as the evil tyrant Bison (Julia) has been controlling the country of Shadaloo, Col William Guile (Van Damme) is leading the assault to bring him down after his latest demand is 20 Billion Dollars, to save the hostages he has taken. Chun-Li (Wen) has been reporting the story only for herself to have a personal investment in taking him down too.
Colonel Guile recruits Ken (Chapa) and Ryu (Mann) to go undercover to locate the secret base, before it is too late giving Guile a chance to go face to face with Bison in an ultimate fight between the two men.
Thoughts on Street Fighter
Characters – Colonel Guile is part of the Allied Nations a soldier that is trying a bring an end to the evil tyrant Bison, he is an expert in martial arts and will put himself in the line of fire in an attempt to stop this man. Bison is the dictator tyrant holding the country hostage, he is willing to offer anybody a chance to fight for their freedom, but his skills are beyond anything any normal person can handle, he is almost waiting for Guile to arrive for a worthy opponent. Chun-Li is a journalist with her own reasons for hunting down Bison, she is able to handle herself in a fight and willing to take just as many chances as Guile in finding the truth. Ken is involved in his own dealings with one of Bison’s supplies, he is used to get close to Bison to help locate the base of operations, while being one of the best fighters in the world.
Performances – Jean-Claude Van Damme is nowhere near his best in this role, he might handle the fighting, but everything else just looks out of place. Raul Julia is easily the best thing in this film, he is so wildly over the top you just want to see where he takes this character next. Ming-Na Wen does bring her character to life which is entertaining, though she seems to vanish for parts of the second half. We do get plenty of different characters from the history of the games, the performances are mixed as they look to bring these generic figures to life.
Story – The story follows the Allied Nations trying to bring down a tyrant trying to take over a country with his ludicrous demands, we see the favourite fighters from the game come into battle on both sides as they look to bring the end to the war for the country. This was one of the first attempts to bring a video game to life, we do get the characters, though as I am not a fan of the game, I can’t tell you how accurate the characters are. This isn’t a difficult story to follow, though it does feel like it wants to put all the favourite characters in scenes even if they aren’t always written strongly. This is however a good alcohol story because you can make a drinking game out of it.
Action/Comedy – The action in the film is countless numbers of fights, each fighter does have their own style, only for the scenes not being shot in the strongest style. This film does have comedy, though I am not sure if it is meant to be a comedy or not.
Settings – The film uses the typical locations with the secret base for the villain being a major part of the settings, it is filled with the gadgets you would expect to see from a video game style location.
Special Effects – The effects are low budget without being anything that will be remembered for being strong.
Scene of the Movie – The final showdown.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too many characters not getting enough time to shine.
Final Thoughts –This is the typical video game movie that just didn’t work, we have too many iconic characters that don’t get their time to shine which would only disappoint the fans of the game.
Overall: Disappointing video game movie.
Kris Karcher (10 KP) rated Nashville (1975) in Movies
Jan 11, 2018
A landmark film
Nashville is a very difficult film to pin down. It refuses to be pigeonholed into a genre. (IMDB has it listed as a comedy, Google as Drama/Political Drama, and Wikipedia labels the film a Musical Comedy-Drama. In my opinion, Nashville is all of those things and maybe some more. It would be more beneficial to talk about Nashville, not in terms of how similar it is to any other film, but instead, explore how it is unique and entirely different from almost everything that came before it. Robert Altman attempted to subvert audience expectations in ways never before seen in Hollywood. Where most films try and limit the number of main characters the audience has to follow, Altman instead chose to populate his country music narrative with over 20 different protagonists. Each of these protagonists has their own story to tell and all of these stories are only loosely connected together. This may sound familiar to contemporary audiences who have seen films like Crash, Babel, and Magnolia fresh on their minds, but to a 1975 audience, this was all but unheard of. Altman furthers this sense of chaos by constantly overlapping dialogue tracks throughout the film. This tactic forces viewers to engage more closely to what they can hear during the scenes because it’s not always obvious what you should be listening to. Sometimes that choice is even quite subjective as in most cases there is no clear plot line that stands out as primary. One of the joys of this film comes from the choice you have as a spectator to focus on whatever interests you most. To a certain extent, this film lends itself to multiple viewings that could produce slightly different results each time. Something that might have slipped your attention the first time might stand out upon repeated viewings and that has the possibility to add to the story in interesting and unique ways. In dealing with over 20 characters Altman runs the risk of underdeveloped characters and unsatisfying conclusions to their stories. Not everyone has a satisfying payoff but some characters will surprise you during the final few scenes. Henry Gibson’s Haven rises above what was previously a one-note character of a person and responds to the climax in a surprisingly moving way. All in all, Nashville is an important piece of American cinema history. It may not be everyone’s cup of tea so it’s best to temper your expectations going into a viewing, but if you can keep your eyes and ears intently listening for the full two and a half hour film you will not be disappointed in the humanity you spot in each of these stories. This is a film that rewards an invested viewing.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The House (2017) in Movies
Jul 14, 2017
Worst movie I've seen in a very, very long time
Usually when I review comedies I start off by complaining about how disappointing they tend to be these days. Sometimes they manage to prove me wrong (Bad Moms), sometimes they’re not quite as bad as I was expecting (Baywatch). The last time I was seriously annoyed about how bad a comedy was it was Office Christmas Party, but even then that managed to raise a laugh or two. The House though, well that goes way beyond that, taking it to a whole other level by having absolutely no laughs in it at all!
Will Ferrell is Scott, Amy Poehler is his wife Kate. When their daughter Alex gets into the university she wanted, they’re over the moon. Especially as the town runs some kind of scholarship program, paying for one lucky students education each year. This years lucky recipient is due to be Alex but when sleazy city councilman Bob decides to cancel the program in favour of building a huge pool for the town, Scott and Kate need to come up with another way of raising the money. Recently divorced neighbour Frank has a big empty house and between them they hit upon the idea of building a casino in his home, somewhere for the locals to come and spend all their money. Things go well for a while, then things get way out of hand. Cue the opportunity for some riotous, hilarious humour…
Only there’s none of that. It’s riotous, but this is just such a lazily written movie that the humour is non-existent. Featuring a date rape ‘gag’ within the first five minutes(?!) it just gets progressively worse from there. Pointless, nonsensical playground style bickering, name calling and random violence feature heavily throughout in a scatter-gun attempt at trying to raise a laugh. All of this ends up coming across as either poorly written, badly improvised, or both. Even the editing is a total disaster – in one scene Amy Poehler has a guy standing right behind her, cut to another camera and he’s gone, cut back and he’s there again, cut back and he’s gone!
The biggest disappointment about this is the complete waste of talent. Admittedly, Will Ferrell is on a downward spiral anyway since his Anchorman days and the brilliant Step Brothers, but you’d still expect more from him than this. One of my favourite TV shows, Parks and Recreation, stars Amy Poehler as the hilarious Leslie Knope, so I’d expect way more from her too. Even her movie roles haven’t been too bad so far. I guess it just proves that if you’ve got a seriously dud script on your hands, there isn’t really much that anyone can do to fix it. This isn’t just a bad comedy, it’s a bad, bad movie.
Will Ferrell is Scott, Amy Poehler is his wife Kate. When their daughter Alex gets into the university she wanted, they’re over the moon. Especially as the town runs some kind of scholarship program, paying for one lucky students education each year. This years lucky recipient is due to be Alex but when sleazy city councilman Bob decides to cancel the program in favour of building a huge pool for the town, Scott and Kate need to come up with another way of raising the money. Recently divorced neighbour Frank has a big empty house and between them they hit upon the idea of building a casino in his home, somewhere for the locals to come and spend all their money. Things go well for a while, then things get way out of hand. Cue the opportunity for some riotous, hilarious humour…
Only there’s none of that. It’s riotous, but this is just such a lazily written movie that the humour is non-existent. Featuring a date rape ‘gag’ within the first five minutes(?!) it just gets progressively worse from there. Pointless, nonsensical playground style bickering, name calling and random violence feature heavily throughout in a scatter-gun attempt at trying to raise a laugh. All of this ends up coming across as either poorly written, badly improvised, or both. Even the editing is a total disaster – in one scene Amy Poehler has a guy standing right behind her, cut to another camera and he’s gone, cut back and he’s there again, cut back and he’s gone!
The biggest disappointment about this is the complete waste of talent. Admittedly, Will Ferrell is on a downward spiral anyway since his Anchorman days and the brilliant Step Brothers, but you’d still expect more from him than this. One of my favourite TV shows, Parks and Recreation, stars Amy Poehler as the hilarious Leslie Knope, so I’d expect way more from her too. Even her movie roles haven’t been too bad so far. I guess it just proves that if you’ve got a seriously dud script on your hands, there isn’t really much that anyone can do to fix it. This isn’t just a bad comedy, it’s a bad, bad movie.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Risky Business (1983) in Movies
Apr 8, 2018
Solid 80's Romantic Comedy
Things get crazy for Joel Goodson (Tom Cruise) when his parents leave for the weekend and a call girl shows up at his door. A quiet weekend alone turns into one full of sex, drugs, and...pimps named Guido?
Acting: 10
Before Tom cruise commanded the screen with a number of memorable action and sci-fi films, he played the role of a young high school kid completely unsure of himself. His innocent charm is instantly likable. He's vulnerable, but not in an annoying kind of way. Amazing performance, not just from Cruise but from the supporting cast as well.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
I love when characters aren't the same people they started out as in the film. Character development can be hard to manage in film because you have such a short window of time to pull it off successfully. I respected and appreciated the development of Joel and Lana (Rebecca De Mornay). Joel goes from being a kid who can't tell if he's coming or going to a confident kid that acts older than his age. Hiding underneath his new exterior is a boy that's still scared to death as his life's stakes are now realer than ever. Lana enters the film cold and removed from her situation and leaves with a warmer heart and more of a vulnerable side. It's refreshing watching these characters mature right in front of you.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Tom Cruise sliding across the floor in just a button down and socks. That slow motion wind-filled moment where we meet Lana for the first time. The L train scene. These are just a handful of moments that define this film and make it a memorable experience. Director Paul Brickman captures these shots just right to create a lasting impression.
Conflict: 6
The full conflict of the film doesn't really present itself until you're over halfway done with the film. Up to that point Risky Business feels like more of an aimless adventure. A good time without any stakes involved.
Genre: 7
Very original romantic comedy that is unique in its premise. It has a solid realistic feel in the way the characters think and react. Joel knows he needs to stay away from Lana, yet he can't help himself in being drawn to her. If Forgetting Sarah Marshall is one of my pinnacles for rom-coms, Risky Business is certainly in the wheelhouse.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Plot: 7
Resolution: 4
Overall: 79
It's a film I will watch anytime I see it's on. While it didn't rewrite the history of cinema, Risky Business manages to hold its own as a good watch, even if the ending was a little underwhelming.
Acting: 10
Before Tom cruise commanded the screen with a number of memorable action and sci-fi films, he played the role of a young high school kid completely unsure of himself. His innocent charm is instantly likable. He's vulnerable, but not in an annoying kind of way. Amazing performance, not just from Cruise but from the supporting cast as well.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
I love when characters aren't the same people they started out as in the film. Character development can be hard to manage in film because you have such a short window of time to pull it off successfully. I respected and appreciated the development of Joel and Lana (Rebecca De Mornay). Joel goes from being a kid who can't tell if he's coming or going to a confident kid that acts older than his age. Hiding underneath his new exterior is a boy that's still scared to death as his life's stakes are now realer than ever. Lana enters the film cold and removed from her situation and leaves with a warmer heart and more of a vulnerable side. It's refreshing watching these characters mature right in front of you.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Tom Cruise sliding across the floor in just a button down and socks. That slow motion wind-filled moment where we meet Lana for the first time. The L train scene. These are just a handful of moments that define this film and make it a memorable experience. Director Paul Brickman captures these shots just right to create a lasting impression.
Conflict: 6
The full conflict of the film doesn't really present itself until you're over halfway done with the film. Up to that point Risky Business feels like more of an aimless adventure. A good time without any stakes involved.
Genre: 7
Very original romantic comedy that is unique in its premise. It has a solid realistic feel in the way the characters think and react. Joel knows he needs to stay away from Lana, yet he can't help himself in being drawn to her. If Forgetting Sarah Marshall is one of my pinnacles for rom-coms, Risky Business is certainly in the wheelhouse.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Plot: 7
Resolution: 4
Overall: 79
It's a film I will watch anytime I see it's on. While it didn't rewrite the history of cinema, Risky Business manages to hold its own as a good watch, even if the ending was a little underwhelming.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
We film-goers really can’t get enough of zombies. The brain-munching, cannibalistic horrors used to be the stuff of nightmares. But as our tastes became more extreme, the flesh-eaters managed to slip into the mainstream with genre-bending films at the forefront of zombie resurgence.
Christopher B. Landon brings zombies back to the silver screen with horror comedy, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse. Are we looking at a US version of Shaun of the Dead? Or something a little more dead behind the eyes?
Scouts Guide follows the tale of three teenage boys, having to battle not only their raging hormones, but a raging horde of zombies in a small town during the course of one evening. Starring rising star Tye Sheridan, Logan Miller and Joey Morgan as the aforementioned teens and the ever-likeable David Koechner as their scout leader, the trio must survive and defeat the creatures.
To create a successful zombie film, you need to know your monsters and this is where things start to unravel here. There are so many inconsistences that it’s difficult knowing where to begin. Instead of choosing a zombie-typing, like fast walkers from World War Z or traditional moaners like those from Shaun of the Dead, Scouts Guide uses both and the result simply doesn’t work.
Then there’s the plot. It’s so riddled with holes, cheap jumps and clichés that it’s almost impossible to fully immerse yourself in the experience. The makeup on the zombies is also terrifically poor, lacking in any sort of terror or real detail.
Thankfully, the acting from the lead three scouts is good with Sheridan in particular proving why he’s fast becoming one to watch, especially after being cast in next year’s X-Men: Apocalypse. The remainder of the characters are cardboard cut-outs with no backstory and no real gravitas when it comes to how the story will play out.
Nevertheless, there are some funny and genuinely clever moments dotted throughout Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse. A living-room chase choreographed to Dolly Parton’s 9 to 5 is a hilarious, albeit too short highlight in a film that needed more intriguing and unique sequences.
There’s also a nice, if unusually placed, homage to John Carpenter’s Halloween that whilst being particularly tasteful, is at odds with the film’s genre.
Overall, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse is as beige as a blood-filled horror comedy can come. Despite a couple of clever scenes, some good acting and a reasonably fluid directing style, it’s a damp squib of a movie that never really gets into its groove.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/15/dead-behind-the-eyes-scouts-guide-to-the-zombie-apocalypse-review/
Christopher B. Landon brings zombies back to the silver screen with horror comedy, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse. Are we looking at a US version of Shaun of the Dead? Or something a little more dead behind the eyes?
Scouts Guide follows the tale of three teenage boys, having to battle not only their raging hormones, but a raging horde of zombies in a small town during the course of one evening. Starring rising star Tye Sheridan, Logan Miller and Joey Morgan as the aforementioned teens and the ever-likeable David Koechner as their scout leader, the trio must survive and defeat the creatures.
To create a successful zombie film, you need to know your monsters and this is where things start to unravel here. There are so many inconsistences that it’s difficult knowing where to begin. Instead of choosing a zombie-typing, like fast walkers from World War Z or traditional moaners like those from Shaun of the Dead, Scouts Guide uses both and the result simply doesn’t work.
Then there’s the plot. It’s so riddled with holes, cheap jumps and clichés that it’s almost impossible to fully immerse yourself in the experience. The makeup on the zombies is also terrifically poor, lacking in any sort of terror or real detail.
Thankfully, the acting from the lead three scouts is good with Sheridan in particular proving why he’s fast becoming one to watch, especially after being cast in next year’s X-Men: Apocalypse. The remainder of the characters are cardboard cut-outs with no backstory and no real gravitas when it comes to how the story will play out.
Nevertheless, there are some funny and genuinely clever moments dotted throughout Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse. A living-room chase choreographed to Dolly Parton’s 9 to 5 is a hilarious, albeit too short highlight in a film that needed more intriguing and unique sequences.
There’s also a nice, if unusually placed, homage to John Carpenter’s Halloween that whilst being particularly tasteful, is at odds with the film’s genre.
Overall, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse is as beige as a blood-filled horror comedy can come. Despite a couple of clever scenes, some good acting and a reasonably fluid directing style, it’s a damp squib of a movie that never really gets into its groove.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/15/dead-behind-the-eyes-scouts-guide-to-the-zombie-apocalypse-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ted 2 (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
The bear is back
The success of Ted was completely unexpected. I doubt even director Seth McFarlane knew just how popular it would go on to become.
From special DVD’s to limited edition cuddly (or not so cuddly) toys, Ted has become something of a phenomenon. A sequel was always going to be on the cards and after three years perfecting it, McFarlane returns with Ted 2. But is it as funny as its predecessor?
Ted 2 follows the titular bear as he embarks on a relationship with Tami-Lynn and continues his friendship with John, the ever-watchable Mark Wahlberg in another great performance.
Unfortunately for Ted, his rights have been challenged by the US government and he must fight to be recognised as a ‘person’, rather than just someone’s ‘property’.
What ensues is a film which whilst being as funny as its predecessor, manages to be somewhat disappointing with a serious shortage of plot. This becomes evident as McFarlane uses Family Guy-esque cut-scenes and incredibly long dance numbers.
The cast, on the whole, is fantastic. Amanda Seyfried takes over from Mila Kunis as John’s love interest and Ted’s lawyer, Samantha. As usual she is a joy to watch but her inexperience in the offensive comedy genre is evident – scenes of her taking drugs just don’t sit right.
Morgan Freeman is sorely underused as a civil rights attorney, though a quick reference to his silky-smooth voice is more than welcome. Giovanni Ribisi also makes a surprising return as Ted’s nemesis Donny.
An absolutely brilliant cameo from Liam Neeson is one of the highlights in a film packed with gags which generally hit the spot – but they’re certainly not for the feint-hearted.
Ted 2 is louder, more obnoxious and much more offensive than its predecessor with numerous scenes involving sperm banks and an endless supply of drug-related comedy.
Unfortunately, all these highs are brought crashing back down to Earth as the story continuously runs out of steam and picks up again. It’s such a shame that a film less than two hours long has such a plot problem.
Thankfully, the original Ted wasn’t a masterpiece and MacFarlane manages to shoot the film well with a real eye for the finer details. His love of movies is apparent with Star Wars references being used well.
Overall, Ted 2 is very close to the standard of its predecessor, despite the excess story-padding that occurs throughout the film. The comedic elements are cracking with Liam Neeson’s cameo being a laugh-out-loud moment – it’s worth a watch, but only if you’re a fan of the first.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/12/the-bear-is-back-ted-2-review/
From special DVD’s to limited edition cuddly (or not so cuddly) toys, Ted has become something of a phenomenon. A sequel was always going to be on the cards and after three years perfecting it, McFarlane returns with Ted 2. But is it as funny as its predecessor?
Ted 2 follows the titular bear as he embarks on a relationship with Tami-Lynn and continues his friendship with John, the ever-watchable Mark Wahlberg in another great performance.
Unfortunately for Ted, his rights have been challenged by the US government and he must fight to be recognised as a ‘person’, rather than just someone’s ‘property’.
What ensues is a film which whilst being as funny as its predecessor, manages to be somewhat disappointing with a serious shortage of plot. This becomes evident as McFarlane uses Family Guy-esque cut-scenes and incredibly long dance numbers.
The cast, on the whole, is fantastic. Amanda Seyfried takes over from Mila Kunis as John’s love interest and Ted’s lawyer, Samantha. As usual she is a joy to watch but her inexperience in the offensive comedy genre is evident – scenes of her taking drugs just don’t sit right.
Morgan Freeman is sorely underused as a civil rights attorney, though a quick reference to his silky-smooth voice is more than welcome. Giovanni Ribisi also makes a surprising return as Ted’s nemesis Donny.
An absolutely brilliant cameo from Liam Neeson is one of the highlights in a film packed with gags which generally hit the spot – but they’re certainly not for the feint-hearted.
Ted 2 is louder, more obnoxious and much more offensive than its predecessor with numerous scenes involving sperm banks and an endless supply of drug-related comedy.
Unfortunately, all these highs are brought crashing back down to Earth as the story continuously runs out of steam and picks up again. It’s such a shame that a film less than two hours long has such a plot problem.
Thankfully, the original Ted wasn’t a masterpiece and MacFarlane manages to shoot the film well with a real eye for the finer details. His love of movies is apparent with Star Wars references being used well.
Overall, Ted 2 is very close to the standard of its predecessor, despite the excess story-padding that occurs throughout the film. The comedic elements are cracking with Liam Neeson’s cameo being a laugh-out-loud moment – it’s worth a watch, but only if you’re a fan of the first.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/12/the-bear-is-back-ted-2-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jul 18, 2018
A fun, family friendly action comedy
JUMANJI was a fun film from the middle 1990's, starring the late, great ROBIN WILLIAMS. And, when I heard that they were making a sequel to this film 22 years later and starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, I thought "no thanks" and even skipped seeking it out at movie theaters over the winter, even after I heard that it was "pretty fun".
I finally caught up to it on a recent flight and I have to admit - I was wrong for skipping this film JUMANJI: WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE is a fun romp with The Rock ably filling the lead role, aided by a strong supporting cast.
JUMANJI was about a board came come to life. JUMANJI: WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE has the same board game that morphs itself into a video game and when 4 High Schoolers stumble across it while serving detention, well...comedy - and adventure - ensue.
The four high schoolers are typical THE BREAKFAST CLUB stereotypes. The nerdy boy, the hot girl, the jock boy and the dorky girl. When these four are transported into the game they take on the outward appearance - and skills - of their video game characters - the nerdy body becomes the dashing hero (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson). The hot girl becomes the dumpy (male!) professor (Jack Black). The jock becomes the un-athletic short kid (Kevin Hart) and the dorky girl becomes the kick-ass girl (Karen Gillan). It is the 4 actors playing their high school counterparts in their bodies that is the core of this film - and the center of the charm and fun of this film. All 4 shine. Johnson and Hart (back together after CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE) show that the chemistry they showed with each other in the previous film is no fluke. Gillan (Nebula in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films) shows that she can do kick-ass well - and with a wink in her eye. But it is the performance of Black that steals things. Someone said to me that Black was made to play a "hot high school girl" and I would have to agree. He almost steals the movie.
Director Jake Kasdan (the TV series NEW GIRL) understands what kind of film that he is making, so keeps the fun and action going at a superficial, almost cartoon level, never really stopping to breathe (or to think). He keeps things light - and family friendly - with just enough "almost" dirty jokes to keep young and old alike interested. It earns - but never crosses the line - of it's PG-13 rating. There is talk of a sequel, and I, for one, am looking forward to it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis
I finally caught up to it on a recent flight and I have to admit - I was wrong for skipping this film JUMANJI: WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE is a fun romp with The Rock ably filling the lead role, aided by a strong supporting cast.
JUMANJI was about a board came come to life. JUMANJI: WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE has the same board game that morphs itself into a video game and when 4 High Schoolers stumble across it while serving detention, well...comedy - and adventure - ensue.
The four high schoolers are typical THE BREAKFAST CLUB stereotypes. The nerdy boy, the hot girl, the jock boy and the dorky girl. When these four are transported into the game they take on the outward appearance - and skills - of their video game characters - the nerdy body becomes the dashing hero (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson). The hot girl becomes the dumpy (male!) professor (Jack Black). The jock becomes the un-athletic short kid (Kevin Hart) and the dorky girl becomes the kick-ass girl (Karen Gillan). It is the 4 actors playing their high school counterparts in their bodies that is the core of this film - and the center of the charm and fun of this film. All 4 shine. Johnson and Hart (back together after CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE) show that the chemistry they showed with each other in the previous film is no fluke. Gillan (Nebula in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films) shows that she can do kick-ass well - and with a wink in her eye. But it is the performance of Black that steals things. Someone said to me that Black was made to play a "hot high school girl" and I would have to agree. He almost steals the movie.
Director Jake Kasdan (the TV series NEW GIRL) understands what kind of film that he is making, so keeps the fun and action going at a superficial, almost cartoon level, never really stopping to breathe (or to think). He keeps things light - and family friendly - with just enough "almost" dirty jokes to keep young and old alike interested. It earns - but never crosses the line - of it's PG-13 rating. There is talk of a sequel, and I, for one, am looking forward to it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Yes Man (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Carl Allen (Jim Carrey) is a man that has shut himself away from life following a divorce. Despite the best efforts of his friends Peter (Bradley Cooper), and Rooney (Danny Masterson), Carl is content to keep his life to toiling away in a dead end banking job and limiting his social activity to renting DVDs and watching them at home alone.
Following another disappoint day at work where he learned that he is once again being overlooked for a promotion, Carl runs into an old friend who tells him about a seminar that changed his life and has freed him up to do and be what he wants.
With his curiosity peaked, Carl attends the seminar that is conducted by the charismatic Terrance Bundley (Terrance Stamp), who decides to make Carl his project, and tells him that he must agree to say yes to things that are offered to him. Although reluctant, Carl takes the advice and says yes to the first thing he is asked, which is to give a ride to a stranger.
The chance ride and resulting situations that follow lead Carl to meet a quirky and attractive lady named Allison (Zooey Deschanel), who intrigues Carl. The next day, Carl learns that he is getting the promotion and despite getting into some outrageous and at times, scary situations, he continues to say Yes to everything that is offered to him, as he fears the consequences of breaking the covenant of yes.
Carl eventually meets up with Allison again and learns that she spends her evenings singing in a unique band, and the two begin a relationship soon after. What follows is a very funny and amusing story that tracks the crazy events that follow Carl as he begins to open himself not only to Allison but to the possibilities that life presents to him every day when one makes themselves open to new possibilities.
The film is based on the book by Danny Wallace which covers his exploits when he decided to yes to everything thing presented to him for one year. While the film has little in common with the book aside from the title and saying yes premise.
“Yes Man” is Carrey’s best film in years and is a triumphant return to the comedy films that made him such a huge success. He plays Carl with a very likeable and easygoing manner that makes him easy to root for and his energetic performance once again proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is one of the most gifted comedians of our generation.
Despite the differences in their ages, Carrey and Deschanel make a winning combination and the strong supporting cast anchored by Stamp, Cooper, and Rhys Darby make this a very funny and enjoyable comedy.
Following another disappoint day at work where he learned that he is once again being overlooked for a promotion, Carl runs into an old friend who tells him about a seminar that changed his life and has freed him up to do and be what he wants.
With his curiosity peaked, Carl attends the seminar that is conducted by the charismatic Terrance Bundley (Terrance Stamp), who decides to make Carl his project, and tells him that he must agree to say yes to things that are offered to him. Although reluctant, Carl takes the advice and says yes to the first thing he is asked, which is to give a ride to a stranger.
The chance ride and resulting situations that follow lead Carl to meet a quirky and attractive lady named Allison (Zooey Deschanel), who intrigues Carl. The next day, Carl learns that he is getting the promotion and despite getting into some outrageous and at times, scary situations, he continues to say Yes to everything that is offered to him, as he fears the consequences of breaking the covenant of yes.
Carl eventually meets up with Allison again and learns that she spends her evenings singing in a unique band, and the two begin a relationship soon after. What follows is a very funny and amusing story that tracks the crazy events that follow Carl as he begins to open himself not only to Allison but to the possibilities that life presents to him every day when one makes themselves open to new possibilities.
The film is based on the book by Danny Wallace which covers his exploits when he decided to yes to everything thing presented to him for one year. While the film has little in common with the book aside from the title and saying yes premise.
“Yes Man” is Carrey’s best film in years and is a triumphant return to the comedy films that made him such a huge success. He plays Carl with a very likeable and easygoing manner that makes him easy to root for and his energetic performance once again proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is one of the most gifted comedians of our generation.
Despite the differences in their ages, Carrey and Deschanel make a winning combination and the strong supporting cast anchored by Stamp, Cooper, and Rhys Darby make this a very funny and enjoyable comedy.
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2086 KP) rated I'll Be There for You: The One about Friends in Books
Oct 16, 2019
The One Where We Look at the Friends Phenomenon
Over the course of the book, we get a well-researched look at the sitcom Friends and the impact it has had on the US and the world in the 25 years since it premiered. We learn about how the creators met and came up with the show, the path the actors took before they landed on the show, and some of the bumps and growing pains that everyone experienced during the 10 years the show was on the air. There is also talk about the impact the show has had on fashion, trends, and overall pop culture the world over.
Author Kelsey Miller starts out by talking about her own connection to the show, and at various times in the book she talks about how she gained insight into the show (and vice versa) while talking to her real-life friends about it. As I said, the book is well-researched, but that is part of the problem – it has too much research, rehashing stories we can find elsewhere with little new insights from the cast and crew. I did find her commentary on a few episodes and arcs to be interesting. I had already thought of some of her comments myself, and the rest make perfect sense to me. My biggest issue with the book is the way she works modern social issues into a look at a comedy from 25 years ago. Now, I’m not saying that the issues on the show aren’t worth talking about. This is the only part of the book where she did her any original research, reaching out to people to get reactions to the show’s handing of diversity, etc. However, her experts all seem to be of the opinion that it would be nice if the show had done a better job, but that was TV in the day, and it is a funny comedy that wasn’t trying to push an agenda. It is clear she wasn’t happy these people didn’t agree with her more since she obvious thinks these are major issues in the show. She even spends much of the last chapter talking about the lawsuit a writer’s assistant brought for a hostile work environment and speculating how it would have been handled in the current environment. These complaints aside, I found the book very readable, and when I picked it up, I was hooked. I was even choking up as I read about the taping of the final episodes. This would probably appeal most to die hard Friends fans, but most of the material here they probably already know.
Author Kelsey Miller starts out by talking about her own connection to the show, and at various times in the book she talks about how she gained insight into the show (and vice versa) while talking to her real-life friends about it. As I said, the book is well-researched, but that is part of the problem – it has too much research, rehashing stories we can find elsewhere with little new insights from the cast and crew. I did find her commentary on a few episodes and arcs to be interesting. I had already thought of some of her comments myself, and the rest make perfect sense to me. My biggest issue with the book is the way she works modern social issues into a look at a comedy from 25 years ago. Now, I’m not saying that the issues on the show aren’t worth talking about. This is the only part of the book where she did her any original research, reaching out to people to get reactions to the show’s handing of diversity, etc. However, her experts all seem to be of the opinion that it would be nice if the show had done a better job, but that was TV in the day, and it is a funny comedy that wasn’t trying to push an agenda. It is clear she wasn’t happy these people didn’t agree with her more since she obvious thinks these are major issues in the show. She even spends much of the last chapter talking about the lawsuit a writer’s assistant brought for a hostile work environment and speculating how it would have been handled in the current environment. These complaints aside, I found the book very readable, and when I picked it up, I was hooked. I was even choking up as I read about the taping of the final episodes. This would probably appeal most to die hard Friends fans, but most of the material here they probably already know.
JT (287 KP) rated The Cabin in the Woods (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
What happens if you took a bunch of stereotypical and archetypal teenagers into the woods and let them party in a small cabin? In the eyes of Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard quite a bit it seems.
The college jock, the stoner, the virgin, the geek and the whore (or slut) are all grouped together ready to be ripped apart by a wide variety of insanely bonkers creatures.
A so called ‘love letter to horror’ Cabin in the Woods encapsulates everything we have ever seen in horror films over there years, and for any fan of the genre its what we all love to see.
What makes this film particularly special and something that sets it apart from all other horror films is apparent in the opening few minutes.
Deep in what seems to be a scientific layer, Sitterson (Richard Jenkins) and Hadley (Bradley Whitford) discuss and mull over the mundane as they make their way to a control centre ready for the days events to unfold. Just another day at the office then?
Meanwhile, the travelling party are making their way to the cabin, and after we see a bird of prey fly into what looks like a force field we known this isn’t going to be your normal run of the mill horror.
OK, move it a little to the right!
In one word its the Truman show with massive amounts of blood, which might be giving too much away for those that haven’t even seen it yet. The film has several nods to a number of past Hollywood horror greats such as Hellraiser and Evil Dead, and carries with it every cliche the genre has to offer.
Whedon’s popularity as a director is high, here though he keeps himself to writing duties only as Goddard gets the gig behind the camera in his first feature. It’s a thoroughly entertaining film, but you need to take it with a pinch of salt and remind yourself that this is a homage to horror with Hostel like tendencies.
It’s all balanced neatly with black comedy and has an a final 20 minutes which really has to been seen to be believed
It’s all balanced neatly with black comedy and has an a final 20 minutes which really has to been seen to be believed, with a great cameo thrown in for good measure. I loved every minute of this from start to finish, and it’s a film that doesn’t try and take itself too seriously.
It’s not going to sit with everyone, but for those true horror fans who have watched parties of teenagers getting picked off one by one in a creative way each time it will be one horror film they won’t forget in a hurry.
The college jock, the stoner, the virgin, the geek and the whore (or slut) are all grouped together ready to be ripped apart by a wide variety of insanely bonkers creatures.
A so called ‘love letter to horror’ Cabin in the Woods encapsulates everything we have ever seen in horror films over there years, and for any fan of the genre its what we all love to see.
What makes this film particularly special and something that sets it apart from all other horror films is apparent in the opening few minutes.
Deep in what seems to be a scientific layer, Sitterson (Richard Jenkins) and Hadley (Bradley Whitford) discuss and mull over the mundane as they make their way to a control centre ready for the days events to unfold. Just another day at the office then?
Meanwhile, the travelling party are making their way to the cabin, and after we see a bird of prey fly into what looks like a force field we known this isn’t going to be your normal run of the mill horror.
OK, move it a little to the right!
In one word its the Truman show with massive amounts of blood, which might be giving too much away for those that haven’t even seen it yet. The film has several nods to a number of past Hollywood horror greats such as Hellraiser and Evil Dead, and carries with it every cliche the genre has to offer.
Whedon’s popularity as a director is high, here though he keeps himself to writing duties only as Goddard gets the gig behind the camera in his first feature. It’s a thoroughly entertaining film, but you need to take it with a pinch of salt and remind yourself that this is a homage to horror with Hostel like tendencies.
It’s all balanced neatly with black comedy and has an a final 20 minutes which really has to been seen to be believed
It’s all balanced neatly with black comedy and has an a final 20 minutes which really has to been seen to be believed, with a great cameo thrown in for good measure. I loved every minute of this from start to finish, and it’s a film that doesn’t try and take itself too seriously.
It’s not going to sit with everyone, but for those true horror fans who have watched parties of teenagers getting picked off one by one in a creative way each time it will be one horror film they won’t forget in a hurry.