Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Good popcorn nonsense.
“Remember who we are. The Shaw family. We never, never, never give up.”
(That title is especially for my friends the Shaw family!).
Well, the patchy British summer’s just about up, and autumn’s chilly fingers are touching up the UK. And yet I still hadn’t seen the summer hit “Hobbs and Shaw”! Until last night.
It’s utter nonsense of course, like most of the “Fast and Furious” films, but I have to admit it’s done with some tongue in cheek style.
The plot
A vicious cyber-soldier, Brixton (Idris Elba) tries to steal a deadly virus but is thwarted by brave MI6 agent Hattie (Vanessa Kirby). To help recover the virus, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is recruited in London by CIA agent Loeb (Rob Delaney, the “non-super” hero Peter in “Deadpool 2“). In an interesting piece of related casting, the Eteon Director (Champ Nightengale – LoL, a cameo for someone far more famous) recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) in LA as a part of the team.
Both agents know they are heading for trouble… but do they really appreciate how much the pair hate each other’s guts?
The trail leads from London to the Ukraine to (a very picturesque) Samoa in a race against time to both defeat the undefeatable Brixton and save Hattie: now a ticking time bomb of global destruction. And Hattie has relations!
Absurd stunts.
As a “Fast and Furious” film there are of course some truly absurd car stunts involved and – unlike the Mission Impossible films – you are never quite sure what is “real” and what is CGI generated. Which is a shame.
For me, the gold standard for chases remains Tom Cruise‘s chase through Paris in “Mission Impossible: Fallout“. Here, the car chase through London – whilst impressive – never quite reaches the seat clenching tension of MI6.
And a final stunt with a helicopter is – I’m sorry – just plain ridiculous. If a chopper can partially lift 5 x load then why can’t it completely lift 1 x load. Give me a break!
To round things off, there is one of the most unbelievable “100% survival of a car crashing off a cliff” scenes in movie history!
Acting
The acting is largely from the Arnie Swartzenegger school, with Johnson and Statham giving it the old shtick. Dwayne Johnson may be one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars (the boy has done REAL good for himself), but he can’t do serious acting. His “pathos” scenes with his daughter (a vibrant Eliana Sua) are excruciating.
Dropping in as class acts are Helen Mirren as the elder Shaw and the excellent Vanessa Kirby as Hattie. Kirby gets a lot more to get her teeth into than in the last Mission Impossible movie, and is really very good. Mirren is rather too posh to be the incarcerated East End con, but is a fun turn nevertheless.
Also excellent, as always, is Eddie Marsan as the key scientist. Marsan really turns in a splendid performance in every film he’s in. He’s top of “Division 2” in my books. Never the star, but always starring.
Mexican actress Eiza González (from “Baby Driver“) also crops up as an unfeasibly good-looking Russian femme fatale.
“I hate you”. “No, I hate you”. Blah, blah, blah.
Writers Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce do a good job at keeping the script light and fluffy. The animosity between Hobbs and Shaw is played to 110%, and for me the interplay frankly became a bit tiresome. But it’s a fun-enough film to entertain, although it’s bladder-testing running time of 2 hours 17 minutes is at least 30 minutes too long. There is a natural Ukraine-based finale, but it’s not taken, and the film goes on… and on… and on…. and on. Enough already.
I’ve said many times before that comedies shouldn’t last more than 90 minutes, and although an “action film” this is fundamentally a comedy and the rule should apply. It would have been a much better film if it was compacted.
Sexism diverted.
I did criticize “Fast and Furious 8” for scenes that brazenly objectified women. And there was a moment – just one, fortunately – with a gyrating bikini-clad beauty – where I thought “uh, oh” – this franchise has not moved with the times.
But actually, this was the only scene where I thought that. Cinema has moved along massively in the last two years, driven by the “Times Up” movement. Here the women are all given pretty leading “kick-ass” roles, and they generally show the muscle-bound morons up, often saving their arses.
Final Thoughts.
It’s summer popcorn nonsense, but its well done popcorn nonsense. Probably not a film high on my list of films I want to see again, but as an entertainment vehicle it was not too shabby.
(That title is especially for my friends the Shaw family!).
Well, the patchy British summer’s just about up, and autumn’s chilly fingers are touching up the UK. And yet I still hadn’t seen the summer hit “Hobbs and Shaw”! Until last night.
It’s utter nonsense of course, like most of the “Fast and Furious” films, but I have to admit it’s done with some tongue in cheek style.
The plot
A vicious cyber-soldier, Brixton (Idris Elba) tries to steal a deadly virus but is thwarted by brave MI6 agent Hattie (Vanessa Kirby). To help recover the virus, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is recruited in London by CIA agent Loeb (Rob Delaney, the “non-super” hero Peter in “Deadpool 2“). In an interesting piece of related casting, the Eteon Director (Champ Nightengale – LoL, a cameo for someone far more famous) recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) in LA as a part of the team.
Both agents know they are heading for trouble… but do they really appreciate how much the pair hate each other’s guts?
The trail leads from London to the Ukraine to (a very picturesque) Samoa in a race against time to both defeat the undefeatable Brixton and save Hattie: now a ticking time bomb of global destruction. And Hattie has relations!
Absurd stunts.
As a “Fast and Furious” film there are of course some truly absurd car stunts involved and – unlike the Mission Impossible films – you are never quite sure what is “real” and what is CGI generated. Which is a shame.
For me, the gold standard for chases remains Tom Cruise‘s chase through Paris in “Mission Impossible: Fallout“. Here, the car chase through London – whilst impressive – never quite reaches the seat clenching tension of MI6.
And a final stunt with a helicopter is – I’m sorry – just plain ridiculous. If a chopper can partially lift 5 x load then why can’t it completely lift 1 x load. Give me a break!
To round things off, there is one of the most unbelievable “100% survival of a car crashing off a cliff” scenes in movie history!
Acting
The acting is largely from the Arnie Swartzenegger school, with Johnson and Statham giving it the old shtick. Dwayne Johnson may be one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars (the boy has done REAL good for himself), but he can’t do serious acting. His “pathos” scenes with his daughter (a vibrant Eliana Sua) are excruciating.
Dropping in as class acts are Helen Mirren as the elder Shaw and the excellent Vanessa Kirby as Hattie. Kirby gets a lot more to get her teeth into than in the last Mission Impossible movie, and is really very good. Mirren is rather too posh to be the incarcerated East End con, but is a fun turn nevertheless.
Also excellent, as always, is Eddie Marsan as the key scientist. Marsan really turns in a splendid performance in every film he’s in. He’s top of “Division 2” in my books. Never the star, but always starring.
Mexican actress Eiza González (from “Baby Driver“) also crops up as an unfeasibly good-looking Russian femme fatale.
“I hate you”. “No, I hate you”. Blah, blah, blah.
Writers Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce do a good job at keeping the script light and fluffy. The animosity between Hobbs and Shaw is played to 110%, and for me the interplay frankly became a bit tiresome. But it’s a fun-enough film to entertain, although it’s bladder-testing running time of 2 hours 17 minutes is at least 30 minutes too long. There is a natural Ukraine-based finale, but it’s not taken, and the film goes on… and on… and on…. and on. Enough already.
I’ve said many times before that comedies shouldn’t last more than 90 minutes, and although an “action film” this is fundamentally a comedy and the rule should apply. It would have been a much better film if it was compacted.
Sexism diverted.
I did criticize “Fast and Furious 8” for scenes that brazenly objectified women. And there was a moment – just one, fortunately – with a gyrating bikini-clad beauty – where I thought “uh, oh” – this franchise has not moved with the times.
But actually, this was the only scene where I thought that. Cinema has moved along massively in the last two years, driven by the “Times Up” movement. Here the women are all given pretty leading “kick-ass” roles, and they generally show the muscle-bound morons up, often saving their arses.
Final Thoughts.
It’s summer popcorn nonsense, but its well done popcorn nonsense. Probably not a film high on my list of films I want to see again, but as an entertainment vehicle it was not too shabby.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Lost In Translation (2003) in Movies
May 13, 2018
Solid Film
When a famous actor hops over to Tokyo to shoot a commercial, he meets a young woman that fills an empty void in his life.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
My son hates dramas and rightfully so as he's a thirteen-year-old boy. He wants to see things blowing up and people getting thrown through walls. Yet somehow, the first ten minutes of Lost In Translation sucked him in as much as it did me prompting him to watch the whole thing. From the time he touches down in Tokyo, Bob Harris (Bill Murray) sucks you in and holds on to your attention for dear life. You're anxious to see what this man is going to do next.
Characters: 10
Staying on Bob for a moment, his character made the film. His dry sense of humor and pure disinterest in everything going on around him is so sincere and captured just perfectly. He's torn between his sense of duty with work and family, so much so that he's almost forgotten how to enjoy life. When Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) comes along, everything changes for him. Charlotte is innocent and sweet and is somehow drawn to Bob like a moth to a flame. Like most "opposites attract" relationships, the two fit extremely well together and add a sense of appeal to the film. Watching them both interact with the Japanese people and try to bridge cultural and language gaps was easy comedy that works everytime.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 7
Genre: 10
Memorability: 9
There are a number of memorable scenes that stick out in my head with a couple of favorites I keep replaying. The first is where he's trying to shoot his commercial. The director is trying to relay something to Bob in Japanese which a translator is telling Bob in English. The scene is only five minutes long and had me cracking up from start to finish. In my other favorite scene, Bob has a run-in in his hotel room with a Japanese prostitute. Again, the language disparity makes the entire interaction one hilarious situation.
Outside of memorable scenes, Lost In Translation gives you a pause for introspection and contemplative thought. Oftentimes we wander aimlessly through the relationships in our lives...but what do they really mean? What are relationships without happiness or closeness? What is the real meaning of a connection?
Pace: 9
Plot: 10
Had this film's story taken place in North America somewhere, it wouldn't have been nearly as impactful. With the setting in Japan, it throws a monkey-wrench into a plot that could have been extremely simple and makes it way more intriguing. Are Bob and Charlotte truly falling for each other or are they just connecting because they are lonely and so far from home? Definite food for thought.
Resolution: 8
Ah, the famous ending of Lost In Translation. What did she say? What does it all mean? How does the story end anyway? The ending, while it does leave you hanging, is an intriguing one for sure. I understand the ambiguity and I don't love it, but I'm ok with it.
Overall: 92
Bill Murray is like the Marvel Cinematic Universe...on steroids. They have been putting out hits for a decade now. Murray has been starring in classics for decades. This film is another notch on his belt. Loved it!
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
My son hates dramas and rightfully so as he's a thirteen-year-old boy. He wants to see things blowing up and people getting thrown through walls. Yet somehow, the first ten minutes of Lost In Translation sucked him in as much as it did me prompting him to watch the whole thing. From the time he touches down in Tokyo, Bob Harris (Bill Murray) sucks you in and holds on to your attention for dear life. You're anxious to see what this man is going to do next.
Characters: 10
Staying on Bob for a moment, his character made the film. His dry sense of humor and pure disinterest in everything going on around him is so sincere and captured just perfectly. He's torn between his sense of duty with work and family, so much so that he's almost forgotten how to enjoy life. When Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) comes along, everything changes for him. Charlotte is innocent and sweet and is somehow drawn to Bob like a moth to a flame. Like most "opposites attract" relationships, the two fit extremely well together and add a sense of appeal to the film. Watching them both interact with the Japanese people and try to bridge cultural and language gaps was easy comedy that works everytime.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 7
Genre: 10
Memorability: 9
There are a number of memorable scenes that stick out in my head with a couple of favorites I keep replaying. The first is where he's trying to shoot his commercial. The director is trying to relay something to Bob in Japanese which a translator is telling Bob in English. The scene is only five minutes long and had me cracking up from start to finish. In my other favorite scene, Bob has a run-in in his hotel room with a Japanese prostitute. Again, the language disparity makes the entire interaction one hilarious situation.
Outside of memorable scenes, Lost In Translation gives you a pause for introspection and contemplative thought. Oftentimes we wander aimlessly through the relationships in our lives...but what do they really mean? What are relationships without happiness or closeness? What is the real meaning of a connection?
Pace: 9
Plot: 10
Had this film's story taken place in North America somewhere, it wouldn't have been nearly as impactful. With the setting in Japan, it throws a monkey-wrench into a plot that could have been extremely simple and makes it way more intriguing. Are Bob and Charlotte truly falling for each other or are they just connecting because they are lonely and so far from home? Definite food for thought.
Resolution: 8
Ah, the famous ending of Lost In Translation. What did she say? What does it all mean? How does the story end anyway? The ending, while it does leave you hanging, is an intriguing one for sure. I understand the ambiguity and I don't love it, but I'm ok with it.
Overall: 92
Bill Murray is like the Marvel Cinematic Universe...on steroids. They have been putting out hits for a decade now. Murray has been starring in classics for decades. This film is another notch on his belt. Loved it!
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Oct 2, 2018
Solid and Light
The micro-sized superhero is back on a new adventure with old friends.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Ant-Man and the Wasp gets off to a solid start that grabs your attention from jump. The players are re-introduced fairly quickly and it’s not long before you remember why you missed this portion of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. While I felt there were definitely some big shoes to fill following behind and an Avengers film (and we all remember how that started, sorry Hulk), the first ten minutes left a big smile on my face.
Characters: 10
The gang is back and in full effect. Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) is just a man trying to live out his house arrest sentence so he can be free to spend more time with his daughter. He packs a hilarity and sincerity that I’ve come to appreciate in all of Rudd’s roles. He is a star…but this film wouldn’t survive without Luis (Michael Pena). He’s frantic, clueless, and gives out way too many details every chance he gets. He innocently has no filter and it makes for some serious rib-splitting moments. Just thinking about it now makes me want to go back for a rewatch.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Hands-down some of the best special effects you will see in a Marvel film. I have immense respect for the larger-than-life setpieces they create when the characters are ant-sized. It’s like an entirely different world a la Honey I Shrunk the Kids. The transition from large-to-small and vice versa is seamless, making for perfect action sequences.
Conflict: 10
The film has everything you could want from an action standpoint. Car chases? Check. Fight scenes? Top notch. Superhero action? Yes please!
I’ve seen some critics come down on the fact that the villain was less of a threat than previous Marvel films, but I believe the villain matched perfectly with the overall tone of this sequel. Besides, how do you follow up on Thanos? You go completely in the opposite direction. Last thing to note: Ghost wasn’t exactly a slouch. She kicked some serious butt throughout and had some great scenes.
Genre: 7
I think this has more to do with where the genre has come rather than a knock on the film itself. In a genre where the stakes are higher than ever, the screen is packed with stars, and more films are driving a point home with an actual message, Ant-Man and the Wasp is more of a light-hearted romp that doesn’t serve to take itself too seriously. It’s a fun film that does fun better than most.
Memorability: 9
Perfect blend of action and comedy. The film succeeds by staying in its lane and doing what it does best. The action sequences are creative and fresh while the storytelling comes at you in such a hilarious way, it makes itself stand out. No spoilers, just know you’re in for a treat.
Pace: 10
Plot: 7
Resolution: 10
Overall: 93
Looking for some good family fun that will keep you entertained and laughing. Don’t miss Ant-Man and the Wasp. Hands down one of the best films I have seen in 2018.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Ant-Man and the Wasp gets off to a solid start that grabs your attention from jump. The players are re-introduced fairly quickly and it’s not long before you remember why you missed this portion of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. While I felt there were definitely some big shoes to fill following behind and an Avengers film (and we all remember how that started, sorry Hulk), the first ten minutes left a big smile on my face.
Characters: 10
The gang is back and in full effect. Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) is just a man trying to live out his house arrest sentence so he can be free to spend more time with his daughter. He packs a hilarity and sincerity that I’ve come to appreciate in all of Rudd’s roles. He is a star…but this film wouldn’t survive without Luis (Michael Pena). He’s frantic, clueless, and gives out way too many details every chance he gets. He innocently has no filter and it makes for some serious rib-splitting moments. Just thinking about it now makes me want to go back for a rewatch.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Hands-down some of the best special effects you will see in a Marvel film. I have immense respect for the larger-than-life setpieces they create when the characters are ant-sized. It’s like an entirely different world a la Honey I Shrunk the Kids. The transition from large-to-small and vice versa is seamless, making for perfect action sequences.
Conflict: 10
The film has everything you could want from an action standpoint. Car chases? Check. Fight scenes? Top notch. Superhero action? Yes please!
I’ve seen some critics come down on the fact that the villain was less of a threat than previous Marvel films, but I believe the villain matched perfectly with the overall tone of this sequel. Besides, how do you follow up on Thanos? You go completely in the opposite direction. Last thing to note: Ghost wasn’t exactly a slouch. She kicked some serious butt throughout and had some great scenes.
Genre: 7
I think this has more to do with where the genre has come rather than a knock on the film itself. In a genre where the stakes are higher than ever, the screen is packed with stars, and more films are driving a point home with an actual message, Ant-Man and the Wasp is more of a light-hearted romp that doesn’t serve to take itself too seriously. It’s a fun film that does fun better than most.
Memorability: 9
Perfect blend of action and comedy. The film succeeds by staying in its lane and doing what it does best. The action sequences are creative and fresh while the storytelling comes at you in such a hilarious way, it makes itself stand out. No spoilers, just know you’re in for a treat.
Pace: 10
Plot: 7
Resolution: 10
Overall: 93
Looking for some good family fun that will keep you entertained and laughing. Don’t miss Ant-Man and the Wasp. Hands down one of the best films I have seen in 2018.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alex Cross (2012) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Alex Cross starts with homicide detective Alex Cross (Perry) and his team Thomas (Burns) and Monica (Nichols) needing to show their skills when a new hired killer nicknamed Picasso (Fox) uses his torture and pain techniques while eliminating people.
When the team learns of the targets they must work with who they think is the main target Giles Mercier (Reno), but this has made his team the newest targets for Picasso, who makes the killings personal.
Thoughts on Alex Cross
Characters – Dr Alex Cross is a homicide detective, we have seen this character before, but this time we meet a younger version of him, before he becomes the FBI agent we know. Alex has a family and is on the way to making his big career decision, when Picasso comes into his life, Alex will need to balance his skills and rage to stop him. Picasso is a hired gun, he is one of the very best in the world, he enjoys the pain he gives and receives, he makes his mission personal and drives Alex to limits he has never been pushed before. Thomas is the partner of Alex, he is shorter tempered, but loyal to Alex. Giles Mercier seems to be the main target of Picasso mission, he is the rich man that gets what he wants.
Performances – Tyler Perry was considered a strange choice for the leading role in this movie, known mostly for comedy and taking over from Morgan Freeman, he just doesn’t reach his levels, but is good through the film. it is Matthew Fox that shines the most as the cold calculated killer that enjoys the pain. The commitment Fox showed to this role needs to be praised because of the physical change he put his body through makes him an unlikely looking threat. Edward Burn is good as the partner while not being anything special and Jean Reno will always be good in the role he takes.
Story – To step into another Alex Cross story is always going to be interesting, picking up before he became an FBI agent helps us understand what drove him to be the determined man we know. Making the story personal for Cross shows how he can balance the law and revenge in his attempts to solve the crime. The story might not reach the level of intensity is could have for a personal story, it does everything we need for an entertaining crime mystery thriller.
Action/Crime/Mystery – The action involved in the film is good, even if moments of the effects used are weak. The crime is an interesting one to watch unfold, but it takes away from the mystery because we are always on the same level of the cops, we are not feed anything to solve.
Settings – Detroit makes for a good setting, it always feels like it is a place known for the crime rates.
Scene of the Movie – Picasso introduction fight.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The Rocket effects.
Final Thoughts – This is an easy to watch crime thriller, it does everything it needs to do and is carried by a wonderful villain performance from Fox.
Overall: Crime fans watch.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/07/15/matthew-fox-weekend-alex-cross-2012/
When the team learns of the targets they must work with who they think is the main target Giles Mercier (Reno), but this has made his team the newest targets for Picasso, who makes the killings personal.
Thoughts on Alex Cross
Characters – Dr Alex Cross is a homicide detective, we have seen this character before, but this time we meet a younger version of him, before he becomes the FBI agent we know. Alex has a family and is on the way to making his big career decision, when Picasso comes into his life, Alex will need to balance his skills and rage to stop him. Picasso is a hired gun, he is one of the very best in the world, he enjoys the pain he gives and receives, he makes his mission personal and drives Alex to limits he has never been pushed before. Thomas is the partner of Alex, he is shorter tempered, but loyal to Alex. Giles Mercier seems to be the main target of Picasso mission, he is the rich man that gets what he wants.
Performances – Tyler Perry was considered a strange choice for the leading role in this movie, known mostly for comedy and taking over from Morgan Freeman, he just doesn’t reach his levels, but is good through the film. it is Matthew Fox that shines the most as the cold calculated killer that enjoys the pain. The commitment Fox showed to this role needs to be praised because of the physical change he put his body through makes him an unlikely looking threat. Edward Burn is good as the partner while not being anything special and Jean Reno will always be good in the role he takes.
Story – To step into another Alex Cross story is always going to be interesting, picking up before he became an FBI agent helps us understand what drove him to be the determined man we know. Making the story personal for Cross shows how he can balance the law and revenge in his attempts to solve the crime. The story might not reach the level of intensity is could have for a personal story, it does everything we need for an entertaining crime mystery thriller.
Action/Crime/Mystery – The action involved in the film is good, even if moments of the effects used are weak. The crime is an interesting one to watch unfold, but it takes away from the mystery because we are always on the same level of the cops, we are not feed anything to solve.
Settings – Detroit makes for a good setting, it always feels like it is a place known for the crime rates.
Scene of the Movie – Picasso introduction fight.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The Rocket effects.
Final Thoughts – This is an easy to watch crime thriller, it does everything it needs to do and is carried by a wonderful villain performance from Fox.
Overall: Crime fans watch.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/07/15/matthew-fox-weekend-alex-cross-2012/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Shrek the Third (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
When last we saw the Ogre Shrek, (Mike Meyers), he and his wife Fiona (Cameron Diaz), they were happily celebrating their love and triumph over the dastardly Prince Charmings (Rupert Everett), latest attempt to rule the magical kingdom of Far, Far Away. In the new film Shrek the Third,
Shrek has grown weary of filling in for the ailing King and years to return to his swamp home with Fiona.
When a twist of fate leaves Shrek in line for the throne, he wants no part of it, and seeks to find the next heir, Arthur (Justin
Timberlake), and install him as the next leader of the land. With Donkey (Eddie Murphy), and Puss In Boots (Antonio Banderas), at his side, Shrek sets off to meet Arthur and bring him to his future
kingdom.
Of course things do not go as planned, as upon meeting Arthur, Shrek and his friends are shocked to learn that he is a meek individual who is constantly picked on by his fellow classmates, and is far from King material.
Undaunted, the trio set back home with Arthur and find themselves at odds over Shrek’s claims that Arthur was granted the throne as the last wish of the former monarch. The fact that Shrek was actually the chosen successor is of little concern to Shrek as he is more concerned with returning home and the recent news that he is to become a father.
When fate steps in and strands them during the journey home, Shrek and friends encounter a former
eccentric professor (Eric Idle) of Arthur, who magically whisks the adventurers
back home, but with some unexpected and amusing side effects.
During this time, Prince Charming has mounted an attack on the Kingdom with the aid of several local villains in an attempt to take the crown for himself and rid the world of Shrek. What follows is a Frantic adventure as Shrek and his friends must find a way to save the day and help Arthur find his destiny.
While I was a big fan of the previous two films in the series, this Shrek did not work for me nearly as well as the other two did.
Yes there are some funny moments and I am sure this film will do huge business at the box office, but it is severely lacking.
First and foremost is the humor in the film, which while at times funny, is far to few and far between to make an effective comedy.
The previous films were loaded with laughs and pop culture references which in this one are more subdued and confined. I kept thinking while I watched the film that much of this film could easily have been comprised of outtakes from the previous films as there is precious little new material in the film and many of the jokes just do not seem that inspired.
Another issue with the film is that Murphy and Banderas are far to underused especially since their characters are the most interesting in the film, and they generate the biggest laughs when they are allowed to shine.
The film has a cute quality to it and own its own, it would be a decent family film. However when compared with the previous film in the series, this Shrek is Far, Far and Away the worst of the three.
Shrek has grown weary of filling in for the ailing King and years to return to his swamp home with Fiona.
When a twist of fate leaves Shrek in line for the throne, he wants no part of it, and seeks to find the next heir, Arthur (Justin
Timberlake), and install him as the next leader of the land. With Donkey (Eddie Murphy), and Puss In Boots (Antonio Banderas), at his side, Shrek sets off to meet Arthur and bring him to his future
kingdom.
Of course things do not go as planned, as upon meeting Arthur, Shrek and his friends are shocked to learn that he is a meek individual who is constantly picked on by his fellow classmates, and is far from King material.
Undaunted, the trio set back home with Arthur and find themselves at odds over Shrek’s claims that Arthur was granted the throne as the last wish of the former monarch. The fact that Shrek was actually the chosen successor is of little concern to Shrek as he is more concerned with returning home and the recent news that he is to become a father.
When fate steps in and strands them during the journey home, Shrek and friends encounter a former
eccentric professor (Eric Idle) of Arthur, who magically whisks the adventurers
back home, but with some unexpected and amusing side effects.
During this time, Prince Charming has mounted an attack on the Kingdom with the aid of several local villains in an attempt to take the crown for himself and rid the world of Shrek. What follows is a Frantic adventure as Shrek and his friends must find a way to save the day and help Arthur find his destiny.
While I was a big fan of the previous two films in the series, this Shrek did not work for me nearly as well as the other two did.
Yes there are some funny moments and I am sure this film will do huge business at the box office, but it is severely lacking.
First and foremost is the humor in the film, which while at times funny, is far to few and far between to make an effective comedy.
The previous films were loaded with laughs and pop culture references which in this one are more subdued and confined. I kept thinking while I watched the film that much of this film could easily have been comprised of outtakes from the previous films as there is precious little new material in the film and many of the jokes just do not seem that inspired.
Another issue with the film is that Murphy and Banderas are far to underused especially since their characters are the most interesting in the film, and they generate the biggest laughs when they are allowed to shine.
The film has a cute quality to it and own its own, it would be a decent family film. However when compared with the previous film in the series, this Shrek is Far, Far and Away the worst of the three.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Wild Hogs (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
When four middle aged men all face a collection of issues at the same time, some people might think this premise is a setup for an emotional drama that will explore aging from a men’s point of view.
However in the new film Wild Hogs, the topic is skewered with hysterical results thanks to a great cast and some very funny moments.
When dentist Doug (Tim Allen), worries he has lost his edge and can no longer connect with his past glory, he convinces the three members of his local biking club to join him on a cross country trip from Ohio to California.
Along for the ride are Woody (John Travolta), who has learned he is broke and is getting divorced from his supermodel wife, Shy and socially awkward computer programmer Dudley (William H. Macy), and henpecked plumber Bobby (Martin Lawrence), who after taking a year off to work on a project that has not come to fruition, now finds himself facing the same plumbing issues that made him flee in the first place.
None of the men are happy with their place in life and are in need of a spark to lift them from their middle aged funk. The group sets off and soon finds one misfortune after another as well as some very awkward moments with law enforcement, male bonding, and an over eager family they meet along the way.
Despite this, this trip is going well until the group decides to stop for a drink at a local biker bar. Once in the bar, the leader of the Del Fuegos, Jack (Ray Liotta) decides to make life hard for the guys as he cannot stand suburbanites passing themselves off as bikers. He decides to take one of their bikes and not allow the group to venture further West down the highway in front of the bar.
Resigned to their fate, the guys are ready to head back, when Woody decides to fix the situation and sneaks back to recover Dudley’s bike and play a trick on the Del Fuegos. Everything goes according to plan until the bar explodes from the prank, and the guys end up running from the bikers who are bent on revenge.
The only issue is that Woody has not told the other three what he did, and has his friends convinced that he had a conversation with the bikers where they came to an understanding. Undaunted, the guys stop at a local New Mexico town for gas and learn that they must wait until Monday for the gas station to reopen.
Of course, Woody is freaking out as he knows the bikers will be out looking for them, and matters are further compounded when Dudley falls for a local restaurant owner (Marissa Tomei), and is eager to hang around for a few more days.
What follows is a funny set of circumstances as the guys take part in the local community while they wait for gas, which ultimately leads up to a final confrontation with the Del Fuegos.
Wild Hogs, is one of the funnier comedies I have seen in a while. I went in not expecting much, and I must say I was very surprised. The four leads work well with one another, and there are some very funny segments in the film, which I will not spoil for you, but suffice it to say the audience was in hysterics.
It is rare to find a comedy that not only makes you laugh but makes you leave the theater with a smile, and this film delivers.
However in the new film Wild Hogs, the topic is skewered with hysterical results thanks to a great cast and some very funny moments.
When dentist Doug (Tim Allen), worries he has lost his edge and can no longer connect with his past glory, he convinces the three members of his local biking club to join him on a cross country trip from Ohio to California.
Along for the ride are Woody (John Travolta), who has learned he is broke and is getting divorced from his supermodel wife, Shy and socially awkward computer programmer Dudley (William H. Macy), and henpecked plumber Bobby (Martin Lawrence), who after taking a year off to work on a project that has not come to fruition, now finds himself facing the same plumbing issues that made him flee in the first place.
None of the men are happy with their place in life and are in need of a spark to lift them from their middle aged funk. The group sets off and soon finds one misfortune after another as well as some very awkward moments with law enforcement, male bonding, and an over eager family they meet along the way.
Despite this, this trip is going well until the group decides to stop for a drink at a local biker bar. Once in the bar, the leader of the Del Fuegos, Jack (Ray Liotta) decides to make life hard for the guys as he cannot stand suburbanites passing themselves off as bikers. He decides to take one of their bikes and not allow the group to venture further West down the highway in front of the bar.
Resigned to their fate, the guys are ready to head back, when Woody decides to fix the situation and sneaks back to recover Dudley’s bike and play a trick on the Del Fuegos. Everything goes according to plan until the bar explodes from the prank, and the guys end up running from the bikers who are bent on revenge.
The only issue is that Woody has not told the other three what he did, and has his friends convinced that he had a conversation with the bikers where they came to an understanding. Undaunted, the guys stop at a local New Mexico town for gas and learn that they must wait until Monday for the gas station to reopen.
Of course, Woody is freaking out as he knows the bikers will be out looking for them, and matters are further compounded when Dudley falls for a local restaurant owner (Marissa Tomei), and is eager to hang around for a few more days.
What follows is a funny set of circumstances as the guys take part in the local community while they wait for gas, which ultimately leads up to a final confrontation with the Del Fuegos.
Wild Hogs, is one of the funnier comedies I have seen in a while. I went in not expecting much, and I must say I was very surprised. The four leads work well with one another, and there are some very funny segments in the film, which I will not spoil for you, but suffice it to say the audience was in hysterics.
It is rare to find a comedy that not only makes you laugh but makes you leave the theater with a smile, and this film delivers.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 8-BIT CHRISTMAS (2021) in Movies
Dec 12, 2021
Charming, Nostalgic and HeartWarming
If I told you that I just watched a charming Holiday movie where the Narrator reminisced about a Christmas of his youth - when he was 10 or 11 - and the Narrator desperately wanted a special present brought to him by Santa - but said item is strictly forbidden in his household, so the Narrator heads off on an adventure to get this item, you would think I was talking about the classic Holiday perennial A CHRISTMAS STORY - and you would be wrong.
I’m speaking about the HBO MAX Original Film 8-BIT CHRISTMAS starring Neil Patrick Harris as the Narrator of the story that reminisces about his life as a 10-11 year old around the Holidays in the late 1980’s.
And, darn it all, if it doesn’t work well (despite my indignation that all they are doing is ripping off A CHRISTMAS STORY) for there is enough nostalgia and heart to melt the emotions of even the most miserly of Ebenezer Scrooge’s this holiday season.
Written by Kevin Jakubowski (based off his book) and Directed by Michael Dowse (the underrated comedy STUBER), 8-Bit Christmas tells the tale of 11 year old Jake Doyle who wants nothing more in this world than to receive the mother of all Christmas presents - a Nintendo 8 Bit system. Along with a “Goonies” collection of friends, Jake sets off to find this hard to find item - and convince his parents to get it for him for Christmas.
In the hands of young actor Winslow Fegley (Disney’s TIMMY FAILURE), young Jake is a pleasant enough protagonist to head off on this journey with. His ragtag group of friends are a group of generic nerds that pretty much check-off the “nerd friend group” list (and this is meant as a compliment). We spend quite a bit of time with these kids and they are a good enough group of kids to spend time with.
This film does hit a few of the same notes as A CHRISTMAS STORY, there is an obsessed, seemingly out of touch Dad, this time played by Steve Zahn (RESCUE DAWN) in a heart-warming portrayal and the coupon-cutting, cost saving Mom played by June Diane Raphael (FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL) who is putting up with it all. This film even has a younger sibling, this time a sister Lizzy, who wants her own elusive gift - a Cabbage Patch kid.
A highlight for me was the performance of Kathy Greenwood as the teacher with the constant sniffles. I know many a teacher and they almost ALWAYS have colds given to them from their charges.
This film is a fine post card of Chicago in the late 1980s and skewers (and honors) the pop-fads of the time (complete with fashion and styling) and is an entertaining enough 2 hour escape during the Holidays.
Oh, and did I mention that at one point in this film, I had to dab at my eyes with a tissue? Yes, despite my skepticism, this film managed to touch my heart even though I fought like crazy to deny that.
If you’re looking for a fun family entertainment this Holiday season, 8-BIT CHRISTMAS can fill the bill nicely.
Letter Grade: B+
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I’m speaking about the HBO MAX Original Film 8-BIT CHRISTMAS starring Neil Patrick Harris as the Narrator of the story that reminisces about his life as a 10-11 year old around the Holidays in the late 1980’s.
And, darn it all, if it doesn’t work well (despite my indignation that all they are doing is ripping off A CHRISTMAS STORY) for there is enough nostalgia and heart to melt the emotions of even the most miserly of Ebenezer Scrooge’s this holiday season.
Written by Kevin Jakubowski (based off his book) and Directed by Michael Dowse (the underrated comedy STUBER), 8-Bit Christmas tells the tale of 11 year old Jake Doyle who wants nothing more in this world than to receive the mother of all Christmas presents - a Nintendo 8 Bit system. Along with a “Goonies” collection of friends, Jake sets off to find this hard to find item - and convince his parents to get it for him for Christmas.
In the hands of young actor Winslow Fegley (Disney’s TIMMY FAILURE), young Jake is a pleasant enough protagonist to head off on this journey with. His ragtag group of friends are a group of generic nerds that pretty much check-off the “nerd friend group” list (and this is meant as a compliment). We spend quite a bit of time with these kids and they are a good enough group of kids to spend time with.
This film does hit a few of the same notes as A CHRISTMAS STORY, there is an obsessed, seemingly out of touch Dad, this time played by Steve Zahn (RESCUE DAWN) in a heart-warming portrayal and the coupon-cutting, cost saving Mom played by June Diane Raphael (FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL) who is putting up with it all. This film even has a younger sibling, this time a sister Lizzy, who wants her own elusive gift - a Cabbage Patch kid.
A highlight for me was the performance of Kathy Greenwood as the teacher with the constant sniffles. I know many a teacher and they almost ALWAYS have colds given to them from their charges.
This film is a fine post card of Chicago in the late 1980s and skewers (and honors) the pop-fads of the time (complete with fashion and styling) and is an entertaining enough 2 hour escape during the Holidays.
Oh, and did I mention that at one point in this film, I had to dab at my eyes with a tissue? Yes, despite my skepticism, this film managed to touch my heart even though I fought like crazy to deny that.
If you’re looking for a fun family entertainment this Holiday season, 8-BIT CHRISTMAS can fill the bill nicely.
Letter Grade: B+
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Jamie (131 KP) rated What To Do With A Duke in Books
Jul 22, 2017
Mild humor (1 more)
Some good discussion about marriage and women
Unstable plot (2 more)
Frustrating characters
Vulgar male lead
A misguided curse
When it comes to historical romance, I look for one of two things: one, a compelling love story with some scenes that make me blush and fan myself; or two, a light and fluffy clean romance, sometimes with a touch of humor. What I demand from all historical romances is for both the romance and the setting to be believable. I’ve started to wonder if my standards are too high. When I went into this book, with the cute cover and hints at a curse, I figured this one might fall on the fluffy side of the spectrum (the cat on the cover may have influenced this assumption). I was sadly mistaken.
The characters seem so non-committal, not just with each other, but with upholding any of the values they claim to have. Catherine was constantly complaining about how she needed peace and solitude to write, but in the first half of the novel whenever she had it she didn’t do it. She blames family for her difficulties with not being able to be the next great novelist, but the problem was really with the fact that she was not all that committed to doing it. Just like she apparently was not all that committed to being a spinster, despite preaching about it constantly. I found Catherine’s character to be frustrating at every turn and had a hard time rooting for her.
Unfortunately, the other half of this love story was hardly any better. Marcus is dreamy for all of a few minutes, until he started talking about his manhood… Which he proceeded to do all the time. Every time the narration would switch to him, inevitably a thought would end with some note about what his cock wants. I suppose Marcus’ raw desire was supposed to be tantalizing, but I honestly just found it vulgar. It didn’t help that everything about Marcus and Catherine’s romance was a lust at first sight sort of scenario. I didn’t feel any real chemistry between them, even by the end when they are apparently in love with each other I still wasn’t feeling it. Literally everything always boiled back down to sex. The rest of the story and dialogue was not even all that funny, clever, or witty, it was just two stubborn people wanting to get in each other’s pants the entire book while being really over dramatic about, well, everything.
Then there is the curse plot line, which I could suspend my belief and go with it for a while, but even that felt like it was poorly thought out. Marcus has to control his desires and avoid marriage because he’s fearful of accidentally impregnating a woman, thus ending his life. Though somehow, he has no problem with brothel women and the risk of impregnating any of them? Because bastard children can’t be heirs? Sure, at that time period they certainly had a harder go of it, but it wasn’t unheard of. And even if that was the case, didn’t the curse start with an illegitimate child born to a woman jilted by her lover? The number of plot holes was staggering and it wouldn’t have been such a big deal if it wasn’t the central focus of the story.
I also didn’t buy the mildly magical ending with the cat. No I don’t hate the cat, on the contrary the cat was perhaps the best character in the entire book. It just seemed too convenient, too hastily put together. I was also bothered by the fact that, in order to I guess create some tension, Marcus had absolutely no interest in finding out the truth about the curse. That alone basically undid all of the effort, all of the worry, all of the focus this character had on this family curse that has weighed so heavily on him for his entire life. It made absolutely no sense for his character. I don’t even want to go into how his character contradicts himself again once the mystery is solved. I hated Marcus.
I almost put this book down after the first couple of chapters, but things picked up around the half way mark. After one scene that actually made me chuckle with the eye brow waggling old ladies, I had hope that maybe the story would redeem itself with the added bit of comedy. I was disappointed that things started to go downhill again once the book attempted to flesh out the curse and develop the romance between Catherine and Marcus. Which, while I’m on that subject – I absolutely hated how that turned out. Catherine spends the entire novel preaching about never wanting to get trapped in a marriage and to never have children, then finds herself trapped. It wasn’t romantic, it was just frustrating.
On a slightly random note, I also noticed at one point an expletive is used that I was fairly certain did not exist in the context that it was used during that time period. After looking it up my assumption was correct – while the word had existed in the more vulgar sense that it is commonly used, as a curse or slang word it didn’t come about until the 1920’s. I know it’s being overly nit picky, but things like that really ruin the immersion in the time period for me.
The characters seem so non-committal, not just with each other, but with upholding any of the values they claim to have. Catherine was constantly complaining about how she needed peace and solitude to write, but in the first half of the novel whenever she had it she didn’t do it. She blames family for her difficulties with not being able to be the next great novelist, but the problem was really with the fact that she was not all that committed to doing it. Just like she apparently was not all that committed to being a spinster, despite preaching about it constantly. I found Catherine’s character to be frustrating at every turn and had a hard time rooting for her.
Unfortunately, the other half of this love story was hardly any better. Marcus is dreamy for all of a few minutes, until he started talking about his manhood… Which he proceeded to do all the time. Every time the narration would switch to him, inevitably a thought would end with some note about what his cock wants. I suppose Marcus’ raw desire was supposed to be tantalizing, but I honestly just found it vulgar. It didn’t help that everything about Marcus and Catherine’s romance was a lust at first sight sort of scenario. I didn’t feel any real chemistry between them, even by the end when they are apparently in love with each other I still wasn’t feeling it. Literally everything always boiled back down to sex. The rest of the story and dialogue was not even all that funny, clever, or witty, it was just two stubborn people wanting to get in each other’s pants the entire book while being really over dramatic about, well, everything.
Then there is the curse plot line, which I could suspend my belief and go with it for a while, but even that felt like it was poorly thought out. Marcus has to control his desires and avoid marriage because he’s fearful of accidentally impregnating a woman, thus ending his life. Though somehow, he has no problem with brothel women and the risk of impregnating any of them? Because bastard children can’t be heirs? Sure, at that time period they certainly had a harder go of it, but it wasn’t unheard of. And even if that was the case, didn’t the curse start with an illegitimate child born to a woman jilted by her lover? The number of plot holes was staggering and it wouldn’t have been such a big deal if it wasn’t the central focus of the story.
I also didn’t buy the mildly magical ending with the cat. No I don’t hate the cat, on the contrary the cat was perhaps the best character in the entire book. It just seemed too convenient, too hastily put together. I was also bothered by the fact that, in order to I guess create some tension, Marcus had absolutely no interest in finding out the truth about the curse. That alone basically undid all of the effort, all of the worry, all of the focus this character had on this family curse that has weighed so heavily on him for his entire life. It made absolutely no sense for his character. I don’t even want to go into how his character contradicts himself again once the mystery is solved. I hated Marcus.
I almost put this book down after the first couple of chapters, but things picked up around the half way mark. After one scene that actually made me chuckle with the eye brow waggling old ladies, I had hope that maybe the story would redeem itself with the added bit of comedy. I was disappointed that things started to go downhill again once the book attempted to flesh out the curse and develop the romance between Catherine and Marcus. Which, while I’m on that subject – I absolutely hated how that turned out. Catherine spends the entire novel preaching about never wanting to get trapped in a marriage and to never have children, then finds herself trapped. It wasn’t romantic, it was just frustrating.
On a slightly random note, I also noticed at one point an expletive is used that I was fairly certain did not exist in the context that it was used during that time period. After looking it up my assumption was correct – while the word had existed in the more vulgar sense that it is commonly used, as a curse or slang word it didn’t come about until the 1920’s. I know it’s being overly nit picky, but things like that really ruin the immersion in the time period for me.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Thoughts on Child’s Play
Characters – Andy is a young teenager that has just moved to a new city with his mother, he hasn’t made any friends, turning to his phone to keep him busy, he does have a hearing aid, but it is never clear how bad his hearing is, he gets a Buddi doll that will keep him company as he starts to become friends with the doll. Once he learns of the evil inside the doll, he does all he can to make sure his loved ones are safe, as he starts to make friends away from the doll, he never seems to go to school though. Karen is the single mother that is working double shifts to keep Andy happy, she starts dating a new man, which doesn’t please Andy and does all she can to put Andy first when things start getting out of hand. Chucky is the Buddi doll that has been unleashed from his safety restrictions, he is constantly learning from watching people, which brings out his violent side, which will see him going on a killing spree targeting anyone that hurts or tries to replace him as a friend to Andy. Detective Norris visits the apartment building where his mother lives for dinner once a week, he does notice Andy around the apartment building making sure he is safe.
Performances – Aubrey Plaza as the single mother is strong in her role, she does bring added character to a character that could have come off plain. Gabriel Bateman is great too because he shows us the isolation that he is going through during the film. Mark Hamill does voice the character of Chucky well giving us an entertaining character that get plenty of laughs. Brian Tyree Henry does bring comedy to his role, which is usually a more uptight figure in the film.
Story – The story here follows a boy that given a Buddi doll which soon starts to go on a killing rampage after learning from the technology around him. I do have conflicting feelings about this story, on one side I am disappointed we have scrapped the serial killer trying to get his soul into another body, which I feel is the main part of the franchise. On the positive side we do get to dive into the world where people are letting themselves are being controlled by technology, connecting everything to one source where an error could break everything. seeing Chucky learn is interesting to see too because we see how he processing each clip, line and environmental side of the world. it does borrow from a lot of different films from the past which can be picked up on. This des come off very fun, only it could have been its own new doll instead of just using Chucky showing the lack of originality coming out of the Hollywood.
Horror – The horror in the film is mostly slasher material, we see Chucky getting kills with plenty of blood splatter, with some original kills along the way.
Settings – The film keeps the settings looking very similar with the apartment building showing how hard up the family is, the department store does bring us a great showdown location too.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are strong with the Chucky doll being both creepy and moving in a robotic motion which seems nature.
Scene of the Movie – Chucky has a present for Andy.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – No Serial Killer side.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun horror that does get laughs and blood splatter, it does frustrate though by having to use the Chucky doll for what is a completely original idea.
Overall: Blood Splattering fun.
Characters – Andy is a young teenager that has just moved to a new city with his mother, he hasn’t made any friends, turning to his phone to keep him busy, he does have a hearing aid, but it is never clear how bad his hearing is, he gets a Buddi doll that will keep him company as he starts to become friends with the doll. Once he learns of the evil inside the doll, he does all he can to make sure his loved ones are safe, as he starts to make friends away from the doll, he never seems to go to school though. Karen is the single mother that is working double shifts to keep Andy happy, she starts dating a new man, which doesn’t please Andy and does all she can to put Andy first when things start getting out of hand. Chucky is the Buddi doll that has been unleashed from his safety restrictions, he is constantly learning from watching people, which brings out his violent side, which will see him going on a killing spree targeting anyone that hurts or tries to replace him as a friend to Andy. Detective Norris visits the apartment building where his mother lives for dinner once a week, he does notice Andy around the apartment building making sure he is safe.
Performances – Aubrey Plaza as the single mother is strong in her role, she does bring added character to a character that could have come off plain. Gabriel Bateman is great too because he shows us the isolation that he is going through during the film. Mark Hamill does voice the character of Chucky well giving us an entertaining character that get plenty of laughs. Brian Tyree Henry does bring comedy to his role, which is usually a more uptight figure in the film.
Story – The story here follows a boy that given a Buddi doll which soon starts to go on a killing rampage after learning from the technology around him. I do have conflicting feelings about this story, on one side I am disappointed we have scrapped the serial killer trying to get his soul into another body, which I feel is the main part of the franchise. On the positive side we do get to dive into the world where people are letting themselves are being controlled by technology, connecting everything to one source where an error could break everything. seeing Chucky learn is interesting to see too because we see how he processing each clip, line and environmental side of the world. it does borrow from a lot of different films from the past which can be picked up on. This des come off very fun, only it could have been its own new doll instead of just using Chucky showing the lack of originality coming out of the Hollywood.
Horror – The horror in the film is mostly slasher material, we see Chucky getting kills with plenty of blood splatter, with some original kills along the way.
Settings – The film keeps the settings looking very similar with the apartment building showing how hard up the family is, the department store does bring us a great showdown location too.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are strong with the Chucky doll being both creepy and moving in a robotic motion which seems nature.
Scene of the Movie – Chucky has a present for Andy.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – No Serial Killer side.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun horror that does get laughs and blood splatter, it does frustrate though by having to use the Chucky doll for what is a completely original idea.
Overall: Blood Splattering fun.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Frozen II (2019) in Movies
Nov 30, 2019
Anna's character development (1 more)
Reindeer
Songs (1 more)
Olaf
Having arrived at the cinema on Saturday afternoon I was very glad I changed my plans to see this after work on Friday. The foyer was packed with children and it looked like a costume shop had a Disney special running. My 3D screening the day before had been a much more pleasant affair.
Arendelle is thriving and its people have never been happier, but Queen Elsa is feeling an emptiness that no amount of family and friends can seem to solve. When she starts to hear a song on the wind she knows she must follow its calling.
The song leads them to a place that Elsa and Anna have only ever heard about from their parents, a forest shrouded in impenetrable mist, a place that holds more questions as well as answers.
Firstly, 3D... big thumbs down. I certainly wouldn't be paying extra to see it, it's hardly ever worth it but it was the easiest way to have a screening that wasn't rammed with munchkins in cheap shiny costumes singing Let It Go.
There's always a certain amount of enjoyment to be had from a Disney film, I would say that automatically most are looking at 2.5/5 rating regardless... but coming out of Frozen II I was concerned that this one had dropped the ball.
The characters, our favourite things next to the songs... well mine at least, were hollow representations of what we saw in the first film. The peripheral characters were great so that thankfully helped everything move along well. Sadly Olaf thoroughly annoyed me with his existential crisis but while there were some heartfelt moments they didn't make up for that.
Out of the other main characters it was only Anna that had made any improvement from the original. (Sven of course is comedy gold, that's never in question.) She was stronger and more impressive, she seemed to have a lot more "role model" this time around. It also felt like there was a lot more Kristen Bell in her this time like she was allowed to have more input into Anna, she seems a lot funnier.
It is amazing just how much of an impact Disney songs can have, going in and out of the cinema at the moment you'll generally hear someone singing Let It Go or making some kind of pun, and here's where we come to my second major problem... the songs of Frozen II. There's not a single catchy tune. Much like Mary Poppins Returns I came out with original songs in my head and not the new ones. Possibly the worst thing of all is that they seemingly splice a boyband video for Kristoff right into the middle of the film. The only thing to take away from it is that reindeer are very talented.
Next, don't worry, this is the last one... probably. While the animation is the usual Disney quality there are a couple of moments (one of which is in the trailer) that when I saw them on the big screen looked terrible. Elsa fills the sky with ice crystals and they hand there and visually it's really not very good. For spoilery reasons I understand why they did it but it wasn't in keeping with the rest of the style enough to make it fit in.
The story itself was quite a nice one, it gives background context and opens up the Frozen universe for what I imagine will be a third film somewhere along the line. It covers the usual collection of things, betrayal, love, redemption, plenty of the usual Disney fodder.
Ultimately there's still a lot of good stuff in this and of course it's going to be entertaining. I don't think you could find a Disney film that wasn't, but for me the fact that Olaf and the songs were poor tarnished this one for me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/frozen-ii-movie-review.html
Arendelle is thriving and its people have never been happier, but Queen Elsa is feeling an emptiness that no amount of family and friends can seem to solve. When she starts to hear a song on the wind she knows she must follow its calling.
The song leads them to a place that Elsa and Anna have only ever heard about from their parents, a forest shrouded in impenetrable mist, a place that holds more questions as well as answers.
Firstly, 3D... big thumbs down. I certainly wouldn't be paying extra to see it, it's hardly ever worth it but it was the easiest way to have a screening that wasn't rammed with munchkins in cheap shiny costumes singing Let It Go.
There's always a certain amount of enjoyment to be had from a Disney film, I would say that automatically most are looking at 2.5/5 rating regardless... but coming out of Frozen II I was concerned that this one had dropped the ball.
The characters, our favourite things next to the songs... well mine at least, were hollow representations of what we saw in the first film. The peripheral characters were great so that thankfully helped everything move along well. Sadly Olaf thoroughly annoyed me with his existential crisis but while there were some heartfelt moments they didn't make up for that.
Out of the other main characters it was only Anna that had made any improvement from the original. (Sven of course is comedy gold, that's never in question.) She was stronger and more impressive, she seemed to have a lot more "role model" this time around. It also felt like there was a lot more Kristen Bell in her this time like she was allowed to have more input into Anna, she seems a lot funnier.
It is amazing just how much of an impact Disney songs can have, going in and out of the cinema at the moment you'll generally hear someone singing Let It Go or making some kind of pun, and here's where we come to my second major problem... the songs of Frozen II. There's not a single catchy tune. Much like Mary Poppins Returns I came out with original songs in my head and not the new ones. Possibly the worst thing of all is that they seemingly splice a boyband video for Kristoff right into the middle of the film. The only thing to take away from it is that reindeer are very talented.
Next, don't worry, this is the last one... probably. While the animation is the usual Disney quality there are a couple of moments (one of which is in the trailer) that when I saw them on the big screen looked terrible. Elsa fills the sky with ice crystals and they hand there and visually it's really not very good. For spoilery reasons I understand why they did it but it wasn't in keeping with the rest of the style enough to make it fit in.
The story itself was quite a nice one, it gives background context and opens up the Frozen universe for what I imagine will be a third film somewhere along the line. It covers the usual collection of things, betrayal, love, redemption, plenty of the usual Disney fodder.
Ultimately there's still a lot of good stuff in this and of course it's going to be entertaining. I don't think you could find a Disney film that wasn't, but for me the fact that Olaf and the songs were poor tarnished this one for me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/frozen-ii-movie-review.html