Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
One Mann’s Movies Review of “Marriage Story” – a “Kramer vs Kramer lite” in my book, albeit with some great acting performances.
K vs K Lite.
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Good Boys (2019) in Movies
Aug 16, 2019
Every generation has a coming of age classic that they can point to and say that it resonated with them. Whether it be classic John Hughes movies such as Pretty in Pink or The Breakfast Club, there is always something that defines the youth of that generation. Whether it be the situations that the main characters find themselves in, or even something as simple as the music and fashion, there is usually something that will strike a familiar chord with the audience. Even when I go back and rewatch the classics, it reminds me of a simpler time, when my life struggles involved asking a girl to a dance or attempting to fit in to any number of awkward first-time moments that each of us at one time or another go through. Good Boys is such a movie, about the awkwardness and naivety of youth, even if the kids had a bigger potty mouth than I did as a child.
Max (Jacob Tremblay), Thor (Brady Noon), and Lucas (Keith L. Williams) are a group of 12-year old boys known to their family and friends as the Bean Bag boys. Why do they refer to themselves as the Bean Bag Boys you ask? Why because they sit on Bean Bag chairs of course. Entering 6th grade they are trying to stand out but tend to do so in all the worst ways. Thor loves to sing but is bullied to not sign up for the school musical because it’s not a cool thing to be. Lucas is dealing with his parent’s new divorce and has a propensity to always tell the truth (even when the truth potentially causes more damage than a lie). Then there is Max, a young man whose hormones are beginning to take over his brain and can only think of the love of his life (and future wife of course) Brixlee.
Max being to shy to even look at Brixlee when she is looking his way is finally given a golden opportunity when he is invited by popular kid Soren (Izaac Wang) to a kissing party. The idea of being able to not only speak to Brixlee but be able to kiss her causes a rush of emotions that gravitate from excitement to terror. Max, believing that the way to his true-loves heart is by being a kissing expert recruits his fellow Bean Bag Boys on a quest to learn to kiss.
His quest will take him from spying on his “nymphomaniac” neighbor, to a treacherous highway crossing to get to the mall. They will have to brave frat houses, and potentially risky run-ins with pedophiles and the police, all to learn how to be a better kisser. Of course, there is plenty of laughs and situations that only naïve children could get themselves into, all of which had me and the entirety of the audience laughing the entire way through
Good Boys is a movie that relies on the audience connection with the main characters to succeed. Without that, you are left with a movie full of foul language and crude humor which have lately become a dime a dozen. Thankfully the casting of Good Boys far exceeds any expectations I had going into the theater. Comedies of these type lean heavily on the actors to carry the story through the hi-jinx that are around every corner and the actors were more than up to the challenge. Jacob Tremblay portrays perfectly the fear that every young boy (or girl) goes through when they imagine their first kiss. Keith L. Williams shows the heart break that a young kid goes through when deal with personal tragedy (in this case his parents’ divorce) and yet still remains true-to-himself anyway. Brady Noon excels at his desire to be cool, and still struggle with how coolness affects what he truly loves and wants to ultimately do. All three as a group convincingly take us on a journey that may seem outlandish, yet ultimately feel believable as well.
Good Boys also has a strong supporting cast, that add further dimension to the film. The two “old” girls Lily (Midori Francis) and Hannah (Molly Gordon) are fantastic in their portrayal of two women who simply want their drugs to get high. They will go to almost any lengths to get them back from the boys who stole them and yet end up becoming a bigger part to the film as a whole. Even the well meaning yet clueless parents of Lucas (Lil Rel Howery and Retta) add to the laughs as a couple trying their best to protect their son even as their own lives are driven apart.
Good Boys may come across in previews as a crude comedy with loads of foul language and sexual situations. While at first glance that may be what it is, as you pull back the layers you soon begin to realize that it’s a story, not about the words that are said, but the innocence of youth and what it means to grow apart as friends. The laughs are non-stop and the language excusable because of the innocence of those on the screen who are spouting them. As parents maybe you’d be looking to wash their mouths out with soap, but as the audience you can’t help but think how innocent they truly are. Good Boys is a movie that will resonate with many in the audience, who likely went through some of these very same dilemmas in their own coming of age stories. Maybe not through paintball fights at a frat house, or crossing a busy freeway, but we each have our own unique stories that helped to mold us into who we are today. It’s funny how watching a film like this can make you reminisce on your own experiences, even if it isn’t on the big screen for all to see.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/14/good-boys/
Max (Jacob Tremblay), Thor (Brady Noon), and Lucas (Keith L. Williams) are a group of 12-year old boys known to their family and friends as the Bean Bag boys. Why do they refer to themselves as the Bean Bag Boys you ask? Why because they sit on Bean Bag chairs of course. Entering 6th grade they are trying to stand out but tend to do so in all the worst ways. Thor loves to sing but is bullied to not sign up for the school musical because it’s not a cool thing to be. Lucas is dealing with his parent’s new divorce and has a propensity to always tell the truth (even when the truth potentially causes more damage than a lie). Then there is Max, a young man whose hormones are beginning to take over his brain and can only think of the love of his life (and future wife of course) Brixlee.
Max being to shy to even look at Brixlee when she is looking his way is finally given a golden opportunity when he is invited by popular kid Soren (Izaac Wang) to a kissing party. The idea of being able to not only speak to Brixlee but be able to kiss her causes a rush of emotions that gravitate from excitement to terror. Max, believing that the way to his true-loves heart is by being a kissing expert recruits his fellow Bean Bag Boys on a quest to learn to kiss.
His quest will take him from spying on his “nymphomaniac” neighbor, to a treacherous highway crossing to get to the mall. They will have to brave frat houses, and potentially risky run-ins with pedophiles and the police, all to learn how to be a better kisser. Of course, there is plenty of laughs and situations that only naïve children could get themselves into, all of which had me and the entirety of the audience laughing the entire way through
Good Boys is a movie that relies on the audience connection with the main characters to succeed. Without that, you are left with a movie full of foul language and crude humor which have lately become a dime a dozen. Thankfully the casting of Good Boys far exceeds any expectations I had going into the theater. Comedies of these type lean heavily on the actors to carry the story through the hi-jinx that are around every corner and the actors were more than up to the challenge. Jacob Tremblay portrays perfectly the fear that every young boy (or girl) goes through when they imagine their first kiss. Keith L. Williams shows the heart break that a young kid goes through when deal with personal tragedy (in this case his parents’ divorce) and yet still remains true-to-himself anyway. Brady Noon excels at his desire to be cool, and still struggle with how coolness affects what he truly loves and wants to ultimately do. All three as a group convincingly take us on a journey that may seem outlandish, yet ultimately feel believable as well.
Good Boys also has a strong supporting cast, that add further dimension to the film. The two “old” girls Lily (Midori Francis) and Hannah (Molly Gordon) are fantastic in their portrayal of two women who simply want their drugs to get high. They will go to almost any lengths to get them back from the boys who stole them and yet end up becoming a bigger part to the film as a whole. Even the well meaning yet clueless parents of Lucas (Lil Rel Howery and Retta) add to the laughs as a couple trying their best to protect their son even as their own lives are driven apart.
Good Boys may come across in previews as a crude comedy with loads of foul language and sexual situations. While at first glance that may be what it is, as you pull back the layers you soon begin to realize that it’s a story, not about the words that are said, but the innocence of youth and what it means to grow apart as friends. The laughs are non-stop and the language excusable because of the innocence of those on the screen who are spouting them. As parents maybe you’d be looking to wash their mouths out with soap, but as the audience you can’t help but think how innocent they truly are. Good Boys is a movie that will resonate with many in the audience, who likely went through some of these very same dilemmas in their own coming of age stories. Maybe not through paintball fights at a frat house, or crossing a busy freeway, but we each have our own unique stories that helped to mold us into who we are today. It’s funny how watching a film like this can make you reminisce on your own experiences, even if it isn’t on the big screen for all to see.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/14/good-boys/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bad Boys for Life (2020) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
Welcome to Miami - again!
Will Smith seems to have been having a lacklustre period in his career. His genie from "Aladdin" got a rather lukewarm reception. And his last movie - "Gemini Man" - billed as a big summer blockbuster - failed to impress. True it wasn't a commercial disaster (raking in at the time of writing about 150% of budget), but it's still a film on a plane for me that, even if I'm bored, I'll say "nah" to.
Perhaps it's for this reason that Smith reached for an old and reliable property to dust off for another outing.
And, do you know, it's not half bad.
I only recently saw this one, right at the end of its UK cinema run, because frankly it appealed to me like being hit round the head with a cold fish. Martin Lawrence is an actor who just grates on me enormously. I'm sure he's a lovely chap; kind to animals; donates to charity; etc - but I generally just don't find him funny. (Here though he has a killer line about condom use that made me chuckle.) It feels to me like he is on implausible ground here re-treading the role of aging detective Marcus Burnett. One look at Burnett lumbering along and you would think "well, he'd never pass the medical" for the on-street role he's portrayed doing. His buddy is detective Mike Lowrey (Will Smith), who has a sordid past that is set to catch up on him.
Since we start the story in Colombia, where Isabel Aretas (Kate Del Castillo), the witchy wife of a notorious deceased drug baron, is sprung from prison by her son Armando (Jacob Scipio) in what I admit is a clever and novel way. The Aretas family is bent on revenge - - and a key target in their sites is Lowrey.
Burnett is newly a grandparent and hell-bent on retirement. But with Lowrey and his associates with a target on their backs, will there be one last chance to "Ride Together, Die Together"?
Not seen the first two movies? Not to worry! There are movies, like LOTR, where if you've missed the first two movies in the series you will be left in serious "WTF" territory in trying to watch the third. This is not one of those movies. The story is entirely self-contained, and refers to events never seen prior to the first film in the series.
But whether the movie is for you will depend on your tolerance for loud and brash visuals and music with the knob turned up to 12. Directors Adil and Bilall (Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - Belgian film school buddies best known for the critically acclaimed 2015 feature "Black") - don't do anything by halves.
There is a scene in "Lost Series 3" in which Sawyer, Kate, and Alex have to bust young Karl out of the mysterious room 23 where he is being tortured by having his eyes kept open while watching a collage of images continually smashed into his eyeballs. This movie feels a little like that after a while.
This is not by any means a criticism that it's poorly done. There is some truly stunning cinematography of the Miami skyline by Belgian cinematographer Robrecht Heyvaert, including a 'pull-back' drone shot from a conversation on the top of a building that is quite AWESOME! And there are more than enough "fast action - then slo-mo - then fast again" shots to keep music-video junkies happy!
The music score by Lorne Balfe is also pumping, adding a dynamism to the frantic action scenes that keeps you entertained.
The screenplay by Chris Bremner, Peter Craig and Joe Carnahan is assuredly familiar: it's not going to win any prizes for originality. We've seen the cartel/revenge plotline played out in multiple movies over the years. And we've also seen the "buddy cops with aging partner taking retirement" angle from the "Lethal Weapon" series. This just sticks them together.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence wise-crack their way through the comedy well-enough, though for me it never reaches the heights of the pairing of Smith and Tommy Lee Jones from MiB (or indeed Mel Gibson and Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon). Elsewhere we have Vanessa Hudgens as a cute cop, still trying to break through from "Disneyfication" into mainstream flicks. For one horrible moment, when I saw her name on the cast, I thought she might be the love interest to Smith. But no. That honour goes to Mexican beauty Paola Nuñez who, with only a 10 year age gap, becomes a less gag-worthy pairing. She plays a female leadership role (every 20's film now needs one) as the head of a new crime division.
Also good value is Joe Pantoliano reprising his role as Captain Howard - Lowrie's exasperated boss. Playing it by the numbers, every film like this has to have one!
Where the plot does add some interest is in a surprising scene mid-film and a twist that I didn't see coming. But this twist felt - in the context of the release date or the film - like a mistake (a "Spoiler Section" in my review on the One Mann's Movies web site discusses this).
All of this happens of course against a backdrop of a body count of bad guys being killed in ever more graphic and gory ways, while the good guys generally dodge every bullet, grenade and crashing helicopter heading their way.
It's that time of year when films are released to die. Where studios drop their movies that are never going to trouble the Academy and are not deemed worthy of summer or even late spring release. But they should have had more faith in this one, for it's not half bad. True, you may need a couple of paracetamols afterwards, but if your corneas and ear-drums can stand the pace, its not short on entertainment value.
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies link here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-bad-boys-for-life-2020/ ).
Perhaps it's for this reason that Smith reached for an old and reliable property to dust off for another outing.
And, do you know, it's not half bad.
I only recently saw this one, right at the end of its UK cinema run, because frankly it appealed to me like being hit round the head with a cold fish. Martin Lawrence is an actor who just grates on me enormously. I'm sure he's a lovely chap; kind to animals; donates to charity; etc - but I generally just don't find him funny. (Here though he has a killer line about condom use that made me chuckle.) It feels to me like he is on implausible ground here re-treading the role of aging detective Marcus Burnett. One look at Burnett lumbering along and you would think "well, he'd never pass the medical" for the on-street role he's portrayed doing. His buddy is detective Mike Lowrey (Will Smith), who has a sordid past that is set to catch up on him.
Since we start the story in Colombia, where Isabel Aretas (Kate Del Castillo), the witchy wife of a notorious deceased drug baron, is sprung from prison by her son Armando (Jacob Scipio) in what I admit is a clever and novel way. The Aretas family is bent on revenge - - and a key target in their sites is Lowrey.
Burnett is newly a grandparent and hell-bent on retirement. But with Lowrey and his associates with a target on their backs, will there be one last chance to "Ride Together, Die Together"?
Not seen the first two movies? Not to worry! There are movies, like LOTR, where if you've missed the first two movies in the series you will be left in serious "WTF" territory in trying to watch the third. This is not one of those movies. The story is entirely self-contained, and refers to events never seen prior to the first film in the series.
But whether the movie is for you will depend on your tolerance for loud and brash visuals and music with the knob turned up to 12. Directors Adil and Bilall (Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - Belgian film school buddies best known for the critically acclaimed 2015 feature "Black") - don't do anything by halves.
There is a scene in "Lost Series 3" in which Sawyer, Kate, and Alex have to bust young Karl out of the mysterious room 23 where he is being tortured by having his eyes kept open while watching a collage of images continually smashed into his eyeballs. This movie feels a little like that after a while.
This is not by any means a criticism that it's poorly done. There is some truly stunning cinematography of the Miami skyline by Belgian cinematographer Robrecht Heyvaert, including a 'pull-back' drone shot from a conversation on the top of a building that is quite AWESOME! And there are more than enough "fast action - then slo-mo - then fast again" shots to keep music-video junkies happy!
The music score by Lorne Balfe is also pumping, adding a dynamism to the frantic action scenes that keeps you entertained.
The screenplay by Chris Bremner, Peter Craig and Joe Carnahan is assuredly familiar: it's not going to win any prizes for originality. We've seen the cartel/revenge plotline played out in multiple movies over the years. And we've also seen the "buddy cops with aging partner taking retirement" angle from the "Lethal Weapon" series. This just sticks them together.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence wise-crack their way through the comedy well-enough, though for me it never reaches the heights of the pairing of Smith and Tommy Lee Jones from MiB (or indeed Mel Gibson and Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon). Elsewhere we have Vanessa Hudgens as a cute cop, still trying to break through from "Disneyfication" into mainstream flicks. For one horrible moment, when I saw her name on the cast, I thought she might be the love interest to Smith. But no. That honour goes to Mexican beauty Paola Nuñez who, with only a 10 year age gap, becomes a less gag-worthy pairing. She plays a female leadership role (every 20's film now needs one) as the head of a new crime division.
Also good value is Joe Pantoliano reprising his role as Captain Howard - Lowrie's exasperated boss. Playing it by the numbers, every film like this has to have one!
Where the plot does add some interest is in a surprising scene mid-film and a twist that I didn't see coming. But this twist felt - in the context of the release date or the film - like a mistake (a "Spoiler Section" in my review on the One Mann's Movies web site discusses this).
All of this happens of course against a backdrop of a body count of bad guys being killed in ever more graphic and gory ways, while the good guys generally dodge every bullet, grenade and crashing helicopter heading their way.
It's that time of year when films are released to die. Where studios drop their movies that are never going to trouble the Academy and are not deemed worthy of summer or even late spring release. But they should have had more faith in this one, for it's not half bad. True, you may need a couple of paracetamols afterwards, but if your corneas and ear-drums can stand the pace, its not short on entertainment value.
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies link here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-bad-boys-for-life-2020/ ).
Nicola Jane (6 KP) created a post
May 7, 2019 (Updated May 7, 2019)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Zoltar Rides Again!
All work and no play makes Bob the Movie Man a dull reviewer. Due to work commitments, this is the first film I’ve been able to see at the cinema for over a month. There’s a whole slew of films I wanted to see that have already come and gone. Big sigh. So I might be about the last of the crowd to review this, but I’m glad I caught it before it shuffled off its silver screen coil.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014) in Movies
Jun 29, 2019
There's a lot of good, fun, over-the-top, explosive action! (2 more)
Age of Extinction features an incredible showcase of special effects.
Great acting from Tucci and Grammar, and a solid new star for the franchise with Mark Wahlberg.
With a 2 hour and 45 minute run-time, the movie goes on far too long and loses steam before the finale. (1 more)
The plot is completely overloaded with enough content to easily cover two films.
Transformers: Age of Extinction is a fun summer movie that sticks to Michael Bay's usual mode of operation, but it's jam-packed and overly ambitious, stretching the run time far longer than it ever should.
After the events of Transformers: Dark of the Moon, referred to in the film as The Battle of Chicago, the surviving Autobots are being hunted to extinction. The United States government is bent on exterminating all Transformers, good and bad, believing them to be an unwelcome global threat. All the while, the hypocritical government has simultaneously partnered with a wealthy inventor who is trying to create his own superior, man-made variations of Transformers. Furthermore, they’re working with the help of the Transformer bounty hunter Lockdown to search out and annihilate Optimus Prime, the famed leader of the Autobots. Prime has been forced into hiding and has sent out a distress call encouraging his comrades to follow suit. When amateur inventor Cade Yeager inadvertently stumbles upon a disguised Optimus Prime, he helps to repair the damaged Transformer who must reunite with his remaining allies to fight for their right to live.
Before I dive into this review, I think I should inform you that I have not seen any of the previous Transformers movies. I should also note that I’m something of a Transformers hater. Despite pressure from family and friends who have praised the movie series, I have deliberately avoided every single one of the films. I never liked the cartoon as a kid, and while Transformers’ amalgamation of cars and robots may be a dream combination for most guys, I have very little interest in either. However, as a critic, I cannot let my own biases get in the way of giving fair judgment. After having watched Transformers: Age of Extinction, I can thankfully report that the film actually wasn’t half bad. While it’s not going to make a Transformers fan out of me, it was an entertaining, albeit overly-long, movie-going experience.
Age of Extinction is an action-packed ride, filled with the kind of over-the-top entertainment you would expect from a Michael Bay film. While Bay has developed something of a bad rap, there’s no denying his knack for fun and ridiculous action sequences. He’s a man who spares no expense when it comes to explosions and special effects, and this is where Bay is at his best. Love him or hate him, it’s hard to argue with his results as he’s surely one of the most successful directors of all time. However, clocking in at two hours and forty-five minutes, the high-speed action of Age of Extinction is exhausting and becomes tiresome long before the finale. Even when Bay slows things down, he keeps the camera overly busy with particle effects and constant movement. While all of that looks great in IMAX 3D, it feels like an endless visual barrage that is frankly a lot to take in. How many lens flares must a man endure in one movie? I understand the desire to make every shot exciting and visually striking, but I think Bay is trying to tackle too much on camera.
Similarly, Age of Extinction is trying to squeeze too much into its plot, which could almost be broken up into two entirely separate movies. We have the hunt for Optimus Prime and the Transformers by Lockdown and the CIA; Cade Yeager’s discovery of Prime and their ensuing alliance; the love story between Cade’s daughter and her boyfriend; the emergence of the Dinobots; as well as the man-made construction of new Transformers. The result is a fast-paced action movie that is convoluted and far too long. That’s not to say that what is there is bad, though. Awful love story aside, all of the other components of the story are solid and even pretty interesting. Kelsey Grammer puts in a good performance as the head of the CIA who is responsible for the extermination of the Transformers. Similarly, Stanley Tucci is great as Joshua Joyce, the brilliant inventor who is recreating human-controlled Transformers for military use. Yet I can’t help but think that Joyce’s plot would have been perhaps been better to save for a sequel. Sure, it offers a nice parallel between the two inventors and it also creates an opportunity for them to introduce some all-new Transformers, but aren’t the Dinobots enough? There’s so much going on in the film that the eagerly-anticipated Dinobots aren’t given much screen time at all. There is just an unreasonable amount of narratives going on in this movie, to the point where it’s hard to follow, and even harder to stay interested in. Instead of sitting on the edge of your seat during the climactic showdown, you’re probably going to be looking at your watch and wondering how much longer this movie can possibly go on.
While I’m no expert on Transformers, I think the film does an admirable job in bringing the robotic characters to life. Their appearance and animation are both impressive, and they’re typically a pretty fun bunch. I have to admit, though, that I was a bit jarred by the angry and violent demeanor of Optimus Prime. I thought he was supposed to be the good guy everyone looked up to? In Age of Extinction, he clearly has some anger management issues. While he might be the most skilled warrior out there, he sure doesn’t seem like much of a role model. Peter Cullen, the original voice of Optimus Prime, has one again returned to voice the character. John Goodman gives a stand-out voice performance as Hound, in a role he seemed to have a lot of fun with, and Ken Watanabe voices the Samurai-like Transformer known as Drift. All in all, there are a lot of Transformers in the movie, but there is hardly ample time to get to know most of them. I imagine many of them have been introduced in previous films, but for a newcomer like myself, I had a hard time distinguishing between quite a few of them. Then there are the Dinobots, which look awesome, but we’re not given a chance to know much of anything about them. It’s a shame that they’re reduced to feeling like unnecessary bookends to an already overly-crammed movie.
On the human side of things, Mark Wahlberg is enjoyable as the struggling inventor who scavengers through whatever he can to try to create a breakthrough invention. He brings a charming and heroic presence to his role, making him a character we can identify with and root for as he tries to assist the highly-targeted Transformers. T.J. Miller’s Lucas makes for a mildly humorous companion to Cade, although much of the film’s attempts at comedy feel forced and aren’t very funny. Then there’s Nicola Peltz as the skimpily-dressed, rebellious but brainy and innocent, party girl daughter Tessa. She fits right into Bay’s stereotypical sexist female lead who serves as little more than a damsel in distress and eye candy. Still, I don’t know who is worse; Tessa, or her rally car racing boyfriend Shane, played by Jack Reynor. I felt just as frustrated by them as Wahlberg does playing Tessa’s disgruntled and disapproving father. These two lovebirds are an annoying and unwanted addition that only further drag out the plot. While it was at first vaguely amusing to watch Cade freak out as the over-protective father, that shtick ended up getting old real quick. While Wahlberg makes a good new face for the franchise, I hope to God that he comes alone for the next one.
Transformers: Age of Extinction is a fun summer movie. Director Michael Bay sticks to his usual mode of operation with ridiculous action sequences, top of the line special effects, and a whole lot of explosions. If you’re looking for a movie with more flash than substance, Age of Extinction should be right up your alley. It’s jam-packed and overly ambitious, stretching the run time far longer than it ever should, but if offers plenty of dumb, fun entertainment. Transformers fans should be pleased, although the series still has yet to make a fan out of me.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.22.14.)
Before I dive into this review, I think I should inform you that I have not seen any of the previous Transformers movies. I should also note that I’m something of a Transformers hater. Despite pressure from family and friends who have praised the movie series, I have deliberately avoided every single one of the films. I never liked the cartoon as a kid, and while Transformers’ amalgamation of cars and robots may be a dream combination for most guys, I have very little interest in either. However, as a critic, I cannot let my own biases get in the way of giving fair judgment. After having watched Transformers: Age of Extinction, I can thankfully report that the film actually wasn’t half bad. While it’s not going to make a Transformers fan out of me, it was an entertaining, albeit overly-long, movie-going experience.
Age of Extinction is an action-packed ride, filled with the kind of over-the-top entertainment you would expect from a Michael Bay film. While Bay has developed something of a bad rap, there’s no denying his knack for fun and ridiculous action sequences. He’s a man who spares no expense when it comes to explosions and special effects, and this is where Bay is at his best. Love him or hate him, it’s hard to argue with his results as he’s surely one of the most successful directors of all time. However, clocking in at two hours and forty-five minutes, the high-speed action of Age of Extinction is exhausting and becomes tiresome long before the finale. Even when Bay slows things down, he keeps the camera overly busy with particle effects and constant movement. While all of that looks great in IMAX 3D, it feels like an endless visual barrage that is frankly a lot to take in. How many lens flares must a man endure in one movie? I understand the desire to make every shot exciting and visually striking, but I think Bay is trying to tackle too much on camera.
Similarly, Age of Extinction is trying to squeeze too much into its plot, which could almost be broken up into two entirely separate movies. We have the hunt for Optimus Prime and the Transformers by Lockdown and the CIA; Cade Yeager’s discovery of Prime and their ensuing alliance; the love story between Cade’s daughter and her boyfriend; the emergence of the Dinobots; as well as the man-made construction of new Transformers. The result is a fast-paced action movie that is convoluted and far too long. That’s not to say that what is there is bad, though. Awful love story aside, all of the other components of the story are solid and even pretty interesting. Kelsey Grammer puts in a good performance as the head of the CIA who is responsible for the extermination of the Transformers. Similarly, Stanley Tucci is great as Joshua Joyce, the brilliant inventor who is recreating human-controlled Transformers for military use. Yet I can’t help but think that Joyce’s plot would have been perhaps been better to save for a sequel. Sure, it offers a nice parallel between the two inventors and it also creates an opportunity for them to introduce some all-new Transformers, but aren’t the Dinobots enough? There’s so much going on in the film that the eagerly-anticipated Dinobots aren’t given much screen time at all. There is just an unreasonable amount of narratives going on in this movie, to the point where it’s hard to follow, and even harder to stay interested in. Instead of sitting on the edge of your seat during the climactic showdown, you’re probably going to be looking at your watch and wondering how much longer this movie can possibly go on.
While I’m no expert on Transformers, I think the film does an admirable job in bringing the robotic characters to life. Their appearance and animation are both impressive, and they’re typically a pretty fun bunch. I have to admit, though, that I was a bit jarred by the angry and violent demeanor of Optimus Prime. I thought he was supposed to be the good guy everyone looked up to? In Age of Extinction, he clearly has some anger management issues. While he might be the most skilled warrior out there, he sure doesn’t seem like much of a role model. Peter Cullen, the original voice of Optimus Prime, has one again returned to voice the character. John Goodman gives a stand-out voice performance as Hound, in a role he seemed to have a lot of fun with, and Ken Watanabe voices the Samurai-like Transformer known as Drift. All in all, there are a lot of Transformers in the movie, but there is hardly ample time to get to know most of them. I imagine many of them have been introduced in previous films, but for a newcomer like myself, I had a hard time distinguishing between quite a few of them. Then there are the Dinobots, which look awesome, but we’re not given a chance to know much of anything about them. It’s a shame that they’re reduced to feeling like unnecessary bookends to an already overly-crammed movie.
On the human side of things, Mark Wahlberg is enjoyable as the struggling inventor who scavengers through whatever he can to try to create a breakthrough invention. He brings a charming and heroic presence to his role, making him a character we can identify with and root for as he tries to assist the highly-targeted Transformers. T.J. Miller’s Lucas makes for a mildly humorous companion to Cade, although much of the film’s attempts at comedy feel forced and aren’t very funny. Then there’s Nicola Peltz as the skimpily-dressed, rebellious but brainy and innocent, party girl daughter Tessa. She fits right into Bay’s stereotypical sexist female lead who serves as little more than a damsel in distress and eye candy. Still, I don’t know who is worse; Tessa, or her rally car racing boyfriend Shane, played by Jack Reynor. I felt just as frustrated by them as Wahlberg does playing Tessa’s disgruntled and disapproving father. These two lovebirds are an annoying and unwanted addition that only further drag out the plot. While it was at first vaguely amusing to watch Cade freak out as the over-protective father, that shtick ended up getting old real quick. While Wahlberg makes a good new face for the franchise, I hope to God that he comes alone for the next one.
Transformers: Age of Extinction is a fun summer movie. Director Michael Bay sticks to his usual mode of operation with ridiculous action sequences, top of the line special effects, and a whole lot of explosions. If you’re looking for a movie with more flash than substance, Age of Extinction should be right up your alley. It’s jam-packed and overly ambitious, stretching the run time far longer than it ever should, but if offers plenty of dumb, fun entertainment. Transformers fans should be pleased, although the series still has yet to make a fan out of me.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.22.14.)
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Coming 2 America (2021) in Movies
Mar 16, 2021 (Updated Mar 27, 2021)
Almost all of the original cast returns for this sequel (2 more)
Lots of laughs
Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall reprising many of the roles where they played multiple characters again.
Terrible character development (2 more)
Plot doesn't make sense at times or feels like missing scenes or plot development
Some jokes fall flat or feel forced and the trailer spoils some
Lots of Laughs and Callbacks But Not Enough Substance
Prince Akeem of Zamunda (Eddie Murphy) is visited by General Izzi (Wesley Snipes) who pushes for Akeem's eldest daughter Meeka (Kiki Layne) to marry his foppish son, Idi (Rotimi). Nexdoria is a hostile militaristic neighbor nation ruled by General Izzi, who is also the brother of Akeem's original arranged bride-to-be. Izzi threatens Akeem and says that it is better to be bound by blood and family then divided by blood and war. This occurs on the very day that Zamunda is celebrating the 30th anniversary of Prince Akeem and Lisa's wedding. King Jaffe Joffer (James Earl Jones) summons Akeem and Semmi (Arsenio Hall) and reminds them that only a male heir can inherit his kingdom. He summons his shaman Baba and they reveal that Akeem has a long lost son in America that he must retrieve in order to avoid a hostile takeover by Nexdoria.
I enjoyed this movie when I saw it the first time and thought that it was pretty funny. It definitely isn't a great movie but when compared to several other sequels that happen years after the original, I felt that it did better than most. It was for the most part a lesser version of the original but it's been years since I've seen the original and I didn't let my nostalgia for it to skew my opinion on this one. I do plan on re-watching the original soon though so I can see how much they differ. A big difference was that the original Coming to America is rated R and this sequel was PG-13. I usually hate when a company chooses to do this because I always feel what the fans/audience gets is a watered down version of the original but it's hard to say this time around. This movie was full of laughs and I was surprised how much they got away with it for being a PG-13 movie, however some of the jokes fell flat and a lot of them were given away in the trailer. Also there were somethings in the trailer that I didn't see in the movie; like the Wakanda joke in the barbershop. Wesley Snipes character General Izzi was quite a character and you could feel he was having fun portraying him. I also enjoyed Akeem's three daughters in the movie. I really liked the opening scene which showed Prince Akeem sparring with his daughters and stick fighting like the original movie. The middle daughter Princess Omma who had glasses was actually Eddie Murphy's daughter in real life, Bella Murphy. And I also heard that most of the palace scenes in Zamunda were actually filmed in rapper Rick Ross' house. As much as I liked this movie it also felt very thin and didn't have a lot of character development or much of a plot to speak of. It also felt like quite a few things didn't make sense and that characters that came out in the first movie were quite different personality wise or just by their actions. I feel like I should give this movie a lower score but I'm not sure if it's nostalgia again or the fact that since it's a comedy I'm not really letting some of those things bother me as much. I'll go over my many reasons for scoring it so low in the spoiler section but for now I give this movie a 6/10. I would say it's worth getting a free trial of Amazon Prime if you want to see it in good quality and for free, or if you already have Amazon Prime you should give it a shot if you're looking for some laughs, but if not you can totally wait to see this movie.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
Alright so let's get to it. Like I said I enjoyed this movie and thought that it delivered on the laughs even if some of them were forced or fell flat. I also felt that it was pretty thin on the plot and from what I remember of the first movie some of the characters were off or acted very different personality wise. I loved how the movie began with Prince Akeem training with his daughters and doing the stick fighting which was one of many call backs to the original film. The conflict begins in the beginning of the movie when General Izzi visits Akeem and tries to arrange a marriage between his son and Akeem's oldest daughter, Princess Meeka. You can tell that Akeem doesn't like General Izzi's son Idi but doesn't say anything other than his daughter didn't find him suitable. General Izzi threatens him after making a comment about the King being dead or near death and Akeem not having any male heirs. I still don't understand the conflict between the two nations and felt that this would have benefitted the plot more if they would have explained it better. Why would he need an heir so soon if he himself hadn't even inherited the kingdom from his father yet? Also the only explanation between the conflict of the nations was that Nexdoria was poor and Zamunda was rich. Anyways then Akeem is summoned to see his father and his shaman Baba and is told that he has an illegitimate son in America after a tryst with a woman while being drugged. I thought this was pretty funny scene where they did a flashback to when it happened. So now Akeem and Semmi must travel to America to retrieve his son so that he can take the princely tests and become heir to the kingdom. This totally doesn't make any sense to me plot wise other than this is how they wanted the movie to go. Akeem was totally a person who went against his father's wishes and traditions in the first film to find his wife Lisa and doesn't make sense that he would get this "son" to be his heir even if he was blood without getting to know him first. However I ignored that while watching because I figured he would get to know him while they met and he went back to Zamunda with them. Also before the leave there is a pretty cool scene where King Jaffe Joffer decides to have his funeral while he's alive and it was very lavish and elegant and full of cameos from great artists and performers. It was funny to see the barbershop scene and how Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall reprised their roles of some of the barbershop characters when they arrive in America but I felt that the funny parts were already spoiled in the trailer. Also the part about Wakanda wasn't even in the movie. From there they find out that his son is selling tickets near Madison Square when they're told about the mascot being a thunderbird that was part of Baba's vision. That was a cool details that I wish would have been developed more to make it more interesting. It would have been cool for them to have struggled to find his son but instead the first place they go tells them exactly where he is. Also when he meets his son Lavelle, it didn't even come off as awkward enough and Lavelle totally takes him back to his house to meet everyone or ask his mom. I didn't see this as realistic or how it would have played out in real life. Leslie Jones was a pretty annoying character but I feel she fit the job of the role she played and that people are too harsh on her as an actor for this role but I do feel that she is like Kevin Hart or The Rock in basically being the same character in every role. She admits that Akeem could be Lavelle's father and just like that they are whisked away to Zamunda. No paternity test, no lie detector test, no witnesses like her friend in the club saying yes it was true. This was very unrealistic to me because anybody would say yes to inherit the riches of Zamunda. When he returns Princess Lisa confronts him about him having a son and the particulars of how it occurred and she was shocked to find out that he brought not only his son but the son's mother back with him as well. General Izzi returns to Zamunda as soon as Prince Lavelle returns and makes it known that he has a daughter that he wishes for him to marry and Prince Akeem un-characteristically allows this arranged marriage to take place. Prince Lavelle must now pass the 3 princely tests first, which consist of knowledge of his ancestors/predecessors, getting the whiskers of a lion, and also one which involved ritual circumcision. I felt like there wasn't enough character development during these scenes and also the ones where Lavelle interacted with Mirembe, his royal barber to warrant the closeness that they all experienced. Princess Meeka, Akeem's oldest daughter is very upset about being passes up as heir for being a woman and rightly dislikes Lavelle and it totally seems out of character for her to aid him in passing his test to get the lion whiskers. They only had a small exchange about being written off or being judged for how they look or talk. And I felt that Lavelle also didn't have enough rapport with his barber Mirembe to be falling in love with her in under a week, or if they did it wasn't shown enough to us. There was a lot that didn't make sense or I feel was cut from the movie or even worse, just bad writing and poor plot development and it wasn't done right. The worse had to have been seeing Akeem's character become the opposite of who he was in the first movie. He passes over his daughter to give the throne to a stranger because he is a man and even when he loses his patience with a drunk or inebriated Lisa and tells her to shut her mouth after the celebration of the upcoming wedding between Lavelle and Bopoto, General Izzi's daughter. All in all I have to say that for me personally this movie was full of laughs but just had so much wrong with it that I should really be rating it a 5 or just an average movie. However there are so many sequels that happen 5 years or more after the original that are far worse or just as bad that I feel since this one was 30 years later it wasn't as bad as others are judging it. But maybe if I had seen the original right before seeing this one I would have changed by rating but for now I'm not sure if it's nostalgia or just bias but I rate this movie a 6/10. If you thought the original was funny then you more than likely will like this movie but if the original is a special movie to you that holds a special place in your heart then you might just think this sequel is utter trash.
https://youtu.be/-tT8Wy3YeI4
I enjoyed this movie when I saw it the first time and thought that it was pretty funny. It definitely isn't a great movie but when compared to several other sequels that happen years after the original, I felt that it did better than most. It was for the most part a lesser version of the original but it's been years since I've seen the original and I didn't let my nostalgia for it to skew my opinion on this one. I do plan on re-watching the original soon though so I can see how much they differ. A big difference was that the original Coming to America is rated R and this sequel was PG-13. I usually hate when a company chooses to do this because I always feel what the fans/audience gets is a watered down version of the original but it's hard to say this time around. This movie was full of laughs and I was surprised how much they got away with it for being a PG-13 movie, however some of the jokes fell flat and a lot of them were given away in the trailer. Also there were somethings in the trailer that I didn't see in the movie; like the Wakanda joke in the barbershop. Wesley Snipes character General Izzi was quite a character and you could feel he was having fun portraying him. I also enjoyed Akeem's three daughters in the movie. I really liked the opening scene which showed Prince Akeem sparring with his daughters and stick fighting like the original movie. The middle daughter Princess Omma who had glasses was actually Eddie Murphy's daughter in real life, Bella Murphy. And I also heard that most of the palace scenes in Zamunda were actually filmed in rapper Rick Ross' house. As much as I liked this movie it also felt very thin and didn't have a lot of character development or much of a plot to speak of. It also felt like quite a few things didn't make sense and that characters that came out in the first movie were quite different personality wise or just by their actions. I feel like I should give this movie a lower score but I'm not sure if it's nostalgia again or the fact that since it's a comedy I'm not really letting some of those things bother me as much. I'll go over my many reasons for scoring it so low in the spoiler section but for now I give this movie a 6/10. I would say it's worth getting a free trial of Amazon Prime if you want to see it in good quality and for free, or if you already have Amazon Prime you should give it a shot if you're looking for some laughs, but if not you can totally wait to see this movie.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
Alright so let's get to it. Like I said I enjoyed this movie and thought that it delivered on the laughs even if some of them were forced or fell flat. I also felt that it was pretty thin on the plot and from what I remember of the first movie some of the characters were off or acted very different personality wise. I loved how the movie began with Prince Akeem training with his daughters and doing the stick fighting which was one of many call backs to the original film. The conflict begins in the beginning of the movie when General Izzi visits Akeem and tries to arrange a marriage between his son and Akeem's oldest daughter, Princess Meeka. You can tell that Akeem doesn't like General Izzi's son Idi but doesn't say anything other than his daughter didn't find him suitable. General Izzi threatens him after making a comment about the King being dead or near death and Akeem not having any male heirs. I still don't understand the conflict between the two nations and felt that this would have benefitted the plot more if they would have explained it better. Why would he need an heir so soon if he himself hadn't even inherited the kingdom from his father yet? Also the only explanation between the conflict of the nations was that Nexdoria was poor and Zamunda was rich. Anyways then Akeem is summoned to see his father and his shaman Baba and is told that he has an illegitimate son in America after a tryst with a woman while being drugged. I thought this was pretty funny scene where they did a flashback to when it happened. So now Akeem and Semmi must travel to America to retrieve his son so that he can take the princely tests and become heir to the kingdom. This totally doesn't make any sense to me plot wise other than this is how they wanted the movie to go. Akeem was totally a person who went against his father's wishes and traditions in the first film to find his wife Lisa and doesn't make sense that he would get this "son" to be his heir even if he was blood without getting to know him first. However I ignored that while watching because I figured he would get to know him while they met and he went back to Zamunda with them. Also before the leave there is a pretty cool scene where King Jaffe Joffer decides to have his funeral while he's alive and it was very lavish and elegant and full of cameos from great artists and performers. It was funny to see the barbershop scene and how Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall reprised their roles of some of the barbershop characters when they arrive in America but I felt that the funny parts were already spoiled in the trailer. Also the part about Wakanda wasn't even in the movie. From there they find out that his son is selling tickets near Madison Square when they're told about the mascot being a thunderbird that was part of Baba's vision. That was a cool details that I wish would have been developed more to make it more interesting. It would have been cool for them to have struggled to find his son but instead the first place they go tells them exactly where he is. Also when he meets his son Lavelle, it didn't even come off as awkward enough and Lavelle totally takes him back to his house to meet everyone or ask his mom. I didn't see this as realistic or how it would have played out in real life. Leslie Jones was a pretty annoying character but I feel she fit the job of the role she played and that people are too harsh on her as an actor for this role but I do feel that she is like Kevin Hart or The Rock in basically being the same character in every role. She admits that Akeem could be Lavelle's father and just like that they are whisked away to Zamunda. No paternity test, no lie detector test, no witnesses like her friend in the club saying yes it was true. This was very unrealistic to me because anybody would say yes to inherit the riches of Zamunda. When he returns Princess Lisa confronts him about him having a son and the particulars of how it occurred and she was shocked to find out that he brought not only his son but the son's mother back with him as well. General Izzi returns to Zamunda as soon as Prince Lavelle returns and makes it known that he has a daughter that he wishes for him to marry and Prince Akeem un-characteristically allows this arranged marriage to take place. Prince Lavelle must now pass the 3 princely tests first, which consist of knowledge of his ancestors/predecessors, getting the whiskers of a lion, and also one which involved ritual circumcision. I felt like there wasn't enough character development during these scenes and also the ones where Lavelle interacted with Mirembe, his royal barber to warrant the closeness that they all experienced. Princess Meeka, Akeem's oldest daughter is very upset about being passes up as heir for being a woman and rightly dislikes Lavelle and it totally seems out of character for her to aid him in passing his test to get the lion whiskers. They only had a small exchange about being written off or being judged for how they look or talk. And I felt that Lavelle also didn't have enough rapport with his barber Mirembe to be falling in love with her in under a week, or if they did it wasn't shown enough to us. There was a lot that didn't make sense or I feel was cut from the movie or even worse, just bad writing and poor plot development and it wasn't done right. The worse had to have been seeing Akeem's character become the opposite of who he was in the first movie. He passes over his daughter to give the throne to a stranger because he is a man and even when he loses his patience with a drunk or inebriated Lisa and tells her to shut her mouth after the celebration of the upcoming wedding between Lavelle and Bopoto, General Izzi's daughter. All in all I have to say that for me personally this movie was full of laughs but just had so much wrong with it that I should really be rating it a 5 or just an average movie. However there are so many sequels that happen 5 years or more after the original that are far worse or just as bad that I feel since this one was 30 years later it wasn't as bad as others are judging it. But maybe if I had seen the original right before seeing this one I would have changed by rating but for now I'm not sure if it's nostalgia or just bias but I rate this movie a 6/10. If you thought the original was funny then you more than likely will like this movie but if the original is a special movie to you that holds a special place in your heart then you might just think this sequel is utter trash.
https://youtu.be/-tT8Wy3YeI4
