Search
Search results
Better than Suicide Squad
Did you catch the 2016 DCEU disappointment SUICIDE SQUAD with Will Smith as Deadshot and Jared Leto as the Joker? Many people (myself included) thought that that film was "just fine, nothing special" but were impressed with the way Margot Robbie handled the Harley Quinn character and wished for a standalone film that featured the Harley Quinn character.
Be careful what you wish for.
BIRDS OF PREY (AND THE FANTABULOUS EMANCIPATION OF ONE HARLEY QUINN) is the answer to that wish and while it is slightly better than SUICIDE SQUAD, it still isn't all that....well...Fantabulous... of a film.
BIRDS OF PREY (which I hear is now being relabeled HARLEY QUINN: BIRDS OF PREY) is produced by Margot Robbie's production company and features an all female lead cast (the villain is a male) and a female Writer and a female Director. Consequently, this is a "female empowerment" film where the self-described "tough chicks" band together to defeat the male villain.
I applaud the effort and the idea behind the movie, but as a film, this one didn't quite work for me.
I start with the main focus of this film - Harley Quinn. This is just not a character, I discovered, that I want to spend an entire film with. She is, at it turns out, a very good SUPPORTING character, but not one that is interesting enough (at least for me) to carry a whole movie. I will give Margot Robbie credit...her interpretation of the character is interesting and that performance kept me focused throughout.
The other Birds of Prey are just as interesting. For the first time in I can't tell you, Rosie Perez did not annoy me in her role. She played earnest, frustrated Police Officer Renee Montoya and I found myself rooting for her when she was on the screen. Same goes for Jurnee Smollett-Bell's interpretation of Black Canary a character I knew very little about and was intrigued (though her "Super Power" was suddenly sprung on the audience with very little foreshadowing - foreshadowing that could have helped). And, finally, Mary Elizabeth Winstead almost steals the film as the revenge-seeking Huntress, a character I really enjoyed and hope I see again (though, I'm learning my lesson - let it be as a supporting character in another film and not her own, standalone film).
So, this film has 4 interesting characters at the top, but the issue is that they don't come together as a team until VERY late in the film (in a finale showdown that was the highlight of the film for me), so I really couldn't tell if there was any chemistry between these characters/actresses. I think there MIGHT have been, but no real sample size to tell.
Fairing less well as a character was Ewan McGregor's one-note take on super-narcissistic Roman Sionis/Black Mask. The character was pretty much in front of you at the start of the film and was still the same one-note character at the end. Also not "doing it for me" was Ella Jay Basco as Cassandra Cain, the street kid that becomes the focal point of the bad guys in the film (and the character the Birds of Prey must band together to save). I didn't much care for this character - or the performance - so I had no real emotional investment in whether or not the Birds of Prey could save her.
The Direction by Cathy Yan is professional and competent and the final showdown does show signs of originality and brilliance. I'll give her credit, she caught my attention with the last 1/2 hour of this film - much more so than she did with the first 79 minutes.
A better effort at this type of anti-hero comic book adventure (certainly better than SUICIDE SQUAD) but the DCEU still has not stuck the landing on this.
I encourage them to keep trying.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Be careful what you wish for.
BIRDS OF PREY (AND THE FANTABULOUS EMANCIPATION OF ONE HARLEY QUINN) is the answer to that wish and while it is slightly better than SUICIDE SQUAD, it still isn't all that....well...Fantabulous... of a film.
BIRDS OF PREY (which I hear is now being relabeled HARLEY QUINN: BIRDS OF PREY) is produced by Margot Robbie's production company and features an all female lead cast (the villain is a male) and a female Writer and a female Director. Consequently, this is a "female empowerment" film where the self-described "tough chicks" band together to defeat the male villain.
I applaud the effort and the idea behind the movie, but as a film, this one didn't quite work for me.
I start with the main focus of this film - Harley Quinn. This is just not a character, I discovered, that I want to spend an entire film with. She is, at it turns out, a very good SUPPORTING character, but not one that is interesting enough (at least for me) to carry a whole movie. I will give Margot Robbie credit...her interpretation of the character is interesting and that performance kept me focused throughout.
The other Birds of Prey are just as interesting. For the first time in I can't tell you, Rosie Perez did not annoy me in her role. She played earnest, frustrated Police Officer Renee Montoya and I found myself rooting for her when she was on the screen. Same goes for Jurnee Smollett-Bell's interpretation of Black Canary a character I knew very little about and was intrigued (though her "Super Power" was suddenly sprung on the audience with very little foreshadowing - foreshadowing that could have helped). And, finally, Mary Elizabeth Winstead almost steals the film as the revenge-seeking Huntress, a character I really enjoyed and hope I see again (though, I'm learning my lesson - let it be as a supporting character in another film and not her own, standalone film).
So, this film has 4 interesting characters at the top, but the issue is that they don't come together as a team until VERY late in the film (in a finale showdown that was the highlight of the film for me), so I really couldn't tell if there was any chemistry between these characters/actresses. I think there MIGHT have been, but no real sample size to tell.
Fairing less well as a character was Ewan McGregor's one-note take on super-narcissistic Roman Sionis/Black Mask. The character was pretty much in front of you at the start of the film and was still the same one-note character at the end. Also not "doing it for me" was Ella Jay Basco as Cassandra Cain, the street kid that becomes the focal point of the bad guys in the film (and the character the Birds of Prey must band together to save). I didn't much care for this character - or the performance - so I had no real emotional investment in whether or not the Birds of Prey could save her.
The Direction by Cathy Yan is professional and competent and the final showdown does show signs of originality and brilliance. I'll give her credit, she caught my attention with the last 1/2 hour of this film - much more so than she did with the first 79 minutes.
A better effort at this type of anti-hero comic book adventure (certainly better than SUICIDE SQUAD) but the DCEU still has not stuck the landing on this.
I encourage them to keep trying.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Jul 8, 2021
An entertaining pose-struck by Johansson and Pugh
A long time in the waiting (again) but "Black Widow" is an excellent addition to the Marvel canon: almost a "Rogue One" in the series, taking us back to fill in some gaps after "Captain America: Civil War". It's just great to have ANY Marvel back in the cinema.... that Michael Giacchino Marvel tune set the hairs going on the back of my neck!
Positives:
- Loving the heart in this Marvel! There's more sense of "family" than in F9! Johansson and Pugh, in particular, have a great on-screen relationship, and nice sisterly bickering goes on. There's a fabulous scene in a petrol (gas) station between the pair that really shows what class acting is available in this outing.
- David Harbour adds some fine comedy as the "Red Guardian", complete with action figure! Seeing him squeezing into his old uniform reminded me strongly of Mr Incredible! And the relationship with Rachel Weisz's Melina is also great fun.
- Completing the strong acting complement is Ray Winstone as villain Dreykov. It's a role he's played so many times before that he could probably do it in his sleep: but still great to watch. A shout-out too to the lovely Olga Kurylenko, looking decidedly unlovely here! (She isn't given very much to do as Taskmaster though.)
- There were some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments for me: both through witty dialogue and visual gags. A helicopter 'landing' was particularly snort-worthy!
- Lorne Balfe delivers another stonking soundtrack, full of Russian undertones. Also great is a twisted version of Nirvana's "Teen Spirit" over the opening titles.
Negatives:
- Now I KNOW you need to suspend belief during Marvel films, but the "Red Room" location (no spoilers, and no - not the "50 Shades" type) stretches that too far. It leads to an over-blown, free-falling finale that somewhat lessened the impact for me of the rather more realistic flow of the movie to that point.
- Tonally the movie is rather inconsistent. As an example, the start of the movie is played 'straight', as is the role of Alexei. But when he reappears later in the film - and it took me a long time to appreciate the jailbird character was in fact him - then he suddenly becomes the comic heart of the movie.
- I loved the way the film built the relationships between the characters. So this is NOT a negative from me. But I *suspect* some Marvel action fans may find the narrative portions of the movie too slow for their liking.
Summary Thoughts on "Black Widow": Black Widow has always struck me as an odd and slightly second-rate member of The Avengers. After all, she has no specific "superpowers", so how has she survived all of the physical abuse to date? So, given what we know happened to her in "Endgame", I questioned whether this was an origin story that would hold much interest with me. But the knack here is that it really isn't an "origin story" at all. It covers her early life, pre-titles, but then skips all the intermediate biopic stuff to drill into this specific adventure in her life. And the quality of the acting and the relationships that are built up delivered something that I greatly enjoyed.
Cate Shortland seems an odd choice to front a huge movie like this (she has a very short movie CV) but I think she's done a great job here. I'd put it in the top quartile of Marvel movies for me.
And BTW, as it's Marvel so as you might expect there is an end credits scene. You have to wait until the very end of the credits for it (so you can appreciate Lorne Balfe's score some more). But it is worth waiting for, re-introducing a character from one of the Phase 4 TV series.
(For the full graphical version, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/07/black-widow-a-posers-guide-to-the-incredibles-3/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies).)
Positives:
- Loving the heart in this Marvel! There's more sense of "family" than in F9! Johansson and Pugh, in particular, have a great on-screen relationship, and nice sisterly bickering goes on. There's a fabulous scene in a petrol (gas) station between the pair that really shows what class acting is available in this outing.
- David Harbour adds some fine comedy as the "Red Guardian", complete with action figure! Seeing him squeezing into his old uniform reminded me strongly of Mr Incredible! And the relationship with Rachel Weisz's Melina is also great fun.
- Completing the strong acting complement is Ray Winstone as villain Dreykov. It's a role he's played so many times before that he could probably do it in his sleep: but still great to watch. A shout-out too to the lovely Olga Kurylenko, looking decidedly unlovely here! (She isn't given very much to do as Taskmaster though.)
- There were some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments for me: both through witty dialogue and visual gags. A helicopter 'landing' was particularly snort-worthy!
- Lorne Balfe delivers another stonking soundtrack, full of Russian undertones. Also great is a twisted version of Nirvana's "Teen Spirit" over the opening titles.
Negatives:
- Now I KNOW you need to suspend belief during Marvel films, but the "Red Room" location (no spoilers, and no - not the "50 Shades" type) stretches that too far. It leads to an over-blown, free-falling finale that somewhat lessened the impact for me of the rather more realistic flow of the movie to that point.
- Tonally the movie is rather inconsistent. As an example, the start of the movie is played 'straight', as is the role of Alexei. But when he reappears later in the film - and it took me a long time to appreciate the jailbird character was in fact him - then he suddenly becomes the comic heart of the movie.
- I loved the way the film built the relationships between the characters. So this is NOT a negative from me. But I *suspect* some Marvel action fans may find the narrative portions of the movie too slow for their liking.
Summary Thoughts on "Black Widow": Black Widow has always struck me as an odd and slightly second-rate member of The Avengers. After all, she has no specific "superpowers", so how has she survived all of the physical abuse to date? So, given what we know happened to her in "Endgame", I questioned whether this was an origin story that would hold much interest with me. But the knack here is that it really isn't an "origin story" at all. It covers her early life, pre-titles, but then skips all the intermediate biopic stuff to drill into this specific adventure in her life. And the quality of the acting and the relationships that are built up delivered something that I greatly enjoyed.
Cate Shortland seems an odd choice to front a huge movie like this (she has a very short movie CV) but I think she's done a great job here. I'd put it in the top quartile of Marvel movies for me.
And BTW, as it's Marvel so as you might expect there is an end credits scene. You have to wait until the very end of the credits for it (so you can appreciate Lorne Balfe's score some more). But it is worth waiting for, re-introducing a character from one of the Phase 4 TV series.
(For the full graphical version, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/07/black-widow-a-posers-guide-to-the-incredibles-3/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies).)
Darren (1599 KP) rated For Love or Money (2019) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Story: For Love or Money starts when former bullied school kid Mark (Kazinsky) meets the former love of his life Connie (Barks) at her boyfriendâs funeral, when Connie and her business partner Johnny (Speleers) learn Mark might become mega rich, Connie gets involved in dating Mark hoping to get half his money once he gets it.
When Mark learns about Connieâs plan, he decides to go on his own mission to make her life a living hell until he can finally break her giving away her plan.
Thoughts on For Love or Money
Characters â Mark is the average joe, he has worked hard to get where he is, he doesnât have much luck with the women though, he finds a way to be awkward around them, he thinks his life has turned around when he meets an old school friend, only to learn the truth about her intentions, forcing him to go out to get revenge with on her. Connie is the gold digger that is using Mark for a big payday, she is pretending to love Mark and even agrees to marry him, only she finds herself being put through the ringer, once he learns the truth. Kendra was once Connieâs best friend who was left embarrassed by Connie, she is willing to help with the revenge as she wants to be involved too, only she starts to question just how far they are going. Johnny is the business partner of Connie, he gives her the idea to use Mark for money, he is the kind of guy that you just look at and go, what an asshole, calling every single woman sugar tits. Tim is the best friend to Mark, that gets laughs of plenty through the film, along with his dog Ducky, he is dry to everything that happens in the film.
Performances â Robert Kazinsky is great in the leading role, he gets to show comic timing and enjoyment for what his character puts Connie through, in a way where we support him. Samantha Barks is great in this role, she manages to give us a character that we hate, but also sympathise for. Rachel Hurd-Wood does get plenty of strong moments in the film, with her character getting the important moments in the film. Ed Speleers does seem to have a lot of fun with his role in the film where he gets to play a complete asshole, it could be argued the Tony Way is a scene stealer in this film nailing the comedy every time in the film.
Story â The story here follows a man that starts dating his school crush, only to learn that she is only dating him to get to his money, where he decides to use this against her to get revenge. This story does put everything on the table early on which does give the story a nice spin on what we are used to seeing. It is nice to see a story where the victim gets to turn the tables, having fun knowing that the truth is only going to hurt them, seeing how far he can push things before breaking her. It would be fair the story doesnât paint love in a very god way, though it does show how difficult it can be to move on with life when you believe somebody is perfect for you.
Comedy â The comedy in the film will give you plenty of laughs, Tim gets most of the laughs, while Johnny is the one you laugh at the most.
Settings â The film gives us an everyday setting which shows how life can keep on going even if the big plan is going on in the background, no location is used for an iconic moment.
Scene of the Movie â Camping.
That Moment That Annoyed Me â The final moments.
Final Thoughts â This is a funny romantic comedy that gets to show just how life can go in different directions, it turns a gold digger character on its head too.
Overall: Funny comedy that will leave you laughing most of the time.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/24/for-love-or-money-2019/
When Mark learns about Connieâs plan, he decides to go on his own mission to make her life a living hell until he can finally break her giving away her plan.
Thoughts on For Love or Money
Characters â Mark is the average joe, he has worked hard to get where he is, he doesnât have much luck with the women though, he finds a way to be awkward around them, he thinks his life has turned around when he meets an old school friend, only to learn the truth about her intentions, forcing him to go out to get revenge with on her. Connie is the gold digger that is using Mark for a big payday, she is pretending to love Mark and even agrees to marry him, only she finds herself being put through the ringer, once he learns the truth. Kendra was once Connieâs best friend who was left embarrassed by Connie, she is willing to help with the revenge as she wants to be involved too, only she starts to question just how far they are going. Johnny is the business partner of Connie, he gives her the idea to use Mark for money, he is the kind of guy that you just look at and go, what an asshole, calling every single woman sugar tits. Tim is the best friend to Mark, that gets laughs of plenty through the film, along with his dog Ducky, he is dry to everything that happens in the film.
Performances â Robert Kazinsky is great in the leading role, he gets to show comic timing and enjoyment for what his character puts Connie through, in a way where we support him. Samantha Barks is great in this role, she manages to give us a character that we hate, but also sympathise for. Rachel Hurd-Wood does get plenty of strong moments in the film, with her character getting the important moments in the film. Ed Speleers does seem to have a lot of fun with his role in the film where he gets to play a complete asshole, it could be argued the Tony Way is a scene stealer in this film nailing the comedy every time in the film.
Story â The story here follows a man that starts dating his school crush, only to learn that she is only dating him to get to his money, where he decides to use this against her to get revenge. This story does put everything on the table early on which does give the story a nice spin on what we are used to seeing. It is nice to see a story where the victim gets to turn the tables, having fun knowing that the truth is only going to hurt them, seeing how far he can push things before breaking her. It would be fair the story doesnât paint love in a very god way, though it does show how difficult it can be to move on with life when you believe somebody is perfect for you.
Comedy â The comedy in the film will give you plenty of laughs, Tim gets most of the laughs, while Johnny is the one you laugh at the most.
Settings â The film gives us an everyday setting which shows how life can keep on going even if the big plan is going on in the background, no location is used for an iconic moment.
Scene of the Movie â Camping.
That Moment That Annoyed Me â The final moments.
Final Thoughts â This is a funny romantic comedy that gets to show just how life can go in different directions, it turns a gold digger character on its head too.
Overall: Funny comedy that will leave you laughing most of the time.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/24/for-love-or-money-2019/
Darren (1599 KP) rated King Kong (2005) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Thoughts on King Kong
Characters â Ann Darrow is a stage actress who has ben performing in an unsuccessful show for years until her theatre gets closed down, she is getting desperate to work with famous play write, only to find herself meeting a film director working with him. Ann jumps at the chance to have a paid gig, only this becomes more than she ever bargained for, when she becomes the object of King Kong affections on Skull Island. Carl Denham is a film director whose latest film isnât impressing his investors, he decides to run before having the whole projects plug pulled, taking his crew to an unknown island and even after the danger starts, he continues to film his evolving story. Jack Driscoll is the screenwriter that is trying to get back to his stage work, only to find that Carl has tricked him into remaining on the boat, forcing him to work on the screenplay, he starts to fall in love with Ann along the way too, willing to risk his own life to save hers. Kong is the feared ruler of Skull Island, he takes Ann as a sacrifice falling in love with the human on his island, he can fight any threat, including T-Rexes. He is the icon that we know from previous films bought to life once again.
Performances â Naomi Watts in the role made famous by Fay Wray, brings her own stamp to the role, handling the small comic moments very well through the film too. Jack Black might not have been many peopleâs first choice for the director role, but he proves a lot of people wrong with his performance, which still remains one of his best. Adrian Brody proves to be a great choice too because he gets to poke fun at the Hollywood stereotypes.
Story â The story here follows an ambitious director who takes his crew including a desperate young actress to Skull Island, a mysterious uncharted location only to find a land filled with unseen monsters including the king of the island Kong, who becomes friends with Ann the actress. This is the remake of the one of the classic films of the 1930s, it does tell the same story, only builds on everything to new levels, because back then, nobody knew how big movies were going to be, so this time we can look back at the movie building era, showing more of the conflicts between movies and theatre. The island is also much larger in scale with plenty of creatures which add to the story. we do even have small side stories which do work to fill the films lengthy 3 hour plus run time. We do get to see just how destructive the human can be to new worlds too.
Action/Adventure â The action in the film is massive, edge of the seat and most importantly brilliant to watch, be it the fights between creatures, monsters and humans, right down to the New York showdown with Kong. The adventure does take us to a new world, where we havenât seen the creatures before, or at least not this size. It shows the most dangerous side of the explorerâs journeys in the world.
Settings â The film does use two main settings, first New York which is re-created for the time period perfectly, the second is the island which is filled with the beauty and terror you would have come to expect from an unknown location
Special Effects â The effects are one of the biggest talking points of this film, first of all Kong looks fantastic, large amounts of the film looks brilliant, but that one chase scene will drag this down because it is such a weak point for the film.
Scene of the Movie â Kong versus the T-Rex.
That Moment That Annoyed Me â The canyon chase the CGI looks awful.
Final Thoughts â This is one of the remakes that works because of the improvement in technology, it is epic in scale and manages to capture the true feeling behind what made the original such a memorable movie.
Overall: Stunning remake that lives up to the scale of the movie.
Characters â Ann Darrow is a stage actress who has ben performing in an unsuccessful show for years until her theatre gets closed down, she is getting desperate to work with famous play write, only to find herself meeting a film director working with him. Ann jumps at the chance to have a paid gig, only this becomes more than she ever bargained for, when she becomes the object of King Kong affections on Skull Island. Carl Denham is a film director whose latest film isnât impressing his investors, he decides to run before having the whole projects plug pulled, taking his crew to an unknown island and even after the danger starts, he continues to film his evolving story. Jack Driscoll is the screenwriter that is trying to get back to his stage work, only to find that Carl has tricked him into remaining on the boat, forcing him to work on the screenplay, he starts to fall in love with Ann along the way too, willing to risk his own life to save hers. Kong is the feared ruler of Skull Island, he takes Ann as a sacrifice falling in love with the human on his island, he can fight any threat, including T-Rexes. He is the icon that we know from previous films bought to life once again.
Performances â Naomi Watts in the role made famous by Fay Wray, brings her own stamp to the role, handling the small comic moments very well through the film too. Jack Black might not have been many peopleâs first choice for the director role, but he proves a lot of people wrong with his performance, which still remains one of his best. Adrian Brody proves to be a great choice too because he gets to poke fun at the Hollywood stereotypes.
Story â The story here follows an ambitious director who takes his crew including a desperate young actress to Skull Island, a mysterious uncharted location only to find a land filled with unseen monsters including the king of the island Kong, who becomes friends with Ann the actress. This is the remake of the one of the classic films of the 1930s, it does tell the same story, only builds on everything to new levels, because back then, nobody knew how big movies were going to be, so this time we can look back at the movie building era, showing more of the conflicts between movies and theatre. The island is also much larger in scale with plenty of creatures which add to the story. we do even have small side stories which do work to fill the films lengthy 3 hour plus run time. We do get to see just how destructive the human can be to new worlds too.
Action/Adventure â The action in the film is massive, edge of the seat and most importantly brilliant to watch, be it the fights between creatures, monsters and humans, right down to the New York showdown with Kong. The adventure does take us to a new world, where we havenât seen the creatures before, or at least not this size. It shows the most dangerous side of the explorerâs journeys in the world.
Settings â The film does use two main settings, first New York which is re-created for the time period perfectly, the second is the island which is filled with the beauty and terror you would have come to expect from an unknown location
Special Effects â The effects are one of the biggest talking points of this film, first of all Kong looks fantastic, large amounts of the film looks brilliant, but that one chase scene will drag this down because it is such a weak point for the film.
Scene of the Movie â Kong versus the T-Rex.
That Moment That Annoyed Me â The canyon chase the CGI looks awful.
Final Thoughts â This is one of the remakes that works because of the improvement in technology, it is epic in scale and manages to capture the true feeling behind what made the original such a memorable movie.
Overall: Stunning remake that lives up to the scale of the movie.
Erika (17788 KP) rated The Green Knight (2020) in Movies
Aug 2, 2021
Green Knight, based upon the poem, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, does the poem justice. We join our relatively pure-hearted Sir Gawain (Dev Patel) on Christmas morning, as he wakes up in what appears to be a brothel. He rushes home to his Mother (Sarita Choudhury), to change for the Christmas Day feast with the aged King (Sean Harris). Mother is left behind as Gawain goes to the feast, and conjures the appearance of the Green Knight.
Gawain agrees to the Christmas game proposed by the Green Knight, so he can be knighted himself. The game is the same as the poem, a knight gives a blow to the Green Knight, and a year from that date, the knight will visit the Green Chapel so he can return the favor.
The year passes, and Gawain sets out on his quest. Mother gives him the gift of a green sash, that will protect him as he faces the journey and the Green Knight. He sets off on his trippy journey, encountering a scavenger (Barry Keoghan) along the way and is quickly delayed in his quest and left for dead, losing his green sash. After freeing himself, he sets out on his allegory-filled quest again, encountering St. Winifred (Erin Kellyman), giants, and is led by a fox to a castle near the Green Chapel.
The castle is where the film gets back on track with the poem. The Lord (Joel Egerton) shows kindness and hospitality, while his wife (Alicia Vikander), takes the role as temptress. Alicia Vikander plays both the Lady, and the prostitute that Gawain is in love with back home. Itâs understandably confusing for Gawain. The same deal is struck between the Lord and Gawain, while the Lord is away on the hunt, he will give Gawain everything he catches, while Gawain promises to give the Lord anything he receives at the castle. Gawain does not end up keeping the agreement as heâs seduced by the Lady and gets the green sash back. He escapes the castle and goes to the Green Chapel to finish the Christmas game. The end was very interesting, would Gawain choose to be courageous and maintain his honor, accepting death? Or would he be a coward, running away to be knighted, then subsequently become King? The ending was scary good.
My first thought after the film ended was that we finally got a film that did an Arthurian legend justice. I happened to be really into Arthuriana, so this film was such a treat. Though, I am left with some questions. Iâm not sure which sister Mother was supposed to be. Was Mother Morgaine or Morgause? I assume it was Morgause, but Mother was a little more witchy, so maybe Morgaine? I also donât know if in the film, the Green Knight was the Lord. The characters were played by two different actors, but the Lord is definitely supposed to be the Green Knight.
Another thing I did like is that I donât believe they ever called the King by his name, Arthur. This was a smart move, as the story was centralized on Sir Gawain, and not about Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table.
The one sore thumb for me was Alicia Vikander. Her accent when she was the prostitute, Essel, was horrid. I also think that character wasnât really needed at all because she was just annoying. The whole brothel situation itself was kind of lame because Gawain was supposed to be pure and innocent. The innocence being lost at the Castle was a major part of the poem.
Dev Patel was excellent as Gawain; I was entranced by him, and he kept my attention the entire film. I know there were grumblings about his casting, but seriously, this is a fantasy story. It also is not impossible for people of a different race to be present all over Europe. There once was this empire called Rome, that encompassed a very large area, and enabled people to travel around and settle in areas.
I had been looking forward to this film since March of 2020, and it completely delivered. I hope we get more films like this, rather than the barrage of big dumb action and comic book films. I canât wait to go see this film again!
Gawain agrees to the Christmas game proposed by the Green Knight, so he can be knighted himself. The game is the same as the poem, a knight gives a blow to the Green Knight, and a year from that date, the knight will visit the Green Chapel so he can return the favor.
The year passes, and Gawain sets out on his quest. Mother gives him the gift of a green sash, that will protect him as he faces the journey and the Green Knight. He sets off on his trippy journey, encountering a scavenger (Barry Keoghan) along the way and is quickly delayed in his quest and left for dead, losing his green sash. After freeing himself, he sets out on his allegory-filled quest again, encountering St. Winifred (Erin Kellyman), giants, and is led by a fox to a castle near the Green Chapel.
The castle is where the film gets back on track with the poem. The Lord (Joel Egerton) shows kindness and hospitality, while his wife (Alicia Vikander), takes the role as temptress. Alicia Vikander plays both the Lady, and the prostitute that Gawain is in love with back home. Itâs understandably confusing for Gawain. The same deal is struck between the Lord and Gawain, while the Lord is away on the hunt, he will give Gawain everything he catches, while Gawain promises to give the Lord anything he receives at the castle. Gawain does not end up keeping the agreement as heâs seduced by the Lady and gets the green sash back. He escapes the castle and goes to the Green Chapel to finish the Christmas game. The end was very interesting, would Gawain choose to be courageous and maintain his honor, accepting death? Or would he be a coward, running away to be knighted, then subsequently become King? The ending was scary good.
My first thought after the film ended was that we finally got a film that did an Arthurian legend justice. I happened to be really into Arthuriana, so this film was such a treat. Though, I am left with some questions. Iâm not sure which sister Mother was supposed to be. Was Mother Morgaine or Morgause? I assume it was Morgause, but Mother was a little more witchy, so maybe Morgaine? I also donât know if in the film, the Green Knight was the Lord. The characters were played by two different actors, but the Lord is definitely supposed to be the Green Knight.
Another thing I did like is that I donât believe they ever called the King by his name, Arthur. This was a smart move, as the story was centralized on Sir Gawain, and not about Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table.
The one sore thumb for me was Alicia Vikander. Her accent when she was the prostitute, Essel, was horrid. I also think that character wasnât really needed at all because she was just annoying. The whole brothel situation itself was kind of lame because Gawain was supposed to be pure and innocent. The innocence being lost at the Castle was a major part of the poem.
Dev Patel was excellent as Gawain; I was entranced by him, and he kept my attention the entire film. I know there were grumblings about his casting, but seriously, this is a fantasy story. It also is not impossible for people of a different race to be present all over Europe. There once was this empire called Rome, that encompassed a very large area, and enabled people to travel around and settle in areas.
I had been looking forward to this film since March of 2020, and it completely delivered. I hope we get more films like this, rather than the barrage of big dumb action and comic book films. I canât wait to go see this film again!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film that leaves you in two minds.
After all the terrible reviews of this movie (âThe Timesâ reviewer described it as âexcrebleâ which is harsh indeed) I was steeling myself to reach for my 1* rating. I was happy to find that it wasnât quite as bad as I was expecting it to be. Indeed parts of it were positively good fun.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who âwonât be missedâ⌠with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brockâs future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel âSpider-Man 3â. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production âwithâ Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as âtonally inconsistentââŚ. which is posh-critic language for âitâs fecking all over the placeâ! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like itâs decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an âitemâ. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (âDanâ from âVeepâ) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the âreally bad guyâ Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in âRogue Oneâ, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit âmonkeyâ as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no âmonkeyâ at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming âInto the Spider Verseâ cartoon feature tacked onto the end â at least of this Cineworld showing â which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig GĂśransson (whoâs previously done âBlack Pantherâ and âCreedâ): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddieâs theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical âdonât want to knowâ approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasnât nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who âwonât be missedâ⌠with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brockâs future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel âSpider-Man 3â. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production âwithâ Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as âtonally inconsistentââŚ. which is posh-critic language for âitâs fecking all over the placeâ! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like itâs decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an âitemâ. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (âDanâ from âVeepâ) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the âreally bad guyâ Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in âRogue Oneâ, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit âmonkeyâ as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no âmonkeyâ at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming âInto the Spider Verseâ cartoon feature tacked onto the end â at least of this Cineworld showing â which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig GĂśransson (whoâs previously done âBlack Pantherâ and âCreedâ): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddieâs theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical âdonât want to knowâ approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasnât nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Simple Favor (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A Dangerous Liaison.
Wow, this one starts spectacularly well! Whoâs not to love some âThomas Crownâ style titles over a French language version of âMusic to watch girls byâ? Brilliant!
We are then introduced to the hyper-annoying single mum Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick): someone so perky and goodie-two-shoes as a school helper that every other parent loathes her. What she does seem to have a talent for is filming cheesy âmomâs hints and tipsâ videos in her kitchen that she posts to her video blog.
Enter the polar opposite of Stephanie: the stylish, sophisticated, amoral and highly intimidating she-wolf called Emily (Blake Lively). On the excuse of play-dates between their sons, she seduces Stephanie with her swanky 5* lifestyle that she lives with her husband Sean (Henry Golding), a struggling writer. Given the oddness of the couple, there are more than a few hints â in line with the title of my review â that this is some kind of subtle grooming. But to what end?
How can someone so beautiful be so camera-shy? Anna Kendrick going for a cheeky snap of Blake Lively (and failing). (Source: GEM Entertainment).
When Emily suddenly goes missing without explanation, Sergeant Malloy (Andrew Moodie) has no shortage of suspects to investigate as Stephanie finds that she actually knew very little about the ghost-like Emily.
There is a surfeit of glossy style in Paul Feigâs film. Iâve already enthused about the opening titles. But the stylish french-language music â coordinated by Theodore Shapiro â continues throughout, reaching a peak with Serge Gainsbourgâs sublime âLaisse Tomber Les Fillesâ over the equally entertaining end-titles.
Sharing confessions. A âBFâ moment (and no⌠not âBest Friendsâ!). (Source: GEM Entertainment
But as a comedy thriller therâŚ.
âHANG ON A MINUTE DR BOB! WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? COMEDY THRILLER? I watched the trailer for this one, and itâs âGone Girlâ remade isnât it? It wasnât comedy! Even IMDB describe it as âCrime, Drama, Mysteryâ!â
Yes, quite, and therein lies the problem with this film. I found the trailers (the full trailer as well as the teaser trailer attached below) to be highly misleading about the âfeelâ of the film. The comedy is distributed throughout with some great comic put-downs (âPrudes are people tooâ coos Emily to Stephanie) and generally laugh-out-loud dialogue. So yes, it IS a âGone Girlâ or âThe Girl on the Trainâ wannabe⌠but itâs with added âlaffsâ. Now this revelation might make the film appeal to you much more than the trailer did. But in my book, âthrillerâ and âcomedyâ are not genres to comfortably share a bed and for me the film became increasingly inconsistent. This inconsistency built to a finale where all semblance of plot and reality seemed to go right out of the window⌠it could have been an improv episode or âWhoâs Line Is It Anyway?â.
The writer is Jessica Sharzer (who did the screenplay for âNerveâ which I very much liked). But I suspect the issue lies more with Paul Feigâs background in comedies (âBridesmaidsâ, âThe Heatâ, âSpyâ) and he couldnât resist spicing up the thriller with some out-of-place comedy. Which was a shame, since I really liked the overall thriller plot, and the dynamic built up between Kendrick and Lively.
Coming cleanâŚing. Anna Kendrick as an undercover mopper. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Blake Lively (Mrs Deadpool of course) is actually staggeringly good as the unfathomable and slightly deranged Emily, and even Kendrick â who seems to have had a run of very so-so movies recently â is entertainingly quirky in this one.
I also enjoyed the performance of Rupert Friend (probably best known as Peter Quinn in âHomelandâ) playing a vain and ego-centric fashion designer Dennis Nylon. Great fun.
Never trust a redhead. Emily being a-muse-ing. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Was I entertained? Yes I was, so I am tempted to recommend you seeing this rather than not. But I was also irritated in equal measureâŚ. I really felt from the opening scenes that this one had legs to make my Top 10 for the year. But no.
Please comment and let me know which side of the fence you sit on!
We are then introduced to the hyper-annoying single mum Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick): someone so perky and goodie-two-shoes as a school helper that every other parent loathes her. What she does seem to have a talent for is filming cheesy âmomâs hints and tipsâ videos in her kitchen that she posts to her video blog.
Enter the polar opposite of Stephanie: the stylish, sophisticated, amoral and highly intimidating she-wolf called Emily (Blake Lively). On the excuse of play-dates between their sons, she seduces Stephanie with her swanky 5* lifestyle that she lives with her husband Sean (Henry Golding), a struggling writer. Given the oddness of the couple, there are more than a few hints â in line with the title of my review â that this is some kind of subtle grooming. But to what end?
How can someone so beautiful be so camera-shy? Anna Kendrick going for a cheeky snap of Blake Lively (and failing). (Source: GEM Entertainment).
When Emily suddenly goes missing without explanation, Sergeant Malloy (Andrew Moodie) has no shortage of suspects to investigate as Stephanie finds that she actually knew very little about the ghost-like Emily.
There is a surfeit of glossy style in Paul Feigâs film. Iâve already enthused about the opening titles. But the stylish french-language music â coordinated by Theodore Shapiro â continues throughout, reaching a peak with Serge Gainsbourgâs sublime âLaisse Tomber Les Fillesâ over the equally entertaining end-titles.
Sharing confessions. A âBFâ moment (and no⌠not âBest Friendsâ!). (Source: GEM Entertainment
But as a comedy thriller therâŚ.
âHANG ON A MINUTE DR BOB! WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? COMEDY THRILLER? I watched the trailer for this one, and itâs âGone Girlâ remade isnât it? It wasnât comedy! Even IMDB describe it as âCrime, Drama, Mysteryâ!â
Yes, quite, and therein lies the problem with this film. I found the trailers (the full trailer as well as the teaser trailer attached below) to be highly misleading about the âfeelâ of the film. The comedy is distributed throughout with some great comic put-downs (âPrudes are people tooâ coos Emily to Stephanie) and generally laugh-out-loud dialogue. So yes, it IS a âGone Girlâ or âThe Girl on the Trainâ wannabe⌠but itâs with added âlaffsâ. Now this revelation might make the film appeal to you much more than the trailer did. But in my book, âthrillerâ and âcomedyâ are not genres to comfortably share a bed and for me the film became increasingly inconsistent. This inconsistency built to a finale where all semblance of plot and reality seemed to go right out of the window⌠it could have been an improv episode or âWhoâs Line Is It Anyway?â.
The writer is Jessica Sharzer (who did the screenplay for âNerveâ which I very much liked). But I suspect the issue lies more with Paul Feigâs background in comedies (âBridesmaidsâ, âThe Heatâ, âSpyâ) and he couldnât resist spicing up the thriller with some out-of-place comedy. Which was a shame, since I really liked the overall thriller plot, and the dynamic built up between Kendrick and Lively.
Coming cleanâŚing. Anna Kendrick as an undercover mopper. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Blake Lively (Mrs Deadpool of course) is actually staggeringly good as the unfathomable and slightly deranged Emily, and even Kendrick â who seems to have had a run of very so-so movies recently â is entertainingly quirky in this one.
I also enjoyed the performance of Rupert Friend (probably best known as Peter Quinn in âHomelandâ) playing a vain and ego-centric fashion designer Dennis Nylon. Great fun.
Never trust a redhead. Emily being a-muse-ing. (Source: GEM Entertainment).
Was I entertained? Yes I was, so I am tempted to recommend you seeing this rather than not. But I was also irritated in equal measureâŚ. I really felt from the opening scenes that this one had legs to make my Top 10 for the year. But no.
Please comment and let me know which side of the fence you sit on!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Book Club (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A book club without a spine.
Letâs be clear before we start; I am NOT in the demographic that this film is aimed at. And judging from the general reactions of the cinema audience I shared this with â 90%+ of who were women aged over 50 â my views are NOT going to necessarily reflect the general view, since there seemed to be quite a few satisfied customers in the audience. But my personal view would be, if youâre going to make a light-hearted comedy aimed at the lucrative silver pound, then at least make it a good one. For this â for me â felt like 50 shades of lame.
The action â if we can stretch the use of English that far â revolves around the four middle-class white ladies (this film challenges neither class nor racial divides) who meet periodically with copious quantities of wine and goat-cheese stuffed tomatoes to discuss a book. Hotel owner Vivian (Jane Fonda, âKluteâ, âOn Golden Pondâ) is making lots of love but is reluctant to commit to it herself; Diane (Diane Keaton, ââAnnie Hallâ, âSomethingâs Gotta Giveâ) is recently widowed and struggling against being pigeon-holed as an âold dufferâ by her two daughters; Sharon (Candice Bergen, âSoldier Blueâ, âMiss Congenialityâ) has devoted her life to her career as a high court judge at the expense of a physical relationship (âWhat happens to a vagina that hasnât been used in 18 years?!â); and Carol (Mary Steenburgen (âBack to the Future Part IIIâ) is in a sexless marriage with her recently retired husband Bruce (Craig T Nelson, âGet Hardâ, âPoltergeistâ).
Vivian introduces the book club to â50 Shades of Greyâ and the book influences everyoneâs lives in different ways.
What ensues is 100 minutes of double entendres (âYou have a lethargic pussyâ says a veterinarian⌠you get the level) as the four separate stories (bump and) grind towards their separate conclusions. There are one or too laugh-out-loud moments but the majority of the screenplay is merely smile-worthy: âMostly harmlessâ as Douglas Adams would have said.
What IS good, which is the reason my rating wonât have a â1â in it, is that it does give a reason to see some of our more senior actors and actresses strut their stuff again on the main stage.
In terms of the lead performances, while Steenburgen is good, it is Candice Bergen who impresses most as a fine comic actress. More please! Fonda and Don Johnson (âMiami Viceâ) were supposed to be a hot couple, but their acting to me appeared false and their chemistry non-existent: did they have a fight outside the trailer every morning? And Diane Keaton was⌠well⌠Diane Keaton: the ditzy old hippy shtick wore a bit thin for me by the end.
We also have appearances from the great Andy Garcia (âThe Godfather Part IIIâ, âOceans 11â), Wallace Shawn (just SOOooo good as the sleazy mob lawyer in âThe Good Wife/Fightâ) and (best of all) Richard Dreyfuss (âJawsâ, âClose Encounters of the Third Kindâ). Dreyfuss has merely a cameo, but I was just longing for more of his character.
Alicia Silverstone (âCluelessâ, âBatman & Robinâ) even turns up, but her character (together with her sister played by Katie Aselton) is so annoying and vacuous that itâs not easy to warm to her.
A standout â but not in a good way â is the special effects, with some of the dodgiest green screen work Iâve seen in many a year. Think âNorth by Northwestâ qualityâŚ.. but thatâs nearly 60 years old!
So, itâs not a film I would run to see again, but Iâm not going to pan it completely, since if you are of the demographic that enjoys such films, you may really enjoy this one. It reminds me somewhat of âItâs Complicatedâ â and thatâs one of my wifeâs personal favourites! It also addresses some key topics that will be of relevance to a senior audience, not normally addressed by movies: male impotence resulting from self-doubt; the need to keep a young and ever-inquiring mind; and the good times to be had by getting out and back in the game again after bereavement (yes, you know who you are and you know Iâm addressing YOU here!).
The action â if we can stretch the use of English that far â revolves around the four middle-class white ladies (this film challenges neither class nor racial divides) who meet periodically with copious quantities of wine and goat-cheese stuffed tomatoes to discuss a book. Hotel owner Vivian (Jane Fonda, âKluteâ, âOn Golden Pondâ) is making lots of love but is reluctant to commit to it herself; Diane (Diane Keaton, ââAnnie Hallâ, âSomethingâs Gotta Giveâ) is recently widowed and struggling against being pigeon-holed as an âold dufferâ by her two daughters; Sharon (Candice Bergen, âSoldier Blueâ, âMiss Congenialityâ) has devoted her life to her career as a high court judge at the expense of a physical relationship (âWhat happens to a vagina that hasnât been used in 18 years?!â); and Carol (Mary Steenburgen (âBack to the Future Part IIIâ) is in a sexless marriage with her recently retired husband Bruce (Craig T Nelson, âGet Hardâ, âPoltergeistâ).
Vivian introduces the book club to â50 Shades of Greyâ and the book influences everyoneâs lives in different ways.
What ensues is 100 minutes of double entendres (âYou have a lethargic pussyâ says a veterinarian⌠you get the level) as the four separate stories (bump and) grind towards their separate conclusions. There are one or too laugh-out-loud moments but the majority of the screenplay is merely smile-worthy: âMostly harmlessâ as Douglas Adams would have said.
What IS good, which is the reason my rating wonât have a â1â in it, is that it does give a reason to see some of our more senior actors and actresses strut their stuff again on the main stage.
In terms of the lead performances, while Steenburgen is good, it is Candice Bergen who impresses most as a fine comic actress. More please! Fonda and Don Johnson (âMiami Viceâ) were supposed to be a hot couple, but their acting to me appeared false and their chemistry non-existent: did they have a fight outside the trailer every morning? And Diane Keaton was⌠well⌠Diane Keaton: the ditzy old hippy shtick wore a bit thin for me by the end.
We also have appearances from the great Andy Garcia (âThe Godfather Part IIIâ, âOceans 11â), Wallace Shawn (just SOOooo good as the sleazy mob lawyer in âThe Good Wife/Fightâ) and (best of all) Richard Dreyfuss (âJawsâ, âClose Encounters of the Third Kindâ). Dreyfuss has merely a cameo, but I was just longing for more of his character.
Alicia Silverstone (âCluelessâ, âBatman & Robinâ) even turns up, but her character (together with her sister played by Katie Aselton) is so annoying and vacuous that itâs not easy to warm to her.
A standout â but not in a good way â is the special effects, with some of the dodgiest green screen work Iâve seen in many a year. Think âNorth by Northwestâ qualityâŚ.. but thatâs nearly 60 years old!
So, itâs not a film I would run to see again, but Iâm not going to pan it completely, since if you are of the demographic that enjoys such films, you may really enjoy this one. It reminds me somewhat of âItâs Complicatedâ â and thatâs one of my wifeâs personal favourites! It also addresses some key topics that will be of relevance to a senior audience, not normally addressed by movies: male impotence resulting from self-doubt; the need to keep a young and ever-inquiring mind; and the good times to be had by getting out and back in the game again after bereavement (yes, you know who you are and you know Iâm addressing YOU here!).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Fate of the Furious (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Blood is thicker than Diesel.
All work and no play makes bob-the-movie-man a tardy reviewer. Still, what better way to break the fast than with âFast and Furious 8â (aka âThe Fate of the Furiousâ)?
Well, quite a lot of things actually!
Now, I have a confession to make (and I know for some this will be the equivalent of an appalling statement like âIâve never seen Star Warsâ). I have actually never ever seen Fast and Furious 1 through 7! (If itâs any mitigation to this cinematic crime, I did see the F-and-F wannabe âNeed for Speedâ).
So I was going to be completely lost with the âplotâ right? Well actually, no. It was pretty easy to jump in and follow as a piece of popcorn nonsense.
The M25 water main burst was a real bitch for the Monday morning rush-hour.
For nonsense it is (hence the ârabbit earsâ round the word âplotâ above). The story isnât just a bit far-fetched. Itâs bat-shit crazy where the bat in question has downed a questionable vindaloo two hours earlier!
Dom (Vin Diesel) has turned on his âfamilyâ, including his squeeze, the lovely Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), and Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson, âSan Andreasâ), to team with the above-the-law (and above the clouds) cyber-super-terrorist Cipher (Charlize Theron, âMad Max: Fury Roadâ). They have teamed up, apparently, for no other reason than to allow Cipher to âkick some global assâ with a nuclear threat. But given his caring and sharing side, why the sudden betrayal of his nearest and dearest by Dom?
Ice Queen Metallica fan Theron, showing off her hardware.
Where do you begin with the nonsensical story? Jumping from Cuba (with some admittedly fun scenes, but shamelessly objectifying scantily-clad women) via Berlin and New York to the icy wastes of Siberia, itâs just an excuse to show fast cars doing ludicrously unlikely things. There is zero logic within any of the script. Here are just a handful of examples:
the team know (through enormous jumps of speculation) to be present at a particular location in the world and at exactly the time that Dom is there (arrive, look through binoculars, âOh, there he isâ!);
all cars can be automatically hijacked and remotely driven (who knew), but NOT those of the team (obviously);
fast cars/tanks/etc can be magicked from New York to Siberia (wot, no Hertz Siberia available?);
Russian nuclear codes are stolen, so obviously they canât be changed?
a nuclear submarine is out of the water on wooden blocks, but spin the propeller really REALLY fast and it can suddenly be sailing away.
Muscle for muscle it never looked like being a fair fight.
I appreciate I am being enormously po-faced about this, and this is designed as pure escapism. But is there REALLY any need for this to be such mindless escapism? The director (Gary Gray, âThe Italian Jobâ) and writer (Chris Morgan, responsible for parts 6 and 7) should credit their audience with rather more in the way of intelligence.
Diesel and Johnson are never going to set the acting ablaze, but Rodriquez (âLostâ) is as watchable as ever. Theron has fun with her villainy and the supporting turns by Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris are enjoyable. Nathalie Emmanuel though as Ramsey seems as uncomfortable with her âsexy Englishâ stereotype as she should be.
A long way from Brookside. Nathalie Emmanuel uncomfortable as âthe sexy oneâ.
Luke Evans (âThe Hobbitâ), Kurt Russell (âDeepwater Horizonâ) and Helen Mirren (âEye in the Skyâ) turn up in entertaining but underused cameos, but it is Jason Statham as Deckard that has the most fun in the whole film, and his scenes â done largely for comic effect â are the best part of the movie. (But âmathâ Jason? âMATHâ?? I hope your old maths teacher back in London doesnât get to see this film).
Parking enforcement by the City Council was getting more and more stringent.
If youâre willing to park your brain at the door for two hours then it has some fun moments. But I felt the damage to my IQ might not have been worth the risk, and this really didnât fill my cinematic tank.
Well, quite a lot of things actually!
Now, I have a confession to make (and I know for some this will be the equivalent of an appalling statement like âIâve never seen Star Warsâ). I have actually never ever seen Fast and Furious 1 through 7! (If itâs any mitigation to this cinematic crime, I did see the F-and-F wannabe âNeed for Speedâ).
So I was going to be completely lost with the âplotâ right? Well actually, no. It was pretty easy to jump in and follow as a piece of popcorn nonsense.
The M25 water main burst was a real bitch for the Monday morning rush-hour.
For nonsense it is (hence the ârabbit earsâ round the word âplotâ above). The story isnât just a bit far-fetched. Itâs bat-shit crazy where the bat in question has downed a questionable vindaloo two hours earlier!
Dom (Vin Diesel) has turned on his âfamilyâ, including his squeeze, the lovely Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), and Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson, âSan Andreasâ), to team with the above-the-law (and above the clouds) cyber-super-terrorist Cipher (Charlize Theron, âMad Max: Fury Roadâ). They have teamed up, apparently, for no other reason than to allow Cipher to âkick some global assâ with a nuclear threat. But given his caring and sharing side, why the sudden betrayal of his nearest and dearest by Dom?
Ice Queen Metallica fan Theron, showing off her hardware.
Where do you begin with the nonsensical story? Jumping from Cuba (with some admittedly fun scenes, but shamelessly objectifying scantily-clad women) via Berlin and New York to the icy wastes of Siberia, itâs just an excuse to show fast cars doing ludicrously unlikely things. There is zero logic within any of the script. Here are just a handful of examples:
the team know (through enormous jumps of speculation) to be present at a particular location in the world and at exactly the time that Dom is there (arrive, look through binoculars, âOh, there he isâ!);
all cars can be automatically hijacked and remotely driven (who knew), but NOT those of the team (obviously);
fast cars/tanks/etc can be magicked from New York to Siberia (wot, no Hertz Siberia available?);
Russian nuclear codes are stolen, so obviously they canât be changed?
a nuclear submarine is out of the water on wooden blocks, but spin the propeller really REALLY fast and it can suddenly be sailing away.
Muscle for muscle it never looked like being a fair fight.
I appreciate I am being enormously po-faced about this, and this is designed as pure escapism. But is there REALLY any need for this to be such mindless escapism? The director (Gary Gray, âThe Italian Jobâ) and writer (Chris Morgan, responsible for parts 6 and 7) should credit their audience with rather more in the way of intelligence.
Diesel and Johnson are never going to set the acting ablaze, but Rodriquez (âLostâ) is as watchable as ever. Theron has fun with her villainy and the supporting turns by Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris are enjoyable. Nathalie Emmanuel though as Ramsey seems as uncomfortable with her âsexy Englishâ stereotype as she should be.
A long way from Brookside. Nathalie Emmanuel uncomfortable as âthe sexy oneâ.
Luke Evans (âThe Hobbitâ), Kurt Russell (âDeepwater Horizonâ) and Helen Mirren (âEye in the Skyâ) turn up in entertaining but underused cameos, but it is Jason Statham as Deckard that has the most fun in the whole film, and his scenes â done largely for comic effect â are the best part of the movie. (But âmathâ Jason? âMATHâ?? I hope your old maths teacher back in London doesnât get to see this film).
Parking enforcement by the City Council was getting more and more stringent.
If youâre willing to park your brain at the door for two hours then it has some fun moments. But I felt the damage to my IQ might not have been worth the risk, and this really didnât fill my cinematic tank.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) in Movies
Sep 30, 2021
Venom: Let There Be Carnage Has Some Moments But Could Have Been So Much More
When audiences last saw Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy); the journalist and his parasitic symbiote Venom; had just saved the day and cemented their unusual bond with one another.
In the new film âVenom: Let There Be Carnageâ; Eddie and Venom are at the end of their Honeymoon phase as Venom is lingering to be free to eat bad people and do what is natural for him. Eddie meanwhile wants a more conservative approach feeding Venom chicken and chocolate as he knows the eyes of the authorities are still upon him and he has to convince the world that Venom is dead and no longer a threat.
At the same time; serial killer Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson) has selected Eddie to interview him in San Quentin and the two form an unusual connection as Cletus cryptically speaks to Eddie which underlines a deeper motivation.
With the help of Venom; Eddie is able to decipher clues found on the walls of Cletusâs cell which leads authorities to several of his victims. This results in a rapid rise in status for Eddie and fast tracks Cletus for execution as his main means of leverage is now gone.
This leads to a rift where Eddie and Venom split and each has to struggle to adjust to life without one another.
At this point, the film has mainly been odd bits of whimsy between Venom and Eddie around the establishment of the plot and threat. However, things go into chaos mode when Cletus becomes infected with a Symbiote and turns into a destruction spewing death machine known as âCarnageâ.
Cletus and Carnage both have their own agendas and Cletus uses Carnage to exact his revenge as well as locate a figure from his past that is as big a danger as he is.
As any fan of films of this genre knows; this scenario leads to a showdown between the central characters which are awash in abundant CGI, loud noises, and destruction. While this is not a bad thing and certainly one of the main reasons I enjoy films of this type; the film never seemed to fully click for me and as such was not as good as I thought it could have been.
In many ways, the film reminded me of how comic-based films were done before Marvel started their own studios and their phenomenal run of hits based on their work.
There have been multiple attempts to adapt comics into films over the last few decades and many of them have not lived up to expectations or failed outright. One of the biggest reasons is in my opinion is that those behind the projects were hindered by the studio, wanted to put their own spin on the material and strayed from the source; or failed to show the attributes that made the characters so appealing to fans.
What we often get is action sequences and CGI galore but without stories or characters that fully draw in the audience and fail to capture the essence of the comics.
Director Andy Serkis has done a great job with the visuals of the film but the tone seems off. The early part of the film is filled with comedic moments that are either hit or miss. Some of which was almost to the point where I wondered if it was supposed to be a parody.
The plot is fairly linear with nothing unexpected as it is simply bad guys get loose; bad guys cause death and destruction, can the heroes stop them. The climactic scene lacks any âwowâ moments for me as it was mainly CGI characters rapidly moving around causing damage to one another and their environment. There was no real tension for me and the ultimate resolution seemed a bit anti-climactic.
For me the best moment of the film was a mid-credits scene that really popped as it sets up all sorts of interesting options and indicates that Venom may be about to graduate to bigger and better things.
For now; the cast is solid as is the CGI; I just wish the story was more engaging as it had the potential to be so much more.
3 stars out of 5
In the new film âVenom: Let There Be Carnageâ; Eddie and Venom are at the end of their Honeymoon phase as Venom is lingering to be free to eat bad people and do what is natural for him. Eddie meanwhile wants a more conservative approach feeding Venom chicken and chocolate as he knows the eyes of the authorities are still upon him and he has to convince the world that Venom is dead and no longer a threat.
At the same time; serial killer Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson) has selected Eddie to interview him in San Quentin and the two form an unusual connection as Cletus cryptically speaks to Eddie which underlines a deeper motivation.
With the help of Venom; Eddie is able to decipher clues found on the walls of Cletusâs cell which leads authorities to several of his victims. This results in a rapid rise in status for Eddie and fast tracks Cletus for execution as his main means of leverage is now gone.
This leads to a rift where Eddie and Venom split and each has to struggle to adjust to life without one another.
At this point, the film has mainly been odd bits of whimsy between Venom and Eddie around the establishment of the plot and threat. However, things go into chaos mode when Cletus becomes infected with a Symbiote and turns into a destruction spewing death machine known as âCarnageâ.
Cletus and Carnage both have their own agendas and Cletus uses Carnage to exact his revenge as well as locate a figure from his past that is as big a danger as he is.
As any fan of films of this genre knows; this scenario leads to a showdown between the central characters which are awash in abundant CGI, loud noises, and destruction. While this is not a bad thing and certainly one of the main reasons I enjoy films of this type; the film never seemed to fully click for me and as such was not as good as I thought it could have been.
In many ways, the film reminded me of how comic-based films were done before Marvel started their own studios and their phenomenal run of hits based on their work.
There have been multiple attempts to adapt comics into films over the last few decades and many of them have not lived up to expectations or failed outright. One of the biggest reasons is in my opinion is that those behind the projects were hindered by the studio, wanted to put their own spin on the material and strayed from the source; or failed to show the attributes that made the characters so appealing to fans.
What we often get is action sequences and CGI galore but without stories or characters that fully draw in the audience and fail to capture the essence of the comics.
Director Andy Serkis has done a great job with the visuals of the film but the tone seems off. The early part of the film is filled with comedic moments that are either hit or miss. Some of which was almost to the point where I wondered if it was supposed to be a parody.
The plot is fairly linear with nothing unexpected as it is simply bad guys get loose; bad guys cause death and destruction, can the heroes stop them. The climactic scene lacks any âwowâ moments for me as it was mainly CGI characters rapidly moving around causing damage to one another and their environment. There was no real tension for me and the ultimate resolution seemed a bit anti-climactic.
For me the best moment of the film was a mid-credits scene that really popped as it sets up all sorts of interesting options and indicates that Venom may be about to graduate to bigger and better things.
For now; the cast is solid as is the CGI; I just wish the story was more engaging as it had the potential to be so much more.
3 stars out of 5
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) Feb 13, 2020
Kevin Phillipson (9946 KP) Feb 14, 2020