Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pacific Rim: Uprising (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Absolutely Bonkers
2013’s Pacific Rim was one of the most underrated films of the year. Lumbered in the same category as the Transformers series for its seemingly simple premise about robots fighting giant monsters, it had a lukewarm performance at the box office.
For those movie buffs reading this, you’ll of course know the film was directed by the Oscar-winning Guillermo Del Toro and with that came his signature quirks and visual sense of style. Oh yes, Pacific Rim was much more than a mish-mash of action.
A sequel looked very unlikely given the mediocre reception it received and then Del Toro passed on the idea altogether, instead focusing on the film that earned him a Best Director award at this year’s Oscars, The Shape of Water. I’m not going to pretend that was the wrong decision because it clearly wasn’t.
Nevertheless, Universal and Legendary pictures, with help from Del Toro handpicked little-known director Steven S. DeKnight to helm this second instalment in the new series, Pacific Rim: Uprising. It’s taken five years and $150million to get here. Was it worth it?
Jake Pentecost (John Boyega) is a once-promising Jaeger pilot whose legendary father gave his life to secure humanity’s victory against the monstrous Kaiju. Jake has since abandoned his training only to become caught up in a criminal underworld. But when an even more unstoppable threat is unleashed to tear through cities and bring the world to its knees, Jake is given one last chance by his estranged sister, Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi), to live up to his father’s legacy.
Coming hot off the heels of his performance in Star Wars: The Last Jedi, John Boyega channels his franchise father, Idris Elba, reasonably well and his estranged relationship with the former jaeger pilot is discussed, albeit briefly. Boyega is still discovering himself as a leading star and it’s films like Pacific Rim and Star Wars that he continues to impress in.
Here, he plays a cocky, arrogant young man who has lost his way until he’s given a second chance by returnee Mako (Kikuchi). It’s nice to see her and both Charlie Day’s Newton Geiszler and Burn Gorman’s Hermann Gottlieb return to this new series.
The inclusion of the film’s previous stars doesn’t feel unnecessarily shoe-horned in and this is a welcome change to many other films that try the same trick. Gorman and Day in particular provide some decent comic relief throughout. The weakest link over the course of the film is Scott Eastwood’s Ranger Lambert. His forced backstory with Boyega’s Pentecost isn’t particularly engaging.
The finale is punch-the-air fun and beautifully filmed in and around Tokyo
Setting the action a decade after the events of the first film is a good way to freshen things up and Uprising feels all the better for it. The world is continuing to recover from the previous war and this change in atmosphere lends a new dynamic to the film. It certainly looks and sounds a lot like its predecessor, but Uprising is a very different beast, both in storytelling and the way it presents that story.
Where Pacific Rimwas a paint-by-numbers adventure transformed by Del Toro’s stunning visual acuity, Uprising is a well-plotted movie that lacks its previous director’s soft touch. Director Steven S. DeKnight rightly carves his own path with the visuals but sometimes this is at the cost of the charm that made the original such an unexpected delight. The plot is actually much better than that of its predecessor with numerous twists and turns that create a fun atmosphere for the audience, but with four writers working on it, you’d expect nothing less.
There are some Del-Toro-isms still present however and these remind us that this is very much more than a Michael Bay Transformers film. The special effects are excellent and with De Knight’s decision to film as much as possible during the day (a stark contrast to Del Toro) there really is nowhere to hide. The jaegers and Kaiju are all as detailed as you would expect from a movie costing $150million.
At 111 minutes, Pacific Rim: Uprising zips along briskly and rarely leaves you wanting. The finale is punch-the-air fun and beautifully filmed in and around Tokyo. It may be a cynical marketing ploy to set portions of the film in Japan and China in order to appease international audiences, but it does lend itself to some lovely scenery.
Overall, Pacific Rim: Uprising is a film that manages to build upon its predecessor’s strong foundations, yet still manages to feel very much part of its universe. Sequels, especially to films that don’t perform well are risky business as movie studios try to save as much cash as possible, but thankfully Uprising is a fully-realised and confidently filmed second instalment. It’s loud, brash and completely unashamed of what it tries to be, but sometimes that’s all you want from a visit to the cinema. Call it Classy Transformers and you won’t be far from spot on.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/24/pacific-rim-uprising-absolutely-bonkers/
For those movie buffs reading this, you’ll of course know the film was directed by the Oscar-winning Guillermo Del Toro and with that came his signature quirks and visual sense of style. Oh yes, Pacific Rim was much more than a mish-mash of action.
A sequel looked very unlikely given the mediocre reception it received and then Del Toro passed on the idea altogether, instead focusing on the film that earned him a Best Director award at this year’s Oscars, The Shape of Water. I’m not going to pretend that was the wrong decision because it clearly wasn’t.
Nevertheless, Universal and Legendary pictures, with help from Del Toro handpicked little-known director Steven S. DeKnight to helm this second instalment in the new series, Pacific Rim: Uprising. It’s taken five years and $150million to get here. Was it worth it?
Jake Pentecost (John Boyega) is a once-promising Jaeger pilot whose legendary father gave his life to secure humanity’s victory against the monstrous Kaiju. Jake has since abandoned his training only to become caught up in a criminal underworld. But when an even more unstoppable threat is unleashed to tear through cities and bring the world to its knees, Jake is given one last chance by his estranged sister, Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi), to live up to his father’s legacy.
Coming hot off the heels of his performance in Star Wars: The Last Jedi, John Boyega channels his franchise father, Idris Elba, reasonably well and his estranged relationship with the former jaeger pilot is discussed, albeit briefly. Boyega is still discovering himself as a leading star and it’s films like Pacific Rim and Star Wars that he continues to impress in.
Here, he plays a cocky, arrogant young man who has lost his way until he’s given a second chance by returnee Mako (Kikuchi). It’s nice to see her and both Charlie Day’s Newton Geiszler and Burn Gorman’s Hermann Gottlieb return to this new series.
The inclusion of the film’s previous stars doesn’t feel unnecessarily shoe-horned in and this is a welcome change to many other films that try the same trick. Gorman and Day in particular provide some decent comic relief throughout. The weakest link over the course of the film is Scott Eastwood’s Ranger Lambert. His forced backstory with Boyega’s Pentecost isn’t particularly engaging.
The finale is punch-the-air fun and beautifully filmed in and around Tokyo
Setting the action a decade after the events of the first film is a good way to freshen things up and Uprising feels all the better for it. The world is continuing to recover from the previous war and this change in atmosphere lends a new dynamic to the film. It certainly looks and sounds a lot like its predecessor, but Uprising is a very different beast, both in storytelling and the way it presents that story.
Where Pacific Rimwas a paint-by-numbers adventure transformed by Del Toro’s stunning visual acuity, Uprising is a well-plotted movie that lacks its previous director’s soft touch. Director Steven S. DeKnight rightly carves his own path with the visuals but sometimes this is at the cost of the charm that made the original such an unexpected delight. The plot is actually much better than that of its predecessor with numerous twists and turns that create a fun atmosphere for the audience, but with four writers working on it, you’d expect nothing less.
There are some Del-Toro-isms still present however and these remind us that this is very much more than a Michael Bay Transformers film. The special effects are excellent and with De Knight’s decision to film as much as possible during the day (a stark contrast to Del Toro) there really is nowhere to hide. The jaegers and Kaiju are all as detailed as you would expect from a movie costing $150million.
At 111 minutes, Pacific Rim: Uprising zips along briskly and rarely leaves you wanting. The finale is punch-the-air fun and beautifully filmed in and around Tokyo. It may be a cynical marketing ploy to set portions of the film in Japan and China in order to appease international audiences, but it does lend itself to some lovely scenery.
Overall, Pacific Rim: Uprising is a film that manages to build upon its predecessor’s strong foundations, yet still manages to feel very much part of its universe. Sequels, especially to films that don’t perform well are risky business as movie studios try to save as much cash as possible, but thankfully Uprising is a fully-realised and confidently filmed second instalment. It’s loud, brash and completely unashamed of what it tries to be, but sometimes that’s all you want from a visit to the cinema. Call it Classy Transformers and you won’t be far from spot on.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/24/pacific-rim-uprising-absolutely-bonkers/
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Surgeon (Rizzoli & Isles, #1) in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<b>Trigger warning:</b> this book is heavily focused on sexual assault and rape.
This novel is certainly very captivating. I found it difficult to put it down once I had picked it up! I loved the crime and mysterious criminal and I loved the pace of it all. Sometimes, these crime novels can burst with excitement for one second, and then fizzle out until the last few pages, or, completely the opposite of that, be total non-stop action, but feel really over the top and unrealistic. This, on the other hand, had a great mix of action and downtime.
I loved the setting for this, it felt so retro with its mention of floppy disks, pagers, and cassette tapes! This whole book was really well described and brought to life. It felt so real, you completely lost yourselves in the characters worlds. The horror of each murder and plot reveal really grabs you by the throat and give you goosebumps. There’s no escaping the terror in this one.
As for the crime, this one is certainly unique… and gruesome! If you’re like me, and don’t like the thought of surgery or human anatomy, then this will certainly be a struggle to read as it contains many in-depth scenes where we’re walked through what’s happening on the inside of the body. That certainly made it a little hard for me to read because I have this slight fear of our insides and all descriptions of it, but I was too intrigued as to who the killer was, to put it down. While not a particularly twisty turny story, there are plenty of characters in this novel to keep you guessing on who the real killer is.
This always seems to happen to me, but I just can’t seem to get on with female detectives in these kinds of series. Rizzoli wasn’t the worst I have come across, but she still got on my nerves. I’m well aware the message this book was trying to put across was all to do with a “woman in a man’s world”, and I can feel for Rizzoli, it would be hard to be taken seriously in a homicide department in 2001 as a woman… But!!! It was not necessary for her to act as though every single man she encountered was an enemy, needing to be destroyed and put in his place. If she wanted to be taken so seriously as a woman, I’m surprised she couldn’t utter the word “tampon” and described it as being a “disgusting object”. (I have seen this point mentioned by other reviewers and some have said the “fear” of tampons could be a generational thing).
I also wasn’t a fan of the underlying tone this book had, that “all men are capable of evil”. <i>Everyone</i> is capable of evil, why were only men being targeted in this book? Now, I don’t want to sound anti-feminist or something with me saying all this stuff, but I felt the book was a bit radical with some of it’s points about men being raping, murdering bastards. Again, I would like to put my hands up and say I’m <i>really</i> not trying to trivialise or undermine rape “victims” (I prefer the term survivors myself) because I’m close to several, I know how much it fucks them up, but I did feel like this book was a bit heavy hitting towards the male gender as a whole, rather than to the select few scumbags who do that sort of thing <i>(just to rehash this point, I’m not some kind of rape apologist, I just didn’t feel the book needed to be so anti-man).</i>
Another problem I had with this book was sometimes it seemed to have an undermining stance on rape, calling it a woman’s “shameful secret” as though it was their own fault they had been abused in this way. There was also a moment where Rizzoli called herself a “victim of The Surgeon” because she had fucked up part of the investigation, which I thought was completely inappropriate. Comparing a job related incident that was your own fault to being kidnapped and raped is just disgusting. <i>That</i> really got on my nerves. Another thing that grated on me was the overuse of the word “victim” when it came to the rape survivors, but I can imagine that’s more to do with the time this book came out than anything else.
Also!!! (<b>Not a spoiler</b>) There is a disgusting comment on suicide nearer the end of the novel, where Rizzoli calls a man who killed himself a “loser who ate his gun” and “pathetic enough to blow his own brains out”.
Even after having those couple of issues with this novel, I still enjoyed it enough to finish it but I won’t forget the offensiveness of it. I’m going to give myself a break from this series for a month or so, just to really review whether use want to continue with writing I find so problematic. If any of you have gone on to read more of this series, please let me know if it gets any better by not taking digs at traumatised women and mental illness.
This novel is certainly very captivating. I found it difficult to put it down once I had picked it up! I loved the crime and mysterious criminal and I loved the pace of it all. Sometimes, these crime novels can burst with excitement for one second, and then fizzle out until the last few pages, or, completely the opposite of that, be total non-stop action, but feel really over the top and unrealistic. This, on the other hand, had a great mix of action and downtime.
I loved the setting for this, it felt so retro with its mention of floppy disks, pagers, and cassette tapes! This whole book was really well described and brought to life. It felt so real, you completely lost yourselves in the characters worlds. The horror of each murder and plot reveal really grabs you by the throat and give you goosebumps. There’s no escaping the terror in this one.
As for the crime, this one is certainly unique… and gruesome! If you’re like me, and don’t like the thought of surgery or human anatomy, then this will certainly be a struggle to read as it contains many in-depth scenes where we’re walked through what’s happening on the inside of the body. That certainly made it a little hard for me to read because I have this slight fear of our insides and all descriptions of it, but I was too intrigued as to who the killer was, to put it down. While not a particularly twisty turny story, there are plenty of characters in this novel to keep you guessing on who the real killer is.
This always seems to happen to me, but I just can’t seem to get on with female detectives in these kinds of series. Rizzoli wasn’t the worst I have come across, but she still got on my nerves. I’m well aware the message this book was trying to put across was all to do with a “woman in a man’s world”, and I can feel for Rizzoli, it would be hard to be taken seriously in a homicide department in 2001 as a woman… But!!! It was not necessary for her to act as though every single man she encountered was an enemy, needing to be destroyed and put in his place. If she wanted to be taken so seriously as a woman, I’m surprised she couldn’t utter the word “tampon” and described it as being a “disgusting object”. (I have seen this point mentioned by other reviewers and some have said the “fear” of tampons could be a generational thing).
I also wasn’t a fan of the underlying tone this book had, that “all men are capable of evil”. <i>Everyone</i> is capable of evil, why were only men being targeted in this book? Now, I don’t want to sound anti-feminist or something with me saying all this stuff, but I felt the book was a bit radical with some of it’s points about men being raping, murdering bastards. Again, I would like to put my hands up and say I’m <i>really</i> not trying to trivialise or undermine rape “victims” (I prefer the term survivors myself) because I’m close to several, I know how much it fucks them up, but I did feel like this book was a bit heavy hitting towards the male gender as a whole, rather than to the select few scumbags who do that sort of thing <i>(just to rehash this point, I’m not some kind of rape apologist, I just didn’t feel the book needed to be so anti-man).</i>
Another problem I had with this book was sometimes it seemed to have an undermining stance on rape, calling it a woman’s “shameful secret” as though it was their own fault they had been abused in this way. There was also a moment where Rizzoli called herself a “victim of The Surgeon” because she had fucked up part of the investigation, which I thought was completely inappropriate. Comparing a job related incident that was your own fault to being kidnapped and raped is just disgusting. <i>That</i> really got on my nerves. Another thing that grated on me was the overuse of the word “victim” when it came to the rape survivors, but I can imagine that’s more to do with the time this book came out than anything else.
Also!!! (<b>Not a spoiler</b>) There is a disgusting comment on suicide nearer the end of the novel, where Rizzoli calls a man who killed himself a “loser who ate his gun” and “pathetic enough to blow his own brains out”.
Even after having those couple of issues with this novel, I still enjoyed it enough to finish it but I won’t forget the offensiveness of it. I’m going to give myself a break from this series for a month or so, just to really review whether use want to continue with writing I find so problematic. If any of you have gone on to read more of this series, please let me know if it gets any better by not taking digs at traumatised women and mental illness.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 22 Jump Street (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 22 Jump Street starts by filling us in on what happened in the last film like a previous episode. We watch Schmidt (Hill) and Jenko (Tatum) as they try take down a criminal The Ghost (Stormare) but much like the first one, things go slightly wrong. Jenko and Schmidt have to go to college undercover to uncover the latest drug craze. The two go through the opposite direction to the previous film and we get to see how they react to their reverse situations.
team
22 Jump Street uses the first ten minutes poking fun at the idea of a sequel, including talking about doubling the budget, how they got lucky first time after everyone thought the idea would fail. It also forced to tell the same story as well as actually having an upgraded office called 22 Jump Street with 23 Jump Street opening next door. We continue to get plenty of ‘it is a sequel’ jokes through the film so much so that it feels like a glorified extended version of a television show. it is full of jokes, action and personally I think the story is so easy to watch and laugh along with it could be the best I have seen in years. (9/10)
Actor Review
Jonah Hill: Schmidt big guy to the comedy double act who ends up going through the same problems of not fitting in as Jenko did through the first film. Schmidt gets romantically involved with a Maya a girl on campus who turns out to be Captain Dickson’s daughter. Jonah gives a great performance showing that he really has great comical timing. (9/10)
scmidt
Channing Tatum: Jenko muscle of the comedy double act who finds himself in college finally getting a chance to fit in much like his time through high school first time. He gets a chance to live a different life which he never got a chance too with his connection with the football team, but his age will catch up with him. Channing gives a great performance showing he is just a muscle man he has comic timing too. (9/10)
channing
Peter Stormare: The Ghost drug deal the couple are after at first before he escapes, only to get into battle with him again once they uncover the truth about the supply at the college. Peter gives a solid performance giving his typical villain role. (7/10)
Wyatt Russell: Zook student that becomes good friends with Jenko, helping him get into the good with the sports team. The clues point to Zook but after thinking about the clues they realize they are reading things incorrectly about the fun loving footballer. Wyatt gives a good performance who has good chemistry with Channing. (8/10)
Amber Stevens: Maya student who befriends Schmidt and takes him down the calmer side of the college experience. After we are told she is the daughter of the Captain the comedy level raises. Amber gives a solid supporting performance. (6/10)
maya
Support Cast: 22 Jump Street has a whole host of supporting characters who all give extra laughs, be in the Captain and his protection of his daughter or the jock who wants to take down the goal posts. They all add laughs the main characters work with.
Director Review: Phil Lord, Christopher Miller – Phil & Christopher direct this film almost perfectly to take the piss out of the idea it is a sequel and that the first one was successful after many other television shows turned films have bombed. (9/10)
Action: 22 Jump Street has good action with chases trying not to break anything while the villains smash everything. (8/10)
Comedy: 22 Jump Street is one of the best comedies I have seen in years, it offers plenty of puns that take the piss out of the idea of it being a sequel. (10/10)
Crime: 22 Jump Street focuses a lot of trying to solve the crime while undercover which works nicely for it. (8/10)
Chemistry: 22 Jump Street has some great chemistry between Jonah and Channing who create one of the best comedy duos in buddy cop history. (10/10)
Settings: 22 Jump Street moves to college which works as the actors are older and it pokes fun that they would have looked way too old for high school. (9/10)
Suggestion: 22 Jump Street is a must watch, you don’t even need to see the first one as it recaps you with a previously at the start. (Watch)
Best Part in 22 Jump Street: Chase for the campus.car
Worst Part in 22 Jump Street: I would say the supporting characters are slightly too stereotyped.
Best Action Scene In 22 Jump Street: Chase through the campus.
Funniest Scene in 22 Jump Street: The moment Captain Dickson finds out about Schmidt and his daughter.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Yeah could have one.
Post Credits Scene: Jokes about what sequels could be in the future.
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $331 Million
Budget: $50 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 52 Minutes
Tagline: These undercover cops are going to party like it’s their job
Overall: A Must Watch Comedy
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/12/22/22-jump-street-2014/
team
22 Jump Street uses the first ten minutes poking fun at the idea of a sequel, including talking about doubling the budget, how they got lucky first time after everyone thought the idea would fail. It also forced to tell the same story as well as actually having an upgraded office called 22 Jump Street with 23 Jump Street opening next door. We continue to get plenty of ‘it is a sequel’ jokes through the film so much so that it feels like a glorified extended version of a television show. it is full of jokes, action and personally I think the story is so easy to watch and laugh along with it could be the best I have seen in years. (9/10)
Actor Review
Jonah Hill: Schmidt big guy to the comedy double act who ends up going through the same problems of not fitting in as Jenko did through the first film. Schmidt gets romantically involved with a Maya a girl on campus who turns out to be Captain Dickson’s daughter. Jonah gives a great performance showing that he really has great comical timing. (9/10)
scmidt
Channing Tatum: Jenko muscle of the comedy double act who finds himself in college finally getting a chance to fit in much like his time through high school first time. He gets a chance to live a different life which he never got a chance too with his connection with the football team, but his age will catch up with him. Channing gives a great performance showing he is just a muscle man he has comic timing too. (9/10)
channing
Peter Stormare: The Ghost drug deal the couple are after at first before he escapes, only to get into battle with him again once they uncover the truth about the supply at the college. Peter gives a solid performance giving his typical villain role. (7/10)
Wyatt Russell: Zook student that becomes good friends with Jenko, helping him get into the good with the sports team. The clues point to Zook but after thinking about the clues they realize they are reading things incorrectly about the fun loving footballer. Wyatt gives a good performance who has good chemistry with Channing. (8/10)
Amber Stevens: Maya student who befriends Schmidt and takes him down the calmer side of the college experience. After we are told she is the daughter of the Captain the comedy level raises. Amber gives a solid supporting performance. (6/10)
maya
Support Cast: 22 Jump Street has a whole host of supporting characters who all give extra laughs, be in the Captain and his protection of his daughter or the jock who wants to take down the goal posts. They all add laughs the main characters work with.
Director Review: Phil Lord, Christopher Miller – Phil & Christopher direct this film almost perfectly to take the piss out of the idea it is a sequel and that the first one was successful after many other television shows turned films have bombed. (9/10)
Action: 22 Jump Street has good action with chases trying not to break anything while the villains smash everything. (8/10)
Comedy: 22 Jump Street is one of the best comedies I have seen in years, it offers plenty of puns that take the piss out of the idea of it being a sequel. (10/10)
Crime: 22 Jump Street focuses a lot of trying to solve the crime while undercover which works nicely for it. (8/10)
Chemistry: 22 Jump Street has some great chemistry between Jonah and Channing who create one of the best comedy duos in buddy cop history. (10/10)
Settings: 22 Jump Street moves to college which works as the actors are older and it pokes fun that they would have looked way too old for high school. (9/10)
Suggestion: 22 Jump Street is a must watch, you don’t even need to see the first one as it recaps you with a previously at the start. (Watch)
Best Part in 22 Jump Street: Chase for the campus.car
Worst Part in 22 Jump Street: I would say the supporting characters are slightly too stereotyped.
Best Action Scene In 22 Jump Street: Chase through the campus.
Funniest Scene in 22 Jump Street: The moment Captain Dickson finds out about Schmidt and his daughter.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Yeah could have one.
Post Credits Scene: Jokes about what sequels could be in the future.
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $331 Million
Budget: $50 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 52 Minutes
Tagline: These undercover cops are going to party like it’s their job
Overall: A Must Watch Comedy
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/12/22/22-jump-street-2014/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Before you read this review of Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw, I just want you to know that I can’t stand this franchise. I gave up keeping up with them after Furious 7 and felt like the Fast & Furious franchise peaked/was tolerable around Fast Five and never really went anywhere worthwhile before or since. I have not seen all the films and really only seemed to watch every other entry, but whether you’re in a heist or a drag race that lethal dose of masculinity being projectile vomited all over you by an entire cast (women included) for two hours straight is dull and tiresome. In fact, just call this franchise “Dull & Tiresome” from here on out and I doubt anyone would notice. It’s even got “tire” in there for car…stuff.
Ignoring the fact that screenwriters Chris Morgan (writer of every Fast and Furious entry since Tokyo Drift) and Drew Pearce (writer and director of the flop known as Hotel Artemis) were involved, I actually like David Leitch’s work (co-director of John Wick, director of Deadpool 2 and Atomic Blonde) even if he is probably going to screw up that Enter the Dragon remake. The trailers also made Hobbs & Shaw look like the stupid kind of action film I might enjoy; a bunch of fight scenes and chase sequences that give the middle finger to physics. But when a big moment in the film is a group of the good guys willingly bringing a bunch of sharp sticks to a battle where the villains are loaded to the teeth with highly advanced firearms, then you know you’ve jumped headfirst into the deep end of ridiculous without a special needs helmet.
The film is quick to point out that even though Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) is in Los Angeles and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is in London, they’re essentially similar characters. Hobbs is a big dude who likes to Hulk smash everything while Shaw likes to think he has more class and finesse to his ass beatings and exaggerated torture devices. Despite their different cultures and supposedly unique way of approaching their work, they do nothing but talk trash, jack things up, simultaneously kick unsuspecting guys in the balls, and track stuff that needs tracking because that’s what trackers do. They reluctantly join forces and are in constant competition with one another to find some CT17 virus, which is currently inside Shaw’s MI6 operative sister Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby) and is being hunted by formerly dead, cyber genetically altered, and current superhuman criminal mastermind Brixton Lore (Idris Elba). Don’t get too attached to the whole virus thing since even the film can’t keep up with what the hell it’s supposed to be.
The highlight of Hobbs & Shaw is the amount of cameos it’s able to squeeze into its excruciating two-hour-and-fifteen-minute runtime. The film utilizes about a third of the cast of a certain sequel to a certain film starring a certain Regenerating Degenerate and that cast is responsible for the humor that works best in whatever this spinoff is supposed to accomplish. Idris Elba is unbelievably cool as Brixton Lore. He’s this cocky and unstoppable bad ass who has a history with Shaw and his car chase on his self-driving motorcycle where he slides under a bus in slow motion is too sick for words. Vanessa Kirby has this on-screen presence that outshines the consistent bickering between Hobbs and Shaw. She’s the one capable female character in the film (Helen Mirren sitting behind glass doesn’t count) who seems to be the only one thinking logically, but it took her doing the dumbest thing imaginable at the beginning of the film to get that way.
This action film smorgasbord rides on the chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham, but that gets old as soon as they start sort-of working together. Their incessant ribbing of each other, desire to always outdo one another, and nonstop unfiltered machismo being this palpable elephant in the room leads to nothing but verbal dick size comparisons and leaves you thinking that maybe they’ll make out or grope each other by the end of the film. Spoiler alert: maybe they’re saving that for the sequel.
There isn’t enough of a differentiation between action sequences in Hobbs & Shaw to make it feel worthwhile. There’s chemistry between the cast that is undeniable and some of its outrageousness is entertaining, but it all begins to feel similar and falls apart far sooner than it should. For those who care, there is a mid-credits and after-credits scene but neither is surprising. The cheesy motivational speeches, forced heartfelt stories, and, “all technology in the world doesn’t beat heart,” mumbo jumbo doesn’t help matters. The supposed story for this film is basically a dunce cap disguised as a pocket protector. There are intelligent elements used in ludicrous ways and maybe that’s what could describe the Fast & Furious franchise as a whole. You can bury a diamond in a dog turd and say it’s extravagant and that it’s valuable, but it’s still a dog turd that smells awful and lingers long after it’s been flushed away.
Ignoring the fact that screenwriters Chris Morgan (writer of every Fast and Furious entry since Tokyo Drift) and Drew Pearce (writer and director of the flop known as Hotel Artemis) were involved, I actually like David Leitch’s work (co-director of John Wick, director of Deadpool 2 and Atomic Blonde) even if he is probably going to screw up that Enter the Dragon remake. The trailers also made Hobbs & Shaw look like the stupid kind of action film I might enjoy; a bunch of fight scenes and chase sequences that give the middle finger to physics. But when a big moment in the film is a group of the good guys willingly bringing a bunch of sharp sticks to a battle where the villains are loaded to the teeth with highly advanced firearms, then you know you’ve jumped headfirst into the deep end of ridiculous without a special needs helmet.
The film is quick to point out that even though Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) is in Los Angeles and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is in London, they’re essentially similar characters. Hobbs is a big dude who likes to Hulk smash everything while Shaw likes to think he has more class and finesse to his ass beatings and exaggerated torture devices. Despite their different cultures and supposedly unique way of approaching their work, they do nothing but talk trash, jack things up, simultaneously kick unsuspecting guys in the balls, and track stuff that needs tracking because that’s what trackers do. They reluctantly join forces and are in constant competition with one another to find some CT17 virus, which is currently inside Shaw’s MI6 operative sister Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby) and is being hunted by formerly dead, cyber genetically altered, and current superhuman criminal mastermind Brixton Lore (Idris Elba). Don’t get too attached to the whole virus thing since even the film can’t keep up with what the hell it’s supposed to be.
The highlight of Hobbs & Shaw is the amount of cameos it’s able to squeeze into its excruciating two-hour-and-fifteen-minute runtime. The film utilizes about a third of the cast of a certain sequel to a certain film starring a certain Regenerating Degenerate and that cast is responsible for the humor that works best in whatever this spinoff is supposed to accomplish. Idris Elba is unbelievably cool as Brixton Lore. He’s this cocky and unstoppable bad ass who has a history with Shaw and his car chase on his self-driving motorcycle where he slides under a bus in slow motion is too sick for words. Vanessa Kirby has this on-screen presence that outshines the consistent bickering between Hobbs and Shaw. She’s the one capable female character in the film (Helen Mirren sitting behind glass doesn’t count) who seems to be the only one thinking logically, but it took her doing the dumbest thing imaginable at the beginning of the film to get that way.
This action film smorgasbord rides on the chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham, but that gets old as soon as they start sort-of working together. Their incessant ribbing of each other, desire to always outdo one another, and nonstop unfiltered machismo being this palpable elephant in the room leads to nothing but verbal dick size comparisons and leaves you thinking that maybe they’ll make out or grope each other by the end of the film. Spoiler alert: maybe they’re saving that for the sequel.
There isn’t enough of a differentiation between action sequences in Hobbs & Shaw to make it feel worthwhile. There’s chemistry between the cast that is undeniable and some of its outrageousness is entertaining, but it all begins to feel similar and falls apart far sooner than it should. For those who care, there is a mid-credits and after-credits scene but neither is surprising. The cheesy motivational speeches, forced heartfelt stories, and, “all technology in the world doesn’t beat heart,” mumbo jumbo doesn’t help matters. The supposed story for this film is basically a dunce cap disguised as a pocket protector. There are intelligent elements used in ludicrous ways and maybe that’s what could describe the Fast & Furious franchise as a whole. You can bury a diamond in a dog turd and say it’s extravagant and that it’s valuable, but it’s still a dog turd that smells awful and lingers long after it’s been flushed away.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Wish You Were Here in Tabletop Games
Nov 3, 2020
I thought I was smart. I thought my wife was smarter. I thought that combined, we would have a great shot at figuring out anything thrown at us. Then The Enigma Emporium threw Wish You Were Here at us, and now we feel the American school system has failed us miserably. The level of defeat we feel is immense and can only hope to redeem ourselves during the next game.
Wish You Were Here is a puzzle-on-some-postcards-that-make-you-feel-like-a-Kindergarten-version-of-Indiana-Jones-minus-the-physical-adventuring game. I really cannot describe it any better for you, but will let you know what to expect and how we fared.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of the entire Wish You Were Here series of games for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your envelope. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, as there is no rulebook. For more information and to order your own, visit the publisher’s website. Also, I am purposely hiding or not showing certain things because I wish to avoid any spoilers. -T
To setup, make sure your phone or tablet are fully charged, grab yourself a nice chai tea latte (or three), a pad of paper and writing utensil, open the game envelope and pull out the five postcards. You are now ready to “play” Wish You Were Here.
Why am I being so sparse and cryptic? Well, Wish You Were Here is a game that is played by figuring out puzzles and clues printed on postcards to catch a criminal and suss out their crime(s). The postcards are simply full of different puzzles and different TYPES of puzzles. I am really unable to go into much further detail for fear of spoilers, but before you tackle this adventure, I would brush up on your Dan Brown to channel your inner Robert Langdon (the guy from the Da Vinci Code books and movies).
Inside the envelope are five postcards from which you will need to assemble a working idea of what is actually going on and what is being communicated to you through these clues. Speaking of clues, the publisher has thankfully included their website to visit when you are simply stuck on something provided.
Players will be tackling the puzzles provided by attacking separately or as a group and putting together their thoughts and findings. Once the players have it figured out (good luck) then they must collaborate their answers within the game.
Components. This game is five postcards in a paper envelope. The envelope is fine and holds the postcards well. The postcards themselves are normal postcard stock, but every little item on them may be important toward solving the case. They are all vastly different in style and, I’ll give you a tiny hint, each card may have its own theme. The components here are strange to try to review, but for being the type of game it is, the components are excellent..?
Okay so like I said in my intro, I found my wife and I to be highly intelligent people. We both have college degrees and one of us was a high school valedictorian (not me). So imagine my surprise as we are cookin’ on the first postcard, have some items and ideas written down, but then get super stuck on what it is trying to tell us. So we think that there is no harm in checking out the clues on the publisher website and check it out. Once we find what we are looking for, we realize that maybe we are in way over our heads here.
The clues are incredibly helpful to solving the information provided on each postcard. I just wish we didn’t become so dependent on them to figure out each card. Once we pulled up the clues site the first time, it became more and more tempting to just get as many clues as we could there and then the game became more an activity of following clue instructions and applying their suggestions than us actually trying to figure them out ourselves. It might have had something to do with the fact that we started the game at 10pm, and were nowhere near finished at midnight, but the chai and cookies helped a little.
All in all, this game is incredibly unique and really really tough, unless the players are all into ciphers and codices. Being able to recognize what puzzle style is being employed is the first step in solving each one. Using that information to apply to the puzzle at hand is the other side of that coin. That said, we at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a solid, but hidden 12 / 18. Our brains are still reeling from that playthrough, but we are determined to figure out more items independently once we attempt the next game in the series. If you are looking for a small footprint, brain-wrecking, incredibly thinky game to pull out with your more academic friends, then definitely order your copy of Wish You Were Here from theenigmaemporium.com, and grab all the others while you are there as well.
Wish You Were Here is a puzzle-on-some-postcards-that-make-you-feel-like-a-Kindergarten-version-of-Indiana-Jones-minus-the-physical-adventuring game. I really cannot describe it any better for you, but will let you know what to expect and how we fared.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of the entire Wish You Were Here series of games for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your envelope. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, as there is no rulebook. For more information and to order your own, visit the publisher’s website. Also, I am purposely hiding or not showing certain things because I wish to avoid any spoilers. -T
To setup, make sure your phone or tablet are fully charged, grab yourself a nice chai tea latte (or three), a pad of paper and writing utensil, open the game envelope and pull out the five postcards. You are now ready to “play” Wish You Were Here.
Why am I being so sparse and cryptic? Well, Wish You Were Here is a game that is played by figuring out puzzles and clues printed on postcards to catch a criminal and suss out their crime(s). The postcards are simply full of different puzzles and different TYPES of puzzles. I am really unable to go into much further detail for fear of spoilers, but before you tackle this adventure, I would brush up on your Dan Brown to channel your inner Robert Langdon (the guy from the Da Vinci Code books and movies).
Inside the envelope are five postcards from which you will need to assemble a working idea of what is actually going on and what is being communicated to you through these clues. Speaking of clues, the publisher has thankfully included their website to visit when you are simply stuck on something provided.
Players will be tackling the puzzles provided by attacking separately or as a group and putting together their thoughts and findings. Once the players have it figured out (good luck) then they must collaborate their answers within the game.
Components. This game is five postcards in a paper envelope. The envelope is fine and holds the postcards well. The postcards themselves are normal postcard stock, but every little item on them may be important toward solving the case. They are all vastly different in style and, I’ll give you a tiny hint, each card may have its own theme. The components here are strange to try to review, but for being the type of game it is, the components are excellent..?
Okay so like I said in my intro, I found my wife and I to be highly intelligent people. We both have college degrees and one of us was a high school valedictorian (not me). So imagine my surprise as we are cookin’ on the first postcard, have some items and ideas written down, but then get super stuck on what it is trying to tell us. So we think that there is no harm in checking out the clues on the publisher website and check it out. Once we find what we are looking for, we realize that maybe we are in way over our heads here.
The clues are incredibly helpful to solving the information provided on each postcard. I just wish we didn’t become so dependent on them to figure out each card. Once we pulled up the clues site the first time, it became more and more tempting to just get as many clues as we could there and then the game became more an activity of following clue instructions and applying their suggestions than us actually trying to figure them out ourselves. It might have had something to do with the fact that we started the game at 10pm, and were nowhere near finished at midnight, but the chai and cookies helped a little.
All in all, this game is incredibly unique and really really tough, unless the players are all into ciphers and codices. Being able to recognize what puzzle style is being employed is the first step in solving each one. Using that information to apply to the puzzle at hand is the other side of that coin. That said, we at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a solid, but hidden 12 / 18. Our brains are still reeling from that playthrough, but we are determined to figure out more items independently once we attempt the next game in the series. If you are looking for a small footprint, brain-wrecking, incredibly thinky game to pull out with your more academic friends, then definitely order your copy of Wish You Were Here from theenigmaemporium.com, and grab all the others while you are there as well.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
If you check back in the archives of The Wasteland you will see that from time to time I do find myself down the dark, fascinating yet morbid rabbit hole of true crime documentary. I do find the majority of them a little ghoulish, but when done particularly well they can become incredible insights into the human condition at its worst, and the state of the legal and punitive systems that deal with the most extreme cases. How these systems fail, and why, is more of a draw for me than any attempt to understand the person behind the evil crimes. Although I must admit to some curiosity in that regard on a certain level.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Rambo: Last Blood (2019) in Movies
Sep 19, 2019
Hopefully this truly is Last Blood.
In Sylvester Stallone's fifth and (hopefully) final outing as one-man army John Rambo, we find the eponymous hero enjoying the quiet life on the Texas ranch he returned to at the end of "Rambo (2008)".
The character is still as reflective and composed as ever, with hints and flashbacks to his ongoing struggle with PTSD following his experiences in Vietnam. He trains horses on the ranch and acts as surrogate father to his college-bound niece, played by the relatively-unknown and absolutely stunning Yvette Monreal. He also has an unfathomably complex network of tunnels dug beneath his property, which could never have been done by one man, even in the 11 years that have past since the last movie.
The first ten minutes set the scene and familiarizes the audience with characters old and new. Having watched all four previous films in preparation for this one, it's quite sad to see how much the essence of Rambo as a person has changed. The first three all followed the same theme - a reluctant warrior with a muted self-loathing of the terrible abilities he has been blessed with, begrudgingly fighting someone else's war because he can't stop himself from doing what he thinks is right. The fourth one took the series in a different yet understandable direction - he's getting older, he's retired from the world, and he's minding his own business when trouble happens to find him. Then, the old Rambo we saw in "Rambo: First Blood - Part II (1985)" comes out and lays waste to everyone. But in this latest film, you barely recognize the character compared to the previous entries. He doesn't look or feel like the Rambo we've known over the years, which means this film struggles to look and feel like a Rambo film.
The next five minutes establishes the upcoming plot of the movie (such as it is), which is transparent and predictable. It then morphs into "Taken (2008)" on steroids! It takes a nice diversion at first, showing Rambo take on an entire Mexican people-trafficking ring, only to get the living hell beaten out of him. What you might think would happen in real life, but you kind of expected Rambo to go all "Rambo" on them, so when he doesn't, it's almost a pleasant surprise.
However, normal business soon resumes. Another tussle with some of the Mexican bad guys sets up the final act, which is Rambo vs. Every Mexican Criminal Ever - clips of which you will have seen in the trailer.
This is where the film lets itself down, if I'm honest. You would expect the finale to be the big payoff, but it actually ruins what would otherwise have been a half-decent film. It would be silly of me to criticize a Rambo film for being unrealistic. That being said, there's pushing the boundaries of belief, and then there's just lazy writing!
The final act begins. Five trucks of bad guys show up. Around 20-25 armed men are shown approaching Rambo's location. It's no spoiler to say he probably kills about 50 in total. Not sure where all the disposable enemies came from, but he didn't seem to mind.
Then there's the five-minute montage of him booby-trapping his ranch prior to the bad guys showing up. Something he did without any actual evidence they would come for him - just an assumption that somewhere there's a group of people who probably want to try and kill him, so best to be prepared. The whole scene feels like what would happen if "Deadpool (2016)" and "Home Alone (1990)" had a baby. Don't get me wrong, it was mindless, cringe-inducing, blood-soaked fun, but a lot of it felt unnecessarily complicated.
And then there's the violence itself. I love an action movie that drowns in crimson as much as the next person, but a lot of the violence felt like it was there for the sake of it. Like the producers said, 'We've got the 18-certificate, so let's make use of it.' I'm sure there's a deep-rooted psychological argument to be made for it. Like it's intentionally over the top to serve as a metaphor for the horrors Rambo suffered in Vietnam or something. Personally, I don't think this film is capable of being that deep and meaningful.
I really, really wanted this film to be good. I enjoyed the others and I wanted to enjoy this one. And I did, to an extent, I guess. But the whole film felt pointless. I understand the thinking that the series needed a proper and fitting end to the character's arc. But, if I'm being honest, you could've said the last film did that. It actually provides a better ending to the character than this one. The way he returned from Burma and is last seen approaching the family ranch after 30+ years away... you could've ended it there and left it to the audience's imaginations as to how he lived out the rest of his life. But money talks, and unfortunately, it ruined an otherwise successful and enjoyable franchise that had simply ran its course. A prime example of not knowing when to quit, this sentiment is echoed by Stallone's aging appearance, which takes away what credibility this character had left.
A real shame, but sadly, this isn't a film that's worth watching, unless you're a true die-hard fan of the character, in which case you'll want to watch it just because, but you'll be left disappointed.
The character is still as reflective and composed as ever, with hints and flashbacks to his ongoing struggle with PTSD following his experiences in Vietnam. He trains horses on the ranch and acts as surrogate father to his college-bound niece, played by the relatively-unknown and absolutely stunning Yvette Monreal. He also has an unfathomably complex network of tunnels dug beneath his property, which could never have been done by one man, even in the 11 years that have past since the last movie.
The first ten minutes set the scene and familiarizes the audience with characters old and new. Having watched all four previous films in preparation for this one, it's quite sad to see how much the essence of Rambo as a person has changed. The first three all followed the same theme - a reluctant warrior with a muted self-loathing of the terrible abilities he has been blessed with, begrudgingly fighting someone else's war because he can't stop himself from doing what he thinks is right. The fourth one took the series in a different yet understandable direction - he's getting older, he's retired from the world, and he's minding his own business when trouble happens to find him. Then, the old Rambo we saw in "Rambo: First Blood - Part II (1985)" comes out and lays waste to everyone. But in this latest film, you barely recognize the character compared to the previous entries. He doesn't look or feel like the Rambo we've known over the years, which means this film struggles to look and feel like a Rambo film.
The next five minutes establishes the upcoming plot of the movie (such as it is), which is transparent and predictable. It then morphs into "Taken (2008)" on steroids! It takes a nice diversion at first, showing Rambo take on an entire Mexican people-trafficking ring, only to get the living hell beaten out of him. What you might think would happen in real life, but you kind of expected Rambo to go all "Rambo" on them, so when he doesn't, it's almost a pleasant surprise.
However, normal business soon resumes. Another tussle with some of the Mexican bad guys sets up the final act, which is Rambo vs. Every Mexican Criminal Ever - clips of which you will have seen in the trailer.
This is where the film lets itself down, if I'm honest. You would expect the finale to be the big payoff, but it actually ruins what would otherwise have been a half-decent film. It would be silly of me to criticize a Rambo film for being unrealistic. That being said, there's pushing the boundaries of belief, and then there's just lazy writing!
The final act begins. Five trucks of bad guys show up. Around 20-25 armed men are shown approaching Rambo's location. It's no spoiler to say he probably kills about 50 in total. Not sure where all the disposable enemies came from, but he didn't seem to mind.
Then there's the five-minute montage of him booby-trapping his ranch prior to the bad guys showing up. Something he did without any actual evidence they would come for him - just an assumption that somewhere there's a group of people who probably want to try and kill him, so best to be prepared. The whole scene feels like what would happen if "Deadpool (2016)" and "Home Alone (1990)" had a baby. Don't get me wrong, it was mindless, cringe-inducing, blood-soaked fun, but a lot of it felt unnecessarily complicated.
And then there's the violence itself. I love an action movie that drowns in crimson as much as the next person, but a lot of the violence felt like it was there for the sake of it. Like the producers said, 'We've got the 18-certificate, so let's make use of it.' I'm sure there's a deep-rooted psychological argument to be made for it. Like it's intentionally over the top to serve as a metaphor for the horrors Rambo suffered in Vietnam or something. Personally, I don't think this film is capable of being that deep and meaningful.
I really, really wanted this film to be good. I enjoyed the others and I wanted to enjoy this one. And I did, to an extent, I guess. But the whole film felt pointless. I understand the thinking that the series needed a proper and fitting end to the character's arc. But, if I'm being honest, you could've said the last film did that. It actually provides a better ending to the character than this one. The way he returned from Burma and is last seen approaching the family ranch after 30+ years away... you could've ended it there and left it to the audience's imaginations as to how he lived out the rest of his life. But money talks, and unfortunately, it ruined an otherwise successful and enjoyable franchise that had simply ran its course. A prime example of not knowing when to quit, this sentiment is echoed by Stallone's aging appearance, which takes away what credibility this character had left.
A real shame, but sadly, this isn't a film that's worth watching, unless you're a true die-hard fan of the character, in which case you'll want to watch it just because, but you'll be left disappointed.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Widows (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Death Becomes Her.
The Plot
If you are considering “inheritence planning” there are probably a number of things you might be toying with: what happens to your house; how to best transfer your investments; who gets the dog; etc. But probably “a grudge” is not on the list. But that’s the problem faced by teacher’s union rep Veronica (Viola Davis). As you might presume from the film’s title Veronica, together with fellow widows Linda (Michelle Rodriquez), Alice (Elizabeth Debicki), Amanda (Carrie Coon), are left in a tight spot when a gang’s robbery of a local black hoodlum’s stack of cash goes badly wrong. The leader of the gang, and Veronica’s husband, is Harry Rawlings (Liam Neeson), and his certain set of skills are not enough to save him.
The victim of the robbery, Jamal Manning (Brian Tyree Henry), is running for local office in the upcoming elections against Jack Mulligan (Colin Farrell), trying to take over the role as part of a long dynasty from his grouchy father Tom (Robert Duvall). Where Jamal might be better with words, Jamal’s brother Jatemme (Daniel Kaluuya, “Get Out“) has a more physical approach to resolving issues.
What Harry has left behind for Veronica is a notebook containing the details of their next job, and Veronica gathers the female group together to carry out the raid to help save them from a “bullet in the head”.
The Review
I really enjoyed this film. It’s the ying to the yang of the disappointing “Ocean’s 8” from earlier in the year. Yes, it’s YET another film that focuses on female empowerment and with a strong black presence within the cast. But what for me made it stand out above the crowd was the quality of the writing and the assuredness of the directing.
Although based on the ancient UK TV series by Lynda La Plante, the script is written by “Gone Girl” screenwriter Gillian Flynn, and is excellent. It really doesn’t EXPLAIN what is going on, but shows you a series of interconnected scenes and lets you mentally fill in the blanks. While you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand the overall story arc, I must admit that even now I’m not 100% sure of some of the nuances of the story. Harry, for example, seems to be a hardened career criminal, and yet he seems to be revered by the political leaders on both sides, even though he seemed to have loyalty to noone. The script cleverly uses flashbacks and has enough twists and turns to keep you on your mental toes.
The characters also worked well for me, with each having a back story and motivations that were distinctly different from each other. Alice (helped by Debecki’s standout performance) is particularly intriguing coming out of an ‘interesting’ relationship. Is she just following the path of her unpleasant mother (Jacki Weaver)? Some of the actions might suggest so.
As for the direction, Steve McQueen (he of “12 Years a Slave“), delivers some scenes that could justly be described as “bold”. A highpoint for me was a short drive by Jack Mulligan and his PA Siobhan (an excellently underplayed Molly Kunz) from a housing project, in a neighbourhood you might worry about walking through at night, to the Mulligan mansion in a leafy and pleasant street. McQueen mounts the camera on the bonnet (hood) of the car, but you can’t see the interior other than occasional glimpses of the chauffeur. All you can hear is Mulligan’s rant to his Siobhan. I thought this worked just brilliantly well. The heist itself well done and suitably tense with an outcome that continues to surprise.
If there’s a criticism then the ending rather fizzles out, leaving a few loose ends flapping in the breeze.
Words of comfort from wannabe politician Jack Mulligan (Colin Farrell) to Veronica (Viola Davis).
The Turns
It’s only been a couple of weeks since my review of the excellent “Bad Times at the El Royale” and I named as my second film of the year for my (private) “Ensemble Cast” award. And here hot on its tail is the third. There are such strong performances across the cast that it’s difficult to pull out specifics: as you start looking at the list you pull out more and more and more names…
As referenced above, I loved Elizabeth Debecki‘s performance. Both vulnerable and strong all in one package.
Colin Farrell, for me, gives his best performance in years as the son caught within the shadow of his overpowering father. A confrontational scene between Farrell and Robert Duvall is particularly powerful.
Daniel Kaluuya is truly threatening (possibly slightly OTT) as the psycho fixer.
For the second time in a month Cynthia Erivo stands out as a major acting force, as the hairstylist cum gang member Belle.
Jon Michael Hill, excellent as a fire-breathing reverend with flexible political views.
It would not surprise me to see Best Supporting Actor nods for any combinations of Debecki, Farrell, Kaluuya and Erivo for this.
I must admit that I’m not the greatest fan of Viola Davis: I find her performances quite mannered. But there’s no doubting here the depth of her passion and with this lead performance she carries this film.
Final Thoughts
I loved this as an intelligent action movie that’s a cut above the rest. Which is a surprise, since from the trailer I thought it looked good but not THAT good! It comes with my recommendation for an exciting and gripping two hours at the cinema. I’m rather caught between two ratings on this one, and if I still had half stars to use I would use it. But as I found this one of the most engrossing films of the year I’ll give it full marks.
If you are considering “inheritence planning” there are probably a number of things you might be toying with: what happens to your house; how to best transfer your investments; who gets the dog; etc. But probably “a grudge” is not on the list. But that’s the problem faced by teacher’s union rep Veronica (Viola Davis). As you might presume from the film’s title Veronica, together with fellow widows Linda (Michelle Rodriquez), Alice (Elizabeth Debicki), Amanda (Carrie Coon), are left in a tight spot when a gang’s robbery of a local black hoodlum’s stack of cash goes badly wrong. The leader of the gang, and Veronica’s husband, is Harry Rawlings (Liam Neeson), and his certain set of skills are not enough to save him.
The victim of the robbery, Jamal Manning (Brian Tyree Henry), is running for local office in the upcoming elections against Jack Mulligan (Colin Farrell), trying to take over the role as part of a long dynasty from his grouchy father Tom (Robert Duvall). Where Jamal might be better with words, Jamal’s brother Jatemme (Daniel Kaluuya, “Get Out“) has a more physical approach to resolving issues.
What Harry has left behind for Veronica is a notebook containing the details of their next job, and Veronica gathers the female group together to carry out the raid to help save them from a “bullet in the head”.
The Review
I really enjoyed this film. It’s the ying to the yang of the disappointing “Ocean’s 8” from earlier in the year. Yes, it’s YET another film that focuses on female empowerment and with a strong black presence within the cast. But what for me made it stand out above the crowd was the quality of the writing and the assuredness of the directing.
Although based on the ancient UK TV series by Lynda La Plante, the script is written by “Gone Girl” screenwriter Gillian Flynn, and is excellent. It really doesn’t EXPLAIN what is going on, but shows you a series of interconnected scenes and lets you mentally fill in the blanks. While you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand the overall story arc, I must admit that even now I’m not 100% sure of some of the nuances of the story. Harry, for example, seems to be a hardened career criminal, and yet he seems to be revered by the political leaders on both sides, even though he seemed to have loyalty to noone. The script cleverly uses flashbacks and has enough twists and turns to keep you on your mental toes.
The characters also worked well for me, with each having a back story and motivations that were distinctly different from each other. Alice (helped by Debecki’s standout performance) is particularly intriguing coming out of an ‘interesting’ relationship. Is she just following the path of her unpleasant mother (Jacki Weaver)? Some of the actions might suggest so.
As for the direction, Steve McQueen (he of “12 Years a Slave“), delivers some scenes that could justly be described as “bold”. A highpoint for me was a short drive by Jack Mulligan and his PA Siobhan (an excellently underplayed Molly Kunz) from a housing project, in a neighbourhood you might worry about walking through at night, to the Mulligan mansion in a leafy and pleasant street. McQueen mounts the camera on the bonnet (hood) of the car, but you can’t see the interior other than occasional glimpses of the chauffeur. All you can hear is Mulligan’s rant to his Siobhan. I thought this worked just brilliantly well. The heist itself well done and suitably tense with an outcome that continues to surprise.
If there’s a criticism then the ending rather fizzles out, leaving a few loose ends flapping in the breeze.
Words of comfort from wannabe politician Jack Mulligan (Colin Farrell) to Veronica (Viola Davis).
The Turns
It’s only been a couple of weeks since my review of the excellent “Bad Times at the El Royale” and I named as my second film of the year for my (private) “Ensemble Cast” award. And here hot on its tail is the third. There are such strong performances across the cast that it’s difficult to pull out specifics: as you start looking at the list you pull out more and more and more names…
As referenced above, I loved Elizabeth Debecki‘s performance. Both vulnerable and strong all in one package.
Colin Farrell, for me, gives his best performance in years as the son caught within the shadow of his overpowering father. A confrontational scene between Farrell and Robert Duvall is particularly powerful.
Daniel Kaluuya is truly threatening (possibly slightly OTT) as the psycho fixer.
For the second time in a month Cynthia Erivo stands out as a major acting force, as the hairstylist cum gang member Belle.
Jon Michael Hill, excellent as a fire-breathing reverend with flexible political views.
It would not surprise me to see Best Supporting Actor nods for any combinations of Debecki, Farrell, Kaluuya and Erivo for this.
I must admit that I’m not the greatest fan of Viola Davis: I find her performances quite mannered. But there’s no doubting here the depth of her passion and with this lead performance she carries this film.
Final Thoughts
I loved this as an intelligent action movie that’s a cut above the rest. Which is a surprise, since from the trailer I thought it looked good but not THAT good! It comes with my recommendation for an exciting and gripping two hours at the cinema. I’m rather caught between two ratings on this one, and if I still had half stars to use I would use it. But as I found this one of the most engrossing films of the year I’ll give it full marks.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Spider-Man 3 (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The most anticipated film of the summer, Spider-Man 3 has arrived to the delight of moviegoers the world over. It has been roughly a little more than a year since Spider-Man (Tobey Maguire), defeated Dr. Octopus and saved the city from certain doom.
During this time, Spider-man has become New York City’s celebrated hero, and his day to day alter ego, Peter Parker, delights in his fame, while dating the love of his life, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst).
As the film opens, Peter has decided to ask Mary Jane to be his wife, and plans to surprise her with a ring during dinner at a fancy restaurant. Mary Jane is starring in a Broadway play, and despite harsh reviews, she is living her dream and madly in love with Peter.
Things take an unexpected twist for Peter when he is attacked one night by his best friend Harry (James Franco), who blames him for the death of his father at the conclusion of the first film. Enhanced by his father’s Goblin serum, Harry is a deadly adversary for Peter who is able to fend off the attack eventually, and put into motion a series of events that will forever change his life.
When a career criminal named Flint Marko (Thomas Hayden Church), is accidentally caught in an experiment while fleeing the authorities, he becomes a living mass of sand, which enables him to start a string of robberies as “The Sandman”, and provides Spider-man with his most unusual opponent yet.
As if this was not enough, Peter must contend with a new hotshot photographer named Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), who is after a staff position at the Daily Bugle. The fact that Peter has more seniority at the paper is of little interest to Eddie, and he will stop at nothing to get the better of Peter.
At this point one would think that Peter has more than enough on his plate, but fate is about to drop an unexpected player into his life, a space based symbiote that bonds
with Peter’s costume and creates a dark black look for Spider-Man as well as an increase in his powers.
Peter becomes obsessed with his new powers, and there is a dramatic change in his persona, which does not sit well with Mary Jane. When new information is given to Peter about the death of his Uncle Ben, Peter is more than willing to use his new found abilities to exact the revenge that he craves.
Peter also has another area of interest as Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard), the daughter of the local Chief of Police has caught his eye, much to the chagrin of both Mary Jane and Gwen’s current boyfriend Eddie Brock.
This tangled web of characters soon forces Peter to take stock of his life and the choices he makes, in order to determine what truly matters to him, the love and respect of his friends, or giving into his darker side and pursing power and unending praise and adulation.
The film starts out well, and the early conflict between Peter and Harry is a brilliantly staged spectacle of sight, sound, and motion. There are also some great moments between the lead characters and Church, Howard and Grace do well with their characters, yet something about Spider-Man 3 did not click for me the way the previous two films in the series have.
Having the luxury of time from the press screener to the opening, I was able to look back at the film the past week and a half to try to determine what did not work for me, and I kept coming back to the same conclusions.
First, the film wants very much to be much darker and edgier than the other films, yet just when you think you are going to see Peter fully cross the line, the film pulls back into campy mode, and we are given scenes of Peter hamming it up as a ladies’ man, and I kid you not, doing an impromptu dance number.
While this works for comedic effect, I am supposed to believe that the darker side of Peter’s soul is being exposed, and I had a hard time thinking that his inner demons include “Saturday Night Fever” style strut down the sidewalk, and a floor show.
The second thing that bothered me was the villains, as aside from Harry as the New Goblin, both the Sandman and Venom were sadly lacking. Neither The Sandman nor Venom had over the top plots to rule the world, kill or enslave the masses, or endanger huge parts of the city as was the case with the original Green Goblin and Dr Octopus.
Rather we have one who is content to steal to fund a noble cause, and wishes only to complete this cause and have Spider-Man out of his way. The second simply wants revenge for being slighted, and does not elude the menace nor danger that the character warrants.
effects wise the film is solid and there are some great moments in the film, but to many times I thought I had seen the same sand effects years early in the “Mummy” series which lead to many cases of “been there, seen that” for me. With a budget that many claim to be the most expensive film ever made when based on current dollar values, I had expected more from the film, especially given the talented and dynamic cast, and the ample backing of the studio.
Director and series Guru Sam Raimi seems to be coasting here as one has to wonder if he used up many of his great ideas in the last two films, and was trying so hard not to repeat himself, that he lost that magic spark that made the last two films such classics.
As it stands, “Spider-Man 3” is a good film, but you can’t help but feel it could have been a better one.
During this time, Spider-man has become New York City’s celebrated hero, and his day to day alter ego, Peter Parker, delights in his fame, while dating the love of his life, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst).
As the film opens, Peter has decided to ask Mary Jane to be his wife, and plans to surprise her with a ring during dinner at a fancy restaurant. Mary Jane is starring in a Broadway play, and despite harsh reviews, she is living her dream and madly in love with Peter.
Things take an unexpected twist for Peter when he is attacked one night by his best friend Harry (James Franco), who blames him for the death of his father at the conclusion of the first film. Enhanced by his father’s Goblin serum, Harry is a deadly adversary for Peter who is able to fend off the attack eventually, and put into motion a series of events that will forever change his life.
When a career criminal named Flint Marko (Thomas Hayden Church), is accidentally caught in an experiment while fleeing the authorities, he becomes a living mass of sand, which enables him to start a string of robberies as “The Sandman”, and provides Spider-man with his most unusual opponent yet.
As if this was not enough, Peter must contend with a new hotshot photographer named Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), who is after a staff position at the Daily Bugle. The fact that Peter has more seniority at the paper is of little interest to Eddie, and he will stop at nothing to get the better of Peter.
At this point one would think that Peter has more than enough on his plate, but fate is about to drop an unexpected player into his life, a space based symbiote that bonds
with Peter’s costume and creates a dark black look for Spider-Man as well as an increase in his powers.
Peter becomes obsessed with his new powers, and there is a dramatic change in his persona, which does not sit well with Mary Jane. When new information is given to Peter about the death of his Uncle Ben, Peter is more than willing to use his new found abilities to exact the revenge that he craves.
Peter also has another area of interest as Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard), the daughter of the local Chief of Police has caught his eye, much to the chagrin of both Mary Jane and Gwen’s current boyfriend Eddie Brock.
This tangled web of characters soon forces Peter to take stock of his life and the choices he makes, in order to determine what truly matters to him, the love and respect of his friends, or giving into his darker side and pursing power and unending praise and adulation.
The film starts out well, and the early conflict between Peter and Harry is a brilliantly staged spectacle of sight, sound, and motion. There are also some great moments between the lead characters and Church, Howard and Grace do well with their characters, yet something about Spider-Man 3 did not click for me the way the previous two films in the series have.
Having the luxury of time from the press screener to the opening, I was able to look back at the film the past week and a half to try to determine what did not work for me, and I kept coming back to the same conclusions.
First, the film wants very much to be much darker and edgier than the other films, yet just when you think you are going to see Peter fully cross the line, the film pulls back into campy mode, and we are given scenes of Peter hamming it up as a ladies’ man, and I kid you not, doing an impromptu dance number.
While this works for comedic effect, I am supposed to believe that the darker side of Peter’s soul is being exposed, and I had a hard time thinking that his inner demons include “Saturday Night Fever” style strut down the sidewalk, and a floor show.
The second thing that bothered me was the villains, as aside from Harry as the New Goblin, both the Sandman and Venom were sadly lacking. Neither The Sandman nor Venom had over the top plots to rule the world, kill or enslave the masses, or endanger huge parts of the city as was the case with the original Green Goblin and Dr Octopus.
Rather we have one who is content to steal to fund a noble cause, and wishes only to complete this cause and have Spider-Man out of his way. The second simply wants revenge for being slighted, and does not elude the menace nor danger that the character warrants.
effects wise the film is solid and there are some great moments in the film, but to many times I thought I had seen the same sand effects years early in the “Mummy” series which lead to many cases of “been there, seen that” for me. With a budget that many claim to be the most expensive film ever made when based on current dollar values, I had expected more from the film, especially given the talented and dynamic cast, and the ample backing of the studio.
Director and series Guru Sam Raimi seems to be coasting here as one has to wonder if he used up many of his great ideas in the last two films, and was trying so hard not to repeat himself, that he lost that magic spark that made the last two films such classics.
As it stands, “Spider-Man 3” is a good film, but you can’t help but feel it could have been a better one.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Enjoyable and harmless comedy laced with a degree of sentimentality.
The Plot
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.