Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Sex and the City 2 (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
So what happens after you finally marry Mr. Right (or in this case, Mr. Big)? Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) and Big (Chris Noth) have been married for almost 2 years now and are in danger of falling into a tired routine. After eschewing the latest fashions for classic furnishings to make their new flat a home, Carrie no longer laments over her singlehood. Instead she bemoans becoming part of an old, married couple. She bristles at the idea of staying home and eating takeout while her husband just wants to put his feet up on the couch.
Charlotte (Kristin Davis) remains the picture-perfect mother and wife, adding a new baby to her home. One that cries constantly and forces her to hire a nanny. A buxom, Irish nanny named Erin who quickly earns the fitting nickname “Erin Go Bra-less” from Charlotte’s best friends. Watch Charlotte’s cheery smile become brittle and harder to keep in place as the demands of motherhood and doubts the ability of her husband Harry (Evan Handler) to resist temptation become too much to handle.
Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) is reconciled with Steve (David Eigenberg), and is finally a partner at her law firm but it hasn’t brought her the satisfaction she thought it would. She’s stressed and aggravated by a senior partner who demeans her and she starts to question whether being an attorney is worth it anymore.
Samantha (Kim Cattrall) is very much the same bawdy temptress, minus her boy-toy, plus a lot of vitamins to stave off menopausal symptoms. This time around, no major drama sends the ladies off on an exotic trip, just Samantha working her public relations charm on a shiekh with a palatial hotel. Apparently, sometimes girls just need to getaway to Abu-Dhabi. The movie soon becomes an indulgent showcase of excess from a flight in a plane equipped with individual suites, a bar & lounge, to a Maybach and a personal butler for each of the ladies.
Anyone watching SATC2 without the background of the series and the first film will think they entered an alien world of shallow, whiny women who like to wear clashing colors and ridiculous hats. Fans of the series will probably forgive the tired puns and trite storylines to embrace the familiar: four friends in fabulous, outrageous, fashion and comical situations, with an extravagant, lush backdrop.
Screened in a theater where women outnumbered men 3 to 1, many of the laughs were tinged with almost as much horror as delight. I usually enjoy musical numbers in movies, but I fought the urge to cover my eyes when Liza Minelli performed Beyonce’s “Single Ladies” at a wedding early in the movie. The girlfriends’ karaoke rendition of “I Am Woman” was also an uncomfortable moment for all its corniness. But amidst the splashy abundance, there were moments of honest friendship that resonated, unfortunately they’re overshadowed by annoying antics and reckless decisions.
Sure to spark lively debates on friendship, relationships, careers, and questionable fashion, this is still an entertaining film that, if nothing else, would make a great date night movie with your girlfriends. Especially those whose friendships have spanned decades and who can recognize a little bit of themselves in these women. Note to men: if you want to know where the women may be this weekend, the theaters would be a good bet.
Charlotte (Kristin Davis) remains the picture-perfect mother and wife, adding a new baby to her home. One that cries constantly and forces her to hire a nanny. A buxom, Irish nanny named Erin who quickly earns the fitting nickname “Erin Go Bra-less” from Charlotte’s best friends. Watch Charlotte’s cheery smile become brittle and harder to keep in place as the demands of motherhood and doubts the ability of her husband Harry (Evan Handler) to resist temptation become too much to handle.
Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) is reconciled with Steve (David Eigenberg), and is finally a partner at her law firm but it hasn’t brought her the satisfaction she thought it would. She’s stressed and aggravated by a senior partner who demeans her and she starts to question whether being an attorney is worth it anymore.
Samantha (Kim Cattrall) is very much the same bawdy temptress, minus her boy-toy, plus a lot of vitamins to stave off menopausal symptoms. This time around, no major drama sends the ladies off on an exotic trip, just Samantha working her public relations charm on a shiekh with a palatial hotel. Apparently, sometimes girls just need to getaway to Abu-Dhabi. The movie soon becomes an indulgent showcase of excess from a flight in a plane equipped with individual suites, a bar & lounge, to a Maybach and a personal butler for each of the ladies.
Anyone watching SATC2 without the background of the series and the first film will think they entered an alien world of shallow, whiny women who like to wear clashing colors and ridiculous hats. Fans of the series will probably forgive the tired puns and trite storylines to embrace the familiar: four friends in fabulous, outrageous, fashion and comical situations, with an extravagant, lush backdrop.
Screened in a theater where women outnumbered men 3 to 1, many of the laughs were tinged with almost as much horror as delight. I usually enjoy musical numbers in movies, but I fought the urge to cover my eyes when Liza Minelli performed Beyonce’s “Single Ladies” at a wedding early in the movie. The girlfriends’ karaoke rendition of “I Am Woman” was also an uncomfortable moment for all its corniness. But amidst the splashy abundance, there were moments of honest friendship that resonated, unfortunately they’re overshadowed by annoying antics and reckless decisions.
Sure to spark lively debates on friendship, relationships, careers, and questionable fashion, this is still an entertaining film that, if nothing else, would make a great date night movie with your girlfriends. Especially those whose friendships have spanned decades and who can recognize a little bit of themselves in these women. Note to men: if you want to know where the women may be this weekend, the theaters would be a good bet.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Pretentious. Is a word that sends shivers down my spine much more than any pseudo horror movie. It conveys the idea that the creator of a work is out of control, resorting to shock value over intelligent content. If the creator meant it all, then it is not pretentious, only dangerous.
Aronofsky is a difficult beast, because you can’t escape the fact he might deserve to be called pretentious. Such a fierce and singular film-maker, whose hit rate for getting it right is about 1/2. Yet, you can’t deny he has a go! His films are visceral nightmares, even when he pares it down to an earthly tale like The Wrestler. He wants you to feel before thinking. Black Swan pissed people off for this reason too; lucky for him, on that occasion, it mostly worked.
At the artist’s behest, mother! is to be spelled with a small case m, and an exclamation mark. I mean, that is an indicator of this man’s intent. It annoys me, let’s make no bones about it. It also excites me, because he has to live up to it! Opening every critical door available, because if you set yourself up to make that kind of statement, then the work better back it up.
The metaphor is thinly veiled; fooling some at the start that we might be watching a latter day Rosemary’s Baby, or, at the least, an invasion film with clever horror undertones. The mood is marvelously tense in the first hour, as we observe two massively capable actors doing their jobs effortlessly. So watchable are Lawrence and Bardem, that you begin to create your own movie in your mind around what is actually happening. Your own imagination is the star of the first half of this strange film.
It almost isn’t a spoiler anymore, so I will say, that Bardem is God and Lawrence is Gaia, mother earth. Take that onboard from the start and the whole may be more “enjoyble”. Although, Aronofsky doesn’t want you to enjoy it, he wants you to react… remember that! Because in the last hour he will force you to do so, and you probably won’t want to.
As with Requiem For a Dream, you may find yourself applauding the technical skill over the storytelling. With this film as evidence, I am now convinced that his trick is to throw the kitchen sink at you in the hope you will join the dots and find something worth talking about, without him having to bother. If I provide enough spectacle, he muses, they might label me a genius someday. Well, they might. But I won’t.
Yes, it almost makes sense if you crowbar it to, but, come on, it isn’t enough! At least David Lynch makes the weirdness so abstract to defy meaning. Aronofsky is creating dreamscapes that pretend to have relevance and wind up hollow, for the simple fact that we are not fools.
Does the last act violence offend me then? No, not at all. It simply isn’t a powerful enough film to do that. Despite some fine scenes in isolation, the whole of mother! is dead in the water as the work of art it wants to be. My lasting thought of it all is… why is Michelle Pfeiffer not doing more? She is an indestructible gem…
Aronofsky is a difficult beast, because you can’t escape the fact he might deserve to be called pretentious. Such a fierce and singular film-maker, whose hit rate for getting it right is about 1/2. Yet, you can’t deny he has a go! His films are visceral nightmares, even when he pares it down to an earthly tale like The Wrestler. He wants you to feel before thinking. Black Swan pissed people off for this reason too; lucky for him, on that occasion, it mostly worked.
At the artist’s behest, mother! is to be spelled with a small case m, and an exclamation mark. I mean, that is an indicator of this man’s intent. It annoys me, let’s make no bones about it. It also excites me, because he has to live up to it! Opening every critical door available, because if you set yourself up to make that kind of statement, then the work better back it up.
The metaphor is thinly veiled; fooling some at the start that we might be watching a latter day Rosemary’s Baby, or, at the least, an invasion film with clever horror undertones. The mood is marvelously tense in the first hour, as we observe two massively capable actors doing their jobs effortlessly. So watchable are Lawrence and Bardem, that you begin to create your own movie in your mind around what is actually happening. Your own imagination is the star of the first half of this strange film.
It almost isn’t a spoiler anymore, so I will say, that Bardem is God and Lawrence is Gaia, mother earth. Take that onboard from the start and the whole may be more “enjoyble”. Although, Aronofsky doesn’t want you to enjoy it, he wants you to react… remember that! Because in the last hour he will force you to do so, and you probably won’t want to.
As with Requiem For a Dream, you may find yourself applauding the technical skill over the storytelling. With this film as evidence, I am now convinced that his trick is to throw the kitchen sink at you in the hope you will join the dots and find something worth talking about, without him having to bother. If I provide enough spectacle, he muses, they might label me a genius someday. Well, they might. But I won’t.
Yes, it almost makes sense if you crowbar it to, but, come on, it isn’t enough! At least David Lynch makes the weirdness so abstract to defy meaning. Aronofsky is creating dreamscapes that pretend to have relevance and wind up hollow, for the simple fact that we are not fools.
Does the last act violence offend me then? No, not at all. It simply isn’t a powerful enough film to do that. Despite some fine scenes in isolation, the whole of mother! is dead in the water as the work of art it wants to be. My lasting thought of it all is… why is Michelle Pfeiffer not doing more? She is an indestructible gem…
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Raya and the Last Dragon (2021) in Movies
Sep 25, 2021
Strong Animation and Voice Work overcome "Standard" Plot
One of the first films to be released (both in theaters and on-line) during the pandemic, RAYA AND THE LAST DRAGON came and went quickly - certainly ignored in the movie theaters, and with very little fanfare on-line.
And that’s too bad for RAYA AND THE LAST DRAGON is a fun, fantastical and visually rich tapestry that weaves together strong characters, a good lesson and enough action and comedy to keep young and old alike engaged throughout.
RAYA tells the story of the land of Kumandra, a realm that was inspired by Southeast Asian countries (such as Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia) a land that is split into 5 parts that each face the same threat, but instead of banding together to fight this threat, they are splintered and selfish and look out only for their own - with little to no regard of the consequences to others.
Sound familiar? While the film was imagined and realized before the pandemic, the themes of this film reverberate strongly in this post-pandemic world that we live in.
Into this world drops Raya who, when betrayed by one she sees as a friend, sets out on a quest to find the last dragon and unify the 5 lands. It’s a typical “quest film” but one that is told with such heart and charm - with strong voice characters and beautiful animation - that I was won over by it.
Kelly Marie Tran (Rose Tico in the latest STAR WARS trilogy) brings Raya’s voice to life and it is a one that is embodied with hope, naivete and strength and really makes you root for her character. The voice work by the likes of Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS), Benedict Wong (DR. STRANGE), DANIEL DAE KIM (TV’s LOST) and Sandra OH (TV’s GREY’S ANATOMY) are all as equally strong and nuanced and draws you into each of their characters and the story.
And then there is Awkwafina (SHANG-CHI) as the voice of The Last Dragon - she is on another level. It is not hyperbole to say that this voicework/character is on a par with David Spade’s work as Kuzco in THE EMPEROR’S NEW GROOVE and much like Spade, she ad-libbed much of her dialogue. It’s not quite at the level of Robin Williams in ALADDIN, but it’s in that ballpark - it is that good. This character makes or breaks this film and AWKWAFINA nails it - and makes the film.
This film is a “non-Musical” and I think that works well here. While this choice may turn off some families from viewing, this choice makes it a stronger film and is the right selection.
And then, there is the animation, which is even more impressive considering it was created from the animators in their homes during the pandemic. RAYA AND THE LAST DRAGON is a visual feast, weaving imagery and beautifully animated scenes throughout - I applaud those that made this incredibly beautiful film under such adverse conditions, it is a triumph.
All-in-all RAYA AND THE LAST DRAGON is well worth checking out, despite the plot being rather “standard”, the themes, characters, voice work and animation are all top notch - what one has come to expect from Disney Animation.
Letter Grade: A- (did I mention that the plot is rather “standard”)
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that’s too bad for RAYA AND THE LAST DRAGON is a fun, fantastical and visually rich tapestry that weaves together strong characters, a good lesson and enough action and comedy to keep young and old alike engaged throughout.
RAYA tells the story of the land of Kumandra, a realm that was inspired by Southeast Asian countries (such as Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia) a land that is split into 5 parts that each face the same threat, but instead of banding together to fight this threat, they are splintered and selfish and look out only for their own - with little to no regard of the consequences to others.
Sound familiar? While the film was imagined and realized before the pandemic, the themes of this film reverberate strongly in this post-pandemic world that we live in.
Into this world drops Raya who, when betrayed by one she sees as a friend, sets out on a quest to find the last dragon and unify the 5 lands. It’s a typical “quest film” but one that is told with such heart and charm - with strong voice characters and beautiful animation - that I was won over by it.
Kelly Marie Tran (Rose Tico in the latest STAR WARS trilogy) brings Raya’s voice to life and it is a one that is embodied with hope, naivete and strength and really makes you root for her character. The voice work by the likes of Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS), Benedict Wong (DR. STRANGE), DANIEL DAE KIM (TV’s LOST) and Sandra OH (TV’s GREY’S ANATOMY) are all as equally strong and nuanced and draws you into each of their characters and the story.
And then there is Awkwafina (SHANG-CHI) as the voice of The Last Dragon - she is on another level. It is not hyperbole to say that this voicework/character is on a par with David Spade’s work as Kuzco in THE EMPEROR’S NEW GROOVE and much like Spade, she ad-libbed much of her dialogue. It’s not quite at the level of Robin Williams in ALADDIN, but it’s in that ballpark - it is that good. This character makes or breaks this film and AWKWAFINA nails it - and makes the film.
This film is a “non-Musical” and I think that works well here. While this choice may turn off some families from viewing, this choice makes it a stronger film and is the right selection.
And then, there is the animation, which is even more impressive considering it was created from the animators in their homes during the pandemic. RAYA AND THE LAST DRAGON is a visual feast, weaving imagery and beautifully animated scenes throughout - I applaud those that made this incredibly beautiful film under such adverse conditions, it is a triumph.
All-in-all RAYA AND THE LAST DRAGON is well worth checking out, despite the plot being rather “standard”, the themes, characters, voice work and animation are all top notch - what one has come to expect from Disney Animation.
Letter Grade: A- (did I mention that the plot is rather “standard”)
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Johnny English Strikes Again (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Spy spoof caper that’s only passably amusing.
It’s a HILARIOUS concept. It’s Bond but not as we know it: a suave, sophisticated, well-dressed hero but someone who’s a complete klutz when it comes to the spy business. Rowan Atkinson is perfect in the role: because when he plays his face ”straight” he IS strangely good-looking and certainly pulls off the air of confidence, intelligence and sophistication well.
So it was that 2003’s Johnny English was a refreshing novelty. Roll forwards 15 years (via 2011’s “Johnny English Reborn”) and the concoction needs… you know… actual JOKES.
For “Johnny English Strikes Again” is unfortunately a pretty lame affair.
The Plot
Johnny English (Atkinson) is retired from MI7 and living life as a Geography teacher at a public school. Aside from teaching them about sheep farming in Australia and magma, English delights in teaching his young pupils the tricks of the spy trade: “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight”, with a twinkle and a vodka martini in hand. “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight” repeats the class.
But the quiet life of English is about to end, since a cyber-attack has exposed all of MI7’s current agents and the Prime Minister (Emma Thompson) needs to re-hire a retired agent who is currently ‘off the grid’. But noone – friend or foe – is safe when the bumbling English and his faithful helper Bough (Ben Miller) go back into the field.
The Turns
As UK comedy professionals, Atkinson and Miller deliver their English/Bough schtick serviceably enough. The brilliant Emma Thompson though is woefully underused as a straight-woman, being asked to do little more than an exasperated Theresa May impersonation.
If you need a sexy and sophisticated femme fatale for a Bond spoof, what better than a real ex-Bond girl? So the extremely sexy and sophisticated Olga Kurylenko (Camille from “Quantum of Solace”) plays Ophelia Bhuletova, which sounds much funnier when pronounced by Atkinson. And a very good job she does too.
The Review
To emphasise the positive for a moment, the film is suitably glossy, which are table stakes for a spy caper like this or Austin Powers.
But the script by William Davies (who did the previous Johnny Englishes, but nothing much since “Reborn”) doesn’t deliver any real laugh-out-loud moments. My hopes were raised when the “pensioner interviews” happened and Charles Dance, Edward Fox and Michael Gambon turned up. Great, I thought… having the old timers play off Atkinson will be fun. But unfortunately they were nothing but cameos and (although one of the film’s comedy highlights) they came and went in the blink of an eye.
Elsewhere the film relied too much on a few running jokes: ostensibly the need for health and safety in MI7, where guns are rather frowned upon, given their potential to caused injury or worse. A ‘virtual reality’ training mission also delivers smiles but outstays its welcome.
The film is a first-time feature for TV-comedy director David Kerr.
Final thoughts
There are films which are wildly offensive. There are films that are just plain bad. This is neither: it is as Douglas Adams might have described it as “Mostly Harmless”. But to get any more than the rating I have given it, a comedy film has to make me laugh and this one failed miserably. It’s a watchable TV film for a rainy afternoon, but not worth heading out to the cinema to watch.
So it was that 2003’s Johnny English was a refreshing novelty. Roll forwards 15 years (via 2011’s “Johnny English Reborn”) and the concoction needs… you know… actual JOKES.
For “Johnny English Strikes Again” is unfortunately a pretty lame affair.
The Plot
Johnny English (Atkinson) is retired from MI7 and living life as a Geography teacher at a public school. Aside from teaching them about sheep farming in Australia and magma, English delights in teaching his young pupils the tricks of the spy trade: “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight”, with a twinkle and a vodka martini in hand. “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight” repeats the class.
But the quiet life of English is about to end, since a cyber-attack has exposed all of MI7’s current agents and the Prime Minister (Emma Thompson) needs to re-hire a retired agent who is currently ‘off the grid’. But noone – friend or foe – is safe when the bumbling English and his faithful helper Bough (Ben Miller) go back into the field.
The Turns
As UK comedy professionals, Atkinson and Miller deliver their English/Bough schtick serviceably enough. The brilliant Emma Thompson though is woefully underused as a straight-woman, being asked to do little more than an exasperated Theresa May impersonation.
If you need a sexy and sophisticated femme fatale for a Bond spoof, what better than a real ex-Bond girl? So the extremely sexy and sophisticated Olga Kurylenko (Camille from “Quantum of Solace”) plays Ophelia Bhuletova, which sounds much funnier when pronounced by Atkinson. And a very good job she does too.
The Review
To emphasise the positive for a moment, the film is suitably glossy, which are table stakes for a spy caper like this or Austin Powers.
But the script by William Davies (who did the previous Johnny Englishes, but nothing much since “Reborn”) doesn’t deliver any real laugh-out-loud moments. My hopes were raised when the “pensioner interviews” happened and Charles Dance, Edward Fox and Michael Gambon turned up. Great, I thought… having the old timers play off Atkinson will be fun. But unfortunately they were nothing but cameos and (although one of the film’s comedy highlights) they came and went in the blink of an eye.
Elsewhere the film relied too much on a few running jokes: ostensibly the need for health and safety in MI7, where guns are rather frowned upon, given their potential to caused injury or worse. A ‘virtual reality’ training mission also delivers smiles but outstays its welcome.
The film is a first-time feature for TV-comedy director David Kerr.
Final thoughts
There are films which are wildly offensive. There are films that are just plain bad. This is neither: it is as Douglas Adams might have described it as “Mostly Harmless”. But to get any more than the rating I have given it, a comedy film has to make me laugh and this one failed miserably. It’s a watchable TV film for a rainy afternoon, but not worth heading out to the cinema to watch.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Feb 1, 2019 (Updated Feb 1, 2019)
First 2 acts are interesting (1 more)
MacAvoy is great
A Textbook Example On How Not To End A Trilogy
Contains spoilers, click to show
Glass is the 3rd movie in M. Night Shyamalan's pseudo superhero trilogy following Unbreakable and Split. Unfortunately it is probably the worst movie out of the three and doesn't live up to the twenty years of build-up it has had going into it. Full spoilers will be present through this review as it's kind of hard to discuss the film without spoiling anything.
The movie opens with what is essentially a condensed version of both Unbreakable and Split. We see Bruce Willis' Dennis Dunn stalking criminals in his poncho and we see James MacAvoy's Kevin Wendell Crumb keeping four young girls captured in an abandoned warehouse. The old 'unstoppable force meets immovable object,' trope plays out and the two of them wind up getting caught by Sarah Paulson and her team, who apparently specialise in investigating those who have delusions about having superhuman powers.
She brings the two of them to a mental hospital where she is keeping Samuel L Jackson's Mr Glass. Sarah Paulson's character then spends the next chunk of the movie trying to convince the three that the powers that they believe they possess is actually in their heads and there is a real-world, logical explanation to everything that they can do. This part of the film is actually pretty interesting in the ideas that it poses and I liked where the film was going at this point.
Then the third act happens and we are reminded why Shyamalan so desperately needs an editor to keep his ideas in check. There is this huge build up that takes place teasing an epic fight between Dunn and The Beast at the top of some huge brand new building in the middle of the city. Unfortunately we never get there and instead we just get some mediocre action choreography in a medium sized car park between the two. The whole thing ends with the fairly contrived retcon twist that Kevin's dad was in the same train crash that Dunn survived and Mr Glass caused, thus making Mr Glass the 'creator,' of both superheroes. Then the three characters die in an extremely anticlimactic fashion. The Beast breaks a couple of Mr Glass' bones and he falls out of his wheelchair and dies, (even though this is something that we have seen happen to him in Unbreakable and he survived it.) Then a sniper randomly shoots Kevin even though the beast is tamed by the appearance of Anya Taylor-Joy's character, Casey from Split. He just gets shot once and dies with hardly any fanfare. Then David Dunn is drowned in a puddle as Sarah Paulson explains that she is part of a secret organisation that hunts people who believe that they are superheroes, determines whether or not they really are superheroes through a pretty drawn-out process and then proceeds to kill them if they do in fact possess superpowers. We also see that for some reason this group apparently only meets in crowded public restaurants in the middle of the city centre in broad daylight and have to wait until any non members of this super secret club, (that just killed 3 people in a public car park in broad daylight in front of cops and family members,) have left the restaurant before they can discuss business. Then it turns out that Mr Glass leaked the footage from the hospital security cameras online so that people would see that superheroes really do exist.
If you are someone that hasn't seen the movie and doesn't care about spoilers so you just read this review anyway; your brain is probably falling out of your ear after reading my description of the third act and that's because on paper this whole sequence of events is absolutely ludicrous and the fact that no one pointed this out during the movie's production is mind-boggling.
What a waste after two solid movies and a decent two first acts worth of build up...
There are some positives I took away though. It is as much of an absolute joy to watch James MacAvoy play so many totally different characters convincingly in one scene as it was in Split, maybe even more so here as we get to see even more personalities emerge and in even quicker succession. He is an utterly phenomenal actor. It is also cool to see Mr Glass and David Dunn after twenty years to see where they are at in their lives and how they have been spending their time since the events of Unbreakable. There are also some nice shots and camera angles in the film, (more so in the first two acts of the story,) and some nice colour scheme aesthetics going on in certain compositions that made some shots more interesting to look at.
Overall, this movie could have been so much more and in the end it throws away some really potentially interesting plot threads in favour for a few tacked on twists and gives us nothing more than a half arsed conclusion to an otherwise solid trilogy.
The movie opens with what is essentially a condensed version of both Unbreakable and Split. We see Bruce Willis' Dennis Dunn stalking criminals in his poncho and we see James MacAvoy's Kevin Wendell Crumb keeping four young girls captured in an abandoned warehouse. The old 'unstoppable force meets immovable object,' trope plays out and the two of them wind up getting caught by Sarah Paulson and her team, who apparently specialise in investigating those who have delusions about having superhuman powers.
She brings the two of them to a mental hospital where she is keeping Samuel L Jackson's Mr Glass. Sarah Paulson's character then spends the next chunk of the movie trying to convince the three that the powers that they believe they possess is actually in their heads and there is a real-world, logical explanation to everything that they can do. This part of the film is actually pretty interesting in the ideas that it poses and I liked where the film was going at this point.
Then the third act happens and we are reminded why Shyamalan so desperately needs an editor to keep his ideas in check. There is this huge build up that takes place teasing an epic fight between Dunn and The Beast at the top of some huge brand new building in the middle of the city. Unfortunately we never get there and instead we just get some mediocre action choreography in a medium sized car park between the two. The whole thing ends with the fairly contrived retcon twist that Kevin's dad was in the same train crash that Dunn survived and Mr Glass caused, thus making Mr Glass the 'creator,' of both superheroes. Then the three characters die in an extremely anticlimactic fashion. The Beast breaks a couple of Mr Glass' bones and he falls out of his wheelchair and dies, (even though this is something that we have seen happen to him in Unbreakable and he survived it.) Then a sniper randomly shoots Kevin even though the beast is tamed by the appearance of Anya Taylor-Joy's character, Casey from Split. He just gets shot once and dies with hardly any fanfare. Then David Dunn is drowned in a puddle as Sarah Paulson explains that she is part of a secret organisation that hunts people who believe that they are superheroes, determines whether or not they really are superheroes through a pretty drawn-out process and then proceeds to kill them if they do in fact possess superpowers. We also see that for some reason this group apparently only meets in crowded public restaurants in the middle of the city centre in broad daylight and have to wait until any non members of this super secret club, (that just killed 3 people in a public car park in broad daylight in front of cops and family members,) have left the restaurant before they can discuss business. Then it turns out that Mr Glass leaked the footage from the hospital security cameras online so that people would see that superheroes really do exist.
If you are someone that hasn't seen the movie and doesn't care about spoilers so you just read this review anyway; your brain is probably falling out of your ear after reading my description of the third act and that's because on paper this whole sequence of events is absolutely ludicrous and the fact that no one pointed this out during the movie's production is mind-boggling.
What a waste after two solid movies and a decent two first acts worth of build up...
There are some positives I took away though. It is as much of an absolute joy to watch James MacAvoy play so many totally different characters convincingly in one scene as it was in Split, maybe even more so here as we get to see even more personalities emerge and in even quicker succession. He is an utterly phenomenal actor. It is also cool to see Mr Glass and David Dunn after twenty years to see where they are at in their lives and how they have been spending their time since the events of Unbreakable. There are also some nice shots and camera angles in the film, (more so in the first two acts of the story,) and some nice colour scheme aesthetics going on in certain compositions that made some shots more interesting to look at.
Overall, this movie could have been so much more and in the end it throws away some really potentially interesting plot threads in favour for a few tacked on twists and gives us nothing more than a half arsed conclusion to an otherwise solid trilogy.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mary Poppins (1964) in Movies
Apr 20, 2019
Practically Perfect In Every Way
After watching MARY POPPINS RETURNS, the BankofMarquis was itching to check out the original 1964 Julie Andrews/Dick Van Dyke/Walt Disney production of MARY POPPINS to see if it holds up as well as my memory has held it up. I was a little nervous when I put the DVD in the player and hit go.
And I shouldn't have worried, for MARY POPPINS is...pardon the expression..."Practically Perfect in Every Way".
Based on the series of books by P.L. Travers and set right around 1900, the film tells the tale of the London Banks' Family - Mr., Mrs., Jane and Michael - who need a new nanny. Both parents are too busy to spend time with their children - he with his job at the Bank (get it - Mr. Banks works at a Bank) and her involvement in the Women's Suffragette movement. Into their lives flies (quite literally) Mary Poppins - a nanny with magical qualities who, along with her friend and cohort Bert, casts a spell on the children - and the Banks' family.
Julie Andrews earned the Oscar for Best Actress for her feature film debut - and it is richly deserved. Her Poppins is stern, smart, brassy and loving - oh...and a marvelous singer and dancer. Just as strong as Andrews is Dick Van Dyke as Bert (though some will quibble with his Cockney accent). I say...don't worry about his accent and watch the wonderful comedic timing, dancing and joi de vivre that Van Dyke brings to this film. He is the "secret sauce" that makes this work. Julie would not be as good - nor would this film be as interesting - without Bert by her side.
EVERY major player shines in this film from David Tomlinson's befuddled, straight-laced British Gentleman Mr. Banks to Glynnis Johns as the enthusiastic supporter of Votes for Women, Mrs. Banks, to the children - Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber. Special notice should be made to Ed Wynn who's one scene/song/cameo as Uncle Albert - the "I Love To Laugh" scene - is pure gold.
Even the smaller, supporting roles are stellar. Reta Shaw and Hermione Baddely as the "domestics", Arthur Treacher (yes - he, of FISH AND CHIPS fame) as the Constable and Reginald Owen (Scrooge in the 1930's version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL) as Admiral Boom are all fun to watch and match the energy and timing of the leads in their limited screen time.
And...the music...Oh, the Music! Written by Richard M and Robert B Sherman - these songs are classic. Starting with the Oscar Winner for Best Song - Chim Chim Cheree and continuing through Feed The Birds, I Love To Laugh, Jolly Holiday and Let's Go Fly A Kite - ALL the songs are magical and lend a hand to the story - they serve a purpose and are not just a distraction. This film is worth watching just for the rooftop Step-In-Time song and dance number alone.
But the thing that makes this film go is the story - the characters, settings, costumes, songs and dances - are all in service to a touching, sentimental (but not cloying) simple story of a family coming together. It is charming in it's simplicity and leaves everyone with a heart full of joy.
Surprisingly to a modern audience, the special effects (especially the "Live Action and Animation" sequence) holds up really, really well. It is amazing to me how strong these effects are - even over 50 years later.
This is a wonderful, heartfelt family film that deserves a re-watch if you haven't seen it in awhile.
Letter Grade A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
And I shouldn't have worried, for MARY POPPINS is...pardon the expression..."Practically Perfect in Every Way".
Based on the series of books by P.L. Travers and set right around 1900, the film tells the tale of the London Banks' Family - Mr., Mrs., Jane and Michael - who need a new nanny. Both parents are too busy to spend time with their children - he with his job at the Bank (get it - Mr. Banks works at a Bank) and her involvement in the Women's Suffragette movement. Into their lives flies (quite literally) Mary Poppins - a nanny with magical qualities who, along with her friend and cohort Bert, casts a spell on the children - and the Banks' family.
Julie Andrews earned the Oscar for Best Actress for her feature film debut - and it is richly deserved. Her Poppins is stern, smart, brassy and loving - oh...and a marvelous singer and dancer. Just as strong as Andrews is Dick Van Dyke as Bert (though some will quibble with his Cockney accent). I say...don't worry about his accent and watch the wonderful comedic timing, dancing and joi de vivre that Van Dyke brings to this film. He is the "secret sauce" that makes this work. Julie would not be as good - nor would this film be as interesting - without Bert by her side.
EVERY major player shines in this film from David Tomlinson's befuddled, straight-laced British Gentleman Mr. Banks to Glynnis Johns as the enthusiastic supporter of Votes for Women, Mrs. Banks, to the children - Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber. Special notice should be made to Ed Wynn who's one scene/song/cameo as Uncle Albert - the "I Love To Laugh" scene - is pure gold.
Even the smaller, supporting roles are stellar. Reta Shaw and Hermione Baddely as the "domestics", Arthur Treacher (yes - he, of FISH AND CHIPS fame) as the Constable and Reginald Owen (Scrooge in the 1930's version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL) as Admiral Boom are all fun to watch and match the energy and timing of the leads in their limited screen time.
And...the music...Oh, the Music! Written by Richard M and Robert B Sherman - these songs are classic. Starting with the Oscar Winner for Best Song - Chim Chim Cheree and continuing through Feed The Birds, I Love To Laugh, Jolly Holiday and Let's Go Fly A Kite - ALL the songs are magical and lend a hand to the story - they serve a purpose and are not just a distraction. This film is worth watching just for the rooftop Step-In-Time song and dance number alone.
But the thing that makes this film go is the story - the characters, settings, costumes, songs and dances - are all in service to a touching, sentimental (but not cloying) simple story of a family coming together. It is charming in it's simplicity and leaves everyone with a heart full of joy.
Surprisingly to a modern audience, the special effects (especially the "Live Action and Animation" sequence) holds up really, really well. It is amazing to me how strong these effects are - even over 50 years later.
This is a wonderful, heartfelt family film that deserves a re-watch if you haven't seen it in awhile.
Letter Grade A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated Scream 2 (1997) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
Characters – Sidney is back studying a college and over the events of the first film, she has moved on with a new boyfriend and new friends, that is until the ‘Stab’ movie is released. Sidney becomes the primary target of the killer and must use the experience with surviving a massacre before to make it out alive. Dewey still suffering the effects of his injuries in the first film, he is no longer a cop and with the events occurring he arrives back in Sidney’s life to try and help before the killer can get near her. Gale wrote the book on the murders, the one that the movie is based on, she is still trying to get a story, but does start to learn the errors in her way when she deals with other reporters. Cotton Weary does have a bigger part this time, as he is trying to piece his life back together after the wrongful accusations. Randy returns to give us the rules needed to make a sequel which an important part of the original. Of our new characters we get the new boyfriend in Derek who seems to be the best part of Sidney’s new life. Cici is the best friend at the college that is the more popular one at the college. This movie does have a larger cast than the first film which doesn’t always give the characters enough screen time.
Performances – Neve Campbell is still good in her role, she does make us believe she is the everyday student that is being tormented by the killer. Courteney Cox and David Arquette continue their good work in the supporting roles, where this film struggles to get the best of the of the supporting cast is by introducing too many characters, with Sarah Michelle Gellar seemingly filling the Drew Barrymore type role, where we expect to see her more in the film.
Story – The story picks up in a universe following the events of the first film where Hollywood makes movies on massacres, with this release we get to see the darker side of Hollywood taking advantage of real-life murders and how the innocent victims and survivor can be painted differently to cinematic purposes, well that seems to be the message I picked up on in this one. when it comes to the slasher side of things we get to watch the victims getting picked off by the killer, this does feel the same as before, while the references through this film focus on the idea of the sequels that Hollywood makes, and how they always story to improve on the last, though we do step away from the horror discussion this time.
Horror/Mystery – The horror side of the film comes from the ideas that people can take advantage of tragic stories for a bigger story, reflecting the events of the film, the mystery can keep us guessing to just who could be behind it this time around with plenty of potential suspects.
Settings – This time the film is set in a college that show us just where Sidney is now in her life which is important as she has moved on, but the event will always be part of her life.
Special Effects – The effects in the film once again show us how blood and gore can be achieved without going over the top.
Scene of the Movie – The showdown.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too many supporting characters this time around.
Final Thoughts – This is a sequel that is well worth the watch, it shows progression in the horror genre with a sequel that does make sense to how an everyday person would be moving on with their life after the events in the first one, while still having the tragedy on their shoulder.
Overall: Good fun sequel.
Performances – Neve Campbell is still good in her role, she does make us believe she is the everyday student that is being tormented by the killer. Courteney Cox and David Arquette continue their good work in the supporting roles, where this film struggles to get the best of the of the supporting cast is by introducing too many characters, with Sarah Michelle Gellar seemingly filling the Drew Barrymore type role, where we expect to see her more in the film.
Story – The story picks up in a universe following the events of the first film where Hollywood makes movies on massacres, with this release we get to see the darker side of Hollywood taking advantage of real-life murders and how the innocent victims and survivor can be painted differently to cinematic purposes, well that seems to be the message I picked up on in this one. when it comes to the slasher side of things we get to watch the victims getting picked off by the killer, this does feel the same as before, while the references through this film focus on the idea of the sequels that Hollywood makes, and how they always story to improve on the last, though we do step away from the horror discussion this time.
Horror/Mystery – The horror side of the film comes from the ideas that people can take advantage of tragic stories for a bigger story, reflecting the events of the film, the mystery can keep us guessing to just who could be behind it this time around with plenty of potential suspects.
Settings – This time the film is set in a college that show us just where Sidney is now in her life which is important as she has moved on, but the event will always be part of her life.
Special Effects – The effects in the film once again show us how blood and gore can be achieved without going over the top.
Scene of the Movie – The showdown.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too many supporting characters this time around.
Final Thoughts – This is a sequel that is well worth the watch, it shows progression in the horror genre with a sequel that does make sense to how an everyday person would be moving on with their life after the events in the first one, while still having the tragedy on their shoulder.
Overall: Good fun sequel.
The Poetry Deal
Book
"The Poetry Deal: San Francisco Poet Laureate Series No. 5 gives us di Prima's vision as she looks...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Midnight Sky (2020) in Movies
Dec 26, 2020
Moody and Atmospheric
Ever since his stint on ER, I have been a fan of George Clooney’s - and not just because he is charming and charismatic on film - but because I find that he brings an interesting facet to whatever character he inhabits
.
And with his latest effort THE MIDNIGHT SKY (Directed by Mr. Clooney, as well) he does not disappoint as his performance - and his Direction - are fascinating to watch.
Based upon the novel by Lily Brooks-Dalton, THE MIDNIGHT SKY tells the tale of a lone scientist (Clooney) in a remote, arctic research station, who is one of the few remaining people on an Earth that has become uninhabitable. He rushes to warn some returning astronauts to avoid their home planet.
A thoughtful, moody film. THE MIDNIGHT SKY will not be everyone’s cup of tea - and you have to be in the mood for something somewhat slow and contemplative - but if you are, you will be rewarded with a rich tapestry of visuals and performances that will be, ultimately, fulfilling.
Let’s start with what works - George Clooney. His direction and his performance as Augustine, the scientist, are both sparse and compact. Neither of these facets have an extraneous movement or tone and they work hand-in-hand to deliver the film that Clooney, obviously intends to give us.
Visually, this film is beautiful to look at - inter cutting the vast emptiness of space to the vast, snowy emptiness of the Arctic. The images that Clooney was able to create was well worth watching this film for.
Clooney was also fortunate enough to cast a variety of stellar performers in a film that has very few roles, so the ones that are there better deliver the goods - and they do. From Ethan Peck (Spock in Star Trek:Discovery) who plays the young Clooney in a flashback (I am very glad they chose to do this as opposed to “de-aging” Clooney) to the Astronauts: Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo (who I continue to like more and more every time I see him), Kyle Chandler and Tiffany Boone. All strike the right tone for the moodiness of this film.
Special notice should be made for Damien Bechir’s astronaut, Sanchez. He was terrific in the limited screen time he had and elevated every scene he was in. Bechir has become one of those performers who I get excited about when I see that he is going to be involved in a screen project.
What doesn’t work? Well…as I stated before…the pacing. It is slow (almost coming to a stop) at times. Since this is a film that will be streamed via Netflix, I can see many, many folks grabbing their phones at times, which is too bad, for the moodiness - and pace - worked for me (or at least the for the mood I was in while watching this).
My other issue with this film is the contrived circumstances that both Clooney and the Astronauts find themselves in. It isn’t enough that Clooney has to journey across rugged Arctic terrain to find a more powerful antennae to communicate with the Astronauts, we have to throw in cracking and melting ice to it. And, of course, just as the Astronauts connect with Clooney, a surprise meteor shower damages the communication array. These contrivances just wasn’t need for the type of movie this film was trying to be. It’s almost as if the Studio Heads said “it’s too slow and talky - put some action in this thing”.
But, if you are able to stay with this film, the ending pays off very well, indeed. I found that it earned it’s ending and I walked away moved and satisfied.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
.
And with his latest effort THE MIDNIGHT SKY (Directed by Mr. Clooney, as well) he does not disappoint as his performance - and his Direction - are fascinating to watch.
Based upon the novel by Lily Brooks-Dalton, THE MIDNIGHT SKY tells the tale of a lone scientist (Clooney) in a remote, arctic research station, who is one of the few remaining people on an Earth that has become uninhabitable. He rushes to warn some returning astronauts to avoid their home planet.
A thoughtful, moody film. THE MIDNIGHT SKY will not be everyone’s cup of tea - and you have to be in the mood for something somewhat slow and contemplative - but if you are, you will be rewarded with a rich tapestry of visuals and performances that will be, ultimately, fulfilling.
Let’s start with what works - George Clooney. His direction and his performance as Augustine, the scientist, are both sparse and compact. Neither of these facets have an extraneous movement or tone and they work hand-in-hand to deliver the film that Clooney, obviously intends to give us.
Visually, this film is beautiful to look at - inter cutting the vast emptiness of space to the vast, snowy emptiness of the Arctic. The images that Clooney was able to create was well worth watching this film for.
Clooney was also fortunate enough to cast a variety of stellar performers in a film that has very few roles, so the ones that are there better deliver the goods - and they do. From Ethan Peck (Spock in Star Trek:Discovery) who plays the young Clooney in a flashback (I am very glad they chose to do this as opposed to “de-aging” Clooney) to the Astronauts: Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo (who I continue to like more and more every time I see him), Kyle Chandler and Tiffany Boone. All strike the right tone for the moodiness of this film.
Special notice should be made for Damien Bechir’s astronaut, Sanchez. He was terrific in the limited screen time he had and elevated every scene he was in. Bechir has become one of those performers who I get excited about when I see that he is going to be involved in a screen project.
What doesn’t work? Well…as I stated before…the pacing. It is slow (almost coming to a stop) at times. Since this is a film that will be streamed via Netflix, I can see many, many folks grabbing their phones at times, which is too bad, for the moodiness - and pace - worked for me (or at least the for the mood I was in while watching this).
My other issue with this film is the contrived circumstances that both Clooney and the Astronauts find themselves in. It isn’t enough that Clooney has to journey across rugged Arctic terrain to find a more powerful antennae to communicate with the Astronauts, we have to throw in cracking and melting ice to it. And, of course, just as the Astronauts connect with Clooney, a surprise meteor shower damages the communication array. These contrivances just wasn’t need for the type of movie this film was trying to be. It’s almost as if the Studio Heads said “it’s too slow and talky - put some action in this thing”.
But, if you are able to stay with this film, the ending pays off very well, indeed. I found that it earned it’s ending and I walked away moved and satisfied.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)