Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Following up a beloved classic is never easy task but that is what Disney is attempting to do with “Mary Poppins Returns”. This time out Emily Blunt takes on the magical umbrella of the no-nonsense but whimsical Nanny made famous by the series of books by PL Travers and of course the beloved classic starring Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke.
When hardship strikes the Banks family; Mary returns to assist Michael and Jane as well is Michael’s young children in much the magical way that she helped Michael and Jane all those years ago.
Joining her is local lamplighter Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda), who remembers Mary and Jane Banks from his childhood.
Shocked that Mary has returned after all these years and not looking a day older; Michael Michaels three younger children are with delay on a magical adventure that only Mary Poppins can provide. Along the way they will dabble in animated environments, meet all manner of quirky characters, and of course bring the house down with magical and show stopping musical numbers as they attempt to help Michael and Jane save their beloved family home from ruthless bankers.
The film captures much of the joy and magic that you remember from the characters and it is likely to evoke an emotional response from you throughout the film.
Blunt does an amazing job taking over the role and her singing and dancing is very impressive. Miranda while struggling much as Van Dyke did with the Cockney accent; throws himself into the various musical numbers with passion and energy that helps take the scenes to a new level.
As I was watching the film and enjoying it thoroughly; I thought to myself the only real quality it lacked where the show stopping tunes that made the original such an unforgettable event. The Sherman Brothers set an impossibly high standard to follow as the score for the original film is peppered with Disney mainstays that have endured the test of time. No sooner had I thought that to myself; than to amazing musical numbers lit up the second half of the film to the point where I found myself not only humming one of them after the screening, but singing parts of them for several weeks after.
“Mary Poppins Returns” is a magical and musical film that the entire family can enjoy and takes viewers back to the simpler and nostalgic times of old. Let us hope that there will be new adventures for Mary to grace the cinema screen in the not-too-distant future as her absence has been far too long and dearly missed.
http://sknr.net/2018/12/12/mary-poppins-returns/
When hardship strikes the Banks family; Mary returns to assist Michael and Jane as well is Michael’s young children in much the magical way that she helped Michael and Jane all those years ago.
Joining her is local lamplighter Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda), who remembers Mary and Jane Banks from his childhood.
Shocked that Mary has returned after all these years and not looking a day older; Michael Michaels three younger children are with delay on a magical adventure that only Mary Poppins can provide. Along the way they will dabble in animated environments, meet all manner of quirky characters, and of course bring the house down with magical and show stopping musical numbers as they attempt to help Michael and Jane save their beloved family home from ruthless bankers.
The film captures much of the joy and magic that you remember from the characters and it is likely to evoke an emotional response from you throughout the film.
Blunt does an amazing job taking over the role and her singing and dancing is very impressive. Miranda while struggling much as Van Dyke did with the Cockney accent; throws himself into the various musical numbers with passion and energy that helps take the scenes to a new level.
As I was watching the film and enjoying it thoroughly; I thought to myself the only real quality it lacked where the show stopping tunes that made the original such an unforgettable event. The Sherman Brothers set an impossibly high standard to follow as the score for the original film is peppered with Disney mainstays that have endured the test of time. No sooner had I thought that to myself; than to amazing musical numbers lit up the second half of the film to the point where I found myself not only humming one of them after the screening, but singing parts of them for several weeks after.
“Mary Poppins Returns” is a magical and musical film that the entire family can enjoy and takes viewers back to the simpler and nostalgic times of old. Let us hope that there will be new adventures for Mary to grace the cinema screen in the not-too-distant future as her absence has been far too long and dearly missed.
http://sknr.net/2018/12/12/mary-poppins-returns/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Paycheck (2003) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In the year 2007, memories can be erased almost as easily as they can be created. With corporate security being of top concern, this technology is in high demand for corporations who hire people to work on sensitive projects.
Michael Jennings (Ben Affleck), is a master of technology, and as such, is in high demand for his ability to reverse engineer technology. Companies hire him to work in private to unlock technological secrets of their competition and upon completion of his work; Jennings has his memories of his work and time at the company removed. This arrangement protects the companies, as they do not have to disclose how they came about the new technologies and the only person who can attest to the source of the work has no memory of it making the claim valid, and keeping him from being able to recoup long-term profits from the company.
Jennings is well paid for his work, and has recently completed a two-month job when his friend Rethrick (Aaron Eckhart), asks Michael to come work on a secret thee-year project for his company. Michael is told only that it deals with optics and that he will be paid with stock options worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
After thinking about the deal, Michael agrees to the job and sets out to complete the task ahead of him.
In what seems like a few minutes to him, Michael comes to in the office of Rethrick and is stunned to learn that he has completed his work and that it was a huge success.
Pleased, Michael sets out to collect his payment but is surprised to learn that he forfeited his stocks four days earlier and sent himself an envelope containing various mundane items such as paperclips, ball bearings, matches, and keys.
Before long, Michael is running for his life and attempting to unravel the mystery of the missing three years in his memory.
Based on the short story by renowned Sci-Fi author Phillip K. Dick, and directed by famed action helmer John Woo, “Paycheck” is a pleasant and entertaining surprise. The previews do not do this film justice, as it is an entertaining and engrossing film with good supporting work by Uma Thurman and Paul Giamatti.
There are a number of twists and turns to the story and some good action and humor along the way. Affleck does solid work as a man desperate to solve the mystery and struggling to cope with his life spun out of control.
While the ending was a bit to Hollywood for me, “Paycheck” is a solid and entertaining film and worth seeing.
Michael Jennings (Ben Affleck), is a master of technology, and as such, is in high demand for his ability to reverse engineer technology. Companies hire him to work in private to unlock technological secrets of their competition and upon completion of his work; Jennings has his memories of his work and time at the company removed. This arrangement protects the companies, as they do not have to disclose how they came about the new technologies and the only person who can attest to the source of the work has no memory of it making the claim valid, and keeping him from being able to recoup long-term profits from the company.
Jennings is well paid for his work, and has recently completed a two-month job when his friend Rethrick (Aaron Eckhart), asks Michael to come work on a secret thee-year project for his company. Michael is told only that it deals with optics and that he will be paid with stock options worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
After thinking about the deal, Michael agrees to the job and sets out to complete the task ahead of him.
In what seems like a few minutes to him, Michael comes to in the office of Rethrick and is stunned to learn that he has completed his work and that it was a huge success.
Pleased, Michael sets out to collect his payment but is surprised to learn that he forfeited his stocks four days earlier and sent himself an envelope containing various mundane items such as paperclips, ball bearings, matches, and keys.
Before long, Michael is running for his life and attempting to unravel the mystery of the missing three years in his memory.
Based on the short story by renowned Sci-Fi author Phillip K. Dick, and directed by famed action helmer John Woo, “Paycheck” is a pleasant and entertaining surprise. The previews do not do this film justice, as it is an entertaining and engrossing film with good supporting work by Uma Thurman and Paul Giamatti.
There are a number of twists and turns to the story and some good action and humor along the way. Affleck does solid work as a man desperate to solve the mystery and struggling to cope with his life spun out of control.
While the ending was a bit to Hollywood for me, “Paycheck” is a solid and entertaining film and worth seeing.
The Craggus (360 KP) rated The Queens Corgi (2019) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
The Queen's Corgi is a vicious mongrel
There’re so many problematic aspects to “The Queen’s Corgi” it’s kind of baffling it ever made it to cinema screens. A cute cartoon fable about the Queen’s beloved pets may seem like a slam-dunk for the Saturday kid’s club crowd and, if you’re determined to see it, it’s definitely worth waiting for it to reach the bargain screening circuit. Nobody should pay full price to see this.
At its core, it’s a story of Rex (Jack Whitehall), an adorable but arrogant Corgi who lets being the ‘top dog’ go to his head and ends up in the doghouse, stranded outside the Palace and at the mercy of the ferocious leader of the pack at the local dog pound. So far, so predictable.
Where “The Queen’s Corgi” surprises is in its decision to include in cutesy cartoon the divisive figure of President Trump and his current wife, especially as it involves the real-life self-confessed sexual predator in a sub-plot about mating his (fictional) Corgi with one of the Queen’s pets, a storyline rife with casual coercion and canine sexual assault. From that tawdry and uncomfortable opening, we progress onwards to the meat of the plot which sees Rex encounter an underground dogfighting ring operating at the Pound.
Add in a couple of pretty scary sequences involving nearly getting run over, a surprisingly graphic near-drowning and an attempted murder by arson and you start to understand why this European production has been rated PG when its subject should be an easy-U. It earns it.
Some of this will, of course, pass over the heads of younger children, at least on a conscious level, but there’s such a nasty undertone to the whole movie that you should be thinking twice about seeing it. To UK children, of course, Donald Trump is something of a distant, already cartoonish figure, possibly a bit of a bogeyman but the casual humanisation and normalising of a figure like Trump is a dangerous and slippery slope (as Jimmy Kimmel can attest to) and sets an unpleasant precedent for future ‘family entertainment’. The fact that it pokes fun at him up to and including him getting bitten in the dick by a Corgi doesn’t mitigate his appearance, it just makes it more inappropriate.
I’m genuinely surprised this has been allowed to pass without comment from the Royal Household but perhaps they hope it will quickly fade into obscurity, even though this would benefit from a more activist Royal prerogative – this is one movie that should be sent to The Tower for the rest of its life.
At its core, it’s a story of Rex (Jack Whitehall), an adorable but arrogant Corgi who lets being the ‘top dog’ go to his head and ends up in the doghouse, stranded outside the Palace and at the mercy of the ferocious leader of the pack at the local dog pound. So far, so predictable.
Where “The Queen’s Corgi” surprises is in its decision to include in cutesy cartoon the divisive figure of President Trump and his current wife, especially as it involves the real-life self-confessed sexual predator in a sub-plot about mating his (fictional) Corgi with one of the Queen’s pets, a storyline rife with casual coercion and canine sexual assault. From that tawdry and uncomfortable opening, we progress onwards to the meat of the plot which sees Rex encounter an underground dogfighting ring operating at the Pound.
Add in a couple of pretty scary sequences involving nearly getting run over, a surprisingly graphic near-drowning and an attempted murder by arson and you start to understand why this European production has been rated PG when its subject should be an easy-U. It earns it.
Some of this will, of course, pass over the heads of younger children, at least on a conscious level, but there’s such a nasty undertone to the whole movie that you should be thinking twice about seeing it. To UK children, of course, Donald Trump is something of a distant, already cartoonish figure, possibly a bit of a bogeyman but the casual humanisation and normalising of a figure like Trump is a dangerous and slippery slope (as Jimmy Kimmel can attest to) and sets an unpleasant precedent for future ‘family entertainment’. The fact that it pokes fun at him up to and including him getting bitten in the dick by a Corgi doesn’t mitigate his appearance, it just makes it more inappropriate.
I’m genuinely surprised this has been allowed to pass without comment from the Royal Household but perhaps they hope it will quickly fade into obscurity, even though this would benefit from a more activist Royal prerogative – this is one movie that should be sent to The Tower for the rest of its life.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I'm not going to lie, the trailer for this worried me greatly. Despite Emily Blunt's roots her accent sounds like someone's stereotypical idea of a prim and proper British nanny, it stuck out like a sore thumb from the trailer.
Right from the outset you can see that spark from the original film in the animation, the character traits and style. Everything is very familiar and yet different.
I have to say though that the songs were not memorable. If fact I left the cinema thinking about the original more and ended up having a little Mary Poppin medley on my journey back. When you didn't think it could get any worse she actually converts to cockney for one of the songs and I'm left enjoying some of the uninspiring dance routines while wishing I had a remote control to mute the sound.
I'm struggling to remember if the chimney sweep dance routine and the lamp lighter routine in the new film have a lot of similarities. What I can say about it is that there were some very odd camera shots in there. It felt very much like they wanted you to only focus on Miranda and so we got lots of creepy close ups. The sequence really didn't work for me, and honestly I can't even remember the song.
There were some very touching moments in the latter half of the film. Whishaw wasn't really working for me early on but he has a very powerful moment in the middle that kicks off some much better pieces. I can't say that any of the acting particularly thrilled me, the best was probably in the animated characters.
I was genuinely thrilled to see Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins Returns though. I smiled from ear to ear when he started dancing, that moment alone is the main reason for the stars this film earned. But even after the dance routine I wasn't keen on his part in it.
The real question about MP films is if every second Wednesday Topsy's world goes upside-down... what happens to Mary Poppins on every second Tuesday? (Do we know the answer to this? Have I just missed it somewhere?)
What you should do
In my opinion this remake was made on the basis of "if it ain't broke don't fix it", except in the process of making it look like a sequel... they broke it. But, I seem to be in a minority on this one. If you want the nostalgic feeling but don't want to replace the amazing songs from the original then you should be alright seeing this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some of whatever Mary Poppins is smoking?
Right from the outset you can see that spark from the original film in the animation, the character traits and style. Everything is very familiar and yet different.
I have to say though that the songs were not memorable. If fact I left the cinema thinking about the original more and ended up having a little Mary Poppin medley on my journey back. When you didn't think it could get any worse she actually converts to cockney for one of the songs and I'm left enjoying some of the uninspiring dance routines while wishing I had a remote control to mute the sound.
I'm struggling to remember if the chimney sweep dance routine and the lamp lighter routine in the new film have a lot of similarities. What I can say about it is that there were some very odd camera shots in there. It felt very much like they wanted you to only focus on Miranda and so we got lots of creepy close ups. The sequence really didn't work for me, and honestly I can't even remember the song.
There were some very touching moments in the latter half of the film. Whishaw wasn't really working for me early on but he has a very powerful moment in the middle that kicks off some much better pieces. I can't say that any of the acting particularly thrilled me, the best was probably in the animated characters.
I was genuinely thrilled to see Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins Returns though. I smiled from ear to ear when he started dancing, that moment alone is the main reason for the stars this film earned. But even after the dance routine I wasn't keen on his part in it.
The real question about MP films is if every second Wednesday Topsy's world goes upside-down... what happens to Mary Poppins on every second Tuesday? (Do we know the answer to this? Have I just missed it somewhere?)
What you should do
In my opinion this remake was made on the basis of "if it ain't broke don't fix it", except in the process of making it look like a sequel... they broke it. But, I seem to be in a minority on this one. If you want the nostalgic feeling but don't want to replace the amazing songs from the original then you should be alright seeing this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some of whatever Mary Poppins is smoking?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Many Saints of Newark (2021) in Movies
Oct 5, 2021
Production design (1 more)
Great cast
Sopranos prequel that failed to hit the high note with this Sopranos virgin.
With Bond showing on virtually every screen of my local Cineworld, there were few other choices for movies to go see this week. So even though I've never seen "The Sopranos" TV series, I decided to give this movie prequel a shot.
Positives:
- Like any good mafia story, there's a nicely developed sense of place for the action. The film is set in the late 60's / early 70's, and the score and the production design nicely portray the period. The rise of black factions to challenge the white status quo, even in the crime world, make this a nice companion piece to "Judas and the Black Messiah" .
- Although he's been in films like "American Hustle" and "Selma", I wouldn't have been able to pick Alessandro Nivola out of a line-up. But he did a great job portraying the different sides of Dickie: both caring uncle and psychopathic gangster. And Odom Jnr is again impressive: I've not yet seen him deliver any role that's been sub-par.
- It's also impressive that they had Michael Gandolfini to play the younger self of his late father's role. Although I kept being distracted by how much he looks and acts like a young John Cusack!
Negatives:
- The story is told over many years and the script came across as quite uneven. There are regular cut-aways to Dickie visiting his uncle "Hollywood Dick" (Ray Liotta) in prison, which a lot of the time, to me, felt disconnected from the main plot.
- Whilst most of the ensemble cast do a good job, some of the portrayals felt like forced caricatures of "Goodfellas" characters.
- As a "Sopranos" virgin, I could tell that there were lots of Easter Eggs and in-jokes in the movie (e.g. The baby Christopher crying whenever Anthony talked to him). WIth "Sopranos" regulars Alan Taylor and David Chase in charge, that's not surprising. But I'm afraid all of these went right over my head.
Summary Thoughts on "The Many Saints of Newark": This wasn't a complete bust for me, which it might have been if it had been a sequel rather than a prequel. Indeed there are the occasional flashes of brilliance with certain scenes. But neither did I find it so engrossing that it's going to trouble my top 20 for the year.
I guess is that if you are a "Sopranos" fan, then you would get a lot more out of this than I did. But it's still an interesting way to spend a couple of hours.
(For the full graphical review, please check out #oemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Like any good mafia story, there's a nicely developed sense of place for the action. The film is set in the late 60's / early 70's, and the score and the production design nicely portray the period. The rise of black factions to challenge the white status quo, even in the crime world, make this a nice companion piece to "Judas and the Black Messiah" .
- Although he's been in films like "American Hustle" and "Selma", I wouldn't have been able to pick Alessandro Nivola out of a line-up. But he did a great job portraying the different sides of Dickie: both caring uncle and psychopathic gangster. And Odom Jnr is again impressive: I've not yet seen him deliver any role that's been sub-par.
- It's also impressive that they had Michael Gandolfini to play the younger self of his late father's role. Although I kept being distracted by how much he looks and acts like a young John Cusack!
Negatives:
- The story is told over many years and the script came across as quite uneven. There are regular cut-aways to Dickie visiting his uncle "Hollywood Dick" (Ray Liotta) in prison, which a lot of the time, to me, felt disconnected from the main plot.
- Whilst most of the ensemble cast do a good job, some of the portrayals felt like forced caricatures of "Goodfellas" characters.
- As a "Sopranos" virgin, I could tell that there were lots of Easter Eggs and in-jokes in the movie (e.g. The baby Christopher crying whenever Anthony talked to him). WIth "Sopranos" regulars Alan Taylor and David Chase in charge, that's not surprising. But I'm afraid all of these went right over my head.
Summary Thoughts on "The Many Saints of Newark": This wasn't a complete bust for me, which it might have been if it had been a sequel rather than a prequel. Indeed there are the occasional flashes of brilliance with certain scenes. But neither did I find it so engrossing that it's going to trouble my top 20 for the year.
I guess is that if you are a "Sopranos" fan, then you would get a lot more out of this than I did. But it's still an interesting way to spend a couple of hours.
(For the full graphical review, please check out #oemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Many Saints of Newark (2021) in Movies
Oct 12, 2021
The "non-Sopranos" part of this film worked much better
The new Sopranos prequel film THE MANY SAINTS OF NEWARK is a review-proof film. Most people fall into 1 of 2 camps.
The first, fans of the 1999-2007 landmark HBO series that some (including myself) call one of the best TV series of all time. The folks that fall into this camp will be checking this film out no matter what.
The second are folks that either never saw the series or have only a passing knowledge of it - these folks are (more than likely) gonna take a pass at this film.
And both camps would be right and wrong for THE MANY SAINTS OF NEWARK is a middle-of-the-road film that will be satisfying for SOPRANOS fans, but the part of this film that really, really works well has nothing to do with the series.
Written by Sopranos creator David Chase, TMSON is set in the late 1960’s-early 1970’s and tells the tale of a young Tony Soprano and his introduction to the North Jersey mafia and the charismatic mob boss who he is drawn to.
The first 15 minutes of this film were written specifically for SOPRANOS fans for it is here that you are introduced to younger versions of many of your favorite characters. From Tony to Uncle Junior to Livia (Tony’s Mom) to Pauly Walnuts, Silvio and “Big Pussy” they are all there - along with a few others you don’t know (and it is not a spoiler to say, there is a reason that they never made it to the TV series). You are also introduced to Tony’s Father Johnny Soprano, Mob Boss “Hollywood” Dick Moltisanti and the center of this film, the son of the Boss “Uncle” Dickie Moltisanti (father of future TV Series character Christopher).
It’s an enjoyable enough introduction, but it is nothing new. The characters sit around, talk, act tough and eat. Something that we’ve seen in countless mob movies before. Chase and Director Alan Taylor (THOR: THE DARK WORLD) appear somewhat bored with this part of the film - almost as if they are saying “here they all are, enjoy this for we have a more interesting story to tell”. This first 15 minutes of the film seem to go on forever.
And then the movie - and Chase’s ideas and Taylor’s Direction - kick in.
And this is where TMSON begins to escalate as the story splits into 2 parts - the first following Dickie (Alessandro Nivola) and the 2nd following one of his “runners” (Leslie Odom, Jr.) who is destined to become a powerful boss of the “Black Mafia”.
It’s a smart juxtaposition of story, but unfortunately for SOPRANO’s fans, the first story (following Dickie) and including most of the Soprano’s characters is the less interesting of the 2 stories. It is the journey of Leslie Odom, Jr.’s character that makes for a more compelling story. It is as if Chase had an interesting idea for a mob film but knew he would not be able to get it made unless he tied it somewhat to a Sopranos story.
Leslie Odom Jr. is magnetic as Harold McBrayer, the former numbers runner for Dickie that has an awaking through the Black Power movement of the late ‘60’s and becomes a formidable mob boss in his own right. This half of the movie/story is intriguing and interesting for you never know in what direction it is going to land. This “B” story is free to be whatever it wants/needs to be and this freedom elevates it.
The same cannot be said for the “A” story - the journey of Dickie Moltisanti. Alessandro Nivola is charming enough as this sadistic, sociopathic mobster, but he is saddled with too much TV show baggage to become a character on his own. Specifically his mentorship and (ultimate) disassociation with the young Tony Soprano (played by Michael Gandolfini, the son of the late James Gandolfini who played Tony in the TV series). I felt like these characters were burdened with the weight of the TV show and the need to pay homage to what will be coming in their lives via the TV show and to shoehorn in each character along the way.
Consequently some great actors like Vera Farmiga (Tony’s mother Livia), Jon Bernthal (Tony’s father), and Corey Stoll (as Uncle Junior) are all filming extended cameos. They do a good (enough) job bringing the essence of the characters from the TV Series to this film, but they just don’t have enough to do. I would love for these 3 to spin-off on their own.
The same can be said for Billy Magnussen (Pauly), John Magaro (Silvio) and Samson Moeakiola (Big Pussy). They all do a nice job bringing the younger versions of these characters to life (especailly Magaro) but they just don’t have enough to do.
And then there is Ray Liotta’s over-the-top performance as Mob Boss “Hollywood” Dick Moltisanti. Ove-the-top doesn’t even begin to describe the performance he is giving. I will give him credit, though, he does tone it down about 1/2 way through the film, but…geez…the first part…wow.
Ultimately, the failure of the “A” story to captivate dooms this movie to mediocre status. I would have loved for Chase to really sink his teeth into the “B” story - and to let Leslie Odom Jr. really fly as a character and and actor.
But that would have defeated the purpose of making a Sopranos prequel - a prequel that, perhaps, shouldn’t have been made in the first place.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The first, fans of the 1999-2007 landmark HBO series that some (including myself) call one of the best TV series of all time. The folks that fall into this camp will be checking this film out no matter what.
The second are folks that either never saw the series or have only a passing knowledge of it - these folks are (more than likely) gonna take a pass at this film.
And both camps would be right and wrong for THE MANY SAINTS OF NEWARK is a middle-of-the-road film that will be satisfying for SOPRANOS fans, but the part of this film that really, really works well has nothing to do with the series.
Written by Sopranos creator David Chase, TMSON is set in the late 1960’s-early 1970’s and tells the tale of a young Tony Soprano and his introduction to the North Jersey mafia and the charismatic mob boss who he is drawn to.
The first 15 minutes of this film were written specifically for SOPRANOS fans for it is here that you are introduced to younger versions of many of your favorite characters. From Tony to Uncle Junior to Livia (Tony’s Mom) to Pauly Walnuts, Silvio and “Big Pussy” they are all there - along with a few others you don’t know (and it is not a spoiler to say, there is a reason that they never made it to the TV series). You are also introduced to Tony’s Father Johnny Soprano, Mob Boss “Hollywood” Dick Moltisanti and the center of this film, the son of the Boss “Uncle” Dickie Moltisanti (father of future TV Series character Christopher).
It’s an enjoyable enough introduction, but it is nothing new. The characters sit around, talk, act tough and eat. Something that we’ve seen in countless mob movies before. Chase and Director Alan Taylor (THOR: THE DARK WORLD) appear somewhat bored with this part of the film - almost as if they are saying “here they all are, enjoy this for we have a more interesting story to tell”. This first 15 minutes of the film seem to go on forever.
And then the movie - and Chase’s ideas and Taylor’s Direction - kick in.
And this is where TMSON begins to escalate as the story splits into 2 parts - the first following Dickie (Alessandro Nivola) and the 2nd following one of his “runners” (Leslie Odom, Jr.) who is destined to become a powerful boss of the “Black Mafia”.
It’s a smart juxtaposition of story, but unfortunately for SOPRANO’s fans, the first story (following Dickie) and including most of the Soprano’s characters is the less interesting of the 2 stories. It is the journey of Leslie Odom, Jr.’s character that makes for a more compelling story. It is as if Chase had an interesting idea for a mob film but knew he would not be able to get it made unless he tied it somewhat to a Sopranos story.
Leslie Odom Jr. is magnetic as Harold McBrayer, the former numbers runner for Dickie that has an awaking through the Black Power movement of the late ‘60’s and becomes a formidable mob boss in his own right. This half of the movie/story is intriguing and interesting for you never know in what direction it is going to land. This “B” story is free to be whatever it wants/needs to be and this freedom elevates it.
The same cannot be said for the “A” story - the journey of Dickie Moltisanti. Alessandro Nivola is charming enough as this sadistic, sociopathic mobster, but he is saddled with too much TV show baggage to become a character on his own. Specifically his mentorship and (ultimate) disassociation with the young Tony Soprano (played by Michael Gandolfini, the son of the late James Gandolfini who played Tony in the TV series). I felt like these characters were burdened with the weight of the TV show and the need to pay homage to what will be coming in their lives via the TV show and to shoehorn in each character along the way.
Consequently some great actors like Vera Farmiga (Tony’s mother Livia), Jon Bernthal (Tony’s father), and Corey Stoll (as Uncle Junior) are all filming extended cameos. They do a good (enough) job bringing the essence of the characters from the TV Series to this film, but they just don’t have enough to do. I would love for these 3 to spin-off on their own.
The same can be said for Billy Magnussen (Pauly), John Magaro (Silvio) and Samson Moeakiola (Big Pussy). They all do a nice job bringing the younger versions of these characters to life (especailly Magaro) but they just don’t have enough to do.
And then there is Ray Liotta’s over-the-top performance as Mob Boss “Hollywood” Dick Moltisanti. Ove-the-top doesn’t even begin to describe the performance he is giving. I will give him credit, though, he does tone it down about 1/2 way through the film, but…geez…the first part…wow.
Ultimately, the failure of the “A” story to captivate dooms this movie to mediocre status. I would have loved for Chase to really sink his teeth into the “B” story - and to let Leslie Odom Jr. really fly as a character and and actor.
But that would have defeated the purpose of making a Sopranos prequel - a prequel that, perhaps, shouldn’t have been made in the first place.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alien Resurrection (1997) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Alien: Resurrection starts as we arrive on a US space research facility where General Perez (Hedaya) is working on bringing back the aliens with clones of Ripley (Weaver), the latest number 8 shows incredible strength and development. Waiting for a delivery from Captain Elgyn (Wincott) and his crew Call (Ryder), Vriess (Pinon), Johner (Perlman) Hillard (Flowers) and Christie (Dourdan) a deal is agreed they can spend a couple of days’ rest on the research ship.
After Elgyn’s crew get involved in an altercation with the scientists they must escape but the xenomorphs have escaped onto the ship, joining up with Ripley the crew look for a way off the ship while staying alive.
Thoughts on Alien: Resurrection
Characters/Performance – Ripley is now a clone and the mother of the xenomorphs being created on the ship, she is stronger than before but becomes the best weapon against the xenomorphs. Call is the newest crew member of the pirates but she is harbouring a secret from the rest of the crew. The rest of the characters are your generic group of fighters, the tough one, the gunslinger, the smart one and the captain nothing original comes from these characters.
Performance wise, this isn’t the best Weaver alien performance but she is also brave enough to take it on with a different approach. Ryder is solid enough through the film. the rest of the cast are also solid with Ron Perlman giving his aggressive dick like performance on the good guys team.
Story – The story might not be the greatest, but it does capture what is needed for an alien movie, we have the military wanting to study the aliens for their own good, this happens every single film, we also have the group of soldiers needing to fight them off, but this film does offer a chance to build the relationship between the xenomorphs and Ripley. The problem for a lot of this story telling it that it isn’t original and isn’t on the same levels as the earlier films.
Action/Horror/Sci-Fi – The action is all mindless like you would expect from big budget style sequel too far down the line, the horror is now nearly all gone from the franchise but the sci-fi angle continues on strongly as we see how the aliens are now finding new ways to breed.
Settings – The whole film is set upon the space facility craft which is good because it keeps everything within the one location which is all we want in these films.
Special Effects – The special effects are good in this film and are one of the extra highlights within the film.
Final Thoughts – The weakest part of the Weaver alien films but still a good enjoyable enough watch.
Overall: Enjoyable enough.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/09/27/alien-resurrection-1997/
After Elgyn’s crew get involved in an altercation with the scientists they must escape but the xenomorphs have escaped onto the ship, joining up with Ripley the crew look for a way off the ship while staying alive.
Thoughts on Alien: Resurrection
Characters/Performance – Ripley is now a clone and the mother of the xenomorphs being created on the ship, she is stronger than before but becomes the best weapon against the xenomorphs. Call is the newest crew member of the pirates but she is harbouring a secret from the rest of the crew. The rest of the characters are your generic group of fighters, the tough one, the gunslinger, the smart one and the captain nothing original comes from these characters.
Performance wise, this isn’t the best Weaver alien performance but she is also brave enough to take it on with a different approach. Ryder is solid enough through the film. the rest of the cast are also solid with Ron Perlman giving his aggressive dick like performance on the good guys team.
Story – The story might not be the greatest, but it does capture what is needed for an alien movie, we have the military wanting to study the aliens for their own good, this happens every single film, we also have the group of soldiers needing to fight them off, but this film does offer a chance to build the relationship between the xenomorphs and Ripley. The problem for a lot of this story telling it that it isn’t original and isn’t on the same levels as the earlier films.
Action/Horror/Sci-Fi – The action is all mindless like you would expect from big budget style sequel too far down the line, the horror is now nearly all gone from the franchise but the sci-fi angle continues on strongly as we see how the aliens are now finding new ways to breed.
Settings – The whole film is set upon the space facility craft which is good because it keeps everything within the one location which is all we want in these films.
Special Effects – The special effects are good in this film and are one of the extra highlights within the film.
Final Thoughts – The weakest part of the Weaver alien films but still a good enjoyable enough watch.
Overall: Enjoyable enough.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/09/27/alien-resurrection-1997/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Hot Rod (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Following up their successful sting on Saturday Night Live, the video masterminds behind such hits as “Lazy Sunday, and “Dick in a Box”, the Lonely Island Boys have unleashed a wild comedy that skewers some of the best comedy standards of the last two decades.
In “Hot Rod”, Andy Samberg stars as Rod Kimble, self proclaimed stuntman who believes he is the offspring of a stunt coordinator. Rod never misses a chance to try a new death defying stunt with the help of his stunt crew. There is just one problem, Rod is probably the worst stuntman ever to grace the planet.
Armed with his trusty moped, Rod attempts to jump swimming pools, vans, and even body boards all with failed and side-splitting results.
Rod also is struggling to win the respect of his stepfather Frank, (Ian McShane), and comes to believe he can only do this by winning one of their numerous fight sessions. As is expected, Rod is even worse at fighting as he is at stunts. This is time leads to a real dilema for Rod, when Frank becomes ill and needs an operation which the family is unable to afford.
Rod decides that he must raise the money to save Frank, so he can kick his butt and gain his respect. Towards this end, Rod rent himself out as a stuntman for hire, and some very funny moments ensue as each outing is even more inept than the one that preceded it.
As if Rod did not have enough trouble in his life, he admires the newest member of his stunt team Denise (Isla Fisher), but runs afoul of her jerky boyfriend Jonathan (Will Arnett), which leads to even more mayhem as the film unfolds in an enjoyable but predictable love triangle. While the plot is not likely to set any new standards for originality, the film shines when it is sending up the numerous films from the 80’s such as “Footloose”, and “Rad” with their often over the top sendups.
While there are stretches of the film that seem to be going nowhere, the film cleverly will turn on a dime and go off in new tangents often with hysterical results which is the strength of the film. Many times I found myself watching the film thinking segments were really out there or dumb, only to erupt in laughter when the scenes played out to their conclusions.
The biggest weakness of the film is that like many other films that star Saturday Night Live cast members, some of the jokes hit and some miss, especially when sketch length bits are carried out over 90 minutes.
While the film was designed to pay homage to past films, it works suprisingly well as not only a pop culture satire, but as a physical comedy. With fine supporting work by Sissy Spacek and Jorma Taccone, “Hot Rod” rises above its stupid comedy origins and creates a fresh, if silly offering that will leave you laughing.
In “Hot Rod”, Andy Samberg stars as Rod Kimble, self proclaimed stuntman who believes he is the offspring of a stunt coordinator. Rod never misses a chance to try a new death defying stunt with the help of his stunt crew. There is just one problem, Rod is probably the worst stuntman ever to grace the planet.
Armed with his trusty moped, Rod attempts to jump swimming pools, vans, and even body boards all with failed and side-splitting results.
Rod also is struggling to win the respect of his stepfather Frank, (Ian McShane), and comes to believe he can only do this by winning one of their numerous fight sessions. As is expected, Rod is even worse at fighting as he is at stunts. This is time leads to a real dilema for Rod, when Frank becomes ill and needs an operation which the family is unable to afford.
Rod decides that he must raise the money to save Frank, so he can kick his butt and gain his respect. Towards this end, Rod rent himself out as a stuntman for hire, and some very funny moments ensue as each outing is even more inept than the one that preceded it.
As if Rod did not have enough trouble in his life, he admires the newest member of his stunt team Denise (Isla Fisher), but runs afoul of her jerky boyfriend Jonathan (Will Arnett), which leads to even more mayhem as the film unfolds in an enjoyable but predictable love triangle. While the plot is not likely to set any new standards for originality, the film shines when it is sending up the numerous films from the 80’s such as “Footloose”, and “Rad” with their often over the top sendups.
While there are stretches of the film that seem to be going nowhere, the film cleverly will turn on a dime and go off in new tangents often with hysterical results which is the strength of the film. Many times I found myself watching the film thinking segments were really out there or dumb, only to erupt in laughter when the scenes played out to their conclusions.
The biggest weakness of the film is that like many other films that star Saturday Night Live cast members, some of the jokes hit and some miss, especially when sketch length bits are carried out over 90 minutes.
While the film was designed to pay homage to past films, it works suprisingly well as not only a pop culture satire, but as a physical comedy. With fine supporting work by Sissy Spacek and Jorma Taccone, “Hot Rod” rises above its stupid comedy origins and creates a fresh, if silly offering that will leave you laughing.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Adjustment Bureau (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The Adjustment Bureau is based on (or it may be more accurate to say, inspired by) the Philip K. Dick short story “Adjustment Team”, and stars Matt Damon as David Norris, a New York politician running for the U.S. Senate and Emily Blunt as Elise Sellas, a professional ballerina.
When David and Elise first meet in the men’s restroom and he doesn’t question her gender I knew this wasn’t going to be the typical boy meets girl story. Just to clarify, I’m not saying she turns out to be a he, I’m just saying it’s good to check out the engine under the hood. But what should have been a once in a restroom… er, lifetime encounter, becomes a second, then a third and… you get the point. Shortly after their second encounter where David finally gets Elise’s name and number written on a business card he walks in on a strange group of well dressed individuals who were what can only be described as “probing” his friends in a conference room. So David does what any sane person would do after witnessing a group probing, he runs (like you wouldn’t? ). After running down a few hallways, he’s captured. Let’s be honest, running down hallways isn’t Oscar material, so I was glad it was short-lived. David learns that these well-dressed individuals work for The Adjustment Bureau.
This secret organization works behind the scenes to ensure the course of destiny, as written by “The Chairman”, goes as planned and they tell him that men’s room ballerinas are not part of the plan for him. At this point I wanted to yell “Screw them, go for the ballerina! They’re bendy!” but before I could, Agent Richardson (played by John Slattery) informs David that if he doesn’t follow the plan they have for him then they will… well, let’s just say they will probe him like nobody’s business. Then before they leave they take the business card with Elise’s name and number on it and before you can say “rooster-block” they throw him to the floor like Chevy Chase impersonating President Ford and disappear.
In time David and Elise are reunited by chance and with some information given to him by his disgruntled Adjustment Bureau ex-caseworker Agent Harry (played by Anthony Mackie), David works hard to overcome the obstacles placed before them by the Adjustment Bureau. But when Agent Thompson (played by Terence Stamp) joins the fray, he tells David what will happen to Elise if he doesn’t leave her.
Does love win in the end, does fate win or are they eaten by the alligators in the New York City sewers? I will tell you, that once again, the alligators did not win. The film does an excellent job of balancing its romance and thriller aspects with just enough humor to compliment the first two aspects, making it a very enjoyable movie for an individual, a couple or a group of friends to see. On a side note, when the film was over I left the movie wanting to buy a suit and I really dislike wearing suits.
When David and Elise first meet in the men’s restroom and he doesn’t question her gender I knew this wasn’t going to be the typical boy meets girl story. Just to clarify, I’m not saying she turns out to be a he, I’m just saying it’s good to check out the engine under the hood. But what should have been a once in a restroom… er, lifetime encounter, becomes a second, then a third and… you get the point. Shortly after their second encounter where David finally gets Elise’s name and number written on a business card he walks in on a strange group of well dressed individuals who were what can only be described as “probing” his friends in a conference room. So David does what any sane person would do after witnessing a group probing, he runs (like you wouldn’t? ). After running down a few hallways, he’s captured. Let’s be honest, running down hallways isn’t Oscar material, so I was glad it was short-lived. David learns that these well-dressed individuals work for The Adjustment Bureau.
This secret organization works behind the scenes to ensure the course of destiny, as written by “The Chairman”, goes as planned and they tell him that men’s room ballerinas are not part of the plan for him. At this point I wanted to yell “Screw them, go for the ballerina! They’re bendy!” but before I could, Agent Richardson (played by John Slattery) informs David that if he doesn’t follow the plan they have for him then they will… well, let’s just say they will probe him like nobody’s business. Then before they leave they take the business card with Elise’s name and number on it and before you can say “rooster-block” they throw him to the floor like Chevy Chase impersonating President Ford and disappear.
In time David and Elise are reunited by chance and with some information given to him by his disgruntled Adjustment Bureau ex-caseworker Agent Harry (played by Anthony Mackie), David works hard to overcome the obstacles placed before them by the Adjustment Bureau. But when Agent Thompson (played by Terence Stamp) joins the fray, he tells David what will happen to Elise if he doesn’t leave her.
Does love win in the end, does fate win or are they eaten by the alligators in the New York City sewers? I will tell you, that once again, the alligators did not win. The film does an excellent job of balancing its romance and thriller aspects with just enough humor to compliment the first two aspects, making it a very enjoyable movie for an individual, a couple or a group of friends to see. On a side note, when the film was over I left the movie wanting to buy a suit and I really dislike wearing suits.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Chopping Mall (1986) in Movies
Feb 16, 2020
As I sat on my sofa looking for trash to watch I headed over to Prime to see what there was available. I decided to scroll through films it thought I'd like to watch based on my previous viewing habits... and that's how I discovered Chopping Mall, which is a much better title than it's alternative, Killbots... you always have to go for the pun. Amazon may know me a little bit too well with this recommendation.
The latest in shopping mall security is here, robot security guards that patrol the walkways and detain robbers with minimal fuss keeping your stores and staff safe*. [*Disclaimer: Unless there's a technical malfunction, in which case we take no responsibility for the massive loss of life and property damage.]
This is possibly one of the most 80s of all 80s films. Fantastic hair, all those pastel colours and were thankfully lost some time in the early 90s, random nudity, terrific electronic music [that you know what created by someone who also had fantastic hair] and Dick Miller. I don't even know what I have to say any further than that... go to Prime and watch it immediately!
Sure, Chopping Mall will make you never trust a furniture store again but it's still totally worth watching.
There are moments where you want to scream at the screen for errors in common sense and continuity, but in that fun way where you're laughing and telling them they're all going to die because of their stupidity. That alone is worth watching it for. At only one point during the film did I think something was actually bad, and that was during a stunt where they obviously had the actress off screen doing the audio for a stunt double and the two didn't match well... honestly though, that's just nitpicking.
No, you're not mistaken if you thought you recognised the shopping mall in this, it's the same one used in T2, Commando and Fast Times At Ridgemont High as well as others. In fact there's a lot to spot in the film with nods to other films and the director, though I have to admit that most of them passed me by.
The film is an incredibly short (but very entertaining) 77 minutes and it's worth every second of time you spend on it. Turning to the trivia you'll discover that this is a cut down of the original... the one titled Killbots. It was initially released with about 15 minutes of extra footage but performed badly so they cut it down and renamed it to appeal more to the horror fans. Finding this trivia also made me realise that there's actually no chopping in the whole movie, which made me sad, but I still love the pun.
I could analyse this until the cows come home but it's just genuinely great fun. The acting is exactly what I love about these sorts of movies and there's nothing frivolous thrown in, that was one of the best films I've seen in ages and I'm annoyed I never discovered it before.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/chopping-mall-movie-review.html
The latest in shopping mall security is here, robot security guards that patrol the walkways and detain robbers with minimal fuss keeping your stores and staff safe*. [*Disclaimer: Unless there's a technical malfunction, in which case we take no responsibility for the massive loss of life and property damage.]
This is possibly one of the most 80s of all 80s films. Fantastic hair, all those pastel colours and were thankfully lost some time in the early 90s, random nudity, terrific electronic music [that you know what created by someone who also had fantastic hair] and Dick Miller. I don't even know what I have to say any further than that... go to Prime and watch it immediately!
Sure, Chopping Mall will make you never trust a furniture store again but it's still totally worth watching.
There are moments where you want to scream at the screen for errors in common sense and continuity, but in that fun way where you're laughing and telling them they're all going to die because of their stupidity. That alone is worth watching it for. At only one point during the film did I think something was actually bad, and that was during a stunt where they obviously had the actress off screen doing the audio for a stunt double and the two didn't match well... honestly though, that's just nitpicking.
No, you're not mistaken if you thought you recognised the shopping mall in this, it's the same one used in T2, Commando and Fast Times At Ridgemont High as well as others. In fact there's a lot to spot in the film with nods to other films and the director, though I have to admit that most of them passed me by.
The film is an incredibly short (but very entertaining) 77 minutes and it's worth every second of time you spend on it. Turning to the trivia you'll discover that this is a cut down of the original... the one titled Killbots. It was initially released with about 15 minutes of extra footage but performed badly so they cut it down and renamed it to appeal more to the horror fans. Finding this trivia also made me realise that there's actually no chopping in the whole movie, which made me sad, but I still love the pun.
I could analyse this until the cows come home but it's just genuinely great fun. The acting is exactly what I love about these sorts of movies and there's nothing frivolous thrown in, that was one of the best films I've seen in ages and I'm annoyed I never discovered it before.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/chopping-mall-movie-review.html