Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Fantastic Four (2005) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
About As Memorable As My Last Poop
Based on the long-running comic book, four people are given superpowers when they come in contact with cosmic energy out in space.
Acting: 7
Beginning: 5
Not exactly how you start a movie. Definitely could have scored this lower, but there was at least a glimmer of hope shown in the first ten minutes that told me this movie wouldn’t be a total waste of space. Still, my hopes weren’t high.
Characters: 3
I had some issues here, but I struggled with my scoring. Reason being, I LOVE the comic book characters and appreciate their depth. Yeah, none of that is shown in this movie. The characters aren’t layered, rather they have mere personality types, none of which I was really in love with. They made Johnny Storm (Chris Evans) an over-the-top dick while Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd), the brains of the group, can’t understand the concept of normal social interaction to save his life. I won’t even waste time profiling the other lame-duck characters. You get the point.
Cinematography/Visuals: 2
Conflict: 2
Entertainment Value: 0
At no point during Fantastic Four did I ever say, “Ok, we might have something here.” It was bad on top of bad from beginning to end. Just an unapologetic dumpster fire. Sitting through this movie again is what I envision Hell to be like.
Memorability: 5
Pace: 4
Talk about a slow-moving film. Not only does it take forever for scenes to get to the point, but they divert off into random tangents that ultimately amount to nothing. This is a don’t-pause-when-you-go-to-the-bathroom movie. Drove me crazy.
Plot: 2
There is a scene that happens on a bridge where people need saving. Not only do all four of the superheroes magically end up on the bridge at the same time (they weren’t together previously), but Thing’s wife shows up as well just to walk away in shame because of how gross he’s become. I laughed my ass off! And that should tell you enough about what I think of the plot.
Resolution: 4
I give it a four because it ended. No, the ending wasn’t any better than the rest of the movie, but damnit, it ended and the fact that it finally came to a close put me out of my misery.
Overall: 34
There are bad movies that make me want to stop watching and reviewing movies altogether because of how horrible they are. And then there’s Fantastic Four. This movie is torture to the millionth degree.
Acting: 7
Beginning: 5
Not exactly how you start a movie. Definitely could have scored this lower, but there was at least a glimmer of hope shown in the first ten minutes that told me this movie wouldn’t be a total waste of space. Still, my hopes weren’t high.
Characters: 3
I had some issues here, but I struggled with my scoring. Reason being, I LOVE the comic book characters and appreciate their depth. Yeah, none of that is shown in this movie. The characters aren’t layered, rather they have mere personality types, none of which I was really in love with. They made Johnny Storm (Chris Evans) an over-the-top dick while Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd), the brains of the group, can’t understand the concept of normal social interaction to save his life. I won’t even waste time profiling the other lame-duck characters. You get the point.
Cinematography/Visuals: 2
Conflict: 2
Entertainment Value: 0
At no point during Fantastic Four did I ever say, “Ok, we might have something here.” It was bad on top of bad from beginning to end. Just an unapologetic dumpster fire. Sitting through this movie again is what I envision Hell to be like.
Memorability: 5
Pace: 4
Talk about a slow-moving film. Not only does it take forever for scenes to get to the point, but they divert off into random tangents that ultimately amount to nothing. This is a don’t-pause-when-you-go-to-the-bathroom movie. Drove me crazy.
Plot: 2
There is a scene that happens on a bridge where people need saving. Not only do all four of the superheroes magically end up on the bridge at the same time (they weren’t together previously), but Thing’s wife shows up as well just to walk away in shame because of how gross he’s become. I laughed my ass off! And that should tell you enough about what I think of the plot.
Resolution: 4
I give it a four because it ended. No, the ending wasn’t any better than the rest of the movie, but damnit, it ended and the fact that it finally came to a close put me out of my misery.
Overall: 34
There are bad movies that make me want to stop watching and reviewing movies altogether because of how horrible they are. And then there’s Fantastic Four. This movie is torture to the millionth degree.
MelanieTheresa (997 KP) rated The Wife Who Knew Too Much in Books
Mar 10, 2020
From the moment I finished It's Always the Husband, Michele Campbell quickly became one of those authors whose books are added to my TBR pile immediately. The two titles that followed, She Was the Quiet One and A Stranger on the Beach, were similarly excellent. Now, with The Wife Who Knew Too Much, Michele Campbell has solidified her position among my favorite authors.
Rich boy meets middle-class girl at his country club and embarks upon a summer fling that becomes a little more. Rich boy can't bear the thought of giving up his money for the love of the middle-class girl, and so their summer fling is unceremoniously concluded. Some years later, middle-class girl is waitressing when rich boy (now married, still rich, but with his wife's money instead of his grandmother's) pops back up in her life (is this orchestrated somehow, or fate?), and the ride truly begins.
"I'm writing this to raise an alarm in the event of my untimely death. This is hard to admit, even to myself. For obvious reasons. He's in love with someone else. And he wants my money."
Connor's wife, Nina, is a rich widow whose diary entries we are privy to, detailing what she believes to be the plot between her husband and his mistress to kill her and inherit her millions, and this is what immediately sucked me in to the story, because of course I wanted to know if he/they killed her! The author almost manages to make Nina a sympathetic character, but never quite gets there; she's quite unpleasant, but she probably didn't deserve to die.
Tabitha (middle-class girl) can be a semi-annoying character. She makes questionable decisions and justifies them to herself all for her love of Connor (rich boy). Half the time you can almost see the hearts in her eyes. I understand being in love, but being so completely besotted that you disregard some major red flags? That's something else entirely.
And Connor? Well, Connor's kind of a dick, while also being clueless in many ways. As a teen, he "loves" Tabby but gives her up for his grandmother's money. As an adult, he "loves" Tabby but can't quite leave his rich wife just yet. Come ON.
I do have to say that I saw the big reveal coming, so it was a bit predictable in that way, but everything builds to a satisfying conclusion. See for yourself June 9th!
Thank you to St. Martin's Press for the digital ARE!
Rich boy meets middle-class girl at his country club and embarks upon a summer fling that becomes a little more. Rich boy can't bear the thought of giving up his money for the love of the middle-class girl, and so their summer fling is unceremoniously concluded. Some years later, middle-class girl is waitressing when rich boy (now married, still rich, but with his wife's money instead of his grandmother's) pops back up in her life (is this orchestrated somehow, or fate?), and the ride truly begins.
"I'm writing this to raise an alarm in the event of my untimely death. This is hard to admit, even to myself. For obvious reasons. He's in love with someone else. And he wants my money."
Connor's wife, Nina, is a rich widow whose diary entries we are privy to, detailing what she believes to be the plot between her husband and his mistress to kill her and inherit her millions, and this is what immediately sucked me in to the story, because of course I wanted to know if he/they killed her! The author almost manages to make Nina a sympathetic character, but never quite gets there; she's quite unpleasant, but she probably didn't deserve to die.
Tabitha (middle-class girl) can be a semi-annoying character. She makes questionable decisions and justifies them to herself all for her love of Connor (rich boy). Half the time you can almost see the hearts in her eyes. I understand being in love, but being so completely besotted that you disregard some major red flags? That's something else entirely.
And Connor? Well, Connor's kind of a dick, while also being clueless in many ways. As a teen, he "loves" Tabby but gives her up for his grandmother's money. As an adult, he "loves" Tabby but can't quite leave his rich wife just yet. Come ON.
I do have to say that I saw the big reveal coming, so it was a bit predictable in that way, but everything builds to a satisfying conclusion. See for yourself June 9th!
Thank you to St. Martin's Press for the digital ARE!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Children Act (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Emma Thompson and Stanley Tucci in a movie together... yeeeees. Get me a ticket immediately. Based on a book by Ian McEwan, and no of course I haven't read it. I was exoecting something run of the mill, good, but nothing with a wow factor. I certainly wasn't expecting to be having to stiffle sobs and tears.
The heart breaking story really does get you caught up. Watching Fiona's hard and logical exterior break is really something to behold. How I wasn't blind from the tears when she started performing their song at the recital I will never know. Although, full disclosure, at that point I was leaning on my hands with my cardigan sleeves firmly wedged under the rims of my glasses.
Having never really had any faith, or certainly never any that I would have been so conflicted over, I can't say how accurate a portrayal it was, but it felt traumatisingly real.
As a smaller release this was allocated one of the dinky screens that has about 120 seats. A third of the seats were taken, and I'm going to make wild assumptions now, I would guess that they were all in book groups.
To go off-piste a bit... I mentioned in a previous post that I feel like it's the adults that cause the most disturbance at the cinema. This showing would prove my point. At the beginning I couldn't hear the ads over the noise of the 30 odd people at the time (and they were very odd) talking so loud. I have been to quieter bars.
That was followed up by two people moving seats after the film started, and when the couple next to them started rustling a sweet bag the guy told them to stop as it was annoying him... Don't have the cheek to lecture people when you shouldn't even be sitting there. Random annoying people is something you have to suck up. I bitch about it on Twitter, not to the actual people. When you buy a ticket you're basically checking the box that says "if I end up next to a monster, so be it." I'm super passive aggressive when it comes to people like that, I can almost guarantee that in the same situation I would have missed the rest of the film because I'd be sitting there staring at him as I rustled the bag deliberately for the next two hours.
The moral of this story is don't be a dick to people about something that is expected in the cinema... because you might be sitting next to me.
The heart breaking story really does get you caught up. Watching Fiona's hard and logical exterior break is really something to behold. How I wasn't blind from the tears when she started performing their song at the recital I will never know. Although, full disclosure, at that point I was leaning on my hands with my cardigan sleeves firmly wedged under the rims of my glasses.
Having never really had any faith, or certainly never any that I would have been so conflicted over, I can't say how accurate a portrayal it was, but it felt traumatisingly real.
As a smaller release this was allocated one of the dinky screens that has about 120 seats. A third of the seats were taken, and I'm going to make wild assumptions now, I would guess that they were all in book groups.
To go off-piste a bit... I mentioned in a previous post that I feel like it's the adults that cause the most disturbance at the cinema. This showing would prove my point. At the beginning I couldn't hear the ads over the noise of the 30 odd people at the time (and they were very odd) talking so loud. I have been to quieter bars.
That was followed up by two people moving seats after the film started, and when the couple next to them started rustling a sweet bag the guy told them to stop as it was annoying him... Don't have the cheek to lecture people when you shouldn't even be sitting there. Random annoying people is something you have to suck up. I bitch about it on Twitter, not to the actual people. When you buy a ticket you're basically checking the box that says "if I end up next to a monster, so be it." I'm super passive aggressive when it comes to people like that, I can almost guarantee that in the same situation I would have missed the rest of the film because I'd be sitting there staring at him as I rustled the bag deliberately for the next two hours.
The moral of this story is don't be a dick to people about something that is expected in the cinema... because you might be sitting next to me.
The Proposition (Nights Series #6)
10.0
Rate It
Book
They call me the Charmer. My best friend Wade tells me it’s because I’m suave and mysterious....
M_M Contemporary Romance
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
This was the first time that I've seen this children's classic since I was a child, and I suppose that I'd hoped that it would live up to its reputation. In all fairness though, I din't like it that much when I was a child, if I'm honest and my children, though some DO like it, others seemed to have mixed feelings. At best, it's likable but never lovable and at worst, it just isn't liked at all.
So, as an adult I watched this loose adaptation of James Bond's, Ian Flemming's novel, with every good intention, but in the end was left disappointed. Firstly, at 2 hours and 20 minutes long, it feels like an epic, and a completely unnecessary one at that. Its intermission is turned into a Batfink or Adam West's Batman styled cliffhanger rather than a thematic or narrative break that it traditionally should have been, even going so far as to recap the action in the second act!
The songs weren't great either, generally bordering on tedium rather than holding my interest. The story seems to be a little off kilter too, with a seemingly fatal crash destroying the eponymous car before its eventual restoration by Dick van Dyke. This was the culmination of a five-minute title sequence showcasing the early Grand Prix's of 1907 and '08 which for a family film seemed to drag somewhat.
But after an hour of songs and character development, we finally take off in the flying car to the fantasy land of Vulgaria, only for the whole experience to be a fantastical story told by Van Dyke's, Caractacus Potts! All in all, this was a strange film, but not in an entertaining way like Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory, the connection being Roald Dahl's involvement with the screenplay, but in a rather boring way, with events just seeing to happen without any really cause or need. One hour of story, then another one of fantasy. How many other films can boast this kind narrative twist and get away with it. It just seemed to be indulgent and plodding.
It would defiantly have been improved if the car was actually magical and did actually take them on this adventure rather than suggesting that it is perfectly okay to sing and dance around the real world but it's a stretch too far to have a flying car! It should have been a fantasy through and through rather than six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Ultimately, Overrated in my opinion and since the view of FOUR children, boys and girls ranging from 7 – 15, is that it's watchable rather than fully enjoyable, I suspect that this film is being viewed through rose tinted glasses.
So, as an adult I watched this loose adaptation of James Bond's, Ian Flemming's novel, with every good intention, but in the end was left disappointed. Firstly, at 2 hours and 20 minutes long, it feels like an epic, and a completely unnecessary one at that. Its intermission is turned into a Batfink or Adam West's Batman styled cliffhanger rather than a thematic or narrative break that it traditionally should have been, even going so far as to recap the action in the second act!
The songs weren't great either, generally bordering on tedium rather than holding my interest. The story seems to be a little off kilter too, with a seemingly fatal crash destroying the eponymous car before its eventual restoration by Dick van Dyke. This was the culmination of a five-minute title sequence showcasing the early Grand Prix's of 1907 and '08 which for a family film seemed to drag somewhat.
But after an hour of songs and character development, we finally take off in the flying car to the fantasy land of Vulgaria, only for the whole experience to be a fantastical story told by Van Dyke's, Caractacus Potts! All in all, this was a strange film, but not in an entertaining way like Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory, the connection being Roald Dahl's involvement with the screenplay, but in a rather boring way, with events just seeing to happen without any really cause or need. One hour of story, then another one of fantasy. How many other films can boast this kind narrative twist and get away with it. It just seemed to be indulgent and plodding.
It would defiantly have been improved if the car was actually magical and did actually take them on this adventure rather than suggesting that it is perfectly okay to sing and dance around the real world but it's a stretch too far to have a flying car! It should have been a fantasy through and through rather than six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Ultimately, Overrated in my opinion and since the view of FOUR children, boys and girls ranging from 7 – 15, is that it's watchable rather than fully enjoyable, I suspect that this film is being viewed through rose tinted glasses.
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.
SG
Shallow Graves: The Hunt for the New Bedford Highway Serial Killer
Book
Eleven women went missing over the spring and summer of 1988 in New Bedford, Massachusetts, an old...
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?