Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Campfires, going to senior parties, and girls. That’s you would normally think about if you were a junior in high school still in scouts. Ben (Tye Sheridan), Carter (Logan Miller), and Augie (Joey Morgan) have been best friends for years since they first joined scouts. While Augie is getting his Condor Patch, the highest achievement a scout can get; Ben and Carter think it’s about time they leave scouts, since they are going into their junior year and don’t want to be seen as dorks. However after ditching Augie the two set out to find the secret senior party where Carter’s sister Kendall (Halston Sage) is at and Ben is all for it. However Ben begins to notice some abnormal things in town, like their scout master (David Koechner) not showing up for the campfire and the town being completely abandoned. The two make a pit stop and run into some trouble at a strip club, much to Carters delight due to the bouncer being mysteriously gone from the door. Unfortunately the two get a little more than a lap dance when they come face to face with the source of all the odd behavior, Zombies. Luckily they befriend Denise (Sarah Dumont) a cocktail waitress from the club and the three of them plus Augie set out on a mission to save Kendall before the government decides what to do to the zombie infested town.
From Christopher B. Landon comes Scout’s Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse. With Landon being most known for working on the Paranormal Activity franchise, this movie is a bit of a change from his usual work. Scout’s Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse is exactly what you would want from a comedy horror movie obviously targeting young adults. It has witty lines, zombies, and attractive leads. While the movie sometimes boarders the lines of too campy, I feel it balances well. While the whole concept of the film is silly, it is executed in a brilliant way and thankfully they don’t rely heavily on dick jokes.
I was fortunate enough to be able to go the Scout’s Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse Ultimate Fan Experience. They gave shirts to everyone who attended and the excitement could be felt while in the room with avid zombie film fanatics. However at the beginning of the film it showed a special piece of film just for the event, and it was awful. Ten minutes of Dillion Francis’s zombie cameo in a music video that never seemed to end. While some enjoyed it most of the audience sighed with relief when it was over. That has to be my only concern with the event, and thankfully it was for the fan experience and more than likely will not be in the actual film showings (General public you are saved). I would recommend this movie for people who enjoy campy horror films, since by all means this film is anything but serious. Also would not recommend of young children, there is some nudity.
I would give this film a 3.5/5 stars. While it was a fun film that kept me laughing for most of it; that fan experience clip definitely was a disaster. I would definitely watch the
From Christopher B. Landon comes Scout’s Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse. With Landon being most known for working on the Paranormal Activity franchise, this movie is a bit of a change from his usual work. Scout’s Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse is exactly what you would want from a comedy horror movie obviously targeting young adults. It has witty lines, zombies, and attractive leads. While the movie sometimes boarders the lines of too campy, I feel it balances well. While the whole concept of the film is silly, it is executed in a brilliant way and thankfully they don’t rely heavily on dick jokes.
I was fortunate enough to be able to go the Scout’s Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse Ultimate Fan Experience. They gave shirts to everyone who attended and the excitement could be felt while in the room with avid zombie film fanatics. However at the beginning of the film it showed a special piece of film just for the event, and it was awful. Ten minutes of Dillion Francis’s zombie cameo in a music video that never seemed to end. While some enjoyed it most of the audience sighed with relief when it was over. That has to be my only concern with the event, and thankfully it was for the fan experience and more than likely will not be in the actual film showings (General public you are saved). I would recommend this movie for people who enjoy campy horror films, since by all means this film is anything but serious. Also would not recommend of young children, there is some nudity.
I would give this film a 3.5/5 stars. While it was a fun film that kept me laughing for most of it; that fan experience clip definitely was a disaster. I would definitely watch the
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Scoob (2020) in Movies
May 8, 2021
Another film that snuck its way through to VOD (and is thankfully now streaming). As much as I love Scooby Doo, I did not have the desire to pay money to view this one.
Here I would normally put an extended synopsis, but I'll be honest, after watching the film I don't think I could tell you what the story was. I'm not sure it actually matters anyway.
The beginning of the film confused me. From every trailer that I saw I thought this film was about the mini Scooby Gang. At least that's what I remembered. So having seen lots of clips of them as kids, coupled with the posters meant I was left confused when it was hardly a feature of the final product.
Apart from me evidently forgetting the plot of the film, it was a classic Scooby story with a modern twist, and ultimately you can't go wrong with that. You get all the things you expect from masked villains to hair-brained schemes that seem to fool the minions... and that is all pretty satisfying stuff to watch.
A note I made very quickly was that the voices left a lot to be desired. While capturing the essence of the original cast would be very difficult, there's no denying that the actors from the live-action originals did a very good job... here we had no real comparison at all. Gina Rodriguez (who has been knocking it out of the park recently) probably being the only exception. I just truly don't know how anyone could possibly be better than Casey Kasem and Matthew Lillard. MVP of the film was definitely the bike cop when questioning Scooby and Shaggy, quality content, loved the end of his scene.
Despite the nostalgia of everything it doesn't make up for some truly awful dialogue, it's very inconsistent and yoyos between bad and good (when I say good, in this case, I probably mean cheesy). There are a couple of true gems though, my favourite being an early line from Shaggy with some heavy foreshadowing.
The yoyoing of the script is generally reflected in my notes on the film as a whole. For every laugh, there was something negative I wrote down. Scoob! was very self-aware, which was amusing to begin with, but it began to grate a little.
I was at least thankful that the CG animation actually became less of an annoyance as I got into the film, I wasn't a fan. The majority of the film managed to get a pass, but sadly I really disliked the portrayal of Dick Dastardly and Muttley in this style. As much as I'd like a Hanna and Barbera universe, I do not care to see anymore in this look. And absolutely no more Dastardly looking like Gru with his minions.
"But Emma... you gave this film a pretty decent rating and all you've done is grumble about it!" Yes, yes I have. But... I still enjoyed myself, and like I said, for every bad note there was a laugh or a moment that made me happy. And sometimes having a rant about a film's pitfalls is just something you need to do.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/scoob-movie-review.html
Here I would normally put an extended synopsis, but I'll be honest, after watching the film I don't think I could tell you what the story was. I'm not sure it actually matters anyway.
The beginning of the film confused me. From every trailer that I saw I thought this film was about the mini Scooby Gang. At least that's what I remembered. So having seen lots of clips of them as kids, coupled with the posters meant I was left confused when it was hardly a feature of the final product.
Apart from me evidently forgetting the plot of the film, it was a classic Scooby story with a modern twist, and ultimately you can't go wrong with that. You get all the things you expect from masked villains to hair-brained schemes that seem to fool the minions... and that is all pretty satisfying stuff to watch.
A note I made very quickly was that the voices left a lot to be desired. While capturing the essence of the original cast would be very difficult, there's no denying that the actors from the live-action originals did a very good job... here we had no real comparison at all. Gina Rodriguez (who has been knocking it out of the park recently) probably being the only exception. I just truly don't know how anyone could possibly be better than Casey Kasem and Matthew Lillard. MVP of the film was definitely the bike cop when questioning Scooby and Shaggy, quality content, loved the end of his scene.
Despite the nostalgia of everything it doesn't make up for some truly awful dialogue, it's very inconsistent and yoyos between bad and good (when I say good, in this case, I probably mean cheesy). There are a couple of true gems though, my favourite being an early line from Shaggy with some heavy foreshadowing.
The yoyoing of the script is generally reflected in my notes on the film as a whole. For every laugh, there was something negative I wrote down. Scoob! was very self-aware, which was amusing to begin with, but it began to grate a little.
I was at least thankful that the CG animation actually became less of an annoyance as I got into the film, I wasn't a fan. The majority of the film managed to get a pass, but sadly I really disliked the portrayal of Dick Dastardly and Muttley in this style. As much as I'd like a Hanna and Barbera universe, I do not care to see anymore in this look. And absolutely no more Dastardly looking like Gru with his minions.
"But Emma... you gave this film a pretty decent rating and all you've done is grumble about it!" Yes, yes I have. But... I still enjoyed myself, and like I said, for every bad note there was a laugh or a moment that made me happy. And sometimes having a rant about a film's pitfalls is just something you need to do.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/scoob-movie-review.html
Fred (860 KP) rated The Producers (2005) in Movies
May 27, 2019
If I had never seen the original, this may have been decent
No question that the original 1968 film is one of the greatest comedies of all time. Anyone who's seen the original is going to have a hard time not comparing this film to the original. As soon as this movie started, I knew I was in trouble. Let's just say that Nathan Lane & Matthew Broderick don't even come close to Zero Mostel & Gene Wilder. But it doesn't stop there. There is nobody in this film that is better than anyone in the original film. I realize they needed people that could not only act, but sing & in some cases, dance. But one cannot look at the first 10 minutes of the film & think, "Those are the worst impressions of Mostel & Wilder I've ever seen." Broderick is the hardest to look at. He just doesn't come off as natural when he becomes hysterical or when he's explaining things to Bialystock. Nathan Lane fares better, but somehow the jokes come out very stale & unfunny.
Some of my favorite jokes from the original are just awful in this film. For example, in the original, Max says, "Well, you know what they say; smile & the world smiles with you." He then turns & looks into the camera & says, "This man should be in a straight-jacket." Crossing the 4th wall works so well. Yet, in this film, Lane says the line to a statue. During the out-takes on the DVD, we see Lane deliver the line to the camera, ala Mostel. But he stops, realizing that he's not supposed to do it the same way as Zero, but the new, lamer version. The Hitler tryouts are also ruined in comparison to the original. In the original, the man singing "Have You Ever Heard the German Band", points to the piano player & orders, "You Vill Play It!" Hilarious. In this one the same character turns & say, "Play the song, please." or something weak like that. And finally, when the man (who has become a mentally challenged man for this film) goes to sing "The Little Wooden Boy", he goes into a stupid little dance, & when he is just about to start, the director yells, "Next!" Nowhere near as funny as the original, where we see a man so sure of himself & so confident get ready to sing & then is cut off with the much funnier, "Thank you!" More problems arise with the changing of the story from the original. The main change is the omission of LSD (Dick Shawn's character). I heard they removed him as a hippie wouldn't work today. So, instead of just making him something other than a hippie, let's get rid of him & throw the character of Franz in there. Doesn't work. Then, when the play is finally put on, the director, a very homosexual Roger DeBris, comes out & sings, creating an obviously gay Hitler. And the audience then loves the show. How weak. There are other changes too, none of them good.
Now, let's get to the good points of this film. Some of the original songs are pretty good. Broderick redeems his bad acting for some good singing & dancing. Even Will Ferrel does a pretty good job. I can't say the same for Uma Thurman though, as her song is annoying & screechy! There are some funny parts in the movie, & they are all new to the story as all the original jokes fall flat (even without comparison). But there are not enough of the funny parts to save this film.
I can see how some may like the Broadway aspect of this film & I myself might have if the film itself didn't stink on the whole. So, I'll stick to the original film, this film had no reason to be made & now that I have seen it, it had no reason to be watched either.
Some of my favorite jokes from the original are just awful in this film. For example, in the original, Max says, "Well, you know what they say; smile & the world smiles with you." He then turns & looks into the camera & says, "This man should be in a straight-jacket." Crossing the 4th wall works so well. Yet, in this film, Lane says the line to a statue. During the out-takes on the DVD, we see Lane deliver the line to the camera, ala Mostel. But he stops, realizing that he's not supposed to do it the same way as Zero, but the new, lamer version. The Hitler tryouts are also ruined in comparison to the original. In the original, the man singing "Have You Ever Heard the German Band", points to the piano player & orders, "You Vill Play It!" Hilarious. In this one the same character turns & say, "Play the song, please." or something weak like that. And finally, when the man (who has become a mentally challenged man for this film) goes to sing "The Little Wooden Boy", he goes into a stupid little dance, & when he is just about to start, the director yells, "Next!" Nowhere near as funny as the original, where we see a man so sure of himself & so confident get ready to sing & then is cut off with the much funnier, "Thank you!" More problems arise with the changing of the story from the original. The main change is the omission of LSD (Dick Shawn's character). I heard they removed him as a hippie wouldn't work today. So, instead of just making him something other than a hippie, let's get rid of him & throw the character of Franz in there. Doesn't work. Then, when the play is finally put on, the director, a very homosexual Roger DeBris, comes out & sings, creating an obviously gay Hitler. And the audience then loves the show. How weak. There are other changes too, none of them good.
Now, let's get to the good points of this film. Some of the original songs are pretty good. Broderick redeems his bad acting for some good singing & dancing. Even Will Ferrel does a pretty good job. I can't say the same for Uma Thurman though, as her song is annoying & screechy! There are some funny parts in the movie, & they are all new to the story as all the original jokes fall flat (even without comparison). But there are not enough of the funny parts to save this film.
I can see how some may like the Broadway aspect of this film & I myself might have if the film itself didn't stink on the whole. So, I'll stick to the original film, this film had no reason to be made & now that I have seen it, it had no reason to be watched either.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Rocketman (2019) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Strong Lead Performance
I have to admit, I thought the Freddy Mercury bio-pic BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY was just "meh" and that Rami Malek was "just o'k" as the Queen frontman (personally, I would have given the Oscar to Christian Bale for his portrayal of Dick Cheney in VICE) so I was not rushing to the multi-plex to check out the Elton John musical film ROCKETMAN. And the fact that the release of this film was "buried" in the summer and not right before "Oscar Season" gave me room to pause.
And...I would be wrong...for ROCKETMAN is a fun, fantastical fantasy musical depicting the rise and fall (by drug and alcohol abuse) of one of rock's most flamboyant showman of the 1970's.
Following the "Jukebox Musical" blueprint of something like JERSEY BOYS, Rocketman follows a young Reggie Dwight as he discovers his musical talent and grows into the Global Superstar known as Elton John.
I was happy that the filmmakers went this route (vs the bio-pic route that BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY went) for they were able to use the vast catalog of Elton John/Bernie Taupin tunes to their fullest advantage, when it made sense to drive the narrative forward - or to give the storytelling a shot of adrenaline.
This film had Elton John's blessings and he was not kind to a few people in his life - most notably his mother (an almost unrecognizable Bryce Dallas Howard in a strong turn), his father (Steve Mackintosh, who I had never seen before) and his Manager, John Reid (Game of Throne's Richard Madden). All 3 are pretty one-dimensional villains that help contribute to Elton's drug and alcohol abuse.
On the other side of the coin is his writing partner, Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell, the original BILLY ELLIOT in a performance that I think is the best of his career) and his Grandmother, Ivy (good ol' Gemma Jones BRIDGET JONES DIARY and Madam Pomfrey in the Harry Potter films). Both of these characters are generally positive influences on Elton's life, trying to understand and support our hero on his journey.
As for our hero, Taran Egerton (the KINGSMAN films) embodies Elton with panache and zeal while showing an underlying shyness and insecurity that helps lead to his abuse issues. Egerton is EXCELLENT in this role - both in acting and singing. He doesn't so much imitate Elton John but embodies the essence of Sir Elton and his performance is quite effective. If Rami Malek deserved his Oscar for playing Freddy Mercury in BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY then Taran Egerton better be in the Oscar conversation this year.
The film was Directed by Dexter Fletcher (who was brought on to finish BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY once Bryan Singer was fired from that film for his on-set behavior), so he puts to good use his experience on the Queen movie, keeping the action moving fast, the characterizations simple (but satisfying) enough while showcasing just enough music to fill a "Best of" Album.
While BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY was a "meh" movie with a buffo ending (the recreation of the LIVE AID concert was amazing), ROCKETMAN suffers from just the opposite problem. Starting off strong and growing weaker until it ends in "meh" fashion. The fact that this film musical fantasy decided to end with a faithful recreation of the I'M STILL STANDING music video is at the heart of the issue. I understand the implied underlying meaning of this song selection, but it just doesn't pack the punch that a live concert appearance would have.
Come for the music, stay for Egerton's performance and you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...I would be wrong...for ROCKETMAN is a fun, fantastical fantasy musical depicting the rise and fall (by drug and alcohol abuse) of one of rock's most flamboyant showman of the 1970's.
Following the "Jukebox Musical" blueprint of something like JERSEY BOYS, Rocketman follows a young Reggie Dwight as he discovers his musical talent and grows into the Global Superstar known as Elton John.
I was happy that the filmmakers went this route (vs the bio-pic route that BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY went) for they were able to use the vast catalog of Elton John/Bernie Taupin tunes to their fullest advantage, when it made sense to drive the narrative forward - or to give the storytelling a shot of adrenaline.
This film had Elton John's blessings and he was not kind to a few people in his life - most notably his mother (an almost unrecognizable Bryce Dallas Howard in a strong turn), his father (Steve Mackintosh, who I had never seen before) and his Manager, John Reid (Game of Throne's Richard Madden). All 3 are pretty one-dimensional villains that help contribute to Elton's drug and alcohol abuse.
On the other side of the coin is his writing partner, Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell, the original BILLY ELLIOT in a performance that I think is the best of his career) and his Grandmother, Ivy (good ol' Gemma Jones BRIDGET JONES DIARY and Madam Pomfrey in the Harry Potter films). Both of these characters are generally positive influences on Elton's life, trying to understand and support our hero on his journey.
As for our hero, Taran Egerton (the KINGSMAN films) embodies Elton with panache and zeal while showing an underlying shyness and insecurity that helps lead to his abuse issues. Egerton is EXCELLENT in this role - both in acting and singing. He doesn't so much imitate Elton John but embodies the essence of Sir Elton and his performance is quite effective. If Rami Malek deserved his Oscar for playing Freddy Mercury in BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY then Taran Egerton better be in the Oscar conversation this year.
The film was Directed by Dexter Fletcher (who was brought on to finish BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY once Bryan Singer was fired from that film for his on-set behavior), so he puts to good use his experience on the Queen movie, keeping the action moving fast, the characterizations simple (but satisfying) enough while showcasing just enough music to fill a "Best of" Album.
While BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY was a "meh" movie with a buffo ending (the recreation of the LIVE AID concert was amazing), ROCKETMAN suffers from just the opposite problem. Starting off strong and growing weaker until it ends in "meh" fashion. The fact that this film musical fantasy decided to end with a faithful recreation of the I'M STILL STANDING music video is at the heart of the issue. I understand the implied underlying meaning of this song selection, but it just doesn't pack the punch that a live concert appearance would have.
Come for the music, stay for Egerton's performance and you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Josh Burns (166 KP) rated Spartacus: A Game of Blood and Treachery in Tabletop Games
Jun 20, 2019
Easy to learn but a ton of fun (1 more)
Great strategy and combat
I had my eye on this game for a while before finally pulling the trigger and ordering it a few years ago. I had little faith in a game based on a tv show, but I love gladiator games and there aren't many to choose from.
The base game is 3-4 players, there are expansions that increase that, but I'm sticking with the base game for this review. Each player controls a different House, which have their own stats, abilities, and alternate objectives, with the main objective being to reach 10 influence.
The game plays basically as follows:
Upkeep phase: collect money, try to heal wounded gladiators, and reactivate slaves that were used.
Market: A number of cards are drawn and placed face down, then one card is flipped. It could be a gladiator, a slave (can earn you money and may have abilities that are useful outside the arena) or gear for your gladiators. All players choose how many coins to bid and keep them in a closed fist until everyone is ready, then everyone reveals their bid. Whoever was highest wins. You then repeat till each card is flipped. You can also put your own cards up for auction or offer trades.
the arena: after this, 2 players chosen by another player have to either fight each other, pitting a slave or gladiator against the oppents, or forfeit at the cost of Influence. Players may place bets on who will win and if the loser will be killed, or badly injured.
The game is basically 2 games in 1: outside the arena and in it.
Outside: It is primarily about making deals, lying, setting each other up, making temporary allies and backstabbing. Literally the only rule in the actual rulebook about how to go about this is: "Don't be a dick. " It actually says that, and says they mean keep it fun, don't actually try to be a spiteful douche. There is nothing directing you when to lie or be honest, if you have to keep promises, etc.
In the arena: Combat is fun and simple. Not all fighters are equal but I have seen weak ones overcome the odds. If you're a fan of the show you will recognize many names. As a quick sidenote, an expansion can turn these fights from 1 vs 1 to 2 vs 2. I've won hard fought games, and I've lost on purpose to win a bet or fulfill a deal. Your fighter may or may not die or be injured. The player who chose the participants also decides the fate of the losing fighter (if they didn't die fighting) with a thumbs up or down. The player with the losing fighter can plead for the fighters survival or bribe, or maybe the player chosing wants the losing player to owe them a favor. There is never a clear cut choice.
In conclusion: This is a favorite of mine. It is unbelievably fun making deals (whether you keep them or not) bribing, setting players against each other etc. The combat is fun and easy to learn and the other players are typically screaming at whoever they want to win if they aren't doing well (in good fun, not actual anger). I can't think of anything to not like about it. If you like the show you'll love references such as the "Jupiter's Cock" card and seeing all the characters (slaves, gladiators, and dominas). If you don't like the show, it's still a hell of a game and you don't need to watch the show to know what's going on.
The base game is 3-4 players, there are expansions that increase that, but I'm sticking with the base game for this review. Each player controls a different House, which have their own stats, abilities, and alternate objectives, with the main objective being to reach 10 influence.
The game plays basically as follows:
Upkeep phase: collect money, try to heal wounded gladiators, and reactivate slaves that were used.
Market: A number of cards are drawn and placed face down, then one card is flipped. It could be a gladiator, a slave (can earn you money and may have abilities that are useful outside the arena) or gear for your gladiators. All players choose how many coins to bid and keep them in a closed fist until everyone is ready, then everyone reveals their bid. Whoever was highest wins. You then repeat till each card is flipped. You can also put your own cards up for auction or offer trades.
the arena: after this, 2 players chosen by another player have to either fight each other, pitting a slave or gladiator against the oppents, or forfeit at the cost of Influence. Players may place bets on who will win and if the loser will be killed, or badly injured.
The game is basically 2 games in 1: outside the arena and in it.
Outside: It is primarily about making deals, lying, setting each other up, making temporary allies and backstabbing. Literally the only rule in the actual rulebook about how to go about this is: "Don't be a dick. " It actually says that, and says they mean keep it fun, don't actually try to be a spiteful douche. There is nothing directing you when to lie or be honest, if you have to keep promises, etc.
In the arena: Combat is fun and simple. Not all fighters are equal but I have seen weak ones overcome the odds. If you're a fan of the show you will recognize many names. As a quick sidenote, an expansion can turn these fights from 1 vs 1 to 2 vs 2. I've won hard fought games, and I've lost on purpose to win a bet or fulfill a deal. Your fighter may or may not die or be injured. The player who chose the participants also decides the fate of the losing fighter (if they didn't die fighting) with a thumbs up or down. The player with the losing fighter can plead for the fighters survival or bribe, or maybe the player chosing wants the losing player to owe them a favor. There is never a clear cut choice.
In conclusion: This is a favorite of mine. It is unbelievably fun making deals (whether you keep them or not) bribing, setting players against each other etc. The combat is fun and easy to learn and the other players are typically screaming at whoever they want to win if they aren't doing well (in good fun, not actual anger). I can't think of anything to not like about it. If you like the show you'll love references such as the "Jupiter's Cock" card and seeing all the characters (slaves, gladiators, and dominas). If you don't like the show, it's still a hell of a game and you don't need to watch the show to know what's going on.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Magic Mike XXL (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
When we last saw Mike Lane (Channing Tatum) he was trading in his g-string and the adulation of grown women with lots of dollar bills to spare, for a custom furniture business of his own and a serious relationship with a girl named Brooke. He said goodbye to his band of magical, muscular men (and by magical, we mean in the art of making clothes disappear) and headed off into a better future.
Or so he thought.
Three years later, we find Mike has found a little success, his company has grown by one employee. The empty apartment with no sign of a roommate suggests his future no longer includes Brooke. A phone call from Tarzan (Kevin Nash) has Mike donning a suit to attend a “wake”. Cue the reunion with his old gang that is far from somber, and more of a ruse to see him. Apparently, his orphaned crew is set on one last hurrah before they follow in Mike’s footsteps and go after their own entrepreneurial dreams.
Does Mike want in on the swan song of stripteases at Myrtle Beach’s stripper convention? Of course not. He has a business to run, employees to pay, he postures. But considering this movie is a sequel entitled “Magic Mike XXL” you know he changes his mind. And, boy, how he changes his mind! With a little help from power tools and Genuwine’s “Pony”, natch.
Magic Mike XXL is a road trip of discovery for Mike, Tarzan, Tito (Adam Rodriguez), Ken (Matt Bomer), Tobias (Gabriel Iglesias) and Big Dick Richie (Joe Mangeniello). There were a few times I wondered where exactly this story was going, but as ensemble features go, the insightful peeks into the guys’ individual stories distracted from the meandering plot. Okay, why I was looking for a plot in a movie clearly made to titillate fans of sculpted male phsyiques, I don’t know. Sorry. Not sorry.
The road to Myrtle Beach is littered with conquests, old and new, and epiphanies fueled by pharmaceuticals inspire the Kings of Tampa to learn a few new tricks along the way. XXL actually achieves that rare feat of being better than the original. I know, that may not exactly be high praise, but it delivers more of what fans enjoyed in the original – the male entertainment.
XXL has the same awkward, but slightly improved banter between Mike and the females he encounters, but it also has new routines, a sexier emcee in Jada Pinkett-Smith (with all due respect to Matthew McConaughey) and it doesn’t require Kevin Nash to dance like a lost mannequin. There are some eyebrow-raising casting choices for a couple of new strippers. You may find yourself asking “Hey, is that who I think it is jumping all over that woman?” And “Okay…so he doesn’t actually strip. He just sings?” But don’t worry, that singer inspires Matt Bomer to do both. Very well. How did I not know Matt Bomer could sing?
The finale is one the screener audience, the majority of which were female, of course, did not want to end. I admit I could’ve stayed in my seat for more Channing Tatum and professional dancer, Stephen “tWitch” Boss, who could make his own Magic Malik movie. As my girlfriends and I left the theater, one commented that her face hurt from smiling the whole time. At the risk of sounding extremely shallow, we all agreed that the only way the movie could have been better is if it was shown on the IMAX screen in 3D. Maybe in Dbox seats.
Probably not a movie women will want to take their significant others to, but their girlfriends for a ladies night out? Hell to the yeah.
For story, acting and plot? Ummm 2 out of 5
For sheer, eye-candy entertainment? 4 stars.
Or so he thought.
Three years later, we find Mike has found a little success, his company has grown by one employee. The empty apartment with no sign of a roommate suggests his future no longer includes Brooke. A phone call from Tarzan (Kevin Nash) has Mike donning a suit to attend a “wake”. Cue the reunion with his old gang that is far from somber, and more of a ruse to see him. Apparently, his orphaned crew is set on one last hurrah before they follow in Mike’s footsteps and go after their own entrepreneurial dreams.
Does Mike want in on the swan song of stripteases at Myrtle Beach’s stripper convention? Of course not. He has a business to run, employees to pay, he postures. But considering this movie is a sequel entitled “Magic Mike XXL” you know he changes his mind. And, boy, how he changes his mind! With a little help from power tools and Genuwine’s “Pony”, natch.
Magic Mike XXL is a road trip of discovery for Mike, Tarzan, Tito (Adam Rodriguez), Ken (Matt Bomer), Tobias (Gabriel Iglesias) and Big Dick Richie (Joe Mangeniello). There were a few times I wondered where exactly this story was going, but as ensemble features go, the insightful peeks into the guys’ individual stories distracted from the meandering plot. Okay, why I was looking for a plot in a movie clearly made to titillate fans of sculpted male phsyiques, I don’t know. Sorry. Not sorry.
The road to Myrtle Beach is littered with conquests, old and new, and epiphanies fueled by pharmaceuticals inspire the Kings of Tampa to learn a few new tricks along the way. XXL actually achieves that rare feat of being better than the original. I know, that may not exactly be high praise, but it delivers more of what fans enjoyed in the original – the male entertainment.
XXL has the same awkward, but slightly improved banter between Mike and the females he encounters, but it also has new routines, a sexier emcee in Jada Pinkett-Smith (with all due respect to Matthew McConaughey) and it doesn’t require Kevin Nash to dance like a lost mannequin. There are some eyebrow-raising casting choices for a couple of new strippers. You may find yourself asking “Hey, is that who I think it is jumping all over that woman?” And “Okay…so he doesn’t actually strip. He just sings?” But don’t worry, that singer inspires Matt Bomer to do both. Very well. How did I not know Matt Bomer could sing?
The finale is one the screener audience, the majority of which were female, of course, did not want to end. I admit I could’ve stayed in my seat for more Channing Tatum and professional dancer, Stephen “tWitch” Boss, who could make his own Magic Malik movie. As my girlfriends and I left the theater, one commented that her face hurt from smiling the whole time. At the risk of sounding extremely shallow, we all agreed that the only way the movie could have been better is if it was shown on the IMAX screen in 3D. Maybe in Dbox seats.
Probably not a movie women will want to take their significant others to, but their girlfriends for a ladies night out? Hell to the yeah.
For story, acting and plot? Ummm 2 out of 5
For sheer, eye-candy entertainment? 4 stars.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Jan 8, 2021
The fantastic ensemble cast (1 more)
Great directing and editing
Effortlessly stylish and entertaining
The Personal History of David Copperfield starts with the young man (Dev Patel) regaling a theatre audience with a reading of his autobiography. This immediately pitches him into witnessing his own birth to widowed single mother Clara (the wonderful Morfydd Clark, or "Saint Maud" fame). From there, Copperfield goes helter-skelter into a rollercoaster life encompassing workhouse-bottling poverty, fish-gutting and rich gentlemanly pursuits.
You have to admire the artistry of Dickens. Of course, I am aware of some of the plethora of rich and complex characters that Dickens imagined including the rascally Mr Micawber (Peter Capaldi) and the ever-'umble but conniving Uriah Heep (Ben Wishaw). But the story is literally rammed with amazing characters. It's almost as if Dickens conjured up full pen-portraits of 30 different characters and then contrived to fit them somehow into the story. Remarkably rich.
There's a very striking nature to the casting of this movie. It had me going "Wha?? Who??" while watching it. Because the roles are cast multi-culturally, without nature to the demographics of the time and - crucially - to the relationship between the characters. For example, with Copperfield, you might - with a bit of a squint - play along with it since we never see the father. But then the mother of the (very-much-white) Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard) turns up as Nigerian-born actress Nikki Amuka-Bird (who is fabulous). Benedict Wong also turns up as legal director Mr Wickfield. It was as if the casting was done purely on talent and regardless of race and appropriateness for the Dickensian times. Which is refreshingly different and much to be welcomed.
Sarah Crowe has won a number of awards for her casting of the film and a BAFTA nomination too. And well deserved, since she pulls in a truly stellar ensemble cast. As well as those mentioned above, we also have Hugh Laurie as the addled Mr Dick; Tilda Swinton as Betsey Trotwood; Anna Maxwell Martin as Mrs Strong; Paul Whitehouse as Daniel Peggotty; and Gwendoline Christie as the evil Mrs Murdstone. Even Daisy May Cooper (from TV's "This Country") turns up and is particularly effective as Peggoty - the housemaid and friend to Copperfield. And casting Morfydd Clark in a second role as the scatty love interest Dora Spenlow is also both brilliant and provocative.
With such a wealth of talent on show, it's difficult to pull out specific performances. This is a movie that genuinely deserved to make the SAG Ensemble award list.
When I saw that the director of this was Armando Iannucci, I raised an eyebrow. For the subject matter seemed to be at right angles to the normal satirical thrust of the director. But the guy behind "The Thick of It" and "The Death of Stalin" reigned in his most satirical barbs and - together with his regular collaborative screenwriter Simon Blackwell - turned the movie into a delightfully quirky telling of the story. I felt that there was something of the Guy Ritchie "Sherlock Holmes" behind the very effective use of the cutting and on screen handwriting.
In that cutting, many of the scene transitions are masterfully done. So a special shout-out to the film editors Mick Audsley and Peter Lambert here. A memorable example is a flashback in the "boat house" where a background tarpaulin blows away to reveal Steerforth on horseback in France: simply breathtaking.
This was a refreshing movie. Endlessly innovative and entertaining. It makes me even possibly want to revisit trying to read the book again! Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://rb.gy/ba74zo ).
You have to admire the artistry of Dickens. Of course, I am aware of some of the plethora of rich and complex characters that Dickens imagined including the rascally Mr Micawber (Peter Capaldi) and the ever-'umble but conniving Uriah Heep (Ben Wishaw). But the story is literally rammed with amazing characters. It's almost as if Dickens conjured up full pen-portraits of 30 different characters and then contrived to fit them somehow into the story. Remarkably rich.
There's a very striking nature to the casting of this movie. It had me going "Wha?? Who??" while watching it. Because the roles are cast multi-culturally, without nature to the demographics of the time and - crucially - to the relationship between the characters. For example, with Copperfield, you might - with a bit of a squint - play along with it since we never see the father. But then the mother of the (very-much-white) Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard) turns up as Nigerian-born actress Nikki Amuka-Bird (who is fabulous). Benedict Wong also turns up as legal director Mr Wickfield. It was as if the casting was done purely on talent and regardless of race and appropriateness for the Dickensian times. Which is refreshingly different and much to be welcomed.
Sarah Crowe has won a number of awards for her casting of the film and a BAFTA nomination too. And well deserved, since she pulls in a truly stellar ensemble cast. As well as those mentioned above, we also have Hugh Laurie as the addled Mr Dick; Tilda Swinton as Betsey Trotwood; Anna Maxwell Martin as Mrs Strong; Paul Whitehouse as Daniel Peggotty; and Gwendoline Christie as the evil Mrs Murdstone. Even Daisy May Cooper (from TV's "This Country") turns up and is particularly effective as Peggoty - the housemaid and friend to Copperfield. And casting Morfydd Clark in a second role as the scatty love interest Dora Spenlow is also both brilliant and provocative.
With such a wealth of talent on show, it's difficult to pull out specific performances. This is a movie that genuinely deserved to make the SAG Ensemble award list.
When I saw that the director of this was Armando Iannucci, I raised an eyebrow. For the subject matter seemed to be at right angles to the normal satirical thrust of the director. But the guy behind "The Thick of It" and "The Death of Stalin" reigned in his most satirical barbs and - together with his regular collaborative screenwriter Simon Blackwell - turned the movie into a delightfully quirky telling of the story. I felt that there was something of the Guy Ritchie "Sherlock Holmes" behind the very effective use of the cutting and on screen handwriting.
In that cutting, many of the scene transitions are masterfully done. So a special shout-out to the film editors Mick Audsley and Peter Lambert here. A memorable example is a flashback in the "boat house" where a background tarpaulin blows away to reveal Steerforth on horseback in France: simply breathtaking.
This was a refreshing movie. Endlessly innovative and entertaining. It makes me even possibly want to revisit trying to read the book again! Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://rb.gy/ba74zo ).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Supernova (2020) in Movies
Jun 24, 2021
Tucci and Firth - an acting masterclass (1 more)
A slow and very moving study of a difficult subject
“You’re not supposed to mourn someone before they die.”
Sam (Colin Firth) is a famous concert pianist. Tusker (Stanley Tucci) a famous author. But Tusker has Alzheimer's, and is starting to go downhill. The loving couple take their battered motorhome on a last great adventure round England's Lake District, taking in a visit with Sam's sister Lil while there.
Positives:
- "Love is a many splendored thing" as the song goes, and seldom has it been expressed so poignantly as in "Supernova". Harry Macqueen's script builds up a truly loving relationship between the two men. Any homophobes should be strapped into chairs and forced to watch this movie: perhaps that would cause some semblance of understanding to emerge in their petrified brains. (Who am I kidding?)
- Supporting the story brilliantly are Colin Firth and Stanley Tucci. Tucci has been in so many great movies over the years that it's no surprise to me that his acting moved me to tears. But when I think of Colin Firth (Hampshire's own! He went to my daughter's college!) my mind tends to skip over his dramatic roles in films like "The King's Speech" and "A Single Man". Instead, I tend to dwell on his lighter, fluffier roles, like "Bridget Jones" and "Mamma Mia". As such, I forget what a truly great actor he is. And here, he hits it out of the park! With all the Covid release confusion, I'm not sure whether "Supernova" is up for awards next year, or whether it has been cruelly overlooked from last year's awards. I truly hope it's the former, since both men are at the peak of their craft here.
- The cinematography by Dick Pope is beautiful. To be fair, you could put a Super 8 camera in the Lake District on a sunny day and it would look great. But the camera work here makes it look its best.
Negatives:
- Not really a negative for me, but it's about as far away from an "action film" as you can get. "Fast and Furious 9" is showing next door! This is an extremely slow, character-led piece that won't be for everyone.
- I wasn't totally convinced by the symptoms shown. Early in the film, Tusker wanders off in a daze, but seems comparatively compos mentis for most of the rest of the film. Perhaps this is just my ignorance of the randomness and unpredictability of the disease (anyone in the know - please enlighten me).
Summary Thoughts on "Supernova": As is often the way with cinema, genre films can come along like London buses. First this month we had Anthony Hopkin's Oscar-winning turn as a dementia sufferer in "The Father", and now "Supernova" appears. This takes a different approach to the subject. Not as flashy or clever. But no less effective at portraying the tragedy that this wretched disease wreaks with relationships, often making them a living hell.
Having straight actors play gay characters will no doubt provoke the usual outcry from the cancel culture. But if it's good acting - and it is a masterclass from the two leads in my book - such that you BELIEVE the story, then that's the whole point of the craft.
Like "The Father", this is a tough watch. I felt pretty well emotionally wrung-out by the end of it. But, it was well worth the wait in my book.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "One Mann's Movies" review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/24/supernova-youre-not-supposed-to-mourn-someone-before-they-die/. Thanks.)
Positives:
- "Love is a many splendored thing" as the song goes, and seldom has it been expressed so poignantly as in "Supernova". Harry Macqueen's script builds up a truly loving relationship between the two men. Any homophobes should be strapped into chairs and forced to watch this movie: perhaps that would cause some semblance of understanding to emerge in their petrified brains. (Who am I kidding?)
- Supporting the story brilliantly are Colin Firth and Stanley Tucci. Tucci has been in so many great movies over the years that it's no surprise to me that his acting moved me to tears. But when I think of Colin Firth (Hampshire's own! He went to my daughter's college!) my mind tends to skip over his dramatic roles in films like "The King's Speech" and "A Single Man". Instead, I tend to dwell on his lighter, fluffier roles, like "Bridget Jones" and "Mamma Mia". As such, I forget what a truly great actor he is. And here, he hits it out of the park! With all the Covid release confusion, I'm not sure whether "Supernova" is up for awards next year, or whether it has been cruelly overlooked from last year's awards. I truly hope it's the former, since both men are at the peak of their craft here.
- The cinematography by Dick Pope is beautiful. To be fair, you could put a Super 8 camera in the Lake District on a sunny day and it would look great. But the camera work here makes it look its best.
Negatives:
- Not really a negative for me, but it's about as far away from an "action film" as you can get. "Fast and Furious 9" is showing next door! This is an extremely slow, character-led piece that won't be for everyone.
- I wasn't totally convinced by the symptoms shown. Early in the film, Tusker wanders off in a daze, but seems comparatively compos mentis for most of the rest of the film. Perhaps this is just my ignorance of the randomness and unpredictability of the disease (anyone in the know - please enlighten me).
Summary Thoughts on "Supernova": As is often the way with cinema, genre films can come along like London buses. First this month we had Anthony Hopkin's Oscar-winning turn as a dementia sufferer in "The Father", and now "Supernova" appears. This takes a different approach to the subject. Not as flashy or clever. But no less effective at portraying the tragedy that this wretched disease wreaks with relationships, often making them a living hell.
Having straight actors play gay characters will no doubt provoke the usual outcry from the cancel culture. But if it's good acting - and it is a masterclass from the two leads in my book - such that you BELIEVE the story, then that's the whole point of the craft.
Like "The Father", this is a tough watch. I felt pretty well emotionally wrung-out by the end of it. But, it was well worth the wait in my book.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "One Mann's Movies" review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/24/supernova-youre-not-supposed-to-mourn-someone-before-they-die/. Thanks.)
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated House of X/Powers of X in Books
Nov 30, 2020
I regret that it took me almost a month to finish my re-visit of HoX/PoX, but it did. And, not because the book sucked (COVID-19's mandatory "Stay-at-Home" shit starts to grate on the nerves, y'know?)! ANYWAY...
***
Say what you want about Marvel and their annoying reboot kerfuffles, but this whole "Dawn of X" that Jonathan Hickman is helming? FUCKING BRILLIANT, okay?!!? I swear to ya, the X-books haven't been this exciting or even remotely relevant in about twenty years! And as some who's been reading the X-books since the late 70's (yeah, I'm THAT old!), you can be sure that means something!
I have been bored with Wolverine's character the last handful of years. Other than the film LOGAN, I thought his character was overused and something of an ass, if I have to be honest. However, here? Holy crow, I am digging the ol' canucklehead again! Thank you, Mr. Hickman!
And I am going to keep this next bit Spoiler-free, just in case there is anyone reading this review and they have not yet finishing a'readin' it... Who knew [SPOILER-FREE] was a frikkin' mutant?! Again, I am a reader of the X-Men since the late 70's, but I still never had an even inkling that they were a mutant! And the way it was all presented? EPIC! I wanted to hate it, because it sounded so frikkin' trope-ish, without any redemptive potential! None of us likes to be proven wrong, but in this, yeah, I'll take it! Hickman did a smashing job with this plot point, one in which I am apt to conclude that when "Dawn of X" reaches its pinnacle (whenever this is.. <u>Thanks, COVID!!</u>), it's gonna come back around and it's a'gonna pack one hell of a punch!
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/188153395@N04/50081223842/in/dateposted-public/"; title="Image00016"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50081223842_cb1c47d5be_n.jpg"; width="220" height="218" alt="Image00016"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
And I am fairly certain that what I am about to say is not going to be a spoiler, as I feel this has been true for some time now, but good Lord, Professor X is a dick! He is playing chess, with a board in his head that only he knows of, and anyone who is close to him gets relegated to "pawn status"!
I totally get where he, Erik (Magneto) and [SPOILER-FREE] are working towards with the whole mutant-nation of Krakoa, I truly do! But, with Xavier keep his hand of cards close to his chest, it seems sketchy at best! While we have seen Xaviers in past X-books where he wasn't as good as we thought, but it got old hat, y'know? Here? Yeah, I'm in for the long haul, as I am curious where this is all going to go and I suspect it's not going to go well as far as Xavier is concerned!
And amaz-a-balls as Hickman is with all this, it would be so unbecoming of me if I didn't address the fab art on both series! We had Pepe Larraz on HoX, while R.B. Silva handled the art for PoX. And let me tell ya, both of them did bang-up jobs, really bringing the icing for two already outstanding "cakes"! Bravo, gentleman, bravo!
So, time to wrap this up.. If you have any vested interest in all things mutant-related and have felt severely disappointed in the way things have been handled for the last twenty years plus, then you sincerely owe it to yourself to read this book! Worse case scenario? You're a closed-minded S.O.B., like I used to be, and there's just no pleasin' yer ass!
Peace. y'all!
***
Say what you want about Marvel and their annoying reboot kerfuffles, but this whole "Dawn of X" that Jonathan Hickman is helming? FUCKING BRILLIANT, okay?!!? I swear to ya, the X-books haven't been this exciting or even remotely relevant in about twenty years! And as some who's been reading the X-books since the late 70's (yeah, I'm THAT old!), you can be sure that means something!
I have been bored with Wolverine's character the last handful of years. Other than the film LOGAN, I thought his character was overused and something of an ass, if I have to be honest. However, here? Holy crow, I am digging the ol' canucklehead again! Thank you, Mr. Hickman!
And I am going to keep this next bit Spoiler-free, just in case there is anyone reading this review and they have not yet finishing a'readin' it... Who knew [SPOILER-FREE] was a frikkin' mutant?! Again, I am a reader of the X-Men since the late 70's, but I still never had an even inkling that they were a mutant! And the way it was all presented? EPIC! I wanted to hate it, because it sounded so frikkin' trope-ish, without any redemptive potential! None of us likes to be proven wrong, but in this, yeah, I'll take it! Hickman did a smashing job with this plot point, one in which I am apt to conclude that when "Dawn of X" reaches its pinnacle (whenever this is.. <u>Thanks, COVID!!</u>), it's gonna come back around and it's a'gonna pack one hell of a punch!
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/188153395@N04/50081223842/in/dateposted-public/"; title="Image00016"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50081223842_cb1c47d5be_n.jpg"; width="220" height="218" alt="Image00016"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
And I am fairly certain that what I am about to say is not going to be a spoiler, as I feel this has been true for some time now, but good Lord, Professor X is a dick! He is playing chess, with a board in his head that only he knows of, and anyone who is close to him gets relegated to "pawn status"!
I totally get where he, Erik (Magneto) and [SPOILER-FREE] are working towards with the whole mutant-nation of Krakoa, I truly do! But, with Xavier keep his hand of cards close to his chest, it seems sketchy at best! While we have seen Xaviers in past X-books where he wasn't as good as we thought, but it got old hat, y'know? Here? Yeah, I'm in for the long haul, as I am curious where this is all going to go and I suspect it's not going to go well as far as Xavier is concerned!
And amaz-a-balls as Hickman is with all this, it would be so unbecoming of me if I didn't address the fab art on both series! We had Pepe Larraz on HoX, while R.B. Silva handled the art for PoX. And let me tell ya, both of them did bang-up jobs, really bringing the icing for two already outstanding "cakes"! Bravo, gentleman, bravo!
So, time to wrap this up.. If you have any vested interest in all things mutant-related and have felt severely disappointed in the way things have been handled for the last twenty years plus, then you sincerely owe it to yourself to read this book! Worse case scenario? You're a closed-minded S.O.B., like I used to be, and there's just no pleasin' yer ass!
Peace. y'all!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Motherless Brooklyn (2019) in Movies
Jan 15, 2021
A little too slow and self-indulgent for my tastes
There is no denying that Edward Norton is a talented performer. Ever since he burst onto the scene with his Oscar nominated performance in PRIMAL FEAR, he has been a presence both on and off the screen as an Actor, Writer, Producer and Director.
With his latest effort, MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN (based on the base selling novel by Jonathan Lethem), Norton puts ALL of his skills to work as he Produced, Directed, Wrote and Starred in this Private Eye thriller from 2019.
If only Norton had handed at least 1 of those jobs over to someone else.
Norton stars as Lionel Essrog, a Private Eye with Tourette’s Syndrome, who’s investigation into the murder of a mentor of his exposes corruption, racism, greed and abuse of power in City Hall in New York City in the 1950’s.
As the star, Norton brings a nice edge to Lionel, who’s Tourette’s causes him to twitch and belt out words randomly, as well as gives him a photographic memory. While the twitching and random swearing are a bit over the top at times, the photographic memory helps Lionel solve the case (of course it does).
And that’s where I have issue with writer Norton - as he cannot resist the urge to showcase Actor Norton’s propensity to go over the top and puts in many, many “Tourette’s moments” as well as putting in long dialogue scenes that tries to show the audience how smart Lionel is.
Unfortunately, Director Norton indulges Writer Norton and Actor Norton so the film has a languid pace that just sits on Lionel’s actions and words. This is a 2 hour movie packed into a 2 1/2 hour run time. Now, to be fair to Director Norton, there are some absolutely gorgeous and interesting pictures put on the screen and the atmosphere (and characters) that are created are interesting (enough) to ALMOST forgive the self-indulgent ways of Writer/Actor/Director Norton.
As for the rest of the cast, Bruce Willis is…Bruce Willis as a Private Eye that works with Lionel and Willem DaFoe is at his “Willem DeFoe-iest” in portraying a critic of New York City Hall with a secret past. It’s as if Director Norton said to both of these 2 fine actors to just “do your thing” while he focused on the myriad of other jobs he had on this film.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Femme Fatale Laura Rose (a part that Norton specifically added to the film - her character was not in the book - and wrote just for her). She is quite good in this role and her scenes with Norton crackle somewhat louder than the rest of the film.
And then there is Alec Baldwin as a corrupt, racist, politician who is looking out for only 1 person - himself. While Baldwin is very good in this 100% serious role, I couldn’t be help but be reminded of a certain comedic character he has played for the past few years on Saturday Night Live.
The music by Daniel Pemberton and the Cinematography by Dick Pope add greatly to the atmosphere of this film - and that is good - for when the story bogs down (and it bogs down A LOT), there usually is something interesting to look at or listen to.
Not a bad film, but it could have been a much better film if someone would have taken at least ONE of the jobs off of Norton (I would vote for Director) and tightened things up and tone down Norton’s tendency to “ham it up” on screen.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With his latest effort, MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN (based on the base selling novel by Jonathan Lethem), Norton puts ALL of his skills to work as he Produced, Directed, Wrote and Starred in this Private Eye thriller from 2019.
If only Norton had handed at least 1 of those jobs over to someone else.
Norton stars as Lionel Essrog, a Private Eye with Tourette’s Syndrome, who’s investigation into the murder of a mentor of his exposes corruption, racism, greed and abuse of power in City Hall in New York City in the 1950’s.
As the star, Norton brings a nice edge to Lionel, who’s Tourette’s causes him to twitch and belt out words randomly, as well as gives him a photographic memory. While the twitching and random swearing are a bit over the top at times, the photographic memory helps Lionel solve the case (of course it does).
And that’s where I have issue with writer Norton - as he cannot resist the urge to showcase Actor Norton’s propensity to go over the top and puts in many, many “Tourette’s moments” as well as putting in long dialogue scenes that tries to show the audience how smart Lionel is.
Unfortunately, Director Norton indulges Writer Norton and Actor Norton so the film has a languid pace that just sits on Lionel’s actions and words. This is a 2 hour movie packed into a 2 1/2 hour run time. Now, to be fair to Director Norton, there are some absolutely gorgeous and interesting pictures put on the screen and the atmosphere (and characters) that are created are interesting (enough) to ALMOST forgive the self-indulgent ways of Writer/Actor/Director Norton.
As for the rest of the cast, Bruce Willis is…Bruce Willis as a Private Eye that works with Lionel and Willem DaFoe is at his “Willem DeFoe-iest” in portraying a critic of New York City Hall with a secret past. It’s as if Director Norton said to both of these 2 fine actors to just “do your thing” while he focused on the myriad of other jobs he had on this film.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Femme Fatale Laura Rose (a part that Norton specifically added to the film - her character was not in the book - and wrote just for her). She is quite good in this role and her scenes with Norton crackle somewhat louder than the rest of the film.
And then there is Alec Baldwin as a corrupt, racist, politician who is looking out for only 1 person - himself. While Baldwin is very good in this 100% serious role, I couldn’t be help but be reminded of a certain comedic character he has played for the past few years on Saturday Night Live.
The music by Daniel Pemberton and the Cinematography by Dick Pope add greatly to the atmosphere of this film - and that is good - for when the story bogs down (and it bogs down A LOT), there usually is something interesting to look at or listen to.
Not a bad film, but it could have been a much better film if someone would have taken at least ONE of the jobs off of Norton (I would vote for Director) and tightened things up and tone down Norton’s tendency to “ham it up” on screen.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)