Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Mar 31, 2019
It's set to be a busy year for live action Disney remakes, with Aladdin and The Lion King already lined up for release this year. Kicking things off though, is this reimagining of the 1941 classic Dumbo, with Tim Burton directing.
It's 1919 and Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) has returned from World War I, arriving by train to join the Medici Brothers Circus, where he worked before the war as a performer. But Holt has a number of issues to contend with on his return, the least of which being the loss one of his arms while in service. He's greeted at the station by his two young children, Milly and Joe, who lost their mother, Holt's wife, to influenza while he was away. On top of that, he learns that while he was away, the cash strapped circus owner, Max Medici (Danny DeVito) decided to sell the horses that were part of Holt's star act. Holt is put in charge of pregnant elephant Jumbo, with Max hoping that the arrival of a cute baby elephant will bring in the much needed crowds. It's a lot for Holt to come to terms with and adjust to.
Soon after, the baby elephant is born. But with clumsy, oversized ears, he's not quite the cute crowd pleaser they had all hoped for. Attempts to hide his ears only end in disaster, and ridicule from the circus crowds. Milly and Joe fall in love with the new arrival, and when they discover that he has the ability to use those big ears for flying, interest in him is quickly renewed.
The flying elephant not only draws in the crowds, but also the attentions of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Max a deal for him and his circus troupe to join his huge fancy theme park. It's at this point that the movie should really begin to soar, having introduced the circus family and their new arrival. Unfortunately, the arrival of Vandevere signals a sharp downward spiral in terms of story telling. The circus cast are all but forgotten, with the story focusing instead on the tired, familiar tale of sleazy, greedy businessman who is only interested in money and success, at the expense of the poor, trusting people who believed him.
The computerised Dumbo is simply oozing cuteness and technical wizardry. The eyes and the facial expressions are wonderful and he manages to steal every scene he is in. Every time he takes flight, it is a joy to watch. Unfortunately though, this version of Dumbo is trying to add a lot more to the original story and ends up becoming bit of a drag at times. The human characters are poorly written and mostly forgettable, and the movie really only soars when Dumbo himself does. While trying to steer clear of being a straight up remake, opting instead for the addition of plot and characters, it ultimately loses a lot of the charm. As with the recent remake of Beauty and the Beast, it's another case of style over substance.
It's 1919 and Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) has returned from World War I, arriving by train to join the Medici Brothers Circus, where he worked before the war as a performer. But Holt has a number of issues to contend with on his return, the least of which being the loss one of his arms while in service. He's greeted at the station by his two young children, Milly and Joe, who lost their mother, Holt's wife, to influenza while he was away. On top of that, he learns that while he was away, the cash strapped circus owner, Max Medici (Danny DeVito) decided to sell the horses that were part of Holt's star act. Holt is put in charge of pregnant elephant Jumbo, with Max hoping that the arrival of a cute baby elephant will bring in the much needed crowds. It's a lot for Holt to come to terms with and adjust to.
Soon after, the baby elephant is born. But with clumsy, oversized ears, he's not quite the cute crowd pleaser they had all hoped for. Attempts to hide his ears only end in disaster, and ridicule from the circus crowds. Milly and Joe fall in love with the new arrival, and when they discover that he has the ability to use those big ears for flying, interest in him is quickly renewed.
The flying elephant not only draws in the crowds, but also the attentions of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Max a deal for him and his circus troupe to join his huge fancy theme park. It's at this point that the movie should really begin to soar, having introduced the circus family and their new arrival. Unfortunately, the arrival of Vandevere signals a sharp downward spiral in terms of story telling. The circus cast are all but forgotten, with the story focusing instead on the tired, familiar tale of sleazy, greedy businessman who is only interested in money and success, at the expense of the poor, trusting people who believed him.
The computerised Dumbo is simply oozing cuteness and technical wizardry. The eyes and the facial expressions are wonderful and he manages to steal every scene he is in. Every time he takes flight, it is a joy to watch. Unfortunately though, this version of Dumbo is trying to add a lot more to the original story and ends up becoming bit of a drag at times. The human characters are poorly written and mostly forgettable, and the movie really only soars when Dumbo himself does. While trying to steer clear of being a straight up remake, opting instead for the addition of plot and characters, it ultimately loses a lot of the charm. As with the recent remake of Beauty and the Beast, it's another case of style over substance.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Inside Out (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A delightful treat
If there’s one thing Pixar knows how to do, it’s create memorable films. Long after you’ve walked out the cinema, the likes of Wall.E and Finding Nemo stay with you.
2015 marks the first time the studio will release two films in the same year, with The Good Dinosaur coming to cinemas in December and the subject of this review, Inside Out, in this year’s busy summer season.
But has this increased workload for Pixar’s animators resulted in a poorer quality movie?
Inside Out follows the story of young Riley, an eleven-year-old girl coming to terms with growing up in a new home away from her friends and the neighbourhood she knows and loves.
Deep inside her head, however, we find a whole host of colourful characters controlling Riley’s emotions. Joy, Sadness, Fear, Anger and Disgust all play a part in keeping her level-headed. Unfortunately, after a near disaster it falls on upbeat Joy and ever-blue Sadness to bring Riley back to who she once was.
Inside Out continues Pixar’s trend of creating beautifully animated films that really strike a chord with audiences. The sheer amount of colour is absolutely breath-taking and children will find much to enjoy in both the central characters and the numerous environments inside Riley’s head, while adults will love the stunning recreation of San Francisco in all its bustling glory.
The cast, which includes voice work by Bill Hader (Monsters University), Kyle MacLachlan (Desperate Housewives) and Diane Lane (Man of Steel) all do sterling jobs in bringing their characters to life but it is in Phyllis Smith, who plays Sadness, that we find the best portrayal.
A relatively unknown actress with few film credits to her name, Smith is truly wonderful as the little blue lady who keeps a check on the more upsetting moments in Riley’s life.
Elsewhere, Pixar has once again created a story that really focuses on the themes of growth, family bonding and what it means to grow up in today’s society with numerous cultural references that children and adults alike will enjoy.
However, it’s important to note that Inside Out is one of the more emotional films Pixar has created. At numerous points throughout the movie there were a couple of children in the cinema wiping away the tears – though this shows how heavily invested in the characters they became.
Unfortunately, despite being 94 minutes in length, Inside Out does feel a little drawn out in places and lacks the deeper storytelling elements that has made some of the studios other films so charming. This isn’t to say it lacks charm, but it’s in slightly shorter supply here.
Overall, Pixar has added another cracking film to its ever-increasing roster. Whilst not hitting the heights of Wall.E or Toy Story, it makes for a memorable and sensible film for the whole family to enjoy.
It’s the perfect start to the summer holidays. Roll on The Good Dinosaur.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/26/a-delightful-treat-inside-out-review/
2015 marks the first time the studio will release two films in the same year, with The Good Dinosaur coming to cinemas in December and the subject of this review, Inside Out, in this year’s busy summer season.
But has this increased workload for Pixar’s animators resulted in a poorer quality movie?
Inside Out follows the story of young Riley, an eleven-year-old girl coming to terms with growing up in a new home away from her friends and the neighbourhood she knows and loves.
Deep inside her head, however, we find a whole host of colourful characters controlling Riley’s emotions. Joy, Sadness, Fear, Anger and Disgust all play a part in keeping her level-headed. Unfortunately, after a near disaster it falls on upbeat Joy and ever-blue Sadness to bring Riley back to who she once was.
Inside Out continues Pixar’s trend of creating beautifully animated films that really strike a chord with audiences. The sheer amount of colour is absolutely breath-taking and children will find much to enjoy in both the central characters and the numerous environments inside Riley’s head, while adults will love the stunning recreation of San Francisco in all its bustling glory.
The cast, which includes voice work by Bill Hader (Monsters University), Kyle MacLachlan (Desperate Housewives) and Diane Lane (Man of Steel) all do sterling jobs in bringing their characters to life but it is in Phyllis Smith, who plays Sadness, that we find the best portrayal.
A relatively unknown actress with few film credits to her name, Smith is truly wonderful as the little blue lady who keeps a check on the more upsetting moments in Riley’s life.
Elsewhere, Pixar has once again created a story that really focuses on the themes of growth, family bonding and what it means to grow up in today’s society with numerous cultural references that children and adults alike will enjoy.
However, it’s important to note that Inside Out is one of the more emotional films Pixar has created. At numerous points throughout the movie there were a couple of children in the cinema wiping away the tears – though this shows how heavily invested in the characters they became.
Unfortunately, despite being 94 minutes in length, Inside Out does feel a little drawn out in places and lacks the deeper storytelling elements that has made some of the studios other films so charming. This isn’t to say it lacks charm, but it’s in slightly shorter supply here.
Overall, Pixar has added another cracking film to its ever-increasing roster. Whilst not hitting the heights of Wall.E or Toy Story, it makes for a memorable and sensible film for the whole family to enjoy.
It’s the perfect start to the summer holidays. Roll on The Good Dinosaur.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/26/a-delightful-treat-inside-out-review/
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated The News: A User's Manual in Books
Aug 5, 2018
I believe this book has the wrong title. Let me explain.
Despite having the title “The News: A User’s Manual”, the book reads like a wish-list of how de Botton wants news journalists and media editors to present and publish the news. Furthermore, if it was intended to be read by the layperson, de Botton must have had the dual intention of increasing the lay reader’s vocabulary. Several of the words I looked up in my offline dictionary app weren’t to be found.
I liked how his views were presented though - this short book is split into 8 main topics: politics, world news, economics, celebrity, disaster, consumption and a conclusion. Each topic is split into further sub-topics, and each of the points being made in these sub-topics is numbered and lasts about a page. This organization doesn’t disrupt the fluidity, however, and the way that points are made in such small sections provides the perfect opportunity to pause and reflect on each point made.
It presents the author’s views on what the news should ideally be and how it can enrich us. He made numerous valid points, but for the purposes of this review, I will concentrate on those I consider to be the most important. The book is written for a British audience, using several British news story excerpts to highlight de Botton’s points. His points are all well put and I didn’t really want to have to paraphrase them for this review for that very reason.
Firstly, the perception that political news is boring is not a minor issue. Often there is an important matter which fails to engage us, and we can react more strongly to matters which affect very few people.
Another valid point is how the process of the reader developing views on serious issues on which so little information is actually conveyed, makes us feel like we are being ruled by crooks and idiots who seem to be ignoring logical solutions. The news fails to explain why difficult decisions are so difficult.
On celebrity news, de Botton portrays hero worship as childish and demeaning, a sign that we find ourselves inadequate. He argues that celebrity news should be used as a self-improvement tool, focusing on what we can learn from the individual.
De Botton believes that the purpose of dramatic tragedies should be so we can compare ourselves to the villain, that the stories read like fables and imparted a moral statement. We are a hideously flawed species, he says, and the criminals need to be humanized if we are to learn anything from these kinds of stories.
And on that note, I shall say I have learned something from this book. The contrast de Botton demonstrates between how the news is portrayed and how it ought to be to best enrich us, will ensure I will take his comments into consideration when I read/watch the news or am deciding on my personalization of news received on news apps. The purpose of the editors may be to sell advertising space, but my intention in perceiving the news is to obtain a fair and accurate perspective of the world around me.
Despite having the title “The News: A User’s Manual”, the book reads like a wish-list of how de Botton wants news journalists and media editors to present and publish the news. Furthermore, if it was intended to be read by the layperson, de Botton must have had the dual intention of increasing the lay reader’s vocabulary. Several of the words I looked up in my offline dictionary app weren’t to be found.
I liked how his views were presented though - this short book is split into 8 main topics: politics, world news, economics, celebrity, disaster, consumption and a conclusion. Each topic is split into further sub-topics, and each of the points being made in these sub-topics is numbered and lasts about a page. This organization doesn’t disrupt the fluidity, however, and the way that points are made in such small sections provides the perfect opportunity to pause and reflect on each point made.
It presents the author’s views on what the news should ideally be and how it can enrich us. He made numerous valid points, but for the purposes of this review, I will concentrate on those I consider to be the most important. The book is written for a British audience, using several British news story excerpts to highlight de Botton’s points. His points are all well put and I didn’t really want to have to paraphrase them for this review for that very reason.
Firstly, the perception that political news is boring is not a minor issue. Often there is an important matter which fails to engage us, and we can react more strongly to matters which affect very few people.
Another valid point is how the process of the reader developing views on serious issues on which so little information is actually conveyed, makes us feel like we are being ruled by crooks and idiots who seem to be ignoring logical solutions. The news fails to explain why difficult decisions are so difficult.
On celebrity news, de Botton portrays hero worship as childish and demeaning, a sign that we find ourselves inadequate. He argues that celebrity news should be used as a self-improvement tool, focusing on what we can learn from the individual.
De Botton believes that the purpose of dramatic tragedies should be so we can compare ourselves to the villain, that the stories read like fables and imparted a moral statement. We are a hideously flawed species, he says, and the criminals need to be humanized if we are to learn anything from these kinds of stories.
And on that note, I shall say I have learned something from this book. The contrast de Botton demonstrates between how the news is portrayed and how it ought to be to best enrich us, will ensure I will take his comments into consideration when I read/watch the news or am deciding on my personalization of news received on news apps. The purpose of the editors may be to sell advertising space, but my intention in perceiving the news is to obtain a fair and accurate perspective of the world around me.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Adapting a cultural film icon that is held sacred by a nation and legions of fans is a daunting task. Roland Emerich attempted to do so, and created a film widely panned that ended his run of blockbuster hits.
Gareth Edwards is the latest director bold enough to bring the legendary Godzilla to the screen and has done so with cutting edge visual effects and 3D.
When Joe Brody (Bryan Cranston), becomes unsettled about some unusual tremors around the Japanese nuclear plant he works at, little does he know that the pending accident and tragedy will have long-term consequences.
Flash forward 15 years and his son Ford (Aaron Taylor Johnson), is an ordinance disposal expert in the military who is returning to his San Francisco home after a deployment to see his wife and young son.
No sooner does Ford get home than he is summed to Japan to retrieve his father who has been arrested for venturing into a restricted area located by his former residence and place of work.
Joe is convinced that a massive cover up is place behind the disaster that left him a widow and turned his life upside down.
When the mysterious tremors return, Joe is vindicated and learns that a massive threat is responsible for what has previously transpired, but this is nothing compared to the damage that is unleashed when the creature escapes.
In a race against time, Ford, the Navy, and a team of scientists attempt to prevent massive destruction and loss of life from an enemy they are not prepared for and do not understand.
While the film does have some great visuals, it unfolds in a very plodding manner and the action sequences are few and far between until the end and even that is for the most part anti-climatic.
The dialogue in the film is filled with groans and unintentionally laughable moments that really make it difficult for the characters to really connect with one another and the audience and as such it is very hard to really care what happens to them.
Another big surprise was how little screen time the title characters actually appears in the film. I spent much of the film wondering how such a larger than life character could be reduced to a supporting part in a film that bears his name.
It has been reported that Japanese audiences have not been thrilled with the new film stating that the creature looked “fat “and “slow”. I would not go that far as from a visually standpoint, the film obtained nothing but high marks from me.
However, I had to ask if we really needed to have this film made. We have had so many giant creature movies in recent years including “King Kong”, “Colverfield”, and “Pacific Rim”; one has to wonder what new material there is to show an audience.
While it is not as bad as I expected, it is pretty much a guilty pleasure that you can enjoy in parts and then quickly forget as this film is not likely to enhance the legendary status of Godzilla.
http://sknr.net/2014/05/14/godzilla/
Gareth Edwards is the latest director bold enough to bring the legendary Godzilla to the screen and has done so with cutting edge visual effects and 3D.
When Joe Brody (Bryan Cranston), becomes unsettled about some unusual tremors around the Japanese nuclear plant he works at, little does he know that the pending accident and tragedy will have long-term consequences.
Flash forward 15 years and his son Ford (Aaron Taylor Johnson), is an ordinance disposal expert in the military who is returning to his San Francisco home after a deployment to see his wife and young son.
No sooner does Ford get home than he is summed to Japan to retrieve his father who has been arrested for venturing into a restricted area located by his former residence and place of work.
Joe is convinced that a massive cover up is place behind the disaster that left him a widow and turned his life upside down.
When the mysterious tremors return, Joe is vindicated and learns that a massive threat is responsible for what has previously transpired, but this is nothing compared to the damage that is unleashed when the creature escapes.
In a race against time, Ford, the Navy, and a team of scientists attempt to prevent massive destruction and loss of life from an enemy they are not prepared for and do not understand.
While the film does have some great visuals, it unfolds in a very plodding manner and the action sequences are few and far between until the end and even that is for the most part anti-climatic.
The dialogue in the film is filled with groans and unintentionally laughable moments that really make it difficult for the characters to really connect with one another and the audience and as such it is very hard to really care what happens to them.
Another big surprise was how little screen time the title characters actually appears in the film. I spent much of the film wondering how such a larger than life character could be reduced to a supporting part in a film that bears his name.
It has been reported that Japanese audiences have not been thrilled with the new film stating that the creature looked “fat “and “slow”. I would not go that far as from a visually standpoint, the film obtained nothing but high marks from me.
However, I had to ask if we really needed to have this film made. We have had so many giant creature movies in recent years including “King Kong”, “Colverfield”, and “Pacific Rim”; one has to wonder what new material there is to show an audience.
While it is not as bad as I expected, it is pretty much a guilty pleasure that you can enjoy in parts and then quickly forget as this film is not likely to enhance the legendary status of Godzilla.
http://sknr.net/2014/05/14/godzilla/
Lee (2222 KP) rated Spies in Disguise (2019) in Movies
Jan 1, 2020
I’m not exactly complaining, but Tom Holland does seem to literally be in everything right now. As I sat ready to watch Spies in Disguise, which features the voice of Tom Holland, there was a trailer for upcoming Pixar movie Onward, featuring the voice of Tom Holland. Then a trailer for Dolittle, starring Robert Downey Jr and featuring the voice of Tom Holland as loyal dog Jip. On top of starring in 2019s highest grossing movie, as everyone’s favourite neighbourhood webslinger, he’s certainly having quite the year right now. And well deserved it is too.
But before we get to his voicing of Walter in Spies in Disguise, we meet much younger Walter, 14 years earlier, building gadgets and being branded a weirdo at school. His police officer mum comforts Walter, telling him that weird is good and the world needs weirdos. And that one day, the invention he’s just tested on his unsuspecting mum - a grenade which explodes into glitter and projects cute kittens - might just come in handy...
Will Smith on the other hand, hasn’t had quite as great a year as Tom Holland. Ridiculed for his blue genie in the run up to the release of Aladdin, he actually wasn’t too bad when the movie came out. But then came the disaster that was Gemini Man. Hopefully though, the upcoming sequel ‘Bad Boys for Life’ will be a return to form for Smith, but for now, starring as the voice of Lance Sterling, the worlds greatest spy, has certainly landed him a winner. A suave, charming, one man operation, we’re shown just how cool and impressive Sterling is as he single-handedly and effortlessly takes out dozens of bad guys using combat skills and a variety of spy gadgets. But Lance is suddenly caught off guard when, instead of releasing a more traditional explosive to take out some goons, he releases a glitter-kitty explosion.
Returning to headquarters a hero, we discover that Walter is now working in the gadgets department, where new tricks and toys for spies are designed and tested. Lance is not impressed with Walter messing up his operation and the pair don’t exactly hit it off on the right foot. But when Lance is wrongly accused of committing a crime, he must go on the run and reluctantly team up with Walter to get the bad guy and clear his name. And how is he going to do that without being seen and caught? Well, just so happens that Walter has invented a way of turning humans into pigeons!
There’s nothing particularly new about the main plot of Spies in Disguise, aside from the pigeon aspect of it all of course. But it’s the fast paced action and humour that really sets this apart from the crowd and quite often reminded me of The Incredibles - great characters and great ideas all mixed together with some impressive visuals and slick action. Both Tom Holland and Will Smith are perfect in their roles and, aside from a bit of a mid-movie dip, Spies in Disguise actually proved to be hugely entertaining.
But before we get to his voicing of Walter in Spies in Disguise, we meet much younger Walter, 14 years earlier, building gadgets and being branded a weirdo at school. His police officer mum comforts Walter, telling him that weird is good and the world needs weirdos. And that one day, the invention he’s just tested on his unsuspecting mum - a grenade which explodes into glitter and projects cute kittens - might just come in handy...
Will Smith on the other hand, hasn’t had quite as great a year as Tom Holland. Ridiculed for his blue genie in the run up to the release of Aladdin, he actually wasn’t too bad when the movie came out. But then came the disaster that was Gemini Man. Hopefully though, the upcoming sequel ‘Bad Boys for Life’ will be a return to form for Smith, but for now, starring as the voice of Lance Sterling, the worlds greatest spy, has certainly landed him a winner. A suave, charming, one man operation, we’re shown just how cool and impressive Sterling is as he single-handedly and effortlessly takes out dozens of bad guys using combat skills and a variety of spy gadgets. But Lance is suddenly caught off guard when, instead of releasing a more traditional explosive to take out some goons, he releases a glitter-kitty explosion.
Returning to headquarters a hero, we discover that Walter is now working in the gadgets department, where new tricks and toys for spies are designed and tested. Lance is not impressed with Walter messing up his operation and the pair don’t exactly hit it off on the right foot. But when Lance is wrongly accused of committing a crime, he must go on the run and reluctantly team up with Walter to get the bad guy and clear his name. And how is he going to do that without being seen and caught? Well, just so happens that Walter has invented a way of turning humans into pigeons!
There’s nothing particularly new about the main plot of Spies in Disguise, aside from the pigeon aspect of it all of course. But it’s the fast paced action and humour that really sets this apart from the crowd and quite often reminded me of The Incredibles - great characters and great ideas all mixed together with some impressive visuals and slick action. Both Tom Holland and Will Smith are perfect in their roles and, aside from a bit of a mid-movie dip, Spies in Disguise actually proved to be hugely entertaining.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Vampires Suck (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Vampires suck – but does the movie? We open on the San Salvatore Festival with the angsty Becca watching her beau, Edward Sullen, disrobe and expose his sparkly secrets- he’s a vampire! Cue the “True Blood- 40oz” toting, Mono-fang vampire to take Edward out….wait, we have to get the rest of the story! What follows is a parody of the first two movies of the Twilight Saga. Most of the characters analogous to the spoof’s target are introduced in the first 30 minutes; few of them are actually seen again throughout the movie.
Becca (newcomer Jenn Proske) is forced to move to Sporks, Washington, with her deadbeat father and town sheriff, Frank Crane (Diedrich Bader of The Drew Carey Show). Frank’s best friend is the rough-and-tumble paraplegic Native American, Bobby. His contribution to the plot is his hunky teenage son, Jacob White (Chris Riggi of Gossip Girl). The town of Sporks seems to have vampires on the brain and its population is only growing smaller.
Our heroine is introduced to Edward Sullen (Matt Lanter of Disaster Movie) and what follows is the “classic” story of girl-meets-vampire, girl-loses-vampire, girl-gets-threatened-by-vampire-nemesis, etc. Writers/Directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer use their formulaic approach to spoof movies by making the plot a cliff-notes version of the Stephanie Meyer’s original material, with ample jokes thrown in-in an attempt to beef up their rendition.
In fact, there are so many visual jokes in the movie that it left me wondering what a sight-impaired person might conclude of the movie. “What are all these people laughing at?” I noticed a few of the dialogue driven jokes weren’t even played off by the actors. They seemed to have been missed by everyone, including the editors. Other jokes are pop-culture references that will get stale with time. They’re integrated well, but definitely dated. The movie is redolent with the classic American comedy tradition of slapstick, which occasionally comes off as funny.
The production value left something to be desired as several scenes were obviously one-takes. I counted several instances where Becca’s kiss left Edward’s mouth with a smudge of his own flesh-tone showing through. But hey- at least single takes have continuity, right? The contacts, no doubt purchased in bulk, gave the characters an occasional Marty Feldman goggly-look. The effect is hilarious, although I’m not always sure if it’s intentional.
The cast has its standouts. Jenn Proske’s Becca comes dangerously close (like copyright-violating close) to the performance of Kristen Stewart’s Bella as the fidgety, twitchy, sullen and hormone-y heroine. And Ken Jeong (The Hangover) as Daro, while not appearing on screen much, definitely makes his comedic presence felt.
All in all, “Vampires Suck” didn’t really suck… it kind of chews, like gum. Gum out of the package is fresh, flavorful, but the longer you chew it, the tougher and more stale it becomes. This movie is fresh, funny, and quirky right now, but it won’t stand the test of time like more accomplished parodies.
Becca (newcomer Jenn Proske) is forced to move to Sporks, Washington, with her deadbeat father and town sheriff, Frank Crane (Diedrich Bader of The Drew Carey Show). Frank’s best friend is the rough-and-tumble paraplegic Native American, Bobby. His contribution to the plot is his hunky teenage son, Jacob White (Chris Riggi of Gossip Girl). The town of Sporks seems to have vampires on the brain and its population is only growing smaller.
Our heroine is introduced to Edward Sullen (Matt Lanter of Disaster Movie) and what follows is the “classic” story of girl-meets-vampire, girl-loses-vampire, girl-gets-threatened-by-vampire-nemesis, etc. Writers/Directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer use their formulaic approach to spoof movies by making the plot a cliff-notes version of the Stephanie Meyer’s original material, with ample jokes thrown in-in an attempt to beef up their rendition.
In fact, there are so many visual jokes in the movie that it left me wondering what a sight-impaired person might conclude of the movie. “What are all these people laughing at?” I noticed a few of the dialogue driven jokes weren’t even played off by the actors. They seemed to have been missed by everyone, including the editors. Other jokes are pop-culture references that will get stale with time. They’re integrated well, but definitely dated. The movie is redolent with the classic American comedy tradition of slapstick, which occasionally comes off as funny.
The production value left something to be desired as several scenes were obviously one-takes. I counted several instances where Becca’s kiss left Edward’s mouth with a smudge of his own flesh-tone showing through. But hey- at least single takes have continuity, right? The contacts, no doubt purchased in bulk, gave the characters an occasional Marty Feldman goggly-look. The effect is hilarious, although I’m not always sure if it’s intentional.
The cast has its standouts. Jenn Proske’s Becca comes dangerously close (like copyright-violating close) to the performance of Kristen Stewart’s Bella as the fidgety, twitchy, sullen and hormone-y heroine. And Ken Jeong (The Hangover) as Daro, while not appearing on screen much, definitely makes his comedic presence felt.
All in all, “Vampires Suck” didn’t really suck… it kind of chews, like gum. Gum out of the package is fresh, flavorful, but the longer you chew it, the tougher and more stale it becomes. This movie is fresh, funny, and quirky right now, but it won’t stand the test of time like more accomplished parodies.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Airplane! in Apps
Mar 27, 2020
Holds Up Well
Doctor: Can you fly this plane, and land it?
Striker: Surely you can't be serious.
Doctor: I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.
And that, in a nutshell, is the humor to be found in the 1980 laugh-a-minute comedy AIRPLANE brought to us by the demented minds of David Zucker, Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker. If you haven't seen this flick in awhile - or if you have NEVER seen it - check it out, you'll be glad you did.
Parodying Disaster Movies that were all the rage in the 1970's, AIRPLANE tells the tale of an airliner who's flight crew is incapacitated by food poisoning and it is up to a Stewardess and her on again/off again former fighter pilot (fighting PTSD) boyfriend to land the plane and save the passengers.
And...along the way we have a hodgepodge of quirky, weird characters that are not afraid to sling a joke in a deadpan style. It is an unusual film to watch.
And...make sure you put your phone down and actually WATCH this film, for there is quite a bit of visual humor that you need to be paying attention to to catch it...humor such as...
Kramer: Steve, I want every light you can get poured onto that field.
Steve: Bein' done right now.
[On the runway, a truck dumps a full load of lamps onto the ground]
Also...the verbal humor needs to be paid attention to...
Doctor: What was it we had for dinner tonight?
Elaine: Well, we had a choice of steak or fish.
Doctor: Yes, yes, I remember, I had lasagna.
All of this delivered with a deadpan wink in the eye by such dramatic 1960's and '70's TV stalwarts as Leslie Nielsen, Lloyd Bridges and Robert Stack. Add to that the wholesome cuteness of leads Robert Hayes and Julie Hagerty with fun cameos by the likes of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Mrs. Cleaver herself, Barbara Billingsly ("Excuse me stewardess, I speak jive) and a fun time was had by all.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't single out the craziness of the character Johnny (Stephen Stucker). He flits in and out of this film (in some cases quite literally) throwing non-sequiturs at the screen that had me laughing out loud on my umpteenth viewing of this film. Non-sequiturs like...
Steve: Johnny, what can you make out of this?
[Hands him the weather briefing]
Johnny: This? Why, I can make a hat or a brooch or a pterodactyl...
This film gave myself and my family some much need yuks - even my "eye rolling" 19 year old College Freshman was heard guffawing out loud from time to time.
So...check out AIRPLANE - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade:: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Oh...and one other thing...
Kramer: Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. Sorry, Ted, that's a dumb question... skip that...
Striker: Surely you can't be serious.
Doctor: I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.
And that, in a nutshell, is the humor to be found in the 1980 laugh-a-minute comedy AIRPLANE brought to us by the demented minds of David Zucker, Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker. If you haven't seen this flick in awhile - or if you have NEVER seen it - check it out, you'll be glad you did.
Parodying Disaster Movies that were all the rage in the 1970's, AIRPLANE tells the tale of an airliner who's flight crew is incapacitated by food poisoning and it is up to a Stewardess and her on again/off again former fighter pilot (fighting PTSD) boyfriend to land the plane and save the passengers.
And...along the way we have a hodgepodge of quirky, weird characters that are not afraid to sling a joke in a deadpan style. It is an unusual film to watch.
And...make sure you put your phone down and actually WATCH this film, for there is quite a bit of visual humor that you need to be paying attention to to catch it...humor such as...
Kramer: Steve, I want every light you can get poured onto that field.
Steve: Bein' done right now.
[On the runway, a truck dumps a full load of lamps onto the ground]
Also...the verbal humor needs to be paid attention to...
Doctor: What was it we had for dinner tonight?
Elaine: Well, we had a choice of steak or fish.
Doctor: Yes, yes, I remember, I had lasagna.
All of this delivered with a deadpan wink in the eye by such dramatic 1960's and '70's TV stalwarts as Leslie Nielsen, Lloyd Bridges and Robert Stack. Add to that the wholesome cuteness of leads Robert Hayes and Julie Hagerty with fun cameos by the likes of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Mrs. Cleaver herself, Barbara Billingsly ("Excuse me stewardess, I speak jive) and a fun time was had by all.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't single out the craziness of the character Johnny (Stephen Stucker). He flits in and out of this film (in some cases quite literally) throwing non-sequiturs at the screen that had me laughing out loud on my umpteenth viewing of this film. Non-sequiturs like...
Steve: Johnny, what can you make out of this?
[Hands him the weather briefing]
Johnny: This? Why, I can make a hat or a brooch or a pterodactyl...
This film gave myself and my family some much need yuks - even my "eye rolling" 19 year old College Freshman was heard guffawing out loud from time to time.
So...check out AIRPLANE - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade:: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Oh...and one other thing...
Kramer: Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. Sorry, Ted, that's a dumb question... skip that...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated That's My Boy (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Adam Sandler movies have often been a mixed bag. For every “The Wedding Singer” and “50 First Dates” there are several forgettable offerings like “Little Nicky”, “I Now Prounounce You Chuck and Larry”, and “8 Crazy Nights”. To be fair there’ve also been several guilty pleasures such as “Happy Gilmore” and “The Waterboy” along the way. Sadly, his recent offerings, culminating in the disastrous “Jack and Jill”, have given me very low expectations for his new film “That’s My Boy” which pairs Sandler with former Saturday Night Live star Andy Samberg.
Sandler stars as Donny, a down-on his luck former celebrity who gained notoriety after impregnating his teacher at 13. While the teacher (Eva Amurri Martino) went on to a 30-year prison sentence, Donny used his notoriety to become a pop culture sensation. Unfortunately for Donny fame was fleeting and he wasted the money he had accumulated along the way. We soon learn Donny faces a prison sentence unless he comes up with $45,000 to pay back taxes.
Desperate, he turns to his estranged son Todd (Andy Samberg), who has pretty much disowned his father and does not even go by is given birth name. Todd is about to marry a socialite named Jamie (Leighton Meester), and since he is a numbers genius with an extremely bright future with a partnership pending, the arrival of his crude, drunken father, is a disaster in the making. Passing himself off as long-lost friend, Donny attempts to reconnect with his son and naturally this happens over some very vulgar and awkward moments, not all of which are limited to bachelor party scenes.
Of course anybody who has seen any of Sandler’s films will know the formula that follows: crude situations followed by conflict, mixed with celebrity cameos and an ’80s soundtrack tossed in with a few laughs along the way towards a tidy ending. To say that there is a definite formula to his films would be an understatement and Sandler gives the impression that he’s making up many of the scenes as he goes along, all the while sporting a hybrid Boston/Little Nicky accent.
What ultimately sells the film is the energy and effort that the cast puts into their performances. While the plot can be charitably described as disjointed, there are several scenes that are LOL-inducing, especially those with James Caan as an angry priest and with Vanilla Ice and Todd Bridges lampooning their faded glory.
While the film is a bit cruder than most of Sandler’s usual fare it is, for the most part, good-natured and lighthearted. Obviously nobody is expected to take the film seriously. Samberg does a good job playing the restrained uptight Todd, and in the scenes where he lets loose, shows solid working chemistry with Sandler.
While it is not a great cinematic comedy it certainly has more than its fair share of laughs along the way, just as long as you’re willing to overlook the lackluster plot and uneven pacing of the film.
Sandler stars as Donny, a down-on his luck former celebrity who gained notoriety after impregnating his teacher at 13. While the teacher (Eva Amurri Martino) went on to a 30-year prison sentence, Donny used his notoriety to become a pop culture sensation. Unfortunately for Donny fame was fleeting and he wasted the money he had accumulated along the way. We soon learn Donny faces a prison sentence unless he comes up with $45,000 to pay back taxes.
Desperate, he turns to his estranged son Todd (Andy Samberg), who has pretty much disowned his father and does not even go by is given birth name. Todd is about to marry a socialite named Jamie (Leighton Meester), and since he is a numbers genius with an extremely bright future with a partnership pending, the arrival of his crude, drunken father, is a disaster in the making. Passing himself off as long-lost friend, Donny attempts to reconnect with his son and naturally this happens over some very vulgar and awkward moments, not all of which are limited to bachelor party scenes.
Of course anybody who has seen any of Sandler’s films will know the formula that follows: crude situations followed by conflict, mixed with celebrity cameos and an ’80s soundtrack tossed in with a few laughs along the way towards a tidy ending. To say that there is a definite formula to his films would be an understatement and Sandler gives the impression that he’s making up many of the scenes as he goes along, all the while sporting a hybrid Boston/Little Nicky accent.
What ultimately sells the film is the energy and effort that the cast puts into their performances. While the plot can be charitably described as disjointed, there are several scenes that are LOL-inducing, especially those with James Caan as an angry priest and with Vanilla Ice and Todd Bridges lampooning their faded glory.
While the film is a bit cruder than most of Sandler’s usual fare it is, for the most part, good-natured and lighthearted. Obviously nobody is expected to take the film seriously. Samberg does a good job playing the restrained uptight Todd, and in the scenes where he lets loose, shows solid working chemistry with Sandler.
While it is not a great cinematic comedy it certainly has more than its fair share of laughs along the way, just as long as you’re willing to overlook the lackluster plot and uneven pacing of the film.
Feng Shui Life Compass
Lifestyle and Health & Fitness
App
Navigate the world of Feng Shui with this easy-to-use authentic App. Follow the Focus Compass as it...
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Airplane! (1980) in Movies
Dec 8, 2020
Surely you can't be serious?
Film #6 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Airplane!
Airplane! is a well known comedy classic, but for me I’m ashamed to admit that aside from the infamous “Don’t call me Shirley” line, I could barely remember a thing about this film. Airplane! is undoubtedly the mother, and master, of all comedy spoof films. Written and directed by Jim Abrahams and David and Jerry Zucker, this focuses Ted Striker (Robert Hays) who despite his fear of flying boards a plane to win back his girlfriend Elaine (Julie Hagerty), only to wind up having to ensure the plane lands safely when the pilots get sick.
The plot is definitely basic, but what it lacks in proper story it more than makes up for in laughs. I’ve never seen a film so chock full of jokes and gags, and in such a wide variety too. This features everything from subtle(ish) background jokes to witty and smart dialogue and obvious physical humour, and aside for a few misses, the majority of these jokes land perfectly. There’s the crude and hilarious auto pilot scene, to the incredibly funny and smart lines like when stewardess Elaine asks Doctor Rumack (Leslie Nielsen) about the onboard illness, “A hospital? What is it?”, to which he replies “It’s a big building with patients”. There’s something incredibly simple about the humour in this film that works so well, and yet aside from those few misses, it never resorts to crudeness that becomes disgusting and overbearing like most modern comedies do. These gags paired with the spoofing and sending up of disaster movies (plus many other genres) is a winning formula that has been emulated many times over by the likes of The Naked Gun and Hot Shots films since this was released in 1980. Admittedly there are some jokes that nowadays would be considered unacceptable and would never see the light of day, but fortunately these are a small minority and don’t spoil the overall enjoyment of the film, even now 40 years later.
The cast excel too in pulling off the over the top cheesiness you’d expect from a parody, and this is no mean feat. Whilst Julie Hagerty and Robert Hays do well as the main characters, it’s the smaller supporting roles that really stand out especially as they appear to have been given the best lines. You have Leslie Nielsen as the deadpan Doctor Rumack who delivers some hilarious dialogue with such a straight face, Lloyd Bridges as Steve McCroskey with his immortal lines beginning with “Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop…” and my absolute favourite background character Johnny (Stephen Stucker) who has some of the funniest moments you’ll ever see from such a minor character. And a notable mention has to go to Otto the automatic pilot, who even gets a feature in the credits.
Airplane! is a rightful comedy classic that could beat modern comedy films hands down, and it truly is a shame they don’t make spoofs like this anymore. It’s hilariously funny, right until the very end of the credits and an entirely unforgettable comedy experience.
Airplane! is a well known comedy classic, but for me I’m ashamed to admit that aside from the infamous “Don’t call me Shirley” line, I could barely remember a thing about this film. Airplane! is undoubtedly the mother, and master, of all comedy spoof films. Written and directed by Jim Abrahams and David and Jerry Zucker, this focuses Ted Striker (Robert Hays) who despite his fear of flying boards a plane to win back his girlfriend Elaine (Julie Hagerty), only to wind up having to ensure the plane lands safely when the pilots get sick.
The plot is definitely basic, but what it lacks in proper story it more than makes up for in laughs. I’ve never seen a film so chock full of jokes and gags, and in such a wide variety too. This features everything from subtle(ish) background jokes to witty and smart dialogue and obvious physical humour, and aside for a few misses, the majority of these jokes land perfectly. There’s the crude and hilarious auto pilot scene, to the incredibly funny and smart lines like when stewardess Elaine asks Doctor Rumack (Leslie Nielsen) about the onboard illness, “A hospital? What is it?”, to which he replies “It’s a big building with patients”. There’s something incredibly simple about the humour in this film that works so well, and yet aside from those few misses, it never resorts to crudeness that becomes disgusting and overbearing like most modern comedies do. These gags paired with the spoofing and sending up of disaster movies (plus many other genres) is a winning formula that has been emulated many times over by the likes of The Naked Gun and Hot Shots films since this was released in 1980. Admittedly there are some jokes that nowadays would be considered unacceptable and would never see the light of day, but fortunately these are a small minority and don’t spoil the overall enjoyment of the film, even now 40 years later.
The cast excel too in pulling off the over the top cheesiness you’d expect from a parody, and this is no mean feat. Whilst Julie Hagerty and Robert Hays do well as the main characters, it’s the smaller supporting roles that really stand out especially as they appear to have been given the best lines. You have Leslie Nielsen as the deadpan Doctor Rumack who delivers some hilarious dialogue with such a straight face, Lloyd Bridges as Steve McCroskey with his immortal lines beginning with “Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop…” and my absolute favourite background character Johnny (Stephen Stucker) who has some of the funniest moments you’ll ever see from such a minor character. And a notable mention has to go to Otto the automatic pilot, who even gets a feature in the credits.
Airplane! is a rightful comedy classic that could beat modern comedy films hands down, and it truly is a shame they don’t make spoofs like this anymore. It’s hilariously funny, right until the very end of the credits and an entirely unforgettable comedy experience.
