Search
Search results
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated The Unholy (2021) in Movies
Apr 26, 2021 (Updated Jul 4, 2021)
First movie in the theater for well over a year and it's unironically, no joke one of the worst looking ones I've seen in all my years. Jeffrey Dean Morgan's "The Walking Dead" money must be getting pretty thin - at least šš©š¦ šš°š“š“š¦š“š“šŖš°šÆ was actually rather fun and goofy and all that. Such an appealing premise with tons of smart ideas about weaving a horror film out of the commercialization of religion - among many other things - gets thrown to the wayside in favor of yet another asinine, careless cash-grab with the worst 2008 flash game jumpscares of all time. Though newcomer Cricket Brown is terrific in the only performance of the whole film which can't be described as a sleepwalk. I audibly remarked "Oh my good God" at how appalling this below-Disney Channel Original Movie CGI is, it's a wonder how this didn't even end up comically bad. And it's boring! Depressing to see that this is the type of shit Cary Elwes shows up in now. The real miracle is that I actually got through it.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Hocus Pocus (1993) in Movies
Oct 28, 2020
Halloween Classic (2 more)
Bette Middler
Sarah Jessica Parker
Witches In Town
This was the first time i ever saw "Hocus Pocus" and i thought it was great. A halloween classic. You have witches, trick or treating, candy, cat, and more. Its a classic.
The plot: After moving to Salem, Mass., teenager Max Dennison (Omri Katz) explores an abandoned house with his sister Dani (Thora Birch) and their new friend, Allison (Vinessa Shaw). After dismissing a story Allison tells as superstitious, Max accidentally frees a coven of evil witches (Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker, Kathy Najimy) who used to live in the house. Now, with the help of a magical cat, the kids must steal the witches' book of spells to stop them from becoming immortal.
It was not a critical or commercial success upon its release, possibly losing Disney around $16.5 million during its theatrical run. However, largely through annual airings on Disney Channel and Freeform (formerly ABC Family), Hocus Pocus has been rediscovered by audiences, resulting in a yearly spike in home video sales of the film every Halloween season that has helped make it a cult classic.
Various rewrites were made to the script to make the film more comedic and made two of its young protagonists into teenagers; however, production was stalled several times until 1992, when Bette Midler expressed interest in the script and the project immediately went forward.
Midler, who plays the central antagonist of the film (originally written for Cloris Leachman), is quoted as saying that Hocus Pocus "was the most fun I'd had in my career up to that point.
Leonardo DiCaprio was originally offered the lead role of Max, but declined it in order to pursue What's Eating Gilbert Grape.
Like i said before its a halloween classic.
The plot: After moving to Salem, Mass., teenager Max Dennison (Omri Katz) explores an abandoned house with his sister Dani (Thora Birch) and their new friend, Allison (Vinessa Shaw). After dismissing a story Allison tells as superstitious, Max accidentally frees a coven of evil witches (Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker, Kathy Najimy) who used to live in the house. Now, with the help of a magical cat, the kids must steal the witches' book of spells to stop them from becoming immortal.
It was not a critical or commercial success upon its release, possibly losing Disney around $16.5 million during its theatrical run. However, largely through annual airings on Disney Channel and Freeform (formerly ABC Family), Hocus Pocus has been rediscovered by audiences, resulting in a yearly spike in home video sales of the film every Halloween season that has helped make it a cult classic.
Various rewrites were made to the script to make the film more comedic and made two of its young protagonists into teenagers; however, production was stalled several times until 1992, when Bette Midler expressed interest in the script and the project immediately went forward.
Midler, who plays the central antagonist of the film (originally written for Cloris Leachman), is quoted as saying that Hocus Pocus "was the most fun I'd had in my career up to that point.
Leonardo DiCaprio was originally offered the lead role of Max, but declined it in order to pursue What's Eating Gilbert Grape.
Like i said before its a halloween classic.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
May 25, 2019
Succeeds...mostly...thanks to the charm and charisma of Will Smith
Unnecessary...a money grab...what was Will Smith thinking...why would Disney do this?
All complaints that were written regarding the live action remake of the beloved 1992 Animated classic, ALADDIN.
And...they would be wrong...as this ALADDIN is fun, fanciful, fast(ish) paced and fantastical. It also has something that I was surprised by...heart.
For those of you living in the "Cave of Wonder" for the past 20+ years, Aladdin follows the adventures of a street urchin who falls in love with a Princess and battles the evil Vizier, Jafar, for power via an enchanted lamp that houses a Genie that will grant 3 wishes.
Disney has shown it can do these remakes well when sticking to the source material (as was evidenced by the 2016 live action remake of the 1967 animated classic THE JUNGLE BOOK), but also has failed when it takes the characters, but not the story (the recent DUMBO), so Writer/Director Guy Ritchie (of all people) was smart to "just take the animated movie" and remake it as live action.
And...it works! Ritchie (SNATCH, the Robert Downey SHERLOCK HOLMES) seems to be an odd choice to helm this film, but he acquits himself quite well, relying on the pageantry and spectacle of it all to carry the day. The chase scenes are serviceable, but Ritchie's direction does get a bit clunky when the film slows down and focuses on the central love story.
Using performers - for the most part - of Middle Eastern descent, Ritchie coaxes "good enough" performances from Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Naomi Scott as Jasmine. They are pleasant enough on screen but was stronger apart than together. I wouldn't call it "lack of chemstry", but rather, "medium chemistry". But when they are paired with others - or get the chance to shine on their own - they do quite well.
Scott plays well against Navid Negahban who brings a deepness of heart to his character of Jasmine's father, the Sultan and, especially, Nasim Pedrad (so that's what she's been doing since leaving SNL) as her handmaiden, Dalia (a character not in the animated film).
Massoud, of course, spends a great deal of this film playing off the Genie character. So let's talk about Will Smith's performance in the iconic Robin Williams role. EVERYONE (including myself) was asking why Smith would take on this role. It's a "lose/lose" proposition, trying to fill the shoes of one of the wildest, wackiest and most frenetic performances in screen history. So Smith does a very smart thing - he doesn't even try. He makes this Genie "his own" not trying to mimic Williams' performance, but rather creating a charming, friendly and funny Genie with heart (there's that word again) behind his eyes. It is a strong performance by Smith - one that only a performer with his charm and charisma could pull off. His presence in this film elevates the proceedings and I wanted more of this character.
The music you know and love is all there - and they are welcome presences in this film - though they felt abbreviated (maybe it's just because I'm more familiar with the Soundtrack performances of these songs and not how they were used in the original film) and there is an Original number, a "girl power" song for Jasmine that felt a little too "Disney Channel" to me - but I don't think I'm the target audience for that song, so I'll cut it some slack.
A slight downgrade in the final rating of this film needs to be made because of the "meh" characterization and performance of the main villain, Jafar. As played by Marwan Kenzari, this Jafar was seething and menacing but never really bigger than life and threatening - qualities that make Jafar one of the better villains in the Disney animated canon.
But, ultimately, this film will succeed or fail, I think, by your reaction to Smith's interpretation of the Genie. It's NOT Robin Williams, and that's a good thing. For me, Smith...and this film...succeeds.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
All complaints that were written regarding the live action remake of the beloved 1992 Animated classic, ALADDIN.
And...they would be wrong...as this ALADDIN is fun, fanciful, fast(ish) paced and fantastical. It also has something that I was surprised by...heart.
For those of you living in the "Cave of Wonder" for the past 20+ years, Aladdin follows the adventures of a street urchin who falls in love with a Princess and battles the evil Vizier, Jafar, for power via an enchanted lamp that houses a Genie that will grant 3 wishes.
Disney has shown it can do these remakes well when sticking to the source material (as was evidenced by the 2016 live action remake of the 1967 animated classic THE JUNGLE BOOK), but also has failed when it takes the characters, but not the story (the recent DUMBO), so Writer/Director Guy Ritchie (of all people) was smart to "just take the animated movie" and remake it as live action.
And...it works! Ritchie (SNATCH, the Robert Downey SHERLOCK HOLMES) seems to be an odd choice to helm this film, but he acquits himself quite well, relying on the pageantry and spectacle of it all to carry the day. The chase scenes are serviceable, but Ritchie's direction does get a bit clunky when the film slows down and focuses on the central love story.
Using performers - for the most part - of Middle Eastern descent, Ritchie coaxes "good enough" performances from Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Naomi Scott as Jasmine. They are pleasant enough on screen but was stronger apart than together. I wouldn't call it "lack of chemstry", but rather, "medium chemistry". But when they are paired with others - or get the chance to shine on their own - they do quite well.
Scott plays well against Navid Negahban who brings a deepness of heart to his character of Jasmine's father, the Sultan and, especially, Nasim Pedrad (so that's what she's been doing since leaving SNL) as her handmaiden, Dalia (a character not in the animated film).
Massoud, of course, spends a great deal of this film playing off the Genie character. So let's talk about Will Smith's performance in the iconic Robin Williams role. EVERYONE (including myself) was asking why Smith would take on this role. It's a "lose/lose" proposition, trying to fill the shoes of one of the wildest, wackiest and most frenetic performances in screen history. So Smith does a very smart thing - he doesn't even try. He makes this Genie "his own" not trying to mimic Williams' performance, but rather creating a charming, friendly and funny Genie with heart (there's that word again) behind his eyes. It is a strong performance by Smith - one that only a performer with his charm and charisma could pull off. His presence in this film elevates the proceedings and I wanted more of this character.
The music you know and love is all there - and they are welcome presences in this film - though they felt abbreviated (maybe it's just because I'm more familiar with the Soundtrack performances of these songs and not how they were used in the original film) and there is an Original number, a "girl power" song for Jasmine that felt a little too "Disney Channel" to me - but I don't think I'm the target audience for that song, so I'll cut it some slack.
A slight downgrade in the final rating of this film needs to be made because of the "meh" characterization and performance of the main villain, Jafar. As played by Marwan Kenzari, this Jafar was seething and menacing but never really bigger than life and threatening - qualities that make Jafar one of the better villains in the Disney animated canon.
But, ultimately, this film will succeed or fail, I think, by your reaction to Smith's interpretation of the Genie. It's NOT Robin Williams, and that's a good thing. For me, Smith...and this film...succeeds.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Nope (2022) in Movies
Jul 26, 2022
Original...Tense...and Entertaining
Producer/Writer/Director Jordan Peele has managed to accomplish something with his latest horror film - he has managed to make a completely original film both in concept and in execution.
To tell too much about the story of NOPE would be to spoil it - and letting this unique film unfold in front of you is a large part of the journey - but, to sum upā¦Hollywood Horse Wrangler, Otis Haywood Sr. (the great Keith David, THE THING), his son, Otis Haywood, Jr. - or as he is called in this film OJ (the incomparable Oscar-winner Daniel Kaluuya) and his daughter, Emerald (Keke Palmer of Disney Channel fame, amongst others) encounter some strange phenomena. Their investigation will draw in their neighbor, former child star Ricky āJupeā Park (Steven Yeun, THE WALKING DEAD), a tech from the local IT Hardware store, Angel Torres (Brandon Perea, THE OA) and a wildlife cinematographer, Antlers Holst, who specializes in getting the āimpossibleā shot (Michael Wincott, THE CROW).
Itās a wildly entertaining, grip-your-armchair type of film that unfolds on the screen in clever ways (without getting ātooā weird) - all with the pragmatic sensibilities of Peele, the former member of the comedy duo KEYE & PEELE. Jordan has grown into a filmmaker that must not be missed and in NOPE he showcases his skill with strong effect, being in complete control of the artistic point of view while delivering a highly entertaining thriller.
Of course, it helps that you have a performer as interesting to watch as Kaluuya - one of the finest performers in film today. He plays the taciturn OJ with complete ātaciturn-nessā (if that is a word) and, in his skilled body, this performance works very, very well. He says more with a glance or a shrug than most people can say with a 1,000 words and he draws you into the screen and into his thoughts with tremendous intimacy.
Keke Palmer, by contrast, is the exact opposite. Her Emerald is flamboyant, chatty, up-beat and beset by inner demons made manifest by drugs, alcohol and smoke. It is a movie-saving performance by Palmer as she brings the heart and the energy to the proceedings while Kaluuya is the quiet brains and the soul.
Perea, Yeun, David and (especially) Wincott all add to the tapestry of the events and bring something interesting and worth looking at (and into) during the course of this film.
Peele ratchets the tension throughout this film like an expert and the Special Effects are used in exactly the right way that they needed to be used and showcased throughout the film - filling you with awe when that is called for and having you think to yourself āyouāve got to be kidding meā when that is exactly what the characters are thinking.
A masterful, original concept of a film by Peele - one that is not for everyone - but those that are into this type of thing are going to be in for a unique and original film filled with unique characters and more than one jump along the way.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
To tell too much about the story of NOPE would be to spoil it - and letting this unique film unfold in front of you is a large part of the journey - but, to sum upā¦Hollywood Horse Wrangler, Otis Haywood Sr. (the great Keith David, THE THING), his son, Otis Haywood, Jr. - or as he is called in this film OJ (the incomparable Oscar-winner Daniel Kaluuya) and his daughter, Emerald (Keke Palmer of Disney Channel fame, amongst others) encounter some strange phenomena. Their investigation will draw in their neighbor, former child star Ricky āJupeā Park (Steven Yeun, THE WALKING DEAD), a tech from the local IT Hardware store, Angel Torres (Brandon Perea, THE OA) and a wildlife cinematographer, Antlers Holst, who specializes in getting the āimpossibleā shot (Michael Wincott, THE CROW).
Itās a wildly entertaining, grip-your-armchair type of film that unfolds on the screen in clever ways (without getting ātooā weird) - all with the pragmatic sensibilities of Peele, the former member of the comedy duo KEYE & PEELE. Jordan has grown into a filmmaker that must not be missed and in NOPE he showcases his skill with strong effect, being in complete control of the artistic point of view while delivering a highly entertaining thriller.
Of course, it helps that you have a performer as interesting to watch as Kaluuya - one of the finest performers in film today. He plays the taciturn OJ with complete ātaciturn-nessā (if that is a word) and, in his skilled body, this performance works very, very well. He says more with a glance or a shrug than most people can say with a 1,000 words and he draws you into the screen and into his thoughts with tremendous intimacy.
Keke Palmer, by contrast, is the exact opposite. Her Emerald is flamboyant, chatty, up-beat and beset by inner demons made manifest by drugs, alcohol and smoke. It is a movie-saving performance by Palmer as she brings the heart and the energy to the proceedings while Kaluuya is the quiet brains and the soul.
Perea, Yeun, David and (especially) Wincott all add to the tapestry of the events and bring something interesting and worth looking at (and into) during the course of this film.
Peele ratchets the tension throughout this film like an expert and the Special Effects are used in exactly the right way that they needed to be used and showcased throughout the film - filling you with awe when that is called for and having you think to yourself āyouāve got to be kidding meā when that is exactly what the characters are thinking.
A masterful, original concept of a film by Peele - one that is not for everyone - but those that are into this type of thing are going to be in for a unique and original film filled with unique characters and more than one jump along the way.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Soul (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
When Disney Pixar launches a big new title it comes with a lot of expectation ā there are just so many titles in the back catalogue now that will forever be considered classics. Movies that raised and re-raised the bar of what animation and family film storytelling can be at the very, very best.
So, when it was announced that Soul would be shown worldwide on the excellent Disney plus channel on Christmas Day, it was something of a coup that made it The movie event of the year, as many of us would now have the shared memory of watching it post lunch, as we struggled to keep our own cosy souls and eyelids awake enough to properly enjoy it.
I must admit that my opinion of it after one watch is tinted by being very close to a complete food coma shutdown. I will need to watch it again to fully appreciate it, I think. The main thing about doing it at all was how perfect and special it felt to be doing it on Christmas Day ā nothing has felt more Christmassy to me film-wise since they first aired Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade on BBC1 in 1992. Such a treat with quality assured is rare indeed. The question was how good would it be in comparison to our favourites?
There were rumours from early reviews that it was more mature and adult themed than usual, and this seemed entirely true from the get go. Jazz music, a mellow vibe not racing headlong after easy laughs and the themes of existential angst and, well, deathā¦ it is quite grown up, to an extent. Not that young ones wonāt enjoy it at all. It is as colourful and busy and joyous as any of them. Even if they canāt take in the concepts of the story in a deeper way, there is plenty to enjoy.
What it seems like Pixar were going for here is a film families of many generations can enjoy together; the older parents and grandparents explaining and reassuring in the deeper moments, and the young ones reminding the older ones to laugh at the silly bits! It was ever thus, but now the ambition to make it really about something significant seems achievable.
The theme of separation, loss and yes, even death is all over Pixar if you look for it. Especially with the recent Coco, which I thought was their best effort for several years. What they did with the theme of death in that one and here also is view it without fear, but as a celebration of the life that came before it, and the people that were touched by that life. It is the perennial Pixar message, that something which at first seems scary and sad is actually beautiful and wonderful if you look closer and choose to see it that way. And to their work in educating kids with that message I can only applaud in awe.
The animation itself is surprising. The ārealā world being almost photo real to a jaw dropping degree, whilst the characters remain stylised. But it is the choices of simpler, somehow old fashioned styles in the before and after life sections that are striking. The semi luminous colours are also breath-taking: all calm aquamarine and soft pink, for every bright red and orange of Coco, but just as vibrant.
Pete Doctor who was responsible on this scale for Monsterās Inc, Up and Inside Out, holds the dual reigns of directing and writing expertly yet again, making things that are very hard to achieve look like cracking eggs! The voice talents of Jamie Foxx and Tina Fey do exactly what is needed in the roles without ever standing out as spectacular, as do minor roles for the likes of Graham Norton and Richard Ayoade. Spectacular is not what Soul is about, it is much more about solid qualities with deeper resonance. Personally, I never arrived at the tears in the eyes revelation moment. But that might be more about how warm and full and content I was than any criticism of something missing. There is every chance it is me that missed it.
Look, I donāt think anyone is going to be putting this amongst their top 5 Pixars any time soon, but I also canāt see anyone saying they didnāt enjoy it. The consensus seems to be āhmm, interesting, I need to think about that a while and see it again a few timesā. So, for now, that is exactly what I am saying too. It may well be a classic that grows in appreciation over the years, or it may be one where you go, ānah, letās watch Monsterās Inc. again insteadā. Not sure. Iāll add a postscript right here when I have seen it a second timeā¦
So, when it was announced that Soul would be shown worldwide on the excellent Disney plus channel on Christmas Day, it was something of a coup that made it The movie event of the year, as many of us would now have the shared memory of watching it post lunch, as we struggled to keep our own cosy souls and eyelids awake enough to properly enjoy it.
I must admit that my opinion of it after one watch is tinted by being very close to a complete food coma shutdown. I will need to watch it again to fully appreciate it, I think. The main thing about doing it at all was how perfect and special it felt to be doing it on Christmas Day ā nothing has felt more Christmassy to me film-wise since they first aired Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade on BBC1 in 1992. Such a treat with quality assured is rare indeed. The question was how good would it be in comparison to our favourites?
There were rumours from early reviews that it was more mature and adult themed than usual, and this seemed entirely true from the get go. Jazz music, a mellow vibe not racing headlong after easy laughs and the themes of existential angst and, well, deathā¦ it is quite grown up, to an extent. Not that young ones wonāt enjoy it at all. It is as colourful and busy and joyous as any of them. Even if they canāt take in the concepts of the story in a deeper way, there is plenty to enjoy.
What it seems like Pixar were going for here is a film families of many generations can enjoy together; the older parents and grandparents explaining and reassuring in the deeper moments, and the young ones reminding the older ones to laugh at the silly bits! It was ever thus, but now the ambition to make it really about something significant seems achievable.
The theme of separation, loss and yes, even death is all over Pixar if you look for it. Especially with the recent Coco, which I thought was their best effort for several years. What they did with the theme of death in that one and here also is view it without fear, but as a celebration of the life that came before it, and the people that were touched by that life. It is the perennial Pixar message, that something which at first seems scary and sad is actually beautiful and wonderful if you look closer and choose to see it that way. And to their work in educating kids with that message I can only applaud in awe.
The animation itself is surprising. The ārealā world being almost photo real to a jaw dropping degree, whilst the characters remain stylised. But it is the choices of simpler, somehow old fashioned styles in the before and after life sections that are striking. The semi luminous colours are also breath-taking: all calm aquamarine and soft pink, for every bright red and orange of Coco, but just as vibrant.
Pete Doctor who was responsible on this scale for Monsterās Inc, Up and Inside Out, holds the dual reigns of directing and writing expertly yet again, making things that are very hard to achieve look like cracking eggs! The voice talents of Jamie Foxx and Tina Fey do exactly what is needed in the roles without ever standing out as spectacular, as do minor roles for the likes of Graham Norton and Richard Ayoade. Spectacular is not what Soul is about, it is much more about solid qualities with deeper resonance. Personally, I never arrived at the tears in the eyes revelation moment. But that might be more about how warm and full and content I was than any criticism of something missing. There is every chance it is me that missed it.
Look, I donāt think anyone is going to be putting this amongst their top 5 Pixars any time soon, but I also canāt see anyone saying they didnāt enjoy it. The consensus seems to be āhmm, interesting, I need to think about that a while and see it again a few timesā. So, for now, that is exactly what I am saying too. It may well be a classic that grows in appreciation over the years, or it may be one where you go, ānah, letās watch Monsterās Inc. again insteadā. Not sure. Iāll add a postscript right here when I have seen it a second timeā¦
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Endless (2020) in Movies
Nov 22, 2020
The synopsis was suitably intriguing, but there's always a slight worry that a fantasy romance is going to be a little cheesy.
Riley and Chris are the definition of young love, their future together is almost certain, until a car accident takes Chris. But Chris isn't gone yet, he's stuck on Earth in limbo. When he finds he can communicate with Riley, their love lives on, but are the consequences of living this way a price they can pay?
So, Endless is exactly what it sounds like, ghost boyfriend hangs around living girlfriend and they learn things about themselves... because that's what these films do. The opening gives you the impression you're about to see the film love child of a Disney Channel Original movie and a Hallmark movie, and that's not far off what we get... except it probably could have done with a bit more humour injected into it, and maybe a smidge less drama.
Riley and Chris are our young leading duo, they're in love, they want their future to be together... and yet somehow he is baffled by her life choices with college. The opening of the film is a montage that shows this perfect couply life, and it's very much used to cover up the fact that the main bulk of the film skips over this development between them. That would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that our first big interaction with them is basically an argument about something that they would have already talked about had they been this couple we'd seen portrayed. So not only are we starting the film with a scenario that seems contrary to the life we're shown, but we're also confronted with hostility between them which gives us no chance to get to know either one and "be on their side" through the rest of the film.
I was astounded to see that this film is only 1 hour 35... I can already sense that many people will be making jokes about this film's title and the runtime (because I can't be the only one who feels things about this film), it really did feel longer so I can't blame them for it. That does also go some way to explain bits that seem to happen very suddenly, I'm not sure if they've written it this way or if it's been cut down, but it left me with an odd feeling at times.
When it comes to acting I'm having trouble separating it from the characters and the script. Many of the characters have such a swift change in emotion that I imagined someone behind the camera was shouting "Now you're angry!" at them randomly. No one seems to be immune, even DeRon Horton, who struck me as doing the best job of his piece, has a mad moment that didn't seem to fit with the character or the story.
Endless honestly seems to have a bit of an identity crisis, I couldn't see a clear goal for what the final product was trying to be. Was it the story of them as a couple? Was it the story of Chris coming to terms with his passing? Or was it the story of Riley finding herself and her passion through grief? It appeared to be all of those with varying importance throughout.
I'm aware I'm rambling a little at this point... I'll try to get a move on!
With Chris being dead they've decided they need to capture the spirit world on screen. It's certainly clear when this happens with its hazy glimmer, but I don't think they needed to do that at all, it's a little over the top. As is the addition of the traditional ghost-passing-through-things effect. That was indeed a little cheesy in this drama and is one of the main reasons I stated above that it could have embraced some more humour. Something that particularly bugged me with the effects though is the fact they paid money to give us a Snapchat filter but didn't pay someone to take out the sound of Chris and Jordan walking on gravel.
For all my griping though, I did find it an emotional watch, sadly that couldn't pull it back from the many problems I encountered along the way. An extra ten minutes to expand on their relationship would have helped it along a little, but I think its biggest problem is the inconsistency that plagues us throughout with the characters and the storylines.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/endless-movie-review.html
Riley and Chris are the definition of young love, their future together is almost certain, until a car accident takes Chris. But Chris isn't gone yet, he's stuck on Earth in limbo. When he finds he can communicate with Riley, their love lives on, but are the consequences of living this way a price they can pay?
So, Endless is exactly what it sounds like, ghost boyfriend hangs around living girlfriend and they learn things about themselves... because that's what these films do. The opening gives you the impression you're about to see the film love child of a Disney Channel Original movie and a Hallmark movie, and that's not far off what we get... except it probably could have done with a bit more humour injected into it, and maybe a smidge less drama.
Riley and Chris are our young leading duo, they're in love, they want their future to be together... and yet somehow he is baffled by her life choices with college. The opening of the film is a montage that shows this perfect couply life, and it's very much used to cover up the fact that the main bulk of the film skips over this development between them. That would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that our first big interaction with them is basically an argument about something that they would have already talked about had they been this couple we'd seen portrayed. So not only are we starting the film with a scenario that seems contrary to the life we're shown, but we're also confronted with hostility between them which gives us no chance to get to know either one and "be on their side" through the rest of the film.
I was astounded to see that this film is only 1 hour 35... I can already sense that many people will be making jokes about this film's title and the runtime (because I can't be the only one who feels things about this film), it really did feel longer so I can't blame them for it. That does also go some way to explain bits that seem to happen very suddenly, I'm not sure if they've written it this way or if it's been cut down, but it left me with an odd feeling at times.
When it comes to acting I'm having trouble separating it from the characters and the script. Many of the characters have such a swift change in emotion that I imagined someone behind the camera was shouting "Now you're angry!" at them randomly. No one seems to be immune, even DeRon Horton, who struck me as doing the best job of his piece, has a mad moment that didn't seem to fit with the character or the story.
Endless honestly seems to have a bit of an identity crisis, I couldn't see a clear goal for what the final product was trying to be. Was it the story of them as a couple? Was it the story of Chris coming to terms with his passing? Or was it the story of Riley finding herself and her passion through grief? It appeared to be all of those with varying importance throughout.
I'm aware I'm rambling a little at this point... I'll try to get a move on!
With Chris being dead they've decided they need to capture the spirit world on screen. It's certainly clear when this happens with its hazy glimmer, but I don't think they needed to do that at all, it's a little over the top. As is the addition of the traditional ghost-passing-through-things effect. That was indeed a little cheesy in this drama and is one of the main reasons I stated above that it could have embraced some more humour. Something that particularly bugged me with the effects though is the fact they paid money to give us a Snapchat filter but didn't pay someone to take out the sound of Chris and Jordan walking on gravel.
For all my griping though, I did find it an emotional watch, sadly that couldn't pull it back from the many problems I encountered along the way. An extra ten minutes to expand on their relationship would have helped it along a little, but I think its biggest problem is the inconsistency that plagues us throughout with the characters and the storylines.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/endless-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2 (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
This is an entertaining film. I definitely came out of it with a smile on my face. At the same time though, as an adult, it surprisingly gave me several pauses for thought. It's about change and friendship, jealousy and insecurity... things as a grown-up that you perhaps push to the back of your mind so that you can carry on. I was in danger of thinking a bit too deep at one point, but luckily something funny happened to distract me (much like real life).
But enough of that deep sigh moment.
Ralph is still the bumbling bad guy and inadvertently causes the mayhem that sets off the main storyline in the film. That coupled with the new whiffy... wifey...? in the arcade means that they get to meet a whole new world on the internet.
It's a fun way to think about going online, everyone milling around like it's a shopping centre. And I'm sure that we've all been in Ralph's position too, shopping on the internet and forgotten to be prepared with our credit card to checkout. Of course I don't think we've ever thought to do what he does to fix the problem.
Vanellope makes a few new friends in the form of Shank and her crew from GTA style game, Slaughter Race. Just like the first movie all the different styles went well together. But my favourite bit about their first outing in Slaughter Race were the player avatars. Those slightly stunted turns and limb movements were perfect and took me back to my days of game play. I've also got to give the shark an honourable mention, his next staring role should be "The Meg: The Musical".
I can't do a review for this and not mention the Princesses. I'm not sure they're as good as I'd hoped they'd be. Pocahontas gets the biggest praise for her constantly fluttering hair but they were all just kind of... there, and there wasn't much else. They do at least teach V that she can channel her inner Princess by staring into some water, but gazing at her reflection doesn't quite have the desired effect.
When the story goes back to Ralph it's a little sad to see that he can't let it go and see how Vanellope has found a new home. They do at least give him some redemption and he realises that she's a girl worth fighting for and goes about fixing all of the drama that he's caused.
As well as the fun there's some truths about the internet in there too. First rule of the internet, don't read the comments, and the troll at the Q&A. Good luck explaining those things to your kids... "When people grow up, some of them become dickhead and upset other people because they have nothing better to do with their spare time."
Watching this I did at least find an answer to the age old question of why I occasionally lose my internet connection! Watching all those poor unfortunate souls losing theirs... well it'll probably make me less stressed to imagine that happening when the whiffy box says no next time.
Honestly, this waffle will end soon...
Ralph Breaks The Internet is like the kids version of Ready Player One. I spent so much of the movie looking around for all the little hidden tidbits. What websites can you spot? Which characters? Dial-up Express amused me, and it's certainly one for the adults to laugh at. I also took a pause at Stan Lee, I nearly had my own Princess moment in a puddle of tears.
Lastly we obviously have to mention the credit scenes. Two of them. I got super annoyed when the credits started to roll, as you may well do, but scene one really turned that around. You have to stay right until the end for the second one, it will reeeeeally annoy you, so enjoy that!
What you should do
You should watch it. The kids will love it because of all the characters and daft antics, and you'll love it because of those two things and all the hidden references.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
So many choices. I wouldn't mind having my own amusement arcade... oooooooh or Princess hair... ooooooooooh or animals that sew clothes... ooooooooh or... I could be here a while, why don't you click on a pop up ad and go heart some videos instead of waiting around.
[I'd like to apologise for more waffle than usual, but when I accidentally put one Disney song title in a sentence I couldn't pass up the chance to try for more!]
But enough of that deep sigh moment.
Ralph is still the bumbling bad guy and inadvertently causes the mayhem that sets off the main storyline in the film. That coupled with the new whiffy... wifey...? in the arcade means that they get to meet a whole new world on the internet.
It's a fun way to think about going online, everyone milling around like it's a shopping centre. And I'm sure that we've all been in Ralph's position too, shopping on the internet and forgotten to be prepared with our credit card to checkout. Of course I don't think we've ever thought to do what he does to fix the problem.
Vanellope makes a few new friends in the form of Shank and her crew from GTA style game, Slaughter Race. Just like the first movie all the different styles went well together. But my favourite bit about their first outing in Slaughter Race were the player avatars. Those slightly stunted turns and limb movements were perfect and took me back to my days of game play. I've also got to give the shark an honourable mention, his next staring role should be "The Meg: The Musical".
I can't do a review for this and not mention the Princesses. I'm not sure they're as good as I'd hoped they'd be. Pocahontas gets the biggest praise for her constantly fluttering hair but they were all just kind of... there, and there wasn't much else. They do at least teach V that she can channel her inner Princess by staring into some water, but gazing at her reflection doesn't quite have the desired effect.
When the story goes back to Ralph it's a little sad to see that he can't let it go and see how Vanellope has found a new home. They do at least give him some redemption and he realises that she's a girl worth fighting for and goes about fixing all of the drama that he's caused.
As well as the fun there's some truths about the internet in there too. First rule of the internet, don't read the comments, and the troll at the Q&A. Good luck explaining those things to your kids... "When people grow up, some of them become dickhead and upset other people because they have nothing better to do with their spare time."
Watching this I did at least find an answer to the age old question of why I occasionally lose my internet connection! Watching all those poor unfortunate souls losing theirs... well it'll probably make me less stressed to imagine that happening when the whiffy box says no next time.
Honestly, this waffle will end soon...
Ralph Breaks The Internet is like the kids version of Ready Player One. I spent so much of the movie looking around for all the little hidden tidbits. What websites can you spot? Which characters? Dial-up Express amused me, and it's certainly one for the adults to laugh at. I also took a pause at Stan Lee, I nearly had my own Princess moment in a puddle of tears.
Lastly we obviously have to mention the credit scenes. Two of them. I got super annoyed when the credits started to roll, as you may well do, but scene one really turned that around. You have to stay right until the end for the second one, it will reeeeeally annoy you, so enjoy that!
What you should do
You should watch it. The kids will love it because of all the characters and daft antics, and you'll love it because of those two things and all the hidden references.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
So many choices. I wouldn't mind having my own amusement arcade... oooooooh or Princess hair... ooooooooooh or animals that sew clothes... ooooooooh or... I could be here a while, why don't you click on a pop up ad and go heart some videos instead of waiting around.
[I'd like to apologise for more waffle than usual, but when I accidentally put one Disney song title in a sentence I couldn't pass up the chance to try for more!]
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Box (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Norma (Cameron Diaz) and Arthur Lewis (James Marsden) don't seem to be any different than any other hardworking family in the late 1970s on the surface, but things aren't always what they seem. After a freak accident at the doctor's office when she was 18, Norma suffers from a disfigurement on her foot and has a noticeable limp. A student humiliates her in front of her class while she's teaching and Norma is under the impression that would be the worst part of her day until she's informed that the discount faculty had been getting on tuition would be cut next semester. Meanwhile, Arthur works for NASA and had been counting on being recruited as an astronaut since he aced every test, but is rejected for failing the psychological exam. Already living paycheck to paycheck, Norma and Lewis wonder how they'll support their son Walter and themselves until an opportunity presents itself in the form of a box. Arlington Steward (Frank Langella), a man who's missing half of his face, shows up at the Lewis' home and makes them an offer that could solve all of their financial situations at the expense of somebody else with the simple push of a button. But the consequences that unfold for Norma and Arthur ar far greater than what they bargained for.
Richard Kelly is capable of making pretty fantastic films. Donnie Darko is still his crowning achievement. People seem to either love the film or think it's highly overrated, but with repeat viewings over the years it's become a favorite and has a cult like status. Southland Tales showed promise, but just felt like the second half of an already established franchise. That turned out to be true when the three graphic novels were published and were recommended to be read before seeing the film. I admire the fact that they took a different approach to the filmwatching experience, but since I didn't hear about the reading material until after I saw the film it seemed like a lost cause. Possibly too much to be bothered with. So Kelly offers his take on a Twilight Zone episode with The Box and the result leaves the viewer with mixed reactions.
The film seems to drag a bit in the first half hour as it introduces us to the Lewis family. The Box is dropped off on their doorstep, but then we're offered a glimpse into the daily lives of Norma and Arthur Lewis; mostly what their careers and daily struggles are like. Once Mr. Steward shows up and explains what The Box does is when the film begins to gain momentum. From that point until around the time Arthur gets knee deep into his investigation is when The Box is at its peak. There's at least one twist in there that's actually pretty satisfying, but it's unfortunate that the film can't keep that up for its entire duration. From then on, it just seems like the film adds more and more weird plot twists and ridiculous explanations. You'll want the film to have ended 20 minutes prior by the time Mr. Steward makes his second offer to the Lewis family.
The dialogue seemed to fluctuate between sounding natural and sounding forced throughout the film. The film takes place in 1976 and it's established rather well, for the most part. At times, it felt like some of the dialect from today slipped through the cracks and made it into a film that took place over 30 years ago. The acting wasn't entirely satisfying either. Was Cameron Diaz's accent noticeable in the trailer for the film? It didn't really click until around the five minute mark of the actual film and seemed to kind of come and go depending on how much dialogue Diaz actually had in a particular scene. Frank Langella was the most enjoyable, but if he wasn't missing half of his face or being so mysterious then his character would probably be kind of dull since he doesn't actually show any range of emotion in the film. The CG also seemed to look a bit low budget during the three gateways scene, which is odd since the pool scene was pulled off incredibly well. With all of these superbly CG animated films coming out as of late like Disney Pixar's Up, Disney's A Christmas Carol, and even next year's Toy Story 3, if CG of a lower quality is contained in a film after that it becomes extremely evident in comparison.
Richard Kelly's The Box puts a modern day spin on a classic story and while it isn't entirely satisfying, it does have its high points. As the puzzle the film is wrapped in unravels, its first few reveals are interesting, but it was like they tried to cram in as many twists and turns as possible as the film went on. While Kelly has at least one great film under his belt, it seems like he still hasn't found a specific stride to being a great director. That doesn't mean he's not capable of doing so and he certainly has his trademarks that seem to bleed through in his films (usually something relating to another gateway or dimension), but that he hasn't been able to channel a similar formula to what made Donnie Darko his standout film. That, in itself, is disappointing.
Richard Kelly is capable of making pretty fantastic films. Donnie Darko is still his crowning achievement. People seem to either love the film or think it's highly overrated, but with repeat viewings over the years it's become a favorite and has a cult like status. Southland Tales showed promise, but just felt like the second half of an already established franchise. That turned out to be true when the three graphic novels were published and were recommended to be read before seeing the film. I admire the fact that they took a different approach to the filmwatching experience, but since I didn't hear about the reading material until after I saw the film it seemed like a lost cause. Possibly too much to be bothered with. So Kelly offers his take on a Twilight Zone episode with The Box and the result leaves the viewer with mixed reactions.
The film seems to drag a bit in the first half hour as it introduces us to the Lewis family. The Box is dropped off on their doorstep, but then we're offered a glimpse into the daily lives of Norma and Arthur Lewis; mostly what their careers and daily struggles are like. Once Mr. Steward shows up and explains what The Box does is when the film begins to gain momentum. From that point until around the time Arthur gets knee deep into his investigation is when The Box is at its peak. There's at least one twist in there that's actually pretty satisfying, but it's unfortunate that the film can't keep that up for its entire duration. From then on, it just seems like the film adds more and more weird plot twists and ridiculous explanations. You'll want the film to have ended 20 minutes prior by the time Mr. Steward makes his second offer to the Lewis family.
The dialogue seemed to fluctuate between sounding natural and sounding forced throughout the film. The film takes place in 1976 and it's established rather well, for the most part. At times, it felt like some of the dialect from today slipped through the cracks and made it into a film that took place over 30 years ago. The acting wasn't entirely satisfying either. Was Cameron Diaz's accent noticeable in the trailer for the film? It didn't really click until around the five minute mark of the actual film and seemed to kind of come and go depending on how much dialogue Diaz actually had in a particular scene. Frank Langella was the most enjoyable, but if he wasn't missing half of his face or being so mysterious then his character would probably be kind of dull since he doesn't actually show any range of emotion in the film. The CG also seemed to look a bit low budget during the three gateways scene, which is odd since the pool scene was pulled off incredibly well. With all of these superbly CG animated films coming out as of late like Disney Pixar's Up, Disney's A Christmas Carol, and even next year's Toy Story 3, if CG of a lower quality is contained in a film after that it becomes extremely evident in comparison.
Richard Kelly's The Box puts a modern day spin on a classic story and while it isn't entirely satisfying, it does have its high points. As the puzzle the film is wrapped in unravels, its first few reveals are interesting, but it was like they tried to cram in as many twists and turns as possible as the film went on. While Kelly has at least one great film under his belt, it seems like he still hasn't found a specific stride to being a great director. That doesn't mean he's not capable of doing so and he certainly has his trademarks that seem to bleed through in his films (usually something relating to another gateway or dimension), but that he hasn't been able to channel a similar formula to what made Donnie Darko his standout film. That, in itself, is disappointing.