Search
Search results
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 19, 2020 (Updated Oct 19, 2020)
Fascinating
The Trial of the Chicago 7 is Aaron Sorkin’s second foray into directing, a dramatisation of the true story of 7 people on trial following the events at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois.
The film centres around what is effectively a sham of a trial, and aside from a few flashbacks and prep scenes, it is virtually set entirely in the courtroom for the 2+ hour duration. There aren’t many films that can pull this off and aside from a slight lull in the middle, The Trial of the Chicago 7 manages this impressively well and this is mainly down to Aaron Sorkin himself and his rather stellar cast. It also helps that the story itself is a fascinating one. I knew nothing about the trial, the people or even the protests in Chicago, so watching this was a rather disturbing eye opener. It’s a truly compelling and interesting story which has a great deal of relevance to today’s politics – Netflix Ken what they were doing releasing this close to election time!
I’m a long time fan of Sorkin’s writing and alongside his directing, it definitely does not disappoint here. His usual sharp and quick witted dialogue is ever present and is delivered flawless by the marvellous cast. Sorkin even manages to throw in a few laughs which considering the rather serious aspects of the story is no mean feat, and these are often delivered from the ‘bromance’ between Sacha Baron Cohen’s Abbie Hoffman and Jeremy Strong’s Jerry Rubin. However every single member of this ensemble cast shines individually. From Mark Rylance’s exasperated lawyer William Kunstler to Frank Langella’s rather evil and incompetent judge, from Joseph Gordon Levitt’s prosecutor with a conscience to Eddie Redmayne’s intellectual Hayden. Even Michael Keaton who has a blink and you’ll miss it role as a former Attorney General is brilliant. I couldn’t pinpoint a single person in this case who excels above another as they are all fantastic.
I don’t believe this film is perfect. There is a slight lull in the middle due to the mostly courtroom setting, even with the cracking dialogue, and whilst I did enjoy Sorkin’s directing style, I did wonder if this film looked a little too slick and polished overall. The story is dark, gritty and rather disturbing when you think of the political and racial undertones and motivations, and the film itself doesn’t always reflect this – the ending especially is very moving, but feels a little too happy and Hollywood. I’d also question why not all of the major characters were included in the intertitles detailing what happened to the individuals after the events of this film. Considering it was such a balanced cast, it seemed odd not to include all the main characters especially for those who don’t know the real life history.
Overall this is a fantastic dialogue and performance driven film. Sorkin is without a doubt a master of the legal and political drama, and if you’re a fan of his earlier work then this is definitely one worth watching. Whilst “enjoyable” may not be the most appropriate word considering the subject matter, this is a hugely interesting and entertaining watch.
The film centres around what is effectively a sham of a trial, and aside from a few flashbacks and prep scenes, it is virtually set entirely in the courtroom for the 2+ hour duration. There aren’t many films that can pull this off and aside from a slight lull in the middle, The Trial of the Chicago 7 manages this impressively well and this is mainly down to Aaron Sorkin himself and his rather stellar cast. It also helps that the story itself is a fascinating one. I knew nothing about the trial, the people or even the protests in Chicago, so watching this was a rather disturbing eye opener. It’s a truly compelling and interesting story which has a great deal of relevance to today’s politics – Netflix Ken what they were doing releasing this close to election time!
I’m a long time fan of Sorkin’s writing and alongside his directing, it definitely does not disappoint here. His usual sharp and quick witted dialogue is ever present and is delivered flawless by the marvellous cast. Sorkin even manages to throw in a few laughs which considering the rather serious aspects of the story is no mean feat, and these are often delivered from the ‘bromance’ between Sacha Baron Cohen’s Abbie Hoffman and Jeremy Strong’s Jerry Rubin. However every single member of this ensemble cast shines individually. From Mark Rylance’s exasperated lawyer William Kunstler to Frank Langella’s rather evil and incompetent judge, from Joseph Gordon Levitt’s prosecutor with a conscience to Eddie Redmayne’s intellectual Hayden. Even Michael Keaton who has a blink and you’ll miss it role as a former Attorney General is brilliant. I couldn’t pinpoint a single person in this case who excels above another as they are all fantastic.
I don’t believe this film is perfect. There is a slight lull in the middle due to the mostly courtroom setting, even with the cracking dialogue, and whilst I did enjoy Sorkin’s directing style, I did wonder if this film looked a little too slick and polished overall. The story is dark, gritty and rather disturbing when you think of the political and racial undertones and motivations, and the film itself doesn’t always reflect this – the ending especially is very moving, but feels a little too happy and Hollywood. I’d also question why not all of the major characters were included in the intertitles detailing what happened to the individuals after the events of this film. Considering it was such a balanced cast, it seemed odd not to include all the main characters especially for those who don’t know the real life history.
Overall this is a fantastic dialogue and performance driven film. Sorkin is without a doubt a master of the legal and political drama, and if you’re a fan of his earlier work then this is definitely one worth watching. Whilst “enjoyable” may not be the most appropriate word considering the subject matter, this is a hugely interesting and entertaining watch.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Sep 1, 2019
Entertaining Enough
In the battle of DC vs Marvel in the Cinematic world, the prevailing theory is that DC is "righting the ship" with back-to-back decent films - AQUAMAN and SHAZAM. And...after viewing both of these films, I will agree that they are moving the ship in the correct direction, but they have a long, long way to go before they can say they have "righted" this ship.
SHAZAM is a fun. light, comedic-ish film that will appeal to kids and tweens and will be considered "not bad" by older teens and adults - and that is an improvement for a DC comic book film.
Asher Angel stars as Billy Batson, a troubled teenager with family/parental issues (is there any other kind in these types of films?) who is given the power of SHAZAM by a mysterious wizard (the always dependable Djimon Hounsou), when he says the magical word SHAZAM he is instantly changed into the SuperHero SHAZAM. The Superhero part of this character is played by Zachary Levi (TV's CHUCK) and that is the first problem for me with this film, I didn't feel that these 2 actors connected much to form the illusion of 1 person. Asher is all "broody and moody" - you know, the way an adult would direct a teenage actor to perform as a troubled teen - while Levi, who is having some fun, looks like he is trying just a bit too hard to showcase his "inner teenager" while wrapped inside a body hugging, muscle enhancing costume.
Billy Batson is sent to a foster home full of a "It's A Small World" group of troubled youth that have - despite their differences - formed into a family. Want to bet that Billy figures out that "family" does not mean his mother and father who abandoned him but rather those around you that love and care for you?
All of the kids in this "family" are well played, as are the "father and mother" figures. Standouts are Faithe Herman as smart-as-a-whip/cute-as-a-button Darla and, especially, Jack Dylan Grazer (hypochondriac Eddie in IT: CHAPTER 1) as the lad who becomes Billy's best friend. He is just as fun and charismatic as he was in IT. To be honest, I think I wanted more of a movie about this group of people than the typical "Super Hero/Super Villain" film.
However, I can forgive this film for focusing on the Hero/Villain dynamic for Mark Strong (SHERLOCK) is wonderfully villainous as the bad guy with daddy issues of his own and "that guy" actor John Glover is in it all too briefly as his dad.
Director David F. Sandberg (ANNABELLE: CREATION) does a nice job of keeping the action going at a fast enough pace to keep things entertaining - albeit in a way that was rather pedestrian and "nothing new". But he aims this film squarely at the older kid/younger tween audience and they will enjoy this very much, whilst the rest of us will not be bored as we accompany them.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
SHAZAM is a fun. light, comedic-ish film that will appeal to kids and tweens and will be considered "not bad" by older teens and adults - and that is an improvement for a DC comic book film.
Asher Angel stars as Billy Batson, a troubled teenager with family/parental issues (is there any other kind in these types of films?) who is given the power of SHAZAM by a mysterious wizard (the always dependable Djimon Hounsou), when he says the magical word SHAZAM he is instantly changed into the SuperHero SHAZAM. The Superhero part of this character is played by Zachary Levi (TV's CHUCK) and that is the first problem for me with this film, I didn't feel that these 2 actors connected much to form the illusion of 1 person. Asher is all "broody and moody" - you know, the way an adult would direct a teenage actor to perform as a troubled teen - while Levi, who is having some fun, looks like he is trying just a bit too hard to showcase his "inner teenager" while wrapped inside a body hugging, muscle enhancing costume.
Billy Batson is sent to a foster home full of a "It's A Small World" group of troubled youth that have - despite their differences - formed into a family. Want to bet that Billy figures out that "family" does not mean his mother and father who abandoned him but rather those around you that love and care for you?
All of the kids in this "family" are well played, as are the "father and mother" figures. Standouts are Faithe Herman as smart-as-a-whip/cute-as-a-button Darla and, especially, Jack Dylan Grazer (hypochondriac Eddie in IT: CHAPTER 1) as the lad who becomes Billy's best friend. He is just as fun and charismatic as he was in IT. To be honest, I think I wanted more of a movie about this group of people than the typical "Super Hero/Super Villain" film.
However, I can forgive this film for focusing on the Hero/Villain dynamic for Mark Strong (SHERLOCK) is wonderfully villainous as the bad guy with daddy issues of his own and "that guy" actor John Glover is in it all too briefly as his dad.
Director David F. Sandberg (ANNABELLE: CREATION) does a nice job of keeping the action going at a fast enough pace to keep things entertaining - albeit in a way that was rather pedestrian and "nothing new". But he aims this film squarely at the older kid/younger tween audience and they will enjoy this very much, whilst the rest of us will not be bored as we accompany them.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Trading Places (1983) in Movies
Apr 7, 2018
Great 80's Comedy
The Duke Brothers, kings of the stock exchange, wager a bet on whether or not a poor man with no experience can succeed in running their brokerage firm. It's a solid comedy that relies on human nature to help tell its story.
Acting: 10
A mixture of familiar faces and a few fresh ones, performances are stellar from top to bottom. It's what you expect when true professionals come together to put on a show. Eddie Murphy's comedic timing is on point as always, playing the role of homeless man Billy Ray Valentine. Just listening to him tell his story in prison about the Quart of Blood Technique had me in stitches. He has a way of being funny in a nonchalant way, reminding me of some of my closest friends.
Denholm Elliott won my heart as the lovable butler Coleman. He's kindhearted, but can be hilariously cruel at the same time. A lot of his laughs came from watching his subtle actions (rolling his eyes after a phone call, sneaking a drink during a party, etc.).
Dan Aykroyd won me over as well in his role as rich snob Louis Winthorpe III. I hated his guts at first but ultimately came to sympathize with his character which was the whole idea. He wore the role of proud rich kid well, but excelled when it came time for him to get crazy.
Beginning: 7
Characters: 7
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
The film opens with a multitude of shots that captures the heart of Philadelphia so well. I've only visited the city once and seeing those opening shots made me want to go back. Other very memorable scenes include the party at Valentine's home (absolute bedlam) and the calamity that is the trading room floor. Just seeing all those bodies pressing in on each other is enough to make you claustrophobic.
Favorite Still Shot: Valentine laying on the ground with almost a dozen cops pointing their guns just inches from his face. That one shot has been a feature in so many film montages over the years and deservedly so. That smile Murphy delivers saying, "I give up" is timeless.
Conflict: 8
Genre: 6
Memorability: 9
Trading Places still holds up all these years later as a classic comedy. It's hilarious but it also gives you pause for thought as well about the class and race roles in society. Sure it can be absolutely farfetched at times, but it's sole purpose is seemingly not just to entertain, but to raise awareness as well. It's been a few days since I've seen the film yet it still sticks out in my head amongst others.
Pace: 8
Plot: 8
As the plot unfolded, I thought it was absolutely ridiculous...Until I started thinking about today's political landscape and considered, "Hmmm, this is exactly the kind of experiment I could see a rich person with a lot of time on their hands concocting." It isn't all the way believable, but I tend to make exceptions for action films and comedies.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 81
I like Trading Places way more than I expected to. Director John Landis does an excellent job of walking the line between funny and thought-provoking, sometimes even daring to mix the two. Very solid film.
Acting: 10
A mixture of familiar faces and a few fresh ones, performances are stellar from top to bottom. It's what you expect when true professionals come together to put on a show. Eddie Murphy's comedic timing is on point as always, playing the role of homeless man Billy Ray Valentine. Just listening to him tell his story in prison about the Quart of Blood Technique had me in stitches. He has a way of being funny in a nonchalant way, reminding me of some of my closest friends.
Denholm Elliott won my heart as the lovable butler Coleman. He's kindhearted, but can be hilariously cruel at the same time. A lot of his laughs came from watching his subtle actions (rolling his eyes after a phone call, sneaking a drink during a party, etc.).
Dan Aykroyd won me over as well in his role as rich snob Louis Winthorpe III. I hated his guts at first but ultimately came to sympathize with his character which was the whole idea. He wore the role of proud rich kid well, but excelled when it came time for him to get crazy.
Beginning: 7
Characters: 7
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
The film opens with a multitude of shots that captures the heart of Philadelphia so well. I've only visited the city once and seeing those opening shots made me want to go back. Other very memorable scenes include the party at Valentine's home (absolute bedlam) and the calamity that is the trading room floor. Just seeing all those bodies pressing in on each other is enough to make you claustrophobic.
Favorite Still Shot: Valentine laying on the ground with almost a dozen cops pointing their guns just inches from his face. That one shot has been a feature in so many film montages over the years and deservedly so. That smile Murphy delivers saying, "I give up" is timeless.
Conflict: 8
Genre: 6
Memorability: 9
Trading Places still holds up all these years later as a classic comedy. It's hilarious but it also gives you pause for thought as well about the class and race roles in society. Sure it can be absolutely farfetched at times, but it's sole purpose is seemingly not just to entertain, but to raise awareness as well. It's been a few days since I've seen the film yet it still sticks out in my head amongst others.
Pace: 8
Plot: 8
As the plot unfolded, I thought it was absolutely ridiculous...Until I started thinking about today's political landscape and considered, "Hmmm, this is exactly the kind of experiment I could see a rich person with a lot of time on their hands concocting." It isn't all the way believable, but I tend to make exceptions for action films and comedies.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 81
I like Trading Places way more than I expected to. Director John Landis does an excellent job of walking the line between funny and thought-provoking, sometimes even daring to mix the two. Very solid film.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Nov 21, 2018
For the "true" Potter fan
It is a misnomer to call FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD a "Harry Potter" movie. True, it is a film that takes place in the "Harry Potter-verse", but it should, more accurately, be called an "Albus Dumbledore" movie.
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Attempting to continue the phenomenal literary and cinematic successes of the Harry Potter series of books and films is a daunting task for anyone to undertake. Even when series creator J.K. Rowling Rowling is involved, many would shy away from such a monumental taak.
However when you consider the books, movies, and merchandise have become a billion dollar industry and that rabid fans cannot get enough of the word that Rowlings created, it is not surprising that Rowlings and Warner Brothers have created a new cinematic series inspired by a story contained within the original book series.
In “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them”, audiences are introduced to Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), who is just embarking on his adventures which will later be turned into books that Harry and his friends will read some seventy years onward.
Set in 1926 New York amongst the secret community of wizards and witches; the film follows the arrival of Newt in America as he has come with a suitcase filled with magical creatures. When a non-magic user named Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), accidentally mistakes the suitcase for his own and unleashes some of the creatures, chaos follows.
The timing of this mishap could not be worse for the magic community as magic users have lived in secret and the arrival of Nate and his creatures threatens to expose them and make a bad situational even worse. Further complicating matters are a series of events that have caused destruction in the city which has given rise to a group who are convinced that witches are amongst them and must be destroyed at all cost.
Being an unregistered magic user; Newt, is soon taken in by an agent in New York named Porpentina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston), who herself has fallen out of favor within her community of magic users. In time; Newt is taken into custody by Percival Graves (Collin Farrell), who not only seems to have a disdain for Newt, but is working with a member of the anti-witch group for his own ambitions.
Newt and his friends soon find themselves on the run as they attempt to gather the missing creatures and get to the bottom of a much bigger and more dangerous menace that threatens their community as well as the people of New York. What follows is a journey filled with magic, comedy, and danger that will delight fans.
The film is a pure delight and the Potter magic has continued in this highly-entertaining new series. The cast and characters are very enjoyable and the visual magic is wonderful to behold.
The story is filled with charm and humor but has a few nods to the previous films as well as a few surprises along the way.
I was easily swept up by the madcap adventure and cast that all gave solid performances. Never once did the characters let the dazzling array of visual effects overshadow the fact that this is a character driven story.
Redmayne and Fogler work very well with one another and the innocent fish out of water story that they both embark on makes them easily endearing to the audience.
It will be very interesting to see where the future films will go, but if this one is any indication of what is in store, there is plenty of magic left in this world and I cannot wait to see what comes next.
http://sknr.net/2016/11/15/fantastic-beasts-find/
However when you consider the books, movies, and merchandise have become a billion dollar industry and that rabid fans cannot get enough of the word that Rowlings created, it is not surprising that Rowlings and Warner Brothers have created a new cinematic series inspired by a story contained within the original book series.
In “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them”, audiences are introduced to Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), who is just embarking on his adventures which will later be turned into books that Harry and his friends will read some seventy years onward.
Set in 1926 New York amongst the secret community of wizards and witches; the film follows the arrival of Newt in America as he has come with a suitcase filled with magical creatures. When a non-magic user named Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), accidentally mistakes the suitcase for his own and unleashes some of the creatures, chaos follows.
The timing of this mishap could not be worse for the magic community as magic users have lived in secret and the arrival of Nate and his creatures threatens to expose them and make a bad situational even worse. Further complicating matters are a series of events that have caused destruction in the city which has given rise to a group who are convinced that witches are amongst them and must be destroyed at all cost.
Being an unregistered magic user; Newt, is soon taken in by an agent in New York named Porpentina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston), who herself has fallen out of favor within her community of magic users. In time; Newt is taken into custody by Percival Graves (Collin Farrell), who not only seems to have a disdain for Newt, but is working with a member of the anti-witch group for his own ambitions.
Newt and his friends soon find themselves on the run as they attempt to gather the missing creatures and get to the bottom of a much bigger and more dangerous menace that threatens their community as well as the people of New York. What follows is a journey filled with magic, comedy, and danger that will delight fans.
The film is a pure delight and the Potter magic has continued in this highly-entertaining new series. The cast and characters are very enjoyable and the visual magic is wonderful to behold.
The story is filled with charm and humor but has a few nods to the previous films as well as a few surprises along the way.
I was easily swept up by the madcap adventure and cast that all gave solid performances. Never once did the characters let the dazzling array of visual effects overshadow the fact that this is a character driven story.
Redmayne and Fogler work very well with one another and the innocent fish out of water story that they both embark on makes them easily endearing to the audience.
It will be very interesting to see where the future films will go, but if this one is any indication of what is in store, there is plenty of magic left in this world and I cannot wait to see what comes next.
http://sknr.net/2016/11/15/fantastic-beasts-find/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Shrek the Third (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
When last we saw the Ogre Shrek, (Mike Meyers), he and his wife Fiona (Cameron Diaz), they were happily celebrating their love and triumph over the dastardly Prince Charmings (Rupert Everett), latest attempt to rule the magical kingdom of Far, Far Away. In the new film Shrek the Third,
Shrek has grown weary of filling in for the ailing King and years to return to his swamp home with Fiona.
When a twist of fate leaves Shrek in line for the throne, he wants no part of it, and seeks to find the next heir, Arthur (Justin
Timberlake), and install him as the next leader of the land. With Donkey (Eddie Murphy), and Puss In Boots (Antonio Banderas), at his side, Shrek sets off to meet Arthur and bring him to his future
kingdom.
Of course things do not go as planned, as upon meeting Arthur, Shrek and his friends are shocked to learn that he is a meek individual who is constantly picked on by his fellow classmates, and is far from King material.
Undaunted, the trio set back home with Arthur and find themselves at odds over Shrek’s claims that Arthur was granted the throne as the last wish of the former monarch. The fact that Shrek was actually the chosen successor is of little concern to Shrek as he is more concerned with returning home and the recent news that he is to become a father.
When fate steps in and strands them during the journey home, Shrek and friends encounter a former
eccentric professor (Eric Idle) of Arthur, who magically whisks the adventurers
back home, but with some unexpected and amusing side effects.
During this time, Prince Charming has mounted an attack on the Kingdom with the aid of several local villains in an attempt to take the crown for himself and rid the world of Shrek. What follows is a Frantic adventure as Shrek and his friends must find a way to save the day and help Arthur find his destiny.
While I was a big fan of the previous two films in the series, this Shrek did not work for me nearly as well as the other two did.
Yes there are some funny moments and I am sure this film will do huge business at the box office, but it is severely lacking.
First and foremost is the humor in the film, which while at times funny, is far to few and far between to make an effective comedy.
The previous films were loaded with laughs and pop culture references which in this one are more subdued and confined. I kept thinking while I watched the film that much of this film could easily have been comprised of outtakes from the previous films as there is precious little new material in the film and many of the jokes just do not seem that inspired.
Another issue with the film is that Murphy and Banderas are far to underused especially since their characters are the most interesting in the film, and they generate the biggest laughs when they are allowed to shine.
The film has a cute quality to it and own its own, it would be a decent family film. However when compared with the previous film in the series, this Shrek is Far, Far and Away the worst of the three.
Shrek has grown weary of filling in for the ailing King and years to return to his swamp home with Fiona.
When a twist of fate leaves Shrek in line for the throne, he wants no part of it, and seeks to find the next heir, Arthur (Justin
Timberlake), and install him as the next leader of the land. With Donkey (Eddie Murphy), and Puss In Boots (Antonio Banderas), at his side, Shrek sets off to meet Arthur and bring him to his future
kingdom.
Of course things do not go as planned, as upon meeting Arthur, Shrek and his friends are shocked to learn that he is a meek individual who is constantly picked on by his fellow classmates, and is far from King material.
Undaunted, the trio set back home with Arthur and find themselves at odds over Shrek’s claims that Arthur was granted the throne as the last wish of the former monarch. The fact that Shrek was actually the chosen successor is of little concern to Shrek as he is more concerned with returning home and the recent news that he is to become a father.
When fate steps in and strands them during the journey home, Shrek and friends encounter a former
eccentric professor (Eric Idle) of Arthur, who magically whisks the adventurers
back home, but with some unexpected and amusing side effects.
During this time, Prince Charming has mounted an attack on the Kingdom with the aid of several local villains in an attempt to take the crown for himself and rid the world of Shrek. What follows is a Frantic adventure as Shrek and his friends must find a way to save the day and help Arthur find his destiny.
While I was a big fan of the previous two films in the series, this Shrek did not work for me nearly as well as the other two did.
Yes there are some funny moments and I am sure this film will do huge business at the box office, but it is severely lacking.
First and foremost is the humor in the film, which while at times funny, is far to few and far between to make an effective comedy.
The previous films were loaded with laughs and pop culture references which in this one are more subdued and confined. I kept thinking while I watched the film that much of this film could easily have been comprised of outtakes from the previous films as there is precious little new material in the film and many of the jokes just do not seem that inspired.
Another issue with the film is that Murphy and Banderas are far to underused especially since their characters are the most interesting in the film, and they generate the biggest laughs when they are allowed to shine.
The film has a cute quality to it and own its own, it would be a decent family film. However when compared with the previous film in the series, this Shrek is Far, Far and Away the worst of the three.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Europe. The very name brings up images of rich traditions, centuries-old stunning architecture, fine cuisine, historic artwork, and of course culture and sophistication. Europe has endured wars, plagues, and hordes of unruly soccer fans and has remained intact. Perhaps its greatest challenge is about to arrive in the form of Deuce Bigalow, pool cleaner, fish lover, and male Gigolo.
Rob Schneider returns as Deuce, who has given up his man-whoring ways and married the girl of his dreams. As the film opens, we learn that Deuce was widowed on his honeymoon and has carried a torch for his departed wife for years. The fact that the torch in question is actually her artificial limb is a creepy sentiment that further isolates Deuce from those around him.
After a day at the beach goes horribly wrong, Deuce happily accepts an invitation from his friend T.J. (Eddie Griffin), and travels to Amsterdam for some time away. With the artificial limb in tow, Deuce arrives and learns that a mysterious killer has been dispatching Europe’s top gigolos and before you can say “space cake” T.J. is implicated in the murders and on the run, forcing Deuce to go back to his man-whoring in an effort to learn who is behind the killings.
Since Deuce witnessed the aftermath of a recent killing, he is convinced that the killer is a woman and that only by dating those clients of the recently departed can he find the proof needed to free T.J.
Of course Deuce doesn’t get the cream of society. His clients are a mixed bag that makes his Janes from the first film seem normal. There is the lady with the gaping hole in her throat, a lady whose ears put Dumbo’s to shame, a giant with an infant fetish, and a woman with a male sex organ for a nose.
It is against this backdrop that Deuce meets Eva (Hanna Verboom), an artist with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and the daughter of the police inspector
investigating the case. Deuce is taken with the charming Eva which leads to even more conflict for the widowed Deuce.
As if his life could not get any worse, Deuce is at odds with the European Society of Man Pimps who constantly go out of their way to taunt Deuce and his inclusion in their profession.
Over the next 90 minutes a constant barrage of crude jokes ensues ranging from the gross to the juvenile. Yet despite the ongoing crude and sophomoric humor, I found myself laughing as did the majority of the audience at my screening.
While I can see how many critics will not like this film due to a very basic story, thin characters and crudeness, the film works very well as a mindless comedy.
The characters are not expanded from their roles in the original and do not need to be. We know that Deuce is an easy going loser with a heart of gold and that is all we need to know.
Schneider and Griffin work well with one another and the constant euphemisms such as Mangina, He-Hoe and Hegina flow often only to be followed by new and even more creative phrases.
If you are a fan of the original and do not get offended easily than this is going to be your film. It isn’t trying to break new ground, it is trying to make you laugh, and for this critic, despite the films flaws, I laughed constantly throughout, and in many cases harder than I have at any film in recent years.
Rob Schneider returns as Deuce, who has given up his man-whoring ways and married the girl of his dreams. As the film opens, we learn that Deuce was widowed on his honeymoon and has carried a torch for his departed wife for years. The fact that the torch in question is actually her artificial limb is a creepy sentiment that further isolates Deuce from those around him.
After a day at the beach goes horribly wrong, Deuce happily accepts an invitation from his friend T.J. (Eddie Griffin), and travels to Amsterdam for some time away. With the artificial limb in tow, Deuce arrives and learns that a mysterious killer has been dispatching Europe’s top gigolos and before you can say “space cake” T.J. is implicated in the murders and on the run, forcing Deuce to go back to his man-whoring in an effort to learn who is behind the killings.
Since Deuce witnessed the aftermath of a recent killing, he is convinced that the killer is a woman and that only by dating those clients of the recently departed can he find the proof needed to free T.J.
Of course Deuce doesn’t get the cream of society. His clients are a mixed bag that makes his Janes from the first film seem normal. There is the lady with the gaping hole in her throat, a lady whose ears put Dumbo’s to shame, a giant with an infant fetish, and a woman with a male sex organ for a nose.
It is against this backdrop that Deuce meets Eva (Hanna Verboom), an artist with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and the daughter of the police inspector
investigating the case. Deuce is taken with the charming Eva which leads to even more conflict for the widowed Deuce.
As if his life could not get any worse, Deuce is at odds with the European Society of Man Pimps who constantly go out of their way to taunt Deuce and his inclusion in their profession.
Over the next 90 minutes a constant barrage of crude jokes ensues ranging from the gross to the juvenile. Yet despite the ongoing crude and sophomoric humor, I found myself laughing as did the majority of the audience at my screening.
While I can see how many critics will not like this film due to a very basic story, thin characters and crudeness, the film works very well as a mindless comedy.
The characters are not expanded from their roles in the original and do not need to be. We know that Deuce is an easy going loser with a heart of gold and that is all we need to know.
Schneider and Griffin work well with one another and the constant euphemisms such as Mangina, He-Hoe and Hegina flow often only to be followed by new and even more creative phrases.
If you are a fan of the original and do not get offended easily than this is going to be your film. It isn’t trying to break new ground, it is trying to make you laugh, and for this critic, despite the films flaws, I laughed constantly throughout, and in many cases harder than I have at any film in recent years.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Stuber (2019) in Movies
Jul 18, 2019
Lack of chemistry between the leads
"Chemistry" is a tricky thing in a film and one that "either you got it or you don't" - it's an elusive element that can sink or raise a film. Case in point 2 films I have seen this week.
I rewatched the 1998 Crime/Romance flick OUT OF SIGHT - starring George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez. I remembered this Steven Soderbergh directed film as "terrific" and was excited to show it to my bride. What I realized when watching it is that this is a middle-of-the-road film that is elevated by the tremendous (sexual) chemistry between Lopez and Clooney. It oozes off the screen and is palatable to the viewer.
On the other end of the scale is the recent Action/Comedy STUBER with comedian Kuamil Nanjiani (THE BIG SICK) and former pro wrestler Dave Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films). This is a middle-of-the-road film that is hurt (tremendously) by the LACK of chemistry between the two leads.
Nanjiani stars as Stu, a sad-sack Uber driver who does not stand up for himself while Bautista is a "nothing gets in my way" take charge cop who (because of recent eye surgery) cannot drive and hires an Uber driver, Stu (who gets called STUBER, hence the name of the film), to chase down clues to a criminal he's been on the hunt for - shenanigans ensue.
Individually, some of the scenes/scenarios of this film are fine/funny and Nanjiani is terrific as Stu and adds some clever comedic elements to a script that is "good enough" by Tripper Clancy.
And then there's Bautista.
He seems lost in this film, underplaying the things that make him good, his over-exuberance and over physicality (if that is a term) of someone of his size. Is this Bautista's fault or did Director Michael Dowse (GOON) purposely tone him down? It doesn't really matter for it doesn't really work.
And this is the beginning of the problem with the chemistry between the two leads - Nanjiani manic energy is not matched by Bautista - he seems to be an "energy sucker" and takes quite a bit of life out of this film. But...Director Dowse is also a problem, for he brings this lack of energy to quite a few of the big action scenes, underplaying, not overplaying what should have been over played.
There are some good things in this - besides the script and Nanjiani, Natalie Morales and Betty Gilpin are good and we do have a "Mira Sorvino sighting", which is welcome...but that's about it. Oh...except for an extended cameo by Karen Gillan (Nebula in the GUARDIANS films) she brings some energy. I would have loved to see her paired with Nanjiani in this.
If you're looking for a good "buddy cop" film with good chemistry between the leads, might I suggest THE OTHER GUYS (Will Ferrell/Mark Wahlberg), RUNNING SCARED (Billy Crystal/Gregory Hines) or the greatest example of strong chemistry - 48 HOURS (Nick Nolte/Eddie Murphy). Stuber would be the example of just the opposite.
6 stars out of 10 (for Nanjiani, Gillan and Sorvino - and a script and circumstances that could have worked had the chemistry between the leads been better)
Letter Grade: B- and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I rewatched the 1998 Crime/Romance flick OUT OF SIGHT - starring George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez. I remembered this Steven Soderbergh directed film as "terrific" and was excited to show it to my bride. What I realized when watching it is that this is a middle-of-the-road film that is elevated by the tremendous (sexual) chemistry between Lopez and Clooney. It oozes off the screen and is palatable to the viewer.
On the other end of the scale is the recent Action/Comedy STUBER with comedian Kuamil Nanjiani (THE BIG SICK) and former pro wrestler Dave Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films). This is a middle-of-the-road film that is hurt (tremendously) by the LACK of chemistry between the two leads.
Nanjiani stars as Stu, a sad-sack Uber driver who does not stand up for himself while Bautista is a "nothing gets in my way" take charge cop who (because of recent eye surgery) cannot drive and hires an Uber driver, Stu (who gets called STUBER, hence the name of the film), to chase down clues to a criminal he's been on the hunt for - shenanigans ensue.
Individually, some of the scenes/scenarios of this film are fine/funny and Nanjiani is terrific as Stu and adds some clever comedic elements to a script that is "good enough" by Tripper Clancy.
And then there's Bautista.
He seems lost in this film, underplaying the things that make him good, his over-exuberance and over physicality (if that is a term) of someone of his size. Is this Bautista's fault or did Director Michael Dowse (GOON) purposely tone him down? It doesn't really matter for it doesn't really work.
And this is the beginning of the problem with the chemistry between the two leads - Nanjiani manic energy is not matched by Bautista - he seems to be an "energy sucker" and takes quite a bit of life out of this film. But...Director Dowse is also a problem, for he brings this lack of energy to quite a few of the big action scenes, underplaying, not overplaying what should have been over played.
There are some good things in this - besides the script and Nanjiani, Natalie Morales and Betty Gilpin are good and we do have a "Mira Sorvino sighting", which is welcome...but that's about it. Oh...except for an extended cameo by Karen Gillan (Nebula in the GUARDIANS films) she brings some energy. I would have loved to see her paired with Nanjiani in this.
If you're looking for a good "buddy cop" film with good chemistry between the leads, might I suggest THE OTHER GUYS (Will Ferrell/Mark Wahlberg), RUNNING SCARED (Billy Crystal/Gregory Hines) or the greatest example of strong chemistry - 48 HOURS (Nick Nolte/Eddie Murphy). Stuber would be the example of just the opposite.
6 stars out of 10 (for Nanjiani, Gillan and Sorvino - and a script and circumstances that could have worked had the chemistry between the leads been better)
Letter Grade: B- and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated James Acaster: Repertoire in TV
Aug 6, 2020 (Updated Aug 6, 2020)
I have been a fan of stand up comedy, erm, all my life… well, at least since Billy Connely kinda invented it, in a way that wasn’t all about hating the mother in law and homophobia. When I moved to Edinburgh in 1999, I found myself at the epicentre of new comedy, every August at the unparalleled event that is the Fringe Festival.
Over the years I have seen most of the living greats at the art live, be it a full show or a smaller set at the legendary bullpit of Late and Live. Sad exceptions being Eddie Izzard and Dylan Moran, still on the bucket list. It has given me a pretty good eye for who is gonna make it big when they start out. I saw Jack Whitehall aged 16; Jimmy Carr before anyone knew who he was; and many others that have gone on to have decent TV and touring careers.
Having moved to Glasgow in recent years I started to see less comedy. Not that The Stand and other venues don’t have it going on, but because it just feels less of a thing outside of Edinburgh. So, when James Acaster came to my old place of work, the legendary Oran Mor, I booked tickets for myself, my daughter and her boyfriend in a heartbeat.
I had seen him do a lot of Mock The Week and a few other guest spots on TV, and thought from the start that this guy had something kinda special. The main good sign being that he made me laugh! A kind of blonder Jarvis Cocker, with the dress sense to match, he has a quirky, sleepy but cross delivery that is a total winner. He is very fast with an improvised moment, is very clever in his off kilter observations, and charmingly wanders into surreal tangents whenever possible. In other words, totally up my comedy avenue.
I was delighted to see that he had a new four part special on Netflix when I was recently surfing around old comedy shows I’ve seen half a dozen times. Repertoire is consecutive shows that work either alone, or payoff better as a whole, when early jokes get a back reference in a genius fashion. To explain why they are funny is not a thing I’m about to attempt. Comedy is so subjective; if it makes you laugh then it is good, if not… it might still be good, but not for you. You have to watch it to know.
So many highlights. At least three moments that made me have to pause it because I was laughing almost too much and in danger of passing out. Generally, you get a content knowing smile out of it, patting yourself on the back for getting his multi-layered intentions. Some things are just weird or hilarious, but often there is an intelligent point being made on the sly. When the two combine, I find him one of the best around for quality of writing and delivery.
As a side note, in part 3 of Repertoire he makes reference to a recent nightmare gig, when the entire front row of a Glasgow show kicked off and threw verbal abuse at him. That was the show we were at! He handled it remarkably well, turning the final portion of the show into an improv about that, chucked the planned material away. It isn’t every stand-up that can handle hecklers that well. Total kudos, Mr Acaster.
Recommended big time.
Over the years I have seen most of the living greats at the art live, be it a full show or a smaller set at the legendary bullpit of Late and Live. Sad exceptions being Eddie Izzard and Dylan Moran, still on the bucket list. It has given me a pretty good eye for who is gonna make it big when they start out. I saw Jack Whitehall aged 16; Jimmy Carr before anyone knew who he was; and many others that have gone on to have decent TV and touring careers.
Having moved to Glasgow in recent years I started to see less comedy. Not that The Stand and other venues don’t have it going on, but because it just feels less of a thing outside of Edinburgh. So, when James Acaster came to my old place of work, the legendary Oran Mor, I booked tickets for myself, my daughter and her boyfriend in a heartbeat.
I had seen him do a lot of Mock The Week and a few other guest spots on TV, and thought from the start that this guy had something kinda special. The main good sign being that he made me laugh! A kind of blonder Jarvis Cocker, with the dress sense to match, he has a quirky, sleepy but cross delivery that is a total winner. He is very fast with an improvised moment, is very clever in his off kilter observations, and charmingly wanders into surreal tangents whenever possible. In other words, totally up my comedy avenue.
I was delighted to see that he had a new four part special on Netflix when I was recently surfing around old comedy shows I’ve seen half a dozen times. Repertoire is consecutive shows that work either alone, or payoff better as a whole, when early jokes get a back reference in a genius fashion. To explain why they are funny is not a thing I’m about to attempt. Comedy is so subjective; if it makes you laugh then it is good, if not… it might still be good, but not for you. You have to watch it to know.
So many highlights. At least three moments that made me have to pause it because I was laughing almost too much and in danger of passing out. Generally, you get a content knowing smile out of it, patting yourself on the back for getting his multi-layered intentions. Some things are just weird or hilarious, but often there is an intelligent point being made on the sly. When the two combine, I find him one of the best around for quality of writing and delivery.
As a side note, in part 3 of Repertoire he makes reference to a recent nightmare gig, when the entire front row of a Glasgow show kicked off and threw verbal abuse at him. That was the show we were at! He handled it remarkably well, turning the final portion of the show into an improv about that, chucked the planned material away. It isn’t every stand-up that can handle hecklers that well. Total kudos, Mr Acaster.
Recommended big time.
