Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 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 (971 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.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Jul 19, 2017
Some of the lighting is well implemented (1 more)
Colin Farrell
Bad CGI (2 more)
The movies 3 leads are extremely annoying
Johnny 'oooh' Depp
Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them - Or JK Rowling and the Never Ending Quest for More Money
Contains spoilers, click to show
First off, full disclosure, I have never been a fan of the Harry Potter franchise. I’ve read a few of the books and seen a few of the movies and it just isn’t my thing. Honestly, I’m not even a fan of fantasy in general, I think Lord Of The Rings is nonsense and Game Of Thrones is vastly overrated and the last Harry Potter movie I saw was the fourth one. However, I was willing to go into this movie with a clean slate and hopefully have it win me over and unfortunately it didn’t. Also this review will contain spoilers if you care about that sort of thing.
This film is a prequel to the other Harry Potter movies, this time set in America rather than Britain and telling the story of the events that led to the great wizarding war between Dumbledore and Grindlewald. The film did have potential, to see what would have essentially been WWII fought with magic could be really cool but unfortunately all we get here is setup and that actual event we want to see will probably take place 4 or 5 movies down the line. The film opens with Eddie Redmayne’s character, Newt Scamander going to New York from London to set free one of the beasts that he keeps inside his Tardis-like brief case. Then he ends up in a bank and meets a ‘Nomaj,’ which is this film’s lazy version of a ‘muggle,’ who we learn is a simple lonely guy that just wants to open his own bakery and that’s another character cliché ticked off the list. We now have the double act of the nerdy, sniveling protagonist and the overweight sympathetic sidekick. Also, for the rest of this review I will be referring to the baker character as fat bloke and this isn’t to be derogatory, but is purely because the script relies on the, ‘fat, jolly, sympathetic, pathetic loner’ stereotype and passes it off as a character arc. If the script isn’t treating the character with any respect, then why should I? So fat bloke it is then.
So the two of them of course have the exact same briefcase and after some cartoony looking CGI animals escape from Redmayne’s case in the bank the suitcases predictably get mixed up and then the fat bloke gets his bakery loan declined and returns home with Redmayne’s suitcase, then more bad CGI animals open the case and attack the fat bloke. Redmayne’s character then gets arrested by some wizarding inspector for letting the, ‘Nomaj,’ (urgh) get away after seeing the animals in the case and is taken to the New York Wizards base, I guess? Then it’s revealed that the wizarding inspector that arrested Redmayne is a bit of a shit inspector and she is trying to redeem herself in the eyes of her superiors, so in front of this high wizard council, she confiscates the case from Redmayne and opens it only to reveal a bunch of cakes inside. Yes, really… Who writes this shit? Rowling is doing to Harry Potter what Lucas did to Star Wars during the prequels at this point.
So Redmayne gets set free and he goes to fat bloke’s house to find him lying on the floor, then some more bad CGI later the inspector turns up and they take him back to her house to meet her sister? Friend? Does it matter? She ends up becoming the love interest for fat bloke. Then for no apparent reason Redmayne and fat bloke enter the case and he shows fat bloke all this crazy shit that apparently humans aren’t supposed to see and then Redmayne does some more sniveling and decides they have to sneak out of the girls’ apartment and recapture the animals that escaped in the bank and from fat bloke’s apartment. They get a couple of the beasts back then they go to central park to find Redmayne’s horny rhino and they dress fat bloke up in a leather rhino costume and use him as rape bait then they ice skate for a bit and capture the rhino. Again, really… I am not making this shit up for satirical reasons.
Then we see a real life prick Ezra Miller playing some sort of weird emo child who is beat by his mother and we see he is working with Colin Farrell to find a big bad dark spirit that is killing people around New York. Colin Farrell is definitely the best thing about the film at this point. After this a bunch of other stupid shit happens, like Ron Perlman and John Voight coming into the movie, showing a ray of potential then being totally wasted. The movie drags in the middle, but eventually after some more fat jokes, bad CGI and sniveling, all of the creatures are captured and Ezra Miller turns into a black death cloud or some such nonsense. Then he is boosting around New York, fucking up shit as he goes and so Redmayne and Farrell follow him down to the subway to stop him. Redmayne seems to be talking him down and then Farrell shows up and essentially tells him to join the dark side. Then there is a CGI wand battle and the council from earlier show up out of nowhere and kill the black cloud of death. Then Colin Farrell gets pissed off and in the best scene in the movie murders half of the council members before he gets arrested by Eddie Redmayne with some magic handcuffs.
Then the worst part in the movie takes place. It is revealed that Colin Farrell is actually Johnny Depp in disguise. I mean he is Grindlewald in disguise but the important part for me is the replacement of Colin Farrell with Johnny Depp. Now I’m not the world’s biggest Colin Farrell fan, he is great in, ‘In Bruges,’ but other than that he is pretty meh, but he was definitely the best thing that this movie had going for it and they fucking swapped him out! With fucking Johnny-‘ooh’-Depp. As if this movie wasn’t shit enough they swapped out the best thing about it for Johnny Depp, the biggest joke in Hollywood. I’m done, fuck this movie, fuck Johnny Depp, fuck JK Rowling, fuck Harry Potter, I’m out.
Okay, let’s briefly talk about the technical side of the film before I score this thing. The whole cast of this movie is phoning it in, so the acting is fine but nothing to write home about, Farrell is the best thing in this movie, but I feel that in the sequels it will just be an ‘ooh,’ off between Depp and Redmayne. The direction is okay as the movie plods along sufficiently, but the writing is wildly inconsistent and the plot as stated above is all over the place. The lighting and cinematography in one scene are fantastic, when Farrell and Miller are conversing in a dark alleyway but other than that they are pretty mundane too. The score is suitably Harry Potter like and the CGI is also to a similar standard of the Harry Potter films. The problem with that is that the CGI was ropey and of a fairly poor standard in the Harry Potter movies 10 years ago and it doesn’t seem like it has improved much since then. This movie isn’t for me, but even from an objective standpoint, based solely from a moviemaking perspective this movie is poor.
This film is a prequel to the other Harry Potter movies, this time set in America rather than Britain and telling the story of the events that led to the great wizarding war between Dumbledore and Grindlewald. The film did have potential, to see what would have essentially been WWII fought with magic could be really cool but unfortunately all we get here is setup and that actual event we want to see will probably take place 4 or 5 movies down the line. The film opens with Eddie Redmayne’s character, Newt Scamander going to New York from London to set free one of the beasts that he keeps inside his Tardis-like brief case. Then he ends up in a bank and meets a ‘Nomaj,’ which is this film’s lazy version of a ‘muggle,’ who we learn is a simple lonely guy that just wants to open his own bakery and that’s another character cliché ticked off the list. We now have the double act of the nerdy, sniveling protagonist and the overweight sympathetic sidekick. Also, for the rest of this review I will be referring to the baker character as fat bloke and this isn’t to be derogatory, but is purely because the script relies on the, ‘fat, jolly, sympathetic, pathetic loner’ stereotype and passes it off as a character arc. If the script isn’t treating the character with any respect, then why should I? So fat bloke it is then.
So the two of them of course have the exact same briefcase and after some cartoony looking CGI animals escape from Redmayne’s case in the bank the suitcases predictably get mixed up and then the fat bloke gets his bakery loan declined and returns home with Redmayne’s suitcase, then more bad CGI animals open the case and attack the fat bloke. Redmayne’s character then gets arrested by some wizarding inspector for letting the, ‘Nomaj,’ (urgh) get away after seeing the animals in the case and is taken to the New York Wizards base, I guess? Then it’s revealed that the wizarding inspector that arrested Redmayne is a bit of a shit inspector and she is trying to redeem herself in the eyes of her superiors, so in front of this high wizard council, she confiscates the case from Redmayne and opens it only to reveal a bunch of cakes inside. Yes, really… Who writes this shit? Rowling is doing to Harry Potter what Lucas did to Star Wars during the prequels at this point.
So Redmayne gets set free and he goes to fat bloke’s house to find him lying on the floor, then some more bad CGI later the inspector turns up and they take him back to her house to meet her sister? Friend? Does it matter? She ends up becoming the love interest for fat bloke. Then for no apparent reason Redmayne and fat bloke enter the case and he shows fat bloke all this crazy shit that apparently humans aren’t supposed to see and then Redmayne does some more sniveling and decides they have to sneak out of the girls’ apartment and recapture the animals that escaped in the bank and from fat bloke’s apartment. They get a couple of the beasts back then they go to central park to find Redmayne’s horny rhino and they dress fat bloke up in a leather rhino costume and use him as rape bait then they ice skate for a bit and capture the rhino. Again, really… I am not making this shit up for satirical reasons.
Then we see a real life prick Ezra Miller playing some sort of weird emo child who is beat by his mother and we see he is working with Colin Farrell to find a big bad dark spirit that is killing people around New York. Colin Farrell is definitely the best thing about the film at this point. After this a bunch of other stupid shit happens, like Ron Perlman and John Voight coming into the movie, showing a ray of potential then being totally wasted. The movie drags in the middle, but eventually after some more fat jokes, bad CGI and sniveling, all of the creatures are captured and Ezra Miller turns into a black death cloud or some such nonsense. Then he is boosting around New York, fucking up shit as he goes and so Redmayne and Farrell follow him down to the subway to stop him. Redmayne seems to be talking him down and then Farrell shows up and essentially tells him to join the dark side. Then there is a CGI wand battle and the council from earlier show up out of nowhere and kill the black cloud of death. Then Colin Farrell gets pissed off and in the best scene in the movie murders half of the council members before he gets arrested by Eddie Redmayne with some magic handcuffs.
Then the worst part in the movie takes place. It is revealed that Colin Farrell is actually Johnny Depp in disguise. I mean he is Grindlewald in disguise but the important part for me is the replacement of Colin Farrell with Johnny Depp. Now I’m not the world’s biggest Colin Farrell fan, he is great in, ‘In Bruges,’ but other than that he is pretty meh, but he was definitely the best thing that this movie had going for it and they fucking swapped him out! With fucking Johnny-‘ooh’-Depp. As if this movie wasn’t shit enough they swapped out the best thing about it for Johnny Depp, the biggest joke in Hollywood. I’m done, fuck this movie, fuck Johnny Depp, fuck JK Rowling, fuck Harry Potter, I’m out.
Okay, let’s briefly talk about the technical side of the film before I score this thing. The whole cast of this movie is phoning it in, so the acting is fine but nothing to write home about, Farrell is the best thing in this movie, but I feel that in the sequels it will just be an ‘ooh,’ off between Depp and Redmayne. The direction is okay as the movie plods along sufficiently, but the writing is wildly inconsistent and the plot as stated above is all over the place. The lighting and cinematography in one scene are fantastic, when Farrell and Miller are conversing in a dark alleyway but other than that they are pretty mundane too. The score is suitably Harry Potter like and the CGI is also to a similar standard of the Harry Potter films. The problem with that is that the CGI was ropey and of a fairly poor standard in the Harry Potter movies 10 years ago and it doesn’t seem like it has improved much since then. This movie isn’t for me, but even from an objective standpoint, based solely from a moviemaking perspective this movie is poor.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Cave (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Ever since the classic days of horror, one constant in film has been the time honored formula of a group of people trapped, and being stalked by sinister forces bent on their destruction.
Through countless monster films of the 40’s, 50’s, and 70’s this pattern has been a constant, ranging from Dracula to It: the Terror from Beyond Space which served as the inspiration for the genre classic “Alien”.
The breakout success of “Alien” vaulted the so called creature features from the status of matinee standard to mainstream release, which has seen varied success over the years on the big screen, but has been a fixture of cable and the home video market.
It is said that to all things there is a season, and this summer was no exception as the latest film in the genre, The Cave has surfaced at theaters after much delay due to constantly changing release dates.
The film tells of a group of explores headed by Jack (Cole Hauser), who venture to Romania to explore what is believed to be the largest underwater cave ever discovered.
In no time the team has established a base camp and ventures into the depths and finds themselves in a massive underwater cavern approximately two miles in after they had begun to explore.
A freak incident occurs trapping the group inside the unexplored cavern, which forces them to seek a new way out, as their supplies will run out in twelve days. This matter combined with the depth of their location makes a rescue difficult process, so despite reservations the team ventures even deeper into the unexplored cave.
Along the way, signs of human remains are found, which sets the group further on edge. A chance encounter with a cave dwelling creature leaves Jack injured and causes the team to look at his brother Tyler (Eddie Cibrian), to take charge, as there are those that start to believe Jack is no longer fit to lead the team. As the film unfolds a series of accidents and encounters with the bizarre creatures leaves the team diminished and in disarray, and in a bizarre twist, Jack has begun to deteriorate leaving people to wonder just how extensive the damage from his attack is.
What surprised me is that with an interesting premise and good supporting actors such as Morris Chestnut, and Piper Perabo just how dull and unsympathetic the characters were. We are told very little about them leaving their characters so paper thin, even by action film standards that it is very hard to have any sympathy for them, and care about their outcome.
What is an even bigger surprise is that the film for the most part is utterly devoid of any thrills, chills, or tension as it plods along failing to gain any modicum of suspense.
The so called finale was so by the numbers that it was in no way worth having to sit through 90+ minutes of uninspired acting, average effects, and groan inducing dialogue (“They can fly to”) that generated laughs during what is supposed to be a moment of intensity.
The creatures have some potential but we see so precious little of them, and based on certain elements of the plot, there is a lot more that needed to be said that was not.
The ending does leave the door open for a sequel but as this film is likely to be on my “Worst of the Year” list, lets hope they decide to delay this a few years which is what they should have continued to do with this bomb.
Through countless monster films of the 40’s, 50’s, and 70’s this pattern has been a constant, ranging from Dracula to It: the Terror from Beyond Space which served as the inspiration for the genre classic “Alien”.
The breakout success of “Alien” vaulted the so called creature features from the status of matinee standard to mainstream release, which has seen varied success over the years on the big screen, but has been a fixture of cable and the home video market.
It is said that to all things there is a season, and this summer was no exception as the latest film in the genre, The Cave has surfaced at theaters after much delay due to constantly changing release dates.
The film tells of a group of explores headed by Jack (Cole Hauser), who venture to Romania to explore what is believed to be the largest underwater cave ever discovered.
In no time the team has established a base camp and ventures into the depths and finds themselves in a massive underwater cavern approximately two miles in after they had begun to explore.
A freak incident occurs trapping the group inside the unexplored cavern, which forces them to seek a new way out, as their supplies will run out in twelve days. This matter combined with the depth of their location makes a rescue difficult process, so despite reservations the team ventures even deeper into the unexplored cave.
Along the way, signs of human remains are found, which sets the group further on edge. A chance encounter with a cave dwelling creature leaves Jack injured and causes the team to look at his brother Tyler (Eddie Cibrian), to take charge, as there are those that start to believe Jack is no longer fit to lead the team. As the film unfolds a series of accidents and encounters with the bizarre creatures leaves the team diminished and in disarray, and in a bizarre twist, Jack has begun to deteriorate leaving people to wonder just how extensive the damage from his attack is.
What surprised me is that with an interesting premise and good supporting actors such as Morris Chestnut, and Piper Perabo just how dull and unsympathetic the characters were. We are told very little about them leaving their characters so paper thin, even by action film standards that it is very hard to have any sympathy for them, and care about their outcome.
What is an even bigger surprise is that the film for the most part is utterly devoid of any thrills, chills, or tension as it plods along failing to gain any modicum of suspense.
The so called finale was so by the numbers that it was in no way worth having to sit through 90+ minutes of uninspired acting, average effects, and groan inducing dialogue (“They can fly to”) that generated laughs during what is supposed to be a moment of intensity.
The creatures have some potential but we see so precious little of them, and based on certain elements of the plot, there is a lot more that needed to be said that was not.
The ending does leave the door open for a sequel but as this film is likely to be on my “Worst of the Year” list, lets hope they decide to delay this a few years which is what they should have continued to do with this bomb.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mulan (1998) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
"Dishonour on you! Dishonour on your cow!" This is probably the only thing from Mulan that I can identify beyond some of the characters. I think that's generally how Disney goes though, they become viral so easily that you recognise things without ever having seen the films... even worse in this case though... I actually own it but took myself to the cinema to see it anyway. If you're gonna do it you've gotta do it right because it doesn't matter how close I sit to the 50 inch TV at home it's not like watching it on the big screen.
At 21 years old (which is crazy to me) it is looking a little dated. That's not me saying it's bad though, the animation is lovely it's classic Disney, what I am saying is that animation these days has come so far. In such a short space of time we're seeing amazingly high detail in animated films. The fact it doesn't have cluttered frames actually means that you're less distracted, I didn't notice myself straying from the main action. While modern offerings may be glitzy they should probably revisit simplicity.
The story itself is a nice one, although it does vary from the traditional telling. They've tried to keep the original elements in it in some way but I would imagine it's not ideal if you're looking for the authentic touch. But then I think it's the additional things in it that are my favourites.
The voice cast for the human contingent has some pretty big names in it. Scrolling through IMDb I did a lot of ooohh yeahs and ahhhhs at all of them. Most you recognise just from their voice in the film but Mulan had me stumped, so much so that I had to look her up during the movie because it was bothering me... how did I not recognise Ming-Na Wen? Melinda May! Dishonour on me!
Of all the characters though it's the animals that shine through. Generally in human dominated movies the animal sidekicks get to be the comic relief and it's always very entertaining.
Mushu is genius, and travel-sized for Mulan's convenience, very handy if you ask me! Eddie Murphy definitely gets some of the best lines in this role, from his Frankenstein's monster resurrection to the line "There are a couple of thinks I know they're bound to notice!", we're treated to a lot of entertaining interactions. Surprisingly the double act of Mushu and the cricket works well, probably because one doesn't talk and the other doesn't stop... and the cricket sounding like a typewriter was the cutest scene I'd seen in a while.
I don't know how I haven't watched this before, it was thoroughly enjoyable and I'm glad that I already own it. It's left me intrigued for the live action version next year. Several of the scenes were very powerful and I can see them translating well to a live action version, with all the the CGI advancements I have my fingers crossed that they nail the scenes in the mountains. But what about Mushu? There are things going round the internet about his inclusion in the film but what are they going to do with him? After those Genie pictures I'm nervous, but I guess we'll just have to see.
What you should do
This should absolutely be one of your go to.. I was going to say "family" films but everyone should watch it. It's such a great all-round movie.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I could do with my own Mushu, who wouldn't want a dragon protector?
At 21 years old (which is crazy to me) it is looking a little dated. That's not me saying it's bad though, the animation is lovely it's classic Disney, what I am saying is that animation these days has come so far. In such a short space of time we're seeing amazingly high detail in animated films. The fact it doesn't have cluttered frames actually means that you're less distracted, I didn't notice myself straying from the main action. While modern offerings may be glitzy they should probably revisit simplicity.
The story itself is a nice one, although it does vary from the traditional telling. They've tried to keep the original elements in it in some way but I would imagine it's not ideal if you're looking for the authentic touch. But then I think it's the additional things in it that are my favourites.
The voice cast for the human contingent has some pretty big names in it. Scrolling through IMDb I did a lot of ooohh yeahs and ahhhhs at all of them. Most you recognise just from their voice in the film but Mulan had me stumped, so much so that I had to look her up during the movie because it was bothering me... how did I not recognise Ming-Na Wen? Melinda May! Dishonour on me!
Of all the characters though it's the animals that shine through. Generally in human dominated movies the animal sidekicks get to be the comic relief and it's always very entertaining.
Mushu is genius, and travel-sized for Mulan's convenience, very handy if you ask me! Eddie Murphy definitely gets some of the best lines in this role, from his Frankenstein's monster resurrection to the line "There are a couple of thinks I know they're bound to notice!", we're treated to a lot of entertaining interactions. Surprisingly the double act of Mushu and the cricket works well, probably because one doesn't talk and the other doesn't stop... and the cricket sounding like a typewriter was the cutest scene I'd seen in a while.
I don't know how I haven't watched this before, it was thoroughly enjoyable and I'm glad that I already own it. It's left me intrigued for the live action version next year. Several of the scenes were very powerful and I can see them translating well to a live action version, with all the the CGI advancements I have my fingers crossed that they nail the scenes in the mountains. But what about Mushu? There are things going round the internet about his inclusion in the film but what are they going to do with him? After those Genie pictures I'm nervous, but I guess we'll just have to see.
What you should do
This should absolutely be one of your go to.. I was going to say "family" films but everyone should watch it. It's such a great all-round movie.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I could do with my own Mushu, who wouldn't want a dragon protector?
Aprende las Letras con Dino – Juego Educativo Gratis para Reconocer las Letras del Alfabeto Español o Castellano. Edición Preescolar y Kinder.
Education and Games
App
~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ESTE JUEGO EDUCATIVO FUE...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Wrath of Man (2021) in Movies
Jun 16, 2021
Surprising Depth of Character and GREAT action
I am always up for a good “B” action flick - something mindless that shows a macho hero (usually seeking revenge) taking out a boatload of faceless/nameless bad guys. So it was with much anticipation that I settled back into my chair to clear my head and catch Jason Statham doing what he does best.
What I got was something much, much more.
Directed by Guy Ritchie (LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS), WRATH OF MAN tells the tale of seemingly innocent, meek, quiet man who takes a job with an Armored Car Company. Of course, since this meek man is played with a steely-eyed gaze by Jason Statham, there is something more to him. In the course of this film, of course, we find out.
Ritchie is a seasoned veteran Director of these sorts of films (LOCK STOCK…, SNATCH and the recent THE GENTLEMEN being examples of his ability) and this film nicely showcases his skill. He sets up the characters and the action scenes deftly and he does something that I really love to see in a film - he shows the same action scene from 3 different character's’ perspectives, every time we view the same scene from a different point of view it adds some depth to the scene (and the characters). It is this aspect of the film - the depth of character - that I was not expecting to see.
Statham, of course, is perfectly cast as the mysterious “H”. He has a strength of character (as well as a physical strength) needed to drive this story forward. I believed his motivations as a character while eagerly anticipating his “turn on a dime” change from “meek and mild” to “action hero”. In lesser hands, it would have seemed corny, but with Statham (and the direction of Ritchie), it is not.
Ritchie, of course, fills this world with a “rogues gallery” of tough guys, henchmen, unlikely heroes and villians. Standouts of this group were veteran character actor Holt McCallany (a veritable “that guy” actor) who plays a fellow armored car driver, Jeffrey Donovan (TV’s BURN NOTICE) and Scott Eastwood (Clint’s son) as a couple of “bad guys” and Darrell D’Silva (a veteran of European films who was heretofore unknown to me) as one of Statham’s allies. Whenever D’Silva was on the screen, he would draw my attention (in a good way). I’ll be keeping an eye out for him in future films.
Also along for the fun are the great Eddie Marsan (as the Manager of the Armored Car Company) and a gravelly voiced Andy Garcia (as a shadowy person from Statham’s past). They both know exactly what type of film they are in and look like they are having fun with their roles. Oh…and there is also a Josh Hartnett sighting (the “it” actor of the early ‘2000’s). His character of another Armored Car Driver is the weakest written and least realized of the characters in this film - but it was fun to see him on screen again.
But…all of these fine qualities rise or fall on the Direction of the action sequences and in the capable hands of Guy Ritchie, these scenes succeed greatly. He sets up and choreographs the fights (both hand-to-hand and gun fights) in such a way that the audience is never confused about what is going on (unless it is a deliberate choice) and he eschews the quick-cut editing that (I feel) is a sign of a weakly conceived and choreographed fight.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film - not only for the action, but for the depth of character and quality that was put up on the screen.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
What I got was something much, much more.
Directed by Guy Ritchie (LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS), WRATH OF MAN tells the tale of seemingly innocent, meek, quiet man who takes a job with an Armored Car Company. Of course, since this meek man is played with a steely-eyed gaze by Jason Statham, there is something more to him. In the course of this film, of course, we find out.
Ritchie is a seasoned veteran Director of these sorts of films (LOCK STOCK…, SNATCH and the recent THE GENTLEMEN being examples of his ability) and this film nicely showcases his skill. He sets up the characters and the action scenes deftly and he does something that I really love to see in a film - he shows the same action scene from 3 different character's’ perspectives, every time we view the same scene from a different point of view it adds some depth to the scene (and the characters). It is this aspect of the film - the depth of character - that I was not expecting to see.
Statham, of course, is perfectly cast as the mysterious “H”. He has a strength of character (as well as a physical strength) needed to drive this story forward. I believed his motivations as a character while eagerly anticipating his “turn on a dime” change from “meek and mild” to “action hero”. In lesser hands, it would have seemed corny, but with Statham (and the direction of Ritchie), it is not.
Ritchie, of course, fills this world with a “rogues gallery” of tough guys, henchmen, unlikely heroes and villians. Standouts of this group were veteran character actor Holt McCallany (a veritable “that guy” actor) who plays a fellow armored car driver, Jeffrey Donovan (TV’s BURN NOTICE) and Scott Eastwood (Clint’s son) as a couple of “bad guys” and Darrell D’Silva (a veteran of European films who was heretofore unknown to me) as one of Statham’s allies. Whenever D’Silva was on the screen, he would draw my attention (in a good way). I’ll be keeping an eye out for him in future films.
Also along for the fun are the great Eddie Marsan (as the Manager of the Armored Car Company) and a gravelly voiced Andy Garcia (as a shadowy person from Statham’s past). They both know exactly what type of film they are in and look like they are having fun with their roles. Oh…and there is also a Josh Hartnett sighting (the “it” actor of the early ‘2000’s). His character of another Armored Car Driver is the weakest written and least realized of the characters in this film - but it was fun to see him on screen again.
But…all of these fine qualities rise or fall on the Direction of the action sequences and in the capable hands of Guy Ritchie, these scenes succeed greatly. He sets up and choreographs the fights (both hand-to-hand and gun fights) in such a way that the audience is never confused about what is going on (unless it is a deliberate choice) and he eschews the quick-cut editing that (I feel) is a sign of a weakly conceived and choreographed fight.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film - not only for the action, but for the depth of character and quality that was put up on the screen.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)