Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Mar 5, 2020
More CGI animals in another adaptation of a franchise that has been around since the 1920s. I do so love Eddie Murphy's comedy portrayal, am I ready for a period appropriate version?
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Marvelous Cash Cows and How to Milk Them.
As just about everyone in the whole muggle world (or nomaj world if you’re reading this in the States) knows, FBaWtFT is the first of a five film spin-off series from the Potter franchise, still under the careful stewardship of David Yates. (And if the other films in the series were ‘amber-lit’ rather than ‘green-lit’, their production now seems assured after the US opening weekend alone has brought in nearly half its $180 million budget).
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 13, 2019
I’ve always been a fan of Stephen King movies, even some of those that were not particularly good or well received. For someone who is a fan you think that would inspire me to pick up at least one of his books to get a feel for what the author truly intended over the stripped down,
“Hollywood-ised” versions. I can’t put my finger on why I haven’t, it’s not because the size of many of his novels are daunting, it’s more that as a reader I’m just not a horror book fan. So when it comes to sitting in on a Stephen king movie I have to rely on the story by it’s modified merits then to compare and contrast what IT does well (or not).
Like many before me, my first movie experience of IT was the classic mini-series featuring an incredibly creepy (and non-CGI’d version) of Pennywise portrayed by the extremely talented Tim Curry.
I even went out and purchased the mini-series before I went to see the first chapter of the remake of IT, just to see how those two compared. IT: Chapter One introduced us in great depth to the teens of the original losers club. A group of misfits, who went on their own personal crusade to attack and kill the nefarious clown while saving one of their own. A strong pact was formed and an oath sworn that if IT ever returned to Derry that the group would once again join together to put a stop to IT for good.
IT: Chapter Two picks up 27 years later, the group has moved on with their lives, all except Mike (Isaiah Mustafa as an adult and Chosen Jacobs as a younger version) who has felt a sense of responsibility to watch over the town and research how to kill IT if IT were to ever return. A horrific killing of an adult at the fair and subsequent disappearances of children alert Mike that the plague that has befallen Derry for generations has returned to feed. Mike reaches out to each of the losers reminding them that something they have all feared has come to pass.
Each when notified experience a fear that is indescribable yet for some reason the groups memories of the past have become clouded.
The now adult losers (with several flashbacks featuring the original cast) come together to remind themselves of the past, and the pact they made to protect the future. Featuring a star studded cast, Mike, Bill (James McAvoy/Jaeden Martell), Beverly (Jessica Chastain/Sophia Lillis), Ben (Jay Ryan/Jeremy Ray Taylor), Richie (Bill Hader/Finn Wolfhard), Eddie (James Ransone/Jack Dylan Grazer) and Stanley (Andy Bean/Wyatt Oleff), must battle their lost memories, their fears and the very real danger if they are to save Derry and themselves.
IT: Chapter 2 continues the incredible character building that Chapter 1 began. Where each of the young actors were perfectly cast as their book counterparts, their adult versions could easily be mistaken for the grown-up versions. This is the area where IT shines the most, the story of the losers who have grown and moved away, yet still share the unescapable bond of friendship. While an older Bill struggles (much like Stephen King himself) to come up with good endings to his stories it’s what he writes at the end of IT: Chapter 2 that really sums up the movie as a whole. To summarize, there are no good friends or bad friends, there are only friends, and chapter 2 is an example of how you take a band of misfits and turn them into heroes.
Sadly, for all the things IT does from a character side, it tends to drag on and over CGI its monster side. Pennywise the clown (portrayed brilliantly by Bill Skarsgård) brings with him all the creepiness and fear that the movie needs, even posters of his maniacal self is promoting lawsuits in other countries due to his ability to scare small children. So, it seems a bit disheartening that the studio felt it was necessary to go overboard with their CGI budgets. Many scenes go from being creepy and scary to simply being silly when our favorite clown is turned into a giant naked hag like figure. This is where I felt the mini-series did a far better job, due to its limited budget and shorter time requirements it allowed for the viewers to imagine the evil and not see it thrown out for the world to see.
IT: Chapter 2 also drags out far longer than it needed to. Make sure you get your bathroom breaks in, because the film, not counting previews, is just about 10 minutes shy of being three hours. I’m normally not one to complain about the length of a movie, as I’d rather they tell the story they want instead of trying to compress it into a shorter run time. However, in this case, it seemed entirely wasted on an overabundance of clown mutations and an extremely drawn out final battle. It’s unfortunate, because one of the most unused (and potentially interesting characters) Henry Bowers (Teach Grant/Nicholas Hamilton) is given only a few minutes of screen time and ultimately adds nothing to the movie as a whole. As I stated earlier, I haven’t read the novel, but I have to assume that he played a far bigger role in the book.
As it stands in the movie, his character is both unnecessary and completely ineffective at whatever he was attempting to do. I think some of the time taken away from the battle scenes to flesh out his (or other supporting characters) would have be time better spent.
IT: Chapter 2 is a good movie, that with some reduced special effects and better time management is just shy of being a great movie. The story of the kids, now grown up, is one of forgiveness, bravery and love. It shows how true friendship can overcome distance and time and that those things never truly vanish, even if the particulars of what separated you in the first place is a bit fuzzy. Horror movies with outrageous budgets tend to lose the spirit of what makes a true horror movie scary…it’s rarely about the effects, and more about the imagination.
That’s what makes the books typically so much better than the movies, after all, each one of us imagines our own version of what truly scares us (although clowns tend to be scary regardless of how they are portrayed). IT: Chapter 2 provides a satisfying ending to a story that began a few years ago, it suffers a bit from its budget and its use of CGI effects, but it’s still a story of what all of us losers can accomplish if we band together.
“Hollywood-ised” versions. I can’t put my finger on why I haven’t, it’s not because the size of many of his novels are daunting, it’s more that as a reader I’m just not a horror book fan. So when it comes to sitting in on a Stephen king movie I have to rely on the story by it’s modified merits then to compare and contrast what IT does well (or not).
Like many before me, my first movie experience of IT was the classic mini-series featuring an incredibly creepy (and non-CGI’d version) of Pennywise portrayed by the extremely talented Tim Curry.
I even went out and purchased the mini-series before I went to see the first chapter of the remake of IT, just to see how those two compared. IT: Chapter One introduced us in great depth to the teens of the original losers club. A group of misfits, who went on their own personal crusade to attack and kill the nefarious clown while saving one of their own. A strong pact was formed and an oath sworn that if IT ever returned to Derry that the group would once again join together to put a stop to IT for good.
IT: Chapter Two picks up 27 years later, the group has moved on with their lives, all except Mike (Isaiah Mustafa as an adult and Chosen Jacobs as a younger version) who has felt a sense of responsibility to watch over the town and research how to kill IT if IT were to ever return. A horrific killing of an adult at the fair and subsequent disappearances of children alert Mike that the plague that has befallen Derry for generations has returned to feed. Mike reaches out to each of the losers reminding them that something they have all feared has come to pass.
Each when notified experience a fear that is indescribable yet for some reason the groups memories of the past have become clouded.
The now adult losers (with several flashbacks featuring the original cast) come together to remind themselves of the past, and the pact they made to protect the future. Featuring a star studded cast, Mike, Bill (James McAvoy/Jaeden Martell), Beverly (Jessica Chastain/Sophia Lillis), Ben (Jay Ryan/Jeremy Ray Taylor), Richie (Bill Hader/Finn Wolfhard), Eddie (James Ransone/Jack Dylan Grazer) and Stanley (Andy Bean/Wyatt Oleff), must battle their lost memories, their fears and the very real danger if they are to save Derry and themselves.
IT: Chapter 2 continues the incredible character building that Chapter 1 began. Where each of the young actors were perfectly cast as their book counterparts, their adult versions could easily be mistaken for the grown-up versions. This is the area where IT shines the most, the story of the losers who have grown and moved away, yet still share the unescapable bond of friendship. While an older Bill struggles (much like Stephen King himself) to come up with good endings to his stories it’s what he writes at the end of IT: Chapter 2 that really sums up the movie as a whole. To summarize, there are no good friends or bad friends, there are only friends, and chapter 2 is an example of how you take a band of misfits and turn them into heroes.
Sadly, for all the things IT does from a character side, it tends to drag on and over CGI its monster side. Pennywise the clown (portrayed brilliantly by Bill Skarsgård) brings with him all the creepiness and fear that the movie needs, even posters of his maniacal self is promoting lawsuits in other countries due to his ability to scare small children. So, it seems a bit disheartening that the studio felt it was necessary to go overboard with their CGI budgets. Many scenes go from being creepy and scary to simply being silly when our favorite clown is turned into a giant naked hag like figure. This is where I felt the mini-series did a far better job, due to its limited budget and shorter time requirements it allowed for the viewers to imagine the evil and not see it thrown out for the world to see.
IT: Chapter 2 also drags out far longer than it needed to. Make sure you get your bathroom breaks in, because the film, not counting previews, is just about 10 minutes shy of being three hours. I’m normally not one to complain about the length of a movie, as I’d rather they tell the story they want instead of trying to compress it into a shorter run time. However, in this case, it seemed entirely wasted on an overabundance of clown mutations and an extremely drawn out final battle. It’s unfortunate, because one of the most unused (and potentially interesting characters) Henry Bowers (Teach Grant/Nicholas Hamilton) is given only a few minutes of screen time and ultimately adds nothing to the movie as a whole. As I stated earlier, I haven’t read the novel, but I have to assume that he played a far bigger role in the book.
As it stands in the movie, his character is both unnecessary and completely ineffective at whatever he was attempting to do. I think some of the time taken away from the battle scenes to flesh out his (or other supporting characters) would have be time better spent.
IT: Chapter 2 is a good movie, that with some reduced special effects and better time management is just shy of being a great movie. The story of the kids, now grown up, is one of forgiveness, bravery and love. It shows how true friendship can overcome distance and time and that those things never truly vanish, even if the particulars of what separated you in the first place is a bit fuzzy. Horror movies with outrageous budgets tend to lose the spirit of what makes a true horror movie scary…it’s rarely about the effects, and more about the imagination.
That’s what makes the books typically so much better than the movies, after all, each one of us imagines our own version of what truly scares us (although clowns tend to be scary regardless of how they are portrayed). IT: Chapter 2 provides a satisfying ending to a story that began a few years ago, it suffers a bit from its budget and its use of CGI effects, but it’s still a story of what all of us losers can accomplish if we band together.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Coming 2 America (2021) in Movies
Mar 16, 2021 (Updated Mar 27, 2021)
Almost all of the original cast returns for this sequel (2 more)
Lots of laughs
Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall reprising many of the roles where they played multiple characters again.
Terrible character development (2 more)
Plot doesn't make sense at times or feels like missing scenes or plot development
Some jokes fall flat or feel forced and the trailer spoils some
Lots of Laughs and Callbacks But Not Enough Substance
Prince Akeem of Zamunda (Eddie Murphy) is visited by General Izzi (Wesley Snipes) who pushes for Akeem's eldest daughter Meeka (Kiki Layne) to marry his foppish son, Idi (Rotimi). Nexdoria is a hostile militaristic neighbor nation ruled by General Izzi, who is also the brother of Akeem's original arranged bride-to-be. Izzi threatens Akeem and says that it is better to be bound by blood and family then divided by blood and war. This occurs on the very day that Zamunda is celebrating the 30th anniversary of Prince Akeem and Lisa's wedding. King Jaffe Joffer (James Earl Jones) summons Akeem and Semmi (Arsenio Hall) and reminds them that only a male heir can inherit his kingdom. He summons his shaman Baba and they reveal that Akeem has a long lost son in America that he must retrieve in order to avoid a hostile takeover by Nexdoria.
I enjoyed this movie when I saw it the first time and thought that it was pretty funny. It definitely isn't a great movie but when compared to several other sequels that happen years after the original, I felt that it did better than most. It was for the most part a lesser version of the original but it's been years since I've seen the original and I didn't let my nostalgia for it to skew my opinion on this one. I do plan on re-watching the original soon though so I can see how much they differ. A big difference was that the original Coming to America is rated R and this sequel was PG-13. I usually hate when a company chooses to do this because I always feel what the fans/audience gets is a watered down version of the original but it's hard to say this time around. This movie was full of laughs and I was surprised how much they got away with it for being a PG-13 movie, however some of the jokes fell flat and a lot of them were given away in the trailer. Also there were somethings in the trailer that I didn't see in the movie; like the Wakanda joke in the barbershop. Wesley Snipes character General Izzi was quite a character and you could feel he was having fun portraying him. I also enjoyed Akeem's three daughters in the movie. I really liked the opening scene which showed Prince Akeem sparring with his daughters and stick fighting like the original movie. The middle daughter Princess Omma who had glasses was actually Eddie Murphy's daughter in real life, Bella Murphy. And I also heard that most of the palace scenes in Zamunda were actually filmed in rapper Rick Ross' house. As much as I liked this movie it also felt very thin and didn't have a lot of character development or much of a plot to speak of. It also felt like quite a few things didn't make sense and that characters that came out in the first movie were quite different personality wise or just by their actions. I feel like I should give this movie a lower score but I'm not sure if it's nostalgia again or the fact that since it's a comedy I'm not really letting some of those things bother me as much. I'll go over my many reasons for scoring it so low in the spoiler section but for now I give this movie a 6/10. I would say it's worth getting a free trial of Amazon Prime if you want to see it in good quality and for free, or if you already have Amazon Prime you should give it a shot if you're looking for some laughs, but if not you can totally wait to see this movie.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
Alright so let's get to it. Like I said I enjoyed this movie and thought that it delivered on the laughs even if some of them were forced or fell flat. I also felt that it was pretty thin on the plot and from what I remember of the first movie some of the characters were off or acted very different personality wise. I loved how the movie began with Prince Akeem training with his daughters and doing the stick fighting which was one of many call backs to the original film. The conflict begins in the beginning of the movie when General Izzi visits Akeem and tries to arrange a marriage between his son and Akeem's oldest daughter, Princess Meeka. You can tell that Akeem doesn't like General Izzi's son Idi but doesn't say anything other than his daughter didn't find him suitable. General Izzi threatens him after making a comment about the King being dead or near death and Akeem not having any male heirs. I still don't understand the conflict between the two nations and felt that this would have benefitted the plot more if they would have explained it better. Why would he need an heir so soon if he himself hadn't even inherited the kingdom from his father yet? Also the only explanation between the conflict of the nations was that Nexdoria was poor and Zamunda was rich. Anyways then Akeem is summoned to see his father and his shaman Baba and is told that he has an illegitimate son in America after a tryst with a woman while being drugged. I thought this was pretty funny scene where they did a flashback to when it happened. So now Akeem and Semmi must travel to America to retrieve his son so that he can take the princely tests and become heir to the kingdom. This totally doesn't make any sense to me plot wise other than this is how they wanted the movie to go. Akeem was totally a person who went against his father's wishes and traditions in the first film to find his wife Lisa and doesn't make sense that he would get this "son" to be his heir even if he was blood without getting to know him first. However I ignored that while watching because I figured he would get to know him while they met and he went back to Zamunda with them. Also before the leave there is a pretty cool scene where King Jaffe Joffer decides to have his funeral while he's alive and it was very lavish and elegant and full of cameos from great artists and performers. It was funny to see the barbershop scene and how Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall reprised their roles of some of the barbershop characters when they arrive in America but I felt that the funny parts were already spoiled in the trailer. Also the part about Wakanda wasn't even in the movie. From there they find out that his son is selling tickets near Madison Square when they're told about the mascot being a thunderbird that was part of Baba's vision. That was a cool details that I wish would have been developed more to make it more interesting. It would have been cool for them to have struggled to find his son but instead the first place they go tells them exactly where he is. Also when he meets his son Lavelle, it didn't even come off as awkward enough and Lavelle totally takes him back to his house to meet everyone or ask his mom. I didn't see this as realistic or how it would have played out in real life. Leslie Jones was a pretty annoying character but I feel she fit the job of the role she played and that people are too harsh on her as an actor for this role but I do feel that she is like Kevin Hart or The Rock in basically being the same character in every role. She admits that Akeem could be Lavelle's father and just like that they are whisked away to Zamunda. No paternity test, no lie detector test, no witnesses like her friend in the club saying yes it was true. This was very unrealistic to me because anybody would say yes to inherit the riches of Zamunda. When he returns Princess Lisa confronts him about him having a son and the particulars of how it occurred and she was shocked to find out that he brought not only his son but the son's mother back with him as well. General Izzi returns to Zamunda as soon as Prince Lavelle returns and makes it known that he has a daughter that he wishes for him to marry and Prince Akeem un-characteristically allows this arranged marriage to take place. Prince Lavelle must now pass the 3 princely tests first, which consist of knowledge of his ancestors/predecessors, getting the whiskers of a lion, and also one which involved ritual circumcision. I felt like there wasn't enough character development during these scenes and also the ones where Lavelle interacted with Mirembe, his royal barber to warrant the closeness that they all experienced. Princess Meeka, Akeem's oldest daughter is very upset about being passes up as heir for being a woman and rightly dislikes Lavelle and it totally seems out of character for her to aid him in passing his test to get the lion whiskers. They only had a small exchange about being written off or being judged for how they look or talk. And I felt that Lavelle also didn't have enough rapport with his barber Mirembe to be falling in love with her in under a week, or if they did it wasn't shown enough to us. There was a lot that didn't make sense or I feel was cut from the movie or even worse, just bad writing and poor plot development and it wasn't done right. The worse had to have been seeing Akeem's character become the opposite of who he was in the first movie. He passes over his daughter to give the throne to a stranger because he is a man and even when he loses his patience with a drunk or inebriated Lisa and tells her to shut her mouth after the celebration of the upcoming wedding between Lavelle and Bopoto, General Izzi's daughter. All in all I have to say that for me personally this movie was full of laughs but just had so much wrong with it that I should really be rating it a 5 or just an average movie. However there are so many sequels that happen 5 years or more after the original that are far worse or just as bad that I feel since this one was 30 years later it wasn't as bad as others are judging it. But maybe if I had seen the original right before seeing this one I would have changed by rating but for now I'm not sure if it's nostalgia or just bias but I rate this movie a 6/10. If you thought the original was funny then you more than likely will like this movie but if the original is a special movie to you that holds a special place in your heart then you might just think this sequel is utter trash.
https://youtu.be/-tT8Wy3YeI4
I enjoyed this movie when I saw it the first time and thought that it was pretty funny. It definitely isn't a great movie but when compared to several other sequels that happen years after the original, I felt that it did better than most. It was for the most part a lesser version of the original but it's been years since I've seen the original and I didn't let my nostalgia for it to skew my opinion on this one. I do plan on re-watching the original soon though so I can see how much they differ. A big difference was that the original Coming to America is rated R and this sequel was PG-13. I usually hate when a company chooses to do this because I always feel what the fans/audience gets is a watered down version of the original but it's hard to say this time around. This movie was full of laughs and I was surprised how much they got away with it for being a PG-13 movie, however some of the jokes fell flat and a lot of them were given away in the trailer. Also there were somethings in the trailer that I didn't see in the movie; like the Wakanda joke in the barbershop. Wesley Snipes character General Izzi was quite a character and you could feel he was having fun portraying him. I also enjoyed Akeem's three daughters in the movie. I really liked the opening scene which showed Prince Akeem sparring with his daughters and stick fighting like the original movie. The middle daughter Princess Omma who had glasses was actually Eddie Murphy's daughter in real life, Bella Murphy. And I also heard that most of the palace scenes in Zamunda were actually filmed in rapper Rick Ross' house. As much as I liked this movie it also felt very thin and didn't have a lot of character development or much of a plot to speak of. It also felt like quite a few things didn't make sense and that characters that came out in the first movie were quite different personality wise or just by their actions. I feel like I should give this movie a lower score but I'm not sure if it's nostalgia again or the fact that since it's a comedy I'm not really letting some of those things bother me as much. I'll go over my many reasons for scoring it so low in the spoiler section but for now I give this movie a 6/10. I would say it's worth getting a free trial of Amazon Prime if you want to see it in good quality and for free, or if you already have Amazon Prime you should give it a shot if you're looking for some laughs, but if not you can totally wait to see this movie.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
Alright so let's get to it. Like I said I enjoyed this movie and thought that it delivered on the laughs even if some of them were forced or fell flat. I also felt that it was pretty thin on the plot and from what I remember of the first movie some of the characters were off or acted very different personality wise. I loved how the movie began with Prince Akeem training with his daughters and doing the stick fighting which was one of many call backs to the original film. The conflict begins in the beginning of the movie when General Izzi visits Akeem and tries to arrange a marriage between his son and Akeem's oldest daughter, Princess Meeka. You can tell that Akeem doesn't like General Izzi's son Idi but doesn't say anything other than his daughter didn't find him suitable. General Izzi threatens him after making a comment about the King being dead or near death and Akeem not having any male heirs. I still don't understand the conflict between the two nations and felt that this would have benefitted the plot more if they would have explained it better. Why would he need an heir so soon if he himself hadn't even inherited the kingdom from his father yet? Also the only explanation between the conflict of the nations was that Nexdoria was poor and Zamunda was rich. Anyways then Akeem is summoned to see his father and his shaman Baba and is told that he has an illegitimate son in America after a tryst with a woman while being drugged. I thought this was pretty funny scene where they did a flashback to when it happened. So now Akeem and Semmi must travel to America to retrieve his son so that he can take the princely tests and become heir to the kingdom. This totally doesn't make any sense to me plot wise other than this is how they wanted the movie to go. Akeem was totally a person who went against his father's wishes and traditions in the first film to find his wife Lisa and doesn't make sense that he would get this "son" to be his heir even if he was blood without getting to know him first. However I ignored that while watching because I figured he would get to know him while they met and he went back to Zamunda with them. Also before the leave there is a pretty cool scene where King Jaffe Joffer decides to have his funeral while he's alive and it was very lavish and elegant and full of cameos from great artists and performers. It was funny to see the barbershop scene and how Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall reprised their roles of some of the barbershop characters when they arrive in America but I felt that the funny parts were already spoiled in the trailer. Also the part about Wakanda wasn't even in the movie. From there they find out that his son is selling tickets near Madison Square when they're told about the mascot being a thunderbird that was part of Baba's vision. That was a cool details that I wish would have been developed more to make it more interesting. It would have been cool for them to have struggled to find his son but instead the first place they go tells them exactly where he is. Also when he meets his son Lavelle, it didn't even come off as awkward enough and Lavelle totally takes him back to his house to meet everyone or ask his mom. I didn't see this as realistic or how it would have played out in real life. Leslie Jones was a pretty annoying character but I feel she fit the job of the role she played and that people are too harsh on her as an actor for this role but I do feel that she is like Kevin Hart or The Rock in basically being the same character in every role. She admits that Akeem could be Lavelle's father and just like that they are whisked away to Zamunda. No paternity test, no lie detector test, no witnesses like her friend in the club saying yes it was true. This was very unrealistic to me because anybody would say yes to inherit the riches of Zamunda. When he returns Princess Lisa confronts him about him having a son and the particulars of how it occurred and she was shocked to find out that he brought not only his son but the son's mother back with him as well. General Izzi returns to Zamunda as soon as Prince Lavelle returns and makes it known that he has a daughter that he wishes for him to marry and Prince Akeem un-characteristically allows this arranged marriage to take place. Prince Lavelle must now pass the 3 princely tests first, which consist of knowledge of his ancestors/predecessors, getting the whiskers of a lion, and also one which involved ritual circumcision. I felt like there wasn't enough character development during these scenes and also the ones where Lavelle interacted with Mirembe, his royal barber to warrant the closeness that they all experienced. Princess Meeka, Akeem's oldest daughter is very upset about being passes up as heir for being a woman and rightly dislikes Lavelle and it totally seems out of character for her to aid him in passing his test to get the lion whiskers. They only had a small exchange about being written off or being judged for how they look or talk. And I felt that Lavelle also didn't have enough rapport with his barber Mirembe to be falling in love with her in under a week, or if they did it wasn't shown enough to us. There was a lot that didn't make sense or I feel was cut from the movie or even worse, just bad writing and poor plot development and it wasn't done right. The worse had to have been seeing Akeem's character become the opposite of who he was in the first movie. He passes over his daughter to give the throne to a stranger because he is a man and even when he loses his patience with a drunk or inebriated Lisa and tells her to shut her mouth after the celebration of the upcoming wedding between Lavelle and Bopoto, General Izzi's daughter. All in all I have to say that for me personally this movie was full of laughs but just had so much wrong with it that I should really be rating it a 5 or just an average movie. However there are so many sequels that happen 5 years or more after the original that are far worse or just as bad that I feel since this one was 30 years later it wasn't as bad as others are judging it. But maybe if I had seen the original right before seeing this one I would have changed by rating but for now I'm not sure if it's nostalgia or just bias but I rate this movie a 6/10. If you thought the original was funny then you more than likely will like this movie but if the original is a special movie to you that holds a special place in your heart then you might just think this sequel is utter trash.
https://youtu.be/-tT8Wy3YeI4
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Breaking In (2018) (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Get In.
Into every life a little rain must fall. Some fairly pervasive advertising drove me into the cinema to see this one… often a sign that the distributors think it has legs. And from its quirky opening titles (with a COMPLETELY expected shock denouement!) I started to think it did have something. The beginning is in fact VERY similar to the introductory scene of “Get Out” in its randomness, and for one brief moment I wondered if the film was trying to parody that indie classic from last year… with only some studio lawyers getting in the way of them really calling it “Get In”. (“No, no, no… ‘Get’ is copyrighted… you’ll have to use some other word!”).
But no. It turns out that this is a pretty below-average B-movie after all,
The plot is pretty derivative of the “family in dire peril” variety made famous by the “Taken” series. Not being able to persuade Liam Neeson to wear a dress in this “Times Up” era, the Neeson-actioner writer Ryan Engle (“The Commuter“, “Non-Stop“) switches the action to focus on stressed mother Shaun Russell (Gabrielle Union).
Shaun has come to deepest Wisconsin with her two kids, Jasmine (Ajiona Alexus) and Glover (Seth Carr) to arrange the sale of her deceased father’s luxury home: a house absolutely brimming to the elegant rafters with security features. But unknown to them, there are already intruders in the house searching for something of value, and with Shaun locked outside the secure fortress home she will stop at nothing to break in and bring her children safely home.
The sad thing about this one is that the fairly unknown cast actually do a pretty good job. The chief villain Eddie, played by Billy Burke, channels an effectively ‘evil-quiet-Gary-Oldman” turn to good effect. His accomplices, the more sensitive Sam (Levi Meaden), luckless Peter (Mark Furze) and (particularly) the psychopathic Duncan (Richard Cabral) (can a psychopath really be called Duncan?) are broad caricatures, but never too broad to be totally awful.
Gabrielle Union kicks-ass effectively with her particular set of skills (see below), but particularly good is 22-year old Ajiona Alexus who has a great screen presence and deserves to be in much better films than this.
Where the film stumbles and goes crashing through its carbonite shutters is in the story and the screenplay’s dialogue.
The former is just bat-shit crazy, with so many ridiculous plot-holes and “yeah-but” moments that you lose count. For example, at one point the daughter is looking for her mobile phone WHICH IS IN THE ROOM and which would wrap the plot up in 10 minutes flat…. but then something else happens and they stop looking for it, never to be thought of again!
And what of those ‘particular set of skills’ that Shaun has? Oh, I forgot to say… she has none!! Or at least you assume not, since Shaun seems to have no back-story whatsoever, other than the fact that her daddy is very very rich and being investigated by the D/A. For what? Embezzlement? Tax evasion? Smartie-smuggling? Gun running? Perhaps he was a mafia overlord and Shaun was brought up with martial arts, gun and knife training to spy-school level? Perhaps none of the above, and she was just an obsessive watcher of Engle-scripted flicks? We will never know.
In addition, Shaun gets the proverbial crap kicked out of her on so many occasions, but there is no trip to casualty required. (Yes, I know Neeson and most other action heroes have the same implausible in-vulnerabilities, but it just seems so much less realistic when she is a not-particularly sporty or athletic woman).
And that dialogue… it’s just plain laughable in places. If Eddie doesn’t do his “Mamma hen will come back to save her chicks” speech once, he does it five times….
“Hey, James”… (James McTeigue, director, “V for Vendetta”)… says Burke, “Haven’t I said this line four times already”. “Sure”, says McTeigue, “I’m not sure where exactly I want to put it in the final cut yet, but only one of them will stay in. Don’t worry… I won’t make you look stupid to the cinema-going audience!!”
Every last thriller cliché is mined as the story grinds to an unmemorable and very flat conclusion.
Before wrapping up, I’d point out Another crime being committed in the music department. Australian composer Johnny Klimek’s action thriller score is actually quiet good, full of nice electronic riffs. But he really doesn’t know when to shut up. I remember an interview by John Williams on scoring the score to Hitchcock’s “Family Plot” where he recounted that Hitchcock taught him the value of a sudden absence of music at key moments. This film is too recent to learn the many lessons of “A Quiet Place“: but there are so many moments in this film where silence should have been golden. At one point the (what should be) heart-stopping sound effect of a creaking beam can barely be heard over Klimek’s pounding electronics.
So in summary, although it’s the award of ‘good acting attempt’ badges to sew onto the cast’s scout uniforms, my message to you dear reader re this one is “Get Out” of the cinema and enjoy the nice summer evenings instead!
But no. It turns out that this is a pretty below-average B-movie after all,
The plot is pretty derivative of the “family in dire peril” variety made famous by the “Taken” series. Not being able to persuade Liam Neeson to wear a dress in this “Times Up” era, the Neeson-actioner writer Ryan Engle (“The Commuter“, “Non-Stop“) switches the action to focus on stressed mother Shaun Russell (Gabrielle Union).
Shaun has come to deepest Wisconsin with her two kids, Jasmine (Ajiona Alexus) and Glover (Seth Carr) to arrange the sale of her deceased father’s luxury home: a house absolutely brimming to the elegant rafters with security features. But unknown to them, there are already intruders in the house searching for something of value, and with Shaun locked outside the secure fortress home she will stop at nothing to break in and bring her children safely home.
The sad thing about this one is that the fairly unknown cast actually do a pretty good job. The chief villain Eddie, played by Billy Burke, channels an effectively ‘evil-quiet-Gary-Oldman” turn to good effect. His accomplices, the more sensitive Sam (Levi Meaden), luckless Peter (Mark Furze) and (particularly) the psychopathic Duncan (Richard Cabral) (can a psychopath really be called Duncan?) are broad caricatures, but never too broad to be totally awful.
Gabrielle Union kicks-ass effectively with her particular set of skills (see below), but particularly good is 22-year old Ajiona Alexus who has a great screen presence and deserves to be in much better films than this.
Where the film stumbles and goes crashing through its carbonite shutters is in the story and the screenplay’s dialogue.
The former is just bat-shit crazy, with so many ridiculous plot-holes and “yeah-but” moments that you lose count. For example, at one point the daughter is looking for her mobile phone WHICH IS IN THE ROOM and which would wrap the plot up in 10 minutes flat…. but then something else happens and they stop looking for it, never to be thought of again!
And what of those ‘particular set of skills’ that Shaun has? Oh, I forgot to say… she has none!! Or at least you assume not, since Shaun seems to have no back-story whatsoever, other than the fact that her daddy is very very rich and being investigated by the D/A. For what? Embezzlement? Tax evasion? Smartie-smuggling? Gun running? Perhaps he was a mafia overlord and Shaun was brought up with martial arts, gun and knife training to spy-school level? Perhaps none of the above, and she was just an obsessive watcher of Engle-scripted flicks? We will never know.
In addition, Shaun gets the proverbial crap kicked out of her on so many occasions, but there is no trip to casualty required. (Yes, I know Neeson and most other action heroes have the same implausible in-vulnerabilities, but it just seems so much less realistic when she is a not-particularly sporty or athletic woman).
And that dialogue… it’s just plain laughable in places. If Eddie doesn’t do his “Mamma hen will come back to save her chicks” speech once, he does it five times….
“Hey, James”… (James McTeigue, director, “V for Vendetta”)… says Burke, “Haven’t I said this line four times already”. “Sure”, says McTeigue, “I’m not sure where exactly I want to put it in the final cut yet, but only one of them will stay in. Don’t worry… I won’t make you look stupid to the cinema-going audience!!”
Every last thriller cliché is mined as the story grinds to an unmemorable and very flat conclusion.
Before wrapping up, I’d point out Another crime being committed in the music department. Australian composer Johnny Klimek’s action thriller score is actually quiet good, full of nice electronic riffs. But he really doesn’t know when to shut up. I remember an interview by John Williams on scoring the score to Hitchcock’s “Family Plot” where he recounted that Hitchcock taught him the value of a sudden absence of music at key moments. This film is too recent to learn the many lessons of “A Quiet Place“: but there are so many moments in this film where silence should have been golden. At one point the (what should be) heart-stopping sound effect of a creaking beam can barely be heard over Klimek’s pounding electronics.
So in summary, although it’s the award of ‘good acting attempt’ badges to sew onto the cast’s scout uniforms, my message to you dear reader re this one is “Get Out” of the cinema and enjoy the nice summer evenings instead!
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.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Endless (2020) in Movies
Oct 19, 2020
Alexandra Shipp's acting is OK (1 more)
The British Columbian scenary
A Ghost "Ditto" - but without the star quality
Riley (Alexandra Shipp) and Chris (Nicholas Hamilton) are teenage lovers about to be torn apart... but not in the way you think. Riley is about to turn her back on her talent for comic book art to follow her parent's wishes: to study law on the other side of the country in Georgetown. Chris is from the other side of the tracks - aren't they always in these films? - living in a one-parent family with his mother Lee (Bond-girl Famke Janssen).
But fate is about to push them even further apart as - with an advert as to why drinking, texting and driving don't mix - Chris is killed in a car crash. Tragedy - when the feeling's gone and you can't go on! Can their love for each other reach beyond death itself, and if so, at what cost?
We've been here before of course with the Demi Moore / Patrick Swayze hit "Ghost" from 1990. That was an Oscar winner (Best Supporting Actress for Whoopi Goldberg and screenplay by Bruce Joel Rubin). Will "Endless" - a teen-love version - match this potential? Unfortunately, without a potter's wheel in sight, it doesn't stand a ghost of a chance.
It feels like it's not for the want of trying from the five youngsters* at the heart of the action, with Eddie Ramos and Zoë Belkin playing the lover's best friends and DeRon Horton being the limbo-trapped ghost-guide equivalent to the subway dropout from "Ghost". (* I say "youngsters", but most seem to be in their late twenties!) )
All seem to invest their energy into the project. Unfortunately, with the exception of Alexandra Shipp, the energy is not matched with great acting talent. Poor Nicholas Hamilton (the bully from "It") seems to have a particularly limited range, with his resting expression being "gormless".
None of the adult actors fair much better, with Famke Janssen being particularly unconvincing.
As I said, the exception here is Alexandra Shipp, who had a supporting role in "Love, Simon" and a more centre-stage role as "Storm" in the otherwise disappointing "X-Men: Dark Phoenix". Here she remains eminently watchable, but is hog-bound by a seriously dodgy script.
If you read my bob-the-movie-man blog regularly, you will know I reach for my flame-thrower at the appearance of voiceovers. And the start of this movie made me shudder with fear as a "tell, not show" approach was followed. It's a mild blessing that the script - by Andre Case and O'Neil Sharma - used this device purely as a slightly lazy way to set the scene and the voiceover didn't rear its ugly head again.
However, on a broader basis, the screenplay doesn't excite - predictability is its middle name - and it contains lines of dialogue that are absolute stinkers. There are whole sections of the movie that defy belief, with a police investigation in particular appearing completely incompetent. The result is that it adds neither drama or tension.
Through my career in IT I've had the great fortune to travel to a number of small cities in Canada, and all have appealed with their consistently picturesque qualities and consistently quirky individuals! Here we have the cities of Kelowna and Vernon in British Columbia playing California, and the drone cinematography (by Frank Borin and Mark Dobrescu) displays the dramatic lake-filled scenery to the full.
With so many cookie-cutter movies out there, it feels like the non-horror "Ghost" recipe (or "Heaven Can Wait" / "It's a Wonderful Life" / "A Matter of Life and Death" / delete per your preference) is well overdue for a makeover. Unfortunately, director Scott Speer's attempt just isn't good enough to fill the void. And that's a shame.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob-the-movie-man review here - https://rb.gy/mzq6jx . Thanks.)
But fate is about to push them even further apart as - with an advert as to why drinking, texting and driving don't mix - Chris is killed in a car crash. Tragedy - when the feeling's gone and you can't go on! Can their love for each other reach beyond death itself, and if so, at what cost?
We've been here before of course with the Demi Moore / Patrick Swayze hit "Ghost" from 1990. That was an Oscar winner (Best Supporting Actress for Whoopi Goldberg and screenplay by Bruce Joel Rubin). Will "Endless" - a teen-love version - match this potential? Unfortunately, without a potter's wheel in sight, it doesn't stand a ghost of a chance.
It feels like it's not for the want of trying from the five youngsters* at the heart of the action, with Eddie Ramos and Zoë Belkin playing the lover's best friends and DeRon Horton being the limbo-trapped ghost-guide equivalent to the subway dropout from "Ghost". (* I say "youngsters", but most seem to be in their late twenties!) )
All seem to invest their energy into the project. Unfortunately, with the exception of Alexandra Shipp, the energy is not matched with great acting talent. Poor Nicholas Hamilton (the bully from "It") seems to have a particularly limited range, with his resting expression being "gormless".
None of the adult actors fair much better, with Famke Janssen being particularly unconvincing.
As I said, the exception here is Alexandra Shipp, who had a supporting role in "Love, Simon" and a more centre-stage role as "Storm" in the otherwise disappointing "X-Men: Dark Phoenix". Here she remains eminently watchable, but is hog-bound by a seriously dodgy script.
If you read my bob-the-movie-man blog regularly, you will know I reach for my flame-thrower at the appearance of voiceovers. And the start of this movie made me shudder with fear as a "tell, not show" approach was followed. It's a mild blessing that the script - by Andre Case and O'Neil Sharma - used this device purely as a slightly lazy way to set the scene and the voiceover didn't rear its ugly head again.
However, on a broader basis, the screenplay doesn't excite - predictability is its middle name - and it contains lines of dialogue that are absolute stinkers. There are whole sections of the movie that defy belief, with a police investigation in particular appearing completely incompetent. The result is that it adds neither drama or tension.
Through my career in IT I've had the great fortune to travel to a number of small cities in Canada, and all have appealed with their consistently picturesque qualities and consistently quirky individuals! Here we have the cities of Kelowna and Vernon in British Columbia playing California, and the drone cinematography (by Frank Borin and Mark Dobrescu) displays the dramatic lake-filled scenery to the full.
With so many cookie-cutter movies out there, it feels like the non-horror "Ghost" recipe (or "Heaven Can Wait" / "It's a Wonderful Life" / "A Matter of Life and Death" / delete per your preference) is well overdue for a makeover. Unfortunately, director Scott Speer's attempt just isn't good enough to fill the void. And that's a shame.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob-the-movie-man review here - https://rb.gy/mzq6jx . Thanks.)
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Girl With All the Gifts (2017) in Movies
Nov 1, 2020
A unique concept that doesn't fail on delivery. (2 more)
Good acting from everyone including the little girl Senna Nanua/ Melanie.
Good action, good fight choreography and gun fight scenes.
Some of the make-up special effects weren't the best. (1 more)
Some things didn't make sense to me when thinking back to the walkie-talkie scene.
Surpasses Expectations and Surprisingly Good (7/10)
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Girl With All The Gifts is a 2016 British Sci-Fi Horror movie directed by Colm McCarthy and written by Mike Carey. It was produced by BFI Film Forever, Creative England, Altitude and Poison Chef and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures and Saban Films. The movie stars Gemma Arterton, Glenn Close and Paddy Considine and Sennia Nanua.
In a post-apocalyptic future, that has been ravaged by a mysterious fungal disease, those infected have turned into fast, mindless zombies, called "hungries.” A small group of hybrid children who crave human flesh but retain the ability to think and feel, go to school at an army base in rural Britain. There they're subjected to cruel experiments by Dr. Caroline Caldwell (Glenn Close). An exceptional girl named Melanie (Sennia Nanua), grows particularly close to school teacher Helen Justineau (Gemma Arterton) and forms a special bond. When the base is invaded, the trio escape with the assistance of Sgt. Eddie Parks (Paddy Considine) and embark on a perilous journey of survival, during which Melanie must come to terms with who she and what she is.
This movie was really good. I really liked the concept and felt it delivered on the premise and didn't fall through. The little girl Melanie played by Sennia Nanua did an excellent job and I was surprised with how much I wound up liking her character. Gemma Arterton was very good as Helen too and Glenn Close just blew me away as the scientist Dr. Caroline Caldwell. Some of the zombie makeup and special effects weren't the best in certain scenes when they slow walk through some dormant zombies but nothing that horrible that I saw. And I didn't like a couple of scenes with another kind of zombies too but more of that in the spoilers section. The action was really spot on and this movie didn't shy away from blood or gore but also didn't seem to really overly depict any gruesome scenes. It did however show the aftermath of some particularly nasty kills. I have to say this was one of the better zombie movies I've seen and I give it a 7/10 as well as my "Must See Seal of Approval". Definitely check out this zombie movie.
Spoiler Section Review:
As I said above, I really liked this zombie movie. The whole concept intrigued me as it looked like they were a bunch of children prisoners in the trailer. And the part where they man puts his arm in front of them and they start chomping at it made me think that they were somehow part zombies or something; which they were. Really the little girl Melanie made the movie work because her character was so interesting. I enjoyed seeing her character growth and how she viewed the world and how they others interacted with her. It's so awkward in the beginning seeing how the soldiers and others react to them even though their children yet when you see the soldier make that point to the teacher you realize with the rest of the audience that these aren't normal children. I really like how they show she has these instincts that she tries really hard to fight against and how it's too hard sometimes. The action is pretty decent in this movie and some pretty cool fight scenes from some of the kid zombies was a cool surprise too and rather epic. The ending totally threw me off and I never thought It would end like that but now that I think about it, it did kind of foreshadow it by Glenn Close telling Melanie how the seed spores would open, still to end the world by lighting that spore tower on fire was shocking to say the least. Like I said I give this movie a 7/10 and it gets my "Must See Seal of Approval" and definitely see this movie if you haven't already.
In a post-apocalyptic future, that has been ravaged by a mysterious fungal disease, those infected have turned into fast, mindless zombies, called "hungries.” A small group of hybrid children who crave human flesh but retain the ability to think and feel, go to school at an army base in rural Britain. There they're subjected to cruel experiments by Dr. Caroline Caldwell (Glenn Close). An exceptional girl named Melanie (Sennia Nanua), grows particularly close to school teacher Helen Justineau (Gemma Arterton) and forms a special bond. When the base is invaded, the trio escape with the assistance of Sgt. Eddie Parks (Paddy Considine) and embark on a perilous journey of survival, during which Melanie must come to terms with who she and what she is.
This movie was really good. I really liked the concept and felt it delivered on the premise and didn't fall through. The little girl Melanie played by Sennia Nanua did an excellent job and I was surprised with how much I wound up liking her character. Gemma Arterton was very good as Helen too and Glenn Close just blew me away as the scientist Dr. Caroline Caldwell. Some of the zombie makeup and special effects weren't the best in certain scenes when they slow walk through some dormant zombies but nothing that horrible that I saw. And I didn't like a couple of scenes with another kind of zombies too but more of that in the spoilers section. The action was really spot on and this movie didn't shy away from blood or gore but also didn't seem to really overly depict any gruesome scenes. It did however show the aftermath of some particularly nasty kills. I have to say this was one of the better zombie movies I've seen and I give it a 7/10 as well as my "Must See Seal of Approval". Definitely check out this zombie movie.
Spoiler Section Review:
As I said above, I really liked this zombie movie. The whole concept intrigued me as it looked like they were a bunch of children prisoners in the trailer. And the part where they man puts his arm in front of them and they start chomping at it made me think that they were somehow part zombies or something; which they were. Really the little girl Melanie made the movie work because her character was so interesting. I enjoyed seeing her character growth and how she viewed the world and how they others interacted with her. It's so awkward in the beginning seeing how the soldiers and others react to them even though their children yet when you see the soldier make that point to the teacher you realize with the rest of the audience that these aren't normal children. I really like how they show she has these instincts that she tries really hard to fight against and how it's too hard sometimes. The action is pretty decent in this movie and some pretty cool fight scenes from some of the kid zombies was a cool surprise too and rather epic. The ending totally threw me off and I never thought It would end like that but now that I think about it, it did kind of foreshadow it by Glenn Close telling Melanie how the seed spores would open, still to end the world by lighting that spore tower on fire was shocking to say the least. Like I said I give this movie a 7/10 and it gets my "Must See Seal of Approval" and definitely see this movie if you haven't already.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Mar 28, 2021
Strong Ensemble Work
The good thing about my yearly exercise to check out all of the Oscar Nominated films in the "Major" Categories is that it forces me to watch films that are "one my list" but I just haven't gotten to them. THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is one of those types of films - an Aaron Sorkin Written and Directed project with a stellar cast about an important moment in United States History.
And...I'm glad I "forced myself" to watch this, for TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 just might end up being my favorite film of 2020. It tells the tale of the trial of 8 (not 7 - they explain that difference in the film) leaders of revolutionary groups in the turbulent times that were the late 1960's in the United States and this film grasps the stakes that both sides are faced with in this historic time.
It all starts, of course, with the Writing and Directing of Aaron Sorkin (TV's THE WEST WING, A FEW GOOD MEN, MOLLY'S GAME) and it is some of his best work. Sorkin's writing style lends itself to this type of multi-player, multi-storyline story that all culminates into one story at the end. The words coming out of his character's mouths are insightful and true (if a bit over-blown for these characters) and they make you understand these characters - and their motivations - very well (whether the character is considered a "good" guy or a "bad" guy in this film).
The pedigree of Sorkin draws some wonderful actors to his works and THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is no different. Eddie Redmayne (Oscar Winner for THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING), Mark Rylance (Oscar Winner for BRIDGE OF SPIES), Ben Shenkman (Angels in America) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (INCEPTION) all are at the top of their (considerably strong) games and Director/Writer Sorkin lets them all shine.
These 4 are good - but the next 6 are even better (yes...there is that many good to great performances in this film). Let's start with Jeremy Strong's (THE BIG SHORT) Jerry Rubin and Sacha Baron Cohen (BORAT) in his Oscar Nominated role of Abbie Hoffman. The embody the hippie culture of the '60's and bring gravitas and humor to the proceedings. Cohen earns his Oscar nomination by his "showey" role, but I would have been happy with just about any of the main Actor's being nominated.
Yahya Adbul-Mateen II (AQUAMAN) is powerful as Bobby Seale - the Black Panther Leader who is railroaded into this trial. He is supported by his friend, Fred Hampton - who I was glad to have learned more about in another Oscar nominated film this year, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH.
Special notice needs to be made of a few veteran performers in this film - John Carrol Lynch (FARGO) has become a "mark of excellence" for me in films. Whenever he shows up in a project, I know that it will be worth my while for no other reason than his performance, and this film is no exception and Frank Langella EXCELS in the role of the Judge in the case, Julius Hoffman, and he is - beyond a doubt - the "bad guy" in this film, but he brings a humanity to his character and I "loved to hate" him. This performance stuck with me and I think that Langella deserved an Oscar nomination.
Finally...there is an extended cameo from a well known Hollywood performer (who I will not name, for I do not wish to spoil his appearance) as former Attorney General Ramsey Clark. This character was built up prior to his appearance as a powerhouse, and this actor did not disappoint.
This is a fantastic ensemble film that really transported me back to the '60's and the message at the heart of this film are as relevant today as back then. As I stated above, this is currently my favorite film of 2020, and it will only be replaced at the top by something very, very special
TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is currently streaming on Netflix and I highly recommend that you check it out.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...I'm glad I "forced myself" to watch this, for TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 just might end up being my favorite film of 2020. It tells the tale of the trial of 8 (not 7 - they explain that difference in the film) leaders of revolutionary groups in the turbulent times that were the late 1960's in the United States and this film grasps the stakes that both sides are faced with in this historic time.
It all starts, of course, with the Writing and Directing of Aaron Sorkin (TV's THE WEST WING, A FEW GOOD MEN, MOLLY'S GAME) and it is some of his best work. Sorkin's writing style lends itself to this type of multi-player, multi-storyline story that all culminates into one story at the end. The words coming out of his character's mouths are insightful and true (if a bit over-blown for these characters) and they make you understand these characters - and their motivations - very well (whether the character is considered a "good" guy or a "bad" guy in this film).
The pedigree of Sorkin draws some wonderful actors to his works and THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is no different. Eddie Redmayne (Oscar Winner for THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING), Mark Rylance (Oscar Winner for BRIDGE OF SPIES), Ben Shenkman (Angels in America) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (INCEPTION) all are at the top of their (considerably strong) games and Director/Writer Sorkin lets them all shine.
These 4 are good - but the next 6 are even better (yes...there is that many good to great performances in this film). Let's start with Jeremy Strong's (THE BIG SHORT) Jerry Rubin and Sacha Baron Cohen (BORAT) in his Oscar Nominated role of Abbie Hoffman. The embody the hippie culture of the '60's and bring gravitas and humor to the proceedings. Cohen earns his Oscar nomination by his "showey" role, but I would have been happy with just about any of the main Actor's being nominated.
Yahya Adbul-Mateen II (AQUAMAN) is powerful as Bobby Seale - the Black Panther Leader who is railroaded into this trial. He is supported by his friend, Fred Hampton - who I was glad to have learned more about in another Oscar nominated film this year, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH.
Special notice needs to be made of a few veteran performers in this film - John Carrol Lynch (FARGO) has become a "mark of excellence" for me in films. Whenever he shows up in a project, I know that it will be worth my while for no other reason than his performance, and this film is no exception and Frank Langella EXCELS in the role of the Judge in the case, Julius Hoffman, and he is - beyond a doubt - the "bad guy" in this film, but he brings a humanity to his character and I "loved to hate" him. This performance stuck with me and I think that Langella deserved an Oscar nomination.
Finally...there is an extended cameo from a well known Hollywood performer (who I will not name, for I do not wish to spoil his appearance) as former Attorney General Ramsey Clark. This character was built up prior to his appearance as a powerhouse, and this actor did not disappoint.
This is a fantastic ensemble film that really transported me back to the '60's and the message at the heart of this film are as relevant today as back then. As I stated above, this is currently my favorite film of 2020, and it will only be replaced at the top by something very, very special
TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is currently streaming on Netflix and I highly recommend that you check it out.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)