Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated After Life in TV
Mar 3, 2020
As Ricky Gervais cheekily crow-barred in to his opening speech at the 2020 Golden Globes a few weeks ago, it is possible to watch all of After Life series one in less time than it takes to watch The Irishman. And that is exactly what I did; binged the whole thing on autoplay until it was done! Not to get it over with as soon as possible, but rather because it is hard to turn off – you just keep wanting more.
It’s not a complicated idea – Tony’s wife has died of cancer and he wishes he was dead too. Surrounded by tedious work colleagues in a dead end job, a father in a home with dementia, and having only a very hungry dog to lean on, he is filled with such bitterness and grief that he decides there is no point not doing anything he wants and being as nasty as possible to all around him.
The show glides effortlessly between hilarious situations, filled with sharp dialogue / small moments of comedy genius, and genuinely sad moments that leave a lump in the throat. It is a trick Gervais has been honing in all his shows since The Office, and now he has it down to a work of art you just have to applaud. No matter how ridiculous, it always seems rooted in truth and real emotion. Each vitriolic outburst is written so well we empathise with Tony almost every time, because he is usually right; and when he isn’t right, that moment of awkwardness is used with almost preternatural understanding of the audience to demonstrate the point of the whole conceit.
It boils down to the truth that no matter how much you want to give up on life and people, you can’t forget that happiness is a gift. Not just yours, but anyone’s. And to go around being an arsehole, wallowing in self-pity is entirely selfish, even if you have good reason to be that way. Distilled into less than 3 hours in total, After Life is no less than a magic trick, in not only achieving the passing on of that message, but in entertaining us every single minute in the meantime!
Thinking of how to rate it, I just can’t find much fault in what it sets out to be. It isn’t a grand or expensive production, it feels humble and economical, but oh so very focused. Do we want more bells and whistles? Have we come to expect that from our entertainment now. Is that what is missing? I feel I would recommend this show to anyone, and am very much looking forward to a second season in the Spring, but I also feel like it doesn’t need to have its trumpet over-blown; it’s just a lovely, funny, simple show about being alive.
It’s not a complicated idea – Tony’s wife has died of cancer and he wishes he was dead too. Surrounded by tedious work colleagues in a dead end job, a father in a home with dementia, and having only a very hungry dog to lean on, he is filled with such bitterness and grief that he decides there is no point not doing anything he wants and being as nasty as possible to all around him.
The show glides effortlessly between hilarious situations, filled with sharp dialogue / small moments of comedy genius, and genuinely sad moments that leave a lump in the throat. It is a trick Gervais has been honing in all his shows since The Office, and now he has it down to a work of art you just have to applaud. No matter how ridiculous, it always seems rooted in truth and real emotion. Each vitriolic outburst is written so well we empathise with Tony almost every time, because he is usually right; and when he isn’t right, that moment of awkwardness is used with almost preternatural understanding of the audience to demonstrate the point of the whole conceit.
It boils down to the truth that no matter how much you want to give up on life and people, you can’t forget that happiness is a gift. Not just yours, but anyone’s. And to go around being an arsehole, wallowing in self-pity is entirely selfish, even if you have good reason to be that way. Distilled into less than 3 hours in total, After Life is no less than a magic trick, in not only achieving the passing on of that message, but in entertaining us every single minute in the meantime!
Thinking of how to rate it, I just can’t find much fault in what it sets out to be. It isn’t a grand or expensive production, it feels humble and economical, but oh so very focused. Do we want more bells and whistles? Have we come to expect that from our entertainment now. Is that what is missing? I feel I would recommend this show to anyone, and am very much looking forward to a second season in the Spring, but I also feel like it doesn’t need to have its trumpet over-blown; it’s just a lovely, funny, simple show about being alive.
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated I Still Believe (2020) in Movies
Apr 25, 2020 (Updated Apr 25, 2020)
rip my heart out why don't you
Contains spoilers, click to show
Hear me out. The thing about this film is that if you know anything about Jeremy Camp and his story, you know that Melissa dies. Spoiler alert - but I don't think that's news to anyone. I think what makes this film so good is that it's about a love story but it's almost four different love stories. It's about Melissa's blind, unwavering, awe-inspiring love for God. It's about Jeremy's renewal in that faith and in his belief and his love of God after Melissa dies. It's about Melissa and Jeremy's incredible love story - to walk through the fire together, until the end, to put it the way his dad does in the film. But it's also about God's love. And this is coming from a girl who is unsure about what to believe in the slightest. I'm not the preaching, church-going, praying person. I'm not even sure if there is a God, but I believe that people believe it and I respect them for it. Maybe I'll find it one day, maybe I won't. Regardless, this film is beautiful.
What annoys me about the critics that watched this film and their reviews is that they're almost surprised that she dies and that it's a Christian film. Like, do you know anything about Jeremy Camp and who he is? He's literally a Christian singer - for a living. I think this is one of those films where the audience is way more insightful than critics. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I feel like it's so easy for critics to critique and not just escape in the film. But I digress.
K.J. Apa and Britt Robinson are forces in this film. I think that they already have long, successful careers in front of them, without a doubt, but when they work together, they make some serious magic. This is their second film together and I could watch them in a million more. Shania Twain was a nice plug. I think sometimes when you put big country stars in films - Trace Adkins, Shania, etc. - it can be kind of overpowering (depending on the film), but she's very understated but memorable. The standout though, to me, other than the leads was Gary Sinise as Jeremy's dad. There's a moment towards the end of the film where he's just overcome and he leans against the wall and there's a picture of K.J. (meant to be Jeremy) under him and it just hits you. I feel like that was his strongest moment and one of the best moments of the film.
Overall, I think this film is really beautiful. I'm sure I'll come back to it a million times more. I definitely recommend watching it, just have tissues.
What annoys me about the critics that watched this film and their reviews is that they're almost surprised that she dies and that it's a Christian film. Like, do you know anything about Jeremy Camp and who he is? He's literally a Christian singer - for a living. I think this is one of those films where the audience is way more insightful than critics. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I feel like it's so easy for critics to critique and not just escape in the film. But I digress.
K.J. Apa and Britt Robinson are forces in this film. I think that they already have long, successful careers in front of them, without a doubt, but when they work together, they make some serious magic. This is their second film together and I could watch them in a million more. Shania Twain was a nice plug. I think sometimes when you put big country stars in films - Trace Adkins, Shania, etc. - it can be kind of overpowering (depending on the film), but she's very understated but memorable. The standout though, to me, other than the leads was Gary Sinise as Jeremy's dad. There's a moment towards the end of the film where he's just overcome and he leans against the wall and there's a picture of K.J. (meant to be Jeremy) under him and it just hits you. I feel like that was his strongest moment and one of the best moments of the film.
Overall, I think this film is really beautiful. I'm sure I'll come back to it a million times more. I definitely recommend watching it, just have tissues.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Fast and Furious Johnson/Statham Style
Fast And Furious Presents Hobbs & Shaw is a 2019 action movie directed by David Leitch and written by Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce from a story by Morgan. It was produced by Seven Bucks Productions and Chris Morgan Productions and distributed by Universal Pictures. The film also had Jason Statham, Dwayne Johnson, Chris Morgan and Hiram Garcia as producers. The movie stars Dwayne Johnson, Jason Statham, Idris Elba, Vanessa Kirby and Ryan Reynolds.
When a team of MI6 agents try to retrieve a virus called "Snowflake", which could kill millions, from terrorist organization Eteon; Brixton Lore (Idris Elba), a cybernetically enhanced member of Eteon, arrives killing all the agents except Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby). She is able to inject herself with the virus and escape but Brixton forces her to go on the run by framing her as a traitor who killed her team and stole "Snowflake". Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) are both recruited by the CIA, to work together to track it down and recover it.
This movie definitely fit in with the Fast and Furious series and was what you expected from a spin-off of the main franchise. That being said, it also didn't feel like a good fit in a lot of ways. Dwayne Johnson's character Hobbs felt diminished in a way because of how they tried to humanize him and make him more relatable by introducing family like his daughter. Also Deckard Shaw, Statham's character was given the same treatment by introducing family characters as well. Since the Fast and Furious franchise is all about family, I guess this was to be expected but it came off as contrived and "trope-ish". Vanessa Kirby did an awesome job as kick ass Hattie Shaw and delivered a strong performance as did Idris Elba although his character felt like a stereo-typed villain. The stunts and action sequences of course were crazy as hell but if you like the Fast and Furious movies than you will like this film. For me though, I'm with most fans and feel that the team up with Shaw is a stab in the back to Han since he was killed by Shaw in the franchise. But I guess the movie makers didn't really care or maybe they'll do something else about it later and he'll wind up being alive. All in all, it's a decent movie but just didn't do it for me, even with the great action, the funny dialogue/banter between Statham and Johnson and solid performances from some of the actors. I give this movie a 6/10.
When a team of MI6 agents try to retrieve a virus called "Snowflake", which could kill millions, from terrorist organization Eteon; Brixton Lore (Idris Elba), a cybernetically enhanced member of Eteon, arrives killing all the agents except Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby). She is able to inject herself with the virus and escape but Brixton forces her to go on the run by framing her as a traitor who killed her team and stole "Snowflake". Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) are both recruited by the CIA, to work together to track it down and recover it.
This movie definitely fit in with the Fast and Furious series and was what you expected from a spin-off of the main franchise. That being said, it also didn't feel like a good fit in a lot of ways. Dwayne Johnson's character Hobbs felt diminished in a way because of how they tried to humanize him and make him more relatable by introducing family like his daughter. Also Deckard Shaw, Statham's character was given the same treatment by introducing family characters as well. Since the Fast and Furious franchise is all about family, I guess this was to be expected but it came off as contrived and "trope-ish". Vanessa Kirby did an awesome job as kick ass Hattie Shaw and delivered a strong performance as did Idris Elba although his character felt like a stereo-typed villain. The stunts and action sequences of course were crazy as hell but if you like the Fast and Furious movies than you will like this film. For me though, I'm with most fans and feel that the team up with Shaw is a stab in the back to Han since he was killed by Shaw in the franchise. But I guess the movie makers didn't really care or maybe they'll do something else about it later and he'll wind up being alive. All in all, it's a decent movie but just didn't do it for me, even with the great action, the funny dialogue/banter between Statham and Johnson and solid performances from some of the actors. I give this movie a 6/10.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Psycho (1960) in Movies
Jan 6, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Ah Psycho, the granddaddy of slashers and a film that I find somehow modern and dated at the same time.
Psycho is a slow burn, at the beginning even the dialogue is sparse as the film builds up to the confrontations with Norman Bates (argued by most as the first modern slasher) and this is part of what makes it dated (and modern), the lack of action and the main character driving around gives Psycho the feel of something that Tarantino might make but it lacks 'something' . It's hard to explain but, by todays standards, parts of Psycho are a bit bland, not necessarily boring but bland. The best example I can think would be the scenes in the car, Psycho has just one character in the car who is imagining what others are saying about her and lots of silence which are filled with dramatic music, where as something like Pulp Fiction you get two characters who are just talking, the music seems to take you out of the situation because, in a modern film it would just be in the background.
As the film progresses we start to pick up on some of the slasher tropes, Norman is strange, again we can't quite explain why but that is sometimes the same in a modern film, we see him spy, once, on Marion and, in a more modern film this would probably be stretched out a bit more.
The kills aren't actually as graphic as most modern day slashers but this doesn't matter as Hitchcock has a talent for making the viewer see what he wants and not just what is happening.
The character of Norman is quite interesting but a lot of 'fleshing out' is just told to the viewer in exposition near the end, however you can see how Norman/Mother could easily be an inspiration for the Jason/Pamela dynamic in the first 'Friday 13th'
Psycho has a lot to answer for, sighted by many as the first modern 'Slasher' movie it caused an uproar for other reasons, the first time a toilet was seen flushing on screen, the first time a 'Leading Lady' was killed off halfway through the film (still a slight oddity now as we normally have one 'final girl') and the fact that the stolen money is just thrown away when it is no longer needed to push the plot along. It is these firsts that help to make the film feel dated, we are used to more graphic kills, toilets are almost irrelevant and there is normally more nudity/sex in a modern slasher.
Apart from being a little dated Psycho is a pretty good and entertain film which has put some thought into it's story and characters
Psycho is a slow burn, at the beginning even the dialogue is sparse as the film builds up to the confrontations with Norman Bates (argued by most as the first modern slasher) and this is part of what makes it dated (and modern), the lack of action and the main character driving around gives Psycho the feel of something that Tarantino might make but it lacks 'something' . It's hard to explain but, by todays standards, parts of Psycho are a bit bland, not necessarily boring but bland. The best example I can think would be the scenes in the car, Psycho has just one character in the car who is imagining what others are saying about her and lots of silence which are filled with dramatic music, where as something like Pulp Fiction you get two characters who are just talking, the music seems to take you out of the situation because, in a modern film it would just be in the background.
As the film progresses we start to pick up on some of the slasher tropes, Norman is strange, again we can't quite explain why but that is sometimes the same in a modern film, we see him spy, once, on Marion and, in a more modern film this would probably be stretched out a bit more.
The kills aren't actually as graphic as most modern day slashers but this doesn't matter as Hitchcock has a talent for making the viewer see what he wants and not just what is happening.
The character of Norman is quite interesting but a lot of 'fleshing out' is just told to the viewer in exposition near the end, however you can see how Norman/Mother could easily be an inspiration for the Jason/Pamela dynamic in the first 'Friday 13th'
Psycho has a lot to answer for, sighted by many as the first modern 'Slasher' movie it caused an uproar for other reasons, the first time a toilet was seen flushing on screen, the first time a 'Leading Lady' was killed off halfway through the film (still a slight oddity now as we normally have one 'final girl') and the fact that the stolen money is just thrown away when it is no longer needed to push the plot along. It is these firsts that help to make the film feel dated, we are used to more graphic kills, toilets are almost irrelevant and there is normally more nudity/sex in a modern slasher.
Apart from being a little dated Psycho is a pretty good and entertain film which has put some thought into it's story and characters
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Little Things (2021) in Movies
Apr 5, 2021
New movies this year feel like both a treat and a torture, but Denzel? Gimme!
Deputy Joe Deacon is forced into confronting his past when he's sent to LA to collect some evidence. But his reluctant trip takes a turn as he gets involved in the investigation into a spate of murders. The obsession for a solution can sometimes be too much for even the most seasoned professional.
We open in 1990 in a situation that feels like it could be any time. The period doesn't feel like it holds any importance over the tale that's being told. It's almost a distraction as the opening feels like a flashback rather than just an introduction.
It has the look of a gritty crime drama/thriller. It's got the right tone, the right sort of actors, and definitely the right subject matter, but it somehow fails to engage on that level.
I love a Denzel performance, and he has this sort of genre deep in his back catalogue, it should be an easy win putting them together. It should. This one was disappointing. There doesn't seem to be much to Joe Deacon, lots gets revealed but it's never quite enough to see anything below the surface.
Rami Malek plays Jim Baker, the "new" Joe Deacon. I'm not a fan, of Malek or his character. I felt like Baker needed to be more charismatic and likeable, I found that particularly evident when I saw the press conference scene. I'm willing to admit that this is me saying the film should stick with the more traditional stereotypes of these roles, and they absolutely don't have to, but I found myself not being able to like/dislike him for the "right" reasons.
In the bad guy role we have Jared Leto, and he does creepy very well here. Out of our three main actors I would say that his performance is the best. With the other two I can see things that the characters are missing that would make an improvement (in my opinion), but here I think the thing that let him down was the films around him.
It's difficult to really point a finger at the exact issues I had with The Little Things, it may just be a combination of... the little things. (Sorry, I had to put it in somewhere.) There's character development, tense moments to make it more of a thriller, and in general, atmosphere... all missing... and while some parts of the ending were good, I don't think it gives a satisfying ending to make up for anything that came before.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-little-things-movie-review.html
Deputy Joe Deacon is forced into confronting his past when he's sent to LA to collect some evidence. But his reluctant trip takes a turn as he gets involved in the investigation into a spate of murders. The obsession for a solution can sometimes be too much for even the most seasoned professional.
We open in 1990 in a situation that feels like it could be any time. The period doesn't feel like it holds any importance over the tale that's being told. It's almost a distraction as the opening feels like a flashback rather than just an introduction.
It has the look of a gritty crime drama/thriller. It's got the right tone, the right sort of actors, and definitely the right subject matter, but it somehow fails to engage on that level.
I love a Denzel performance, and he has this sort of genre deep in his back catalogue, it should be an easy win putting them together. It should. This one was disappointing. There doesn't seem to be much to Joe Deacon, lots gets revealed but it's never quite enough to see anything below the surface.
Rami Malek plays Jim Baker, the "new" Joe Deacon. I'm not a fan, of Malek or his character. I felt like Baker needed to be more charismatic and likeable, I found that particularly evident when I saw the press conference scene. I'm willing to admit that this is me saying the film should stick with the more traditional stereotypes of these roles, and they absolutely don't have to, but I found myself not being able to like/dislike him for the "right" reasons.
In the bad guy role we have Jared Leto, and he does creepy very well here. Out of our three main actors I would say that his performance is the best. With the other two I can see things that the characters are missing that would make an improvement (in my opinion), but here I think the thing that let him down was the films around him.
It's difficult to really point a finger at the exact issues I had with The Little Things, it may just be a combination of... the little things. (Sorry, I had to put it in somewhere.) There's character development, tense moments to make it more of a thriller, and in general, atmosphere... all missing... and while some parts of the ending were good, I don't think it gives a satisfying ending to make up for anything that came before.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-little-things-movie-review.html
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 4, 2021
The Suicide Squad is a (possible) reboot that may or may not follow on from Suicide Squad and (or only) Birds of Prey. Honestly I'm not sure that even DC knows what's going on with their movie time line. Anyway, Margot Robbie and Joel Kinnamen return as Harley Quinn and Rick Flagg to lead another team of criminal misfits on an impossible mission (or, if it's a reboot like James Gunn says then it's the first time they are together and we ignore that Flagg askes Harley why she's back in prison or that Waller's team are checking who has worked with who). This time task force X are sent to the island of Corto Maltese to find and destroy 'Project Starfish'.
Ok so 'The Suicide Squad' is a good film, it looks like it has learned form the problems of the first film and incorporated the humour from 'Birds of Prey'. Firstly It's not as formulaic as the first film, a problem that is caused by the premise of 'Task Force X', if each member of the task force is chosen because they have a skill that is useful for the mission then you would expect that skill to be used and the first film took this too literally, each member had a scene where they did their thing then they just faded into the background and 'The Suicide Squad' avoids this by focusing on the characters was, well characters and not powers.
The film is very action driven and very violent but, unlike some of the other recent DC films it's not dark, it has more of a 'Grindhouse' feel than the dark, brooding style of the Batman/Superman/Justice league films (I liked those but they were a bit heavy in parts). The Suicide Squad has humour in it, some of which is quite immature but it fits the tone of the film. The violence and humour is some what balanced out by the comic book feel the film has, King shark, Weasel and Staro are both some what cartoony in appearance and some of the costumes are straight out of the comic books and I think that this is what managed to keep it at a (UK) rating of 15 because (and I know I've said this) it's violent, it's bloody, people get ripped apart and there is torture and lots of talk about killing children.
Somehow 'The Suicide Squad' is a fun watchable film and defiantly one of the better DC films, don't be put of by the original Suicide Squad (no 'The).
Oh and also there's a, after credit scene that set's up for a film that's been announced so stick around until the credits finish.
Ok so 'The Suicide Squad' is a good film, it looks like it has learned form the problems of the first film and incorporated the humour from 'Birds of Prey'. Firstly It's not as formulaic as the first film, a problem that is caused by the premise of 'Task Force X', if each member of the task force is chosen because they have a skill that is useful for the mission then you would expect that skill to be used and the first film took this too literally, each member had a scene where they did their thing then they just faded into the background and 'The Suicide Squad' avoids this by focusing on the characters was, well characters and not powers.
The film is very action driven and very violent but, unlike some of the other recent DC films it's not dark, it has more of a 'Grindhouse' feel than the dark, brooding style of the Batman/Superman/Justice league films (I liked those but they were a bit heavy in parts). The Suicide Squad has humour in it, some of which is quite immature but it fits the tone of the film. The violence and humour is some what balanced out by the comic book feel the film has, King shark, Weasel and Staro are both some what cartoony in appearance and some of the costumes are straight out of the comic books and I think that this is what managed to keep it at a (UK) rating of 15 because (and I know I've said this) it's violent, it's bloody, people get ripped apart and there is torture and lots of talk about killing children.
Somehow 'The Suicide Squad' is a fun watchable film and defiantly one of the better DC films, don't be put of by the original Suicide Squad (no 'The).
Oh and also there's a, after credit scene that set's up for a film that's been announced so stick around until the credits finish.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mom and Dad (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A teenage girl and her little brother must survive a wild 24 hours during which a mass hysteria of unknown origins causes parents to turn violently on their own kids.
This. Was. Hilarious. It's a zombie movie without being a zombie movie.
Surprisingly not listed as a comedy though, horror/action/thriller all the way... did these guys watch their own film? Luckily I was the only one in the screen because I was pissing myself laughing.
As much as I love Nicolas Cage, seeing him rage always makes me laugh. I feel like he would make a good Batman villain... for the TV show. The redeeming bit for me though was hearing him say "anal beads" in a moment where he flips out at his daughter's boyfriend.
I had some sympathy for Selma Blair's mum character, I wanted to kill her kid for most of the film too. Mum was a much more subtle murderous switch, whereas dad looked like he'd been having a meltdown for months. Mum seemed to struggle more with the idea of killing her kids, but when she went, boy was she a force to be reckoned with. Being a woman I can quite happily say that the look on her face, and the slow but meaningful grab of the tenderiser really does sum up how we feel for at least a minute portion of the month. Usually though in real life it would be us getting that look, taking a deep breath, and then smiling politely and going about our day... but in our heads... yep.
If you're not going to see this on your own then I'd advise you to go with friends. Not parents. As much as I love mine I was left wondering if the hysteria would make them want to drive across the country to try and kill me. I'm putting together a battle plan just in case. It is very much like my zombie apocalypse plan but less armour against biting.
The real question is whether the hysteria that was affecting the parents was entirely working on genetics or emotional connection... I'd have been interested to see the odd husband standing there with his kids, not affected while his wife goes full axe murderer and seeing him realise that his kids look more like the milkman/best friend than him. Conversely it would have been an awkward moment to admit that your kids were adopted... or would you attempt to kill them to hide the fact from them longer? Hmm... you know I say these things in jest though... it is only a film, don't get on my case about it.
This. Was. Hilarious. It's a zombie movie without being a zombie movie.
Surprisingly not listed as a comedy though, horror/action/thriller all the way... did these guys watch their own film? Luckily I was the only one in the screen because I was pissing myself laughing.
As much as I love Nicolas Cage, seeing him rage always makes me laugh. I feel like he would make a good Batman villain... for the TV show. The redeeming bit for me though was hearing him say "anal beads" in a moment where he flips out at his daughter's boyfriend.
I had some sympathy for Selma Blair's mum character, I wanted to kill her kid for most of the film too. Mum was a much more subtle murderous switch, whereas dad looked like he'd been having a meltdown for months. Mum seemed to struggle more with the idea of killing her kids, but when she went, boy was she a force to be reckoned with. Being a woman I can quite happily say that the look on her face, and the slow but meaningful grab of the tenderiser really does sum up how we feel for at least a minute portion of the month. Usually though in real life it would be us getting that look, taking a deep breath, and then smiling politely and going about our day... but in our heads... yep.
If you're not going to see this on your own then I'd advise you to go with friends. Not parents. As much as I love mine I was left wondering if the hysteria would make them want to drive across the country to try and kill me. I'm putting together a battle plan just in case. It is very much like my zombie apocalypse plan but less armour against biting.
The real question is whether the hysteria that was affecting the parents was entirely working on genetics or emotional connection... I'd have been interested to see the odd husband standing there with his kids, not affected while his wife goes full axe murderer and seeing him realise that his kids look more like the milkman/best friend than him. Conversely it would have been an awkward moment to admit that your kids were adopted... or would you attempt to kill them to hide the fact from them longer? Hmm... you know I say these things in jest though... it is only a film, don't get on my case about it.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Yes Infinity War was good... but for me, Ant-Man And The Wasp was better. Yes IW was epic and devastating, but out of the two I didn't have any quibbles about this one. The CGI was what really did it for me. In IW Thanos' minions looked terrible, even when you take into consideration that they're aliens. But seeing the CGI in the flashback scenes in this one I was impressed at how real it all looked.
This is another film that makes me wish companies would think before they make their trailers. Fallout showed you a trailer that makes it look like Cavill is fighting Cruise and gives away a plot point that, at that point in the actual film, isn't certain. Fallen Kingdom shows you the shot of our giant aquatic friend playing with surfers, which in the actual movie doesn't happen until the closing scenes. In one of the Ant-Man trailers we see what amounts to the end of credits scene... yes there are things that are added to fit with the MCU timeline, but I don't feel like that really makes any difference to the situation. I also think that they should have left the shrinking building out of the trailers to give that a bigger impact in the release.
As far as the movies of the MCU go there are definitely some that are on the funnier side, and this fits that bill. Paul Rudd is obviously still a little goofy, and has an amazing montage sequence as he battles with his last few days of house arrest. But the real comedic star of this for me was Michael Peña. Lovable and an absolute gem. His face when he gets his hands on the Hot Wheels case... kid in a candy store. I truly hope that he survived the dusting of Infinity War. Pipe dreams I know, but I'm hoping he makes it through so he can Neville Longbottom Thanos.
To briefly cover the mid credit scene, which obviously left me with my jaw dropped a bit. There's one thing I'm wondering about, Scott says... "our new ghost friend"... now initially you'd think that he's talking about Ava, but she went off separately at the end of the film and it's got to take a fairly long time to make a new Quantum Tunnel, so could he be talking about someone else?
I still don't quite understand the decision to release this after IW considering the film itself is based before in the timeline, the only thing requiring it to be that way were the after credit scenes. Bit of a shame as I feel like after the epic nature of IW this has suffered as it's not on the same world ending and story completing level
This is another film that makes me wish companies would think before they make their trailers. Fallout showed you a trailer that makes it look like Cavill is fighting Cruise and gives away a plot point that, at that point in the actual film, isn't certain. Fallen Kingdom shows you the shot of our giant aquatic friend playing with surfers, which in the actual movie doesn't happen until the closing scenes. In one of the Ant-Man trailers we see what amounts to the end of credits scene... yes there are things that are added to fit with the MCU timeline, but I don't feel like that really makes any difference to the situation. I also think that they should have left the shrinking building out of the trailers to give that a bigger impact in the release.
As far as the movies of the MCU go there are definitely some that are on the funnier side, and this fits that bill. Paul Rudd is obviously still a little goofy, and has an amazing montage sequence as he battles with his last few days of house arrest. But the real comedic star of this for me was Michael Peña. Lovable and an absolute gem. His face when he gets his hands on the Hot Wheels case... kid in a candy store. I truly hope that he survived the dusting of Infinity War. Pipe dreams I know, but I'm hoping he makes it through so he can Neville Longbottom Thanos.
To briefly cover the mid credit scene, which obviously left me with my jaw dropped a bit. There's one thing I'm wondering about, Scott says... "our new ghost friend"... now initially you'd think that he's talking about Ava, but she went off separately at the end of the film and it's got to take a fairly long time to make a new Quantum Tunnel, so could he be talking about someone else?
I still don't quite understand the decision to release this after IW considering the film itself is based before in the timeline, the only thing requiring it to be that way were the after credit scenes. Bit of a shame as I feel like after the epic nature of IW this has suffered as it's not on the same world ending and story completing level
Darren (1599 KP) rated Unforgettable (2017) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Characters – Julia Banks is hitting the high point of her, promotion and engagement to the man of her dream. She does have a past which is very secretive that even David doesn’t know about it. She does have a habit about losing stuff, well she starts too, her past can play into her downfall against Tessa. Tessa is the ex-wife of David, she is very controlling and hasn’t taken the idea of David moving on well, she wants him back and with her own demanding mother in her life she is acting the same towards her own daughter. She always feels distant from any human interaction as she is planning to make Julia’s life a nightmare. David is the man stuck in the middle of everything, he is trying to keep both women happy one for the new love in his life the other to keep his daughter part of his life.
Performances – Rosario Dawson is good in her role we needed to see more of the life falling apart around her though. Katherine Heigl has had a mixed reaction from the audience and business over the last few years, she does work in this role as you do get an uneasy feeling whenever she is on screen. Geoff Stults is fine, he never really gets too much to do through the movie.
Story – The story follows an ex-wife that wants to make the new girlfriends life a living nightmare in an attempt to get her husband back. This does play out like all over the stalker films we have seen before and yes, we have moved along technologically making the moves against the victim more personally. This is an easy enough watch and playing into the idea that the victim has a past which could make her easier to frame does help even if the whole thing plays out just like you would imagine.
Thriller – The film tries to give us the tension bound levels needed, only for the most part to feel like it was just being slowly building and any scenes involving Julia and Tessa feel empty for the first half of the film.
Settings – The film puts us in high-life houses which shows how the family can cope with divorce easily, while this works, a lower class of victim would make this more intense and interesting.
Scene of the Movie – The final showdown.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – There isn’t enough tension in the early part of the film.
Final Thoughts – This is the trademark yearly stalker ex movie, it checks the boxes well without needing to be anything special or dreadful.
Overall: Simple Thriller.
Performances – Rosario Dawson is good in her role we needed to see more of the life falling apart around her though. Katherine Heigl has had a mixed reaction from the audience and business over the last few years, she does work in this role as you do get an uneasy feeling whenever she is on screen. Geoff Stults is fine, he never really gets too much to do through the movie.
Story – The story follows an ex-wife that wants to make the new girlfriends life a living nightmare in an attempt to get her husband back. This does play out like all over the stalker films we have seen before and yes, we have moved along technologically making the moves against the victim more personally. This is an easy enough watch and playing into the idea that the victim has a past which could make her easier to frame does help even if the whole thing plays out just like you would imagine.
Thriller – The film tries to give us the tension bound levels needed, only for the most part to feel like it was just being slowly building and any scenes involving Julia and Tessa feel empty for the first half of the film.
Settings – The film puts us in high-life houses which shows how the family can cope with divorce easily, while this works, a lower class of victim would make this more intense and interesting.
Scene of the Movie – The final showdown.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – There isn’t enough tension in the early part of the film.
Final Thoughts – This is the trademark yearly stalker ex movie, it checks the boxes well without needing to be anything special or dreadful.
Overall: Simple Thriller.
Darren (1599 KP) rated St. Vincent (2014) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Characters – Julia Banks is hitting the high point of her, promotion and engagement to the man of her dream. She does have a past which is very secretive that even David doesn’t know about it. She does have a habit about losing stuff, well she starts too, her past can play into her downfall against Tessa. Tessa is the ex-wife of David, she is very controlling and hasn’t taken the idea of David moving on well, she wants him back and with her own demanding mother in her life she is acting the same towards her own daughter. She always feels distant from any human interaction as she is planning to make Julia’s life a nightmare. David is the man stuck in the middle of everything, he is trying to keep both women happy one for the new love in his life the other to keep his daughter part of his life.
Performances – Rosario Dawson is good in her role we needed to see more of the life falling apart around her though. Katherine Heigl has had a mixed reaction from the audience and business over the last few years, she does work in this role as you do get an uneasy feeling whenever she is on screen. Geoff Stults is fine, he never really gets too much to do through the movie.
Story – The story follows an ex-wife that wants to make the new girlfriends life a living nightmare in an attempt to get her husband back. This does play out like all over the stalker films we have seen before and yes, we have moved along technologically making the moves against the victim more personally. This is an easy enough watch and playing into the idea that the victim has a past which could make her easier to frame does help even if the whole thing plays out just like you would imagine.
Thriller – The film tries to give us the tension bound levels needed, only for the most part to feel like it was just being slowly building and any scenes involving Julia and Tessa feel empty for the first half of the film.
Settings – The film puts us in high-life houses which shows how the family can cope with divorce easily, while this works, a lower class of victim would make this more intense and interesting.
Scene of the Movie – The final showdown.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – There isn’t enough tension in the early part of the film.
Final Thoughts – This is the trademark yearly stalker ex movie, it checks the boxes well without needing to be anything special or dreadful.
Overall: Simple Thriller.
Performances – Rosario Dawson is good in her role we needed to see more of the life falling apart around her though. Katherine Heigl has had a mixed reaction from the audience and business over the last few years, she does work in this role as you do get an uneasy feeling whenever she is on screen. Geoff Stults is fine, he never really gets too much to do through the movie.
Story – The story follows an ex-wife that wants to make the new girlfriends life a living nightmare in an attempt to get her husband back. This does play out like all over the stalker films we have seen before and yes, we have moved along technologically making the moves against the victim more personally. This is an easy enough watch and playing into the idea that the victim has a past which could make her easier to frame does help even if the whole thing plays out just like you would imagine.
Thriller – The film tries to give us the tension bound levels needed, only for the most part to feel like it was just being slowly building and any scenes involving Julia and Tessa feel empty for the first half of the film.
Settings – The film puts us in high-life houses which shows how the family can cope with divorce easily, while this works, a lower class of victim would make this more intense and interesting.
Scene of the Movie – The final showdown.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – There isn’t enough tension in the early part of the film.
Final Thoughts – This is the trademark yearly stalker ex movie, it checks the boxes well without needing to be anything special or dreadful.
Overall: Simple Thriller.