Search
Rickey A. Mossow Jr. (689 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Aug 27, 2019
Another unnecessary remake of a childhood classic.
When I originally saw the trailer for this pop up on YouTube, my heart swelled with happiness and the child in me grinned from ear to ear. So many memories came back and flooded my heart and mind. Then, I actually watched this movie. It struggled for me from the beginning as it was instantly clear the star wasn't the elephant with big ears, but rather a typecast Danny Devito, Collin Farrell with a terrible southern accent, his women empowerment staple daughter, and his son that is just kinda there. The anthropomorphism of the animated film is gone, and without it, the key scenes lifted from the original don't carry the emotional weight they did. Much of the story makes little to no sense, including the climax and tie everything up in a neat bow ending. All the PC nonsense and making a statement about current social and political issues isn't needed. It's a kids movie. Once it was clear that this was Disney making a movie about evil corporations buying up small entities to make a monopoly, I checked out mentally from the obvious irony. As the credits rolled, I was just left with an empty feeling, my swollen heart shrunk and my grin gone. Memories from my childhood had been stamped out by Disney Inc. in search of the almighty dollar with yet another unnecessary and bad remake.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Aftermath (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Is there a period piece that Keira Knightley has ever turned down? After seeing her in Colette I retrieved her from the Nutcracker trash can I'd thrown her into and actually looked forward to whatever I was going to see her in next. I sort of wish it hadn't been this film though.
I'm conflicted. The Aftermath has some great pieces, but at the same time it's rather forgettable. Talking to a friend about films I'd seen this month I already forgot I'd seen it, and that doesn't normally happen this quickly.
Having seen the trailers I had come away with a rather definite idea of what the film was going to be like... I was actually surprised, the wool was properly pulled over my eyes. I had a completely different idea of the outcome. I really don't want to spoil it, if you've seen it message me and we'll waffle about it.
Alexander Skarsgård was incredibly good in this, I think I might be in love. I haven't seen him in anything recently but I might have to finally watch Tarzan. For the most part Stephen is a restrained and sensible character, so when he has an outburst of emotions it's all the more powerful. When he shows the Morgans round his house like a sad estate agent I felt that awkwardness.
Keira Knightley/Rachel isn't the leading lady I was looking for, as a character she is dislikeable. She's quick to judgment and takes for granted and abuses all the privileges that she has. I think this is partly what surprised me about the film, I hadn't expected her to be this way. In a film involving war I wouldn't have expected the female character to be the antagonist.
I'm pleased to see Jason Clarke again, he's going from strength to strength. Lewis Morgan is warm and accepting in contrast to the coldness of his wife. More strong emotions coming from our other male lead. Most feel like they're done perfectly, one outburst stuck out but I'm not sure that "out of character" is quite the right way to describe it.
The movie's handling of the Morgan's son was done nicely with a great link used to tie it together. Getting such a powerful moment out of such a small detail was amazing. The use of prop and flashback scenes came together very well.
The ending though... like the trailer I like that we're given something that doesn't necessarily hold with the expected. (Again, if you've seen it then message me so I can tell you how I wanted it to end.) I can't say I was happy with the end, it flies in the face of the traditional take on these sorts of films. There's an ending I would have preferred Rachel to have over the actual one just so that I could go "Ha! Serves you right!" but it wouldn't have been satisfactory for the other two points of the triangle. I'm not sure that any outcome could have left me content though.
There are some very striking visuals mixed through the film, most take part in the ruins of the city where we see the community living through the devastation of the city. I was intrigued to see that it was a BBC film, they usually have a certain feel to them but it wasn't really present in this.
As much as I enjoyed elements of this I can't say I would be fussed about seeing it again, if anything I think a second watch would remind me how annoying I found the ending.
What you should do
If you want to see Keira Knightley's character disrespecting her marriage then I would suggest watching Colette instead. However, if you want to have some strong feelings about Alexander Skarsgård then definitely see this one.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It goes without saying that I would like Alexander Skarsgård, but failing that then the ability to play the piano beautifully will have to do.
I'm conflicted. The Aftermath has some great pieces, but at the same time it's rather forgettable. Talking to a friend about films I'd seen this month I already forgot I'd seen it, and that doesn't normally happen this quickly.
Having seen the trailers I had come away with a rather definite idea of what the film was going to be like... I was actually surprised, the wool was properly pulled over my eyes. I had a completely different idea of the outcome. I really don't want to spoil it, if you've seen it message me and we'll waffle about it.
Alexander Skarsgård was incredibly good in this, I think I might be in love. I haven't seen him in anything recently but I might have to finally watch Tarzan. For the most part Stephen is a restrained and sensible character, so when he has an outburst of emotions it's all the more powerful. When he shows the Morgans round his house like a sad estate agent I felt that awkwardness.
Keira Knightley/Rachel isn't the leading lady I was looking for, as a character she is dislikeable. She's quick to judgment and takes for granted and abuses all the privileges that she has. I think this is partly what surprised me about the film, I hadn't expected her to be this way. In a film involving war I wouldn't have expected the female character to be the antagonist.
I'm pleased to see Jason Clarke again, he's going from strength to strength. Lewis Morgan is warm and accepting in contrast to the coldness of his wife. More strong emotions coming from our other male lead. Most feel like they're done perfectly, one outburst stuck out but I'm not sure that "out of character" is quite the right way to describe it.
The movie's handling of the Morgan's son was done nicely with a great link used to tie it together. Getting such a powerful moment out of such a small detail was amazing. The use of prop and flashback scenes came together very well.
The ending though... like the trailer I like that we're given something that doesn't necessarily hold with the expected. (Again, if you've seen it then message me so I can tell you how I wanted it to end.) I can't say I was happy with the end, it flies in the face of the traditional take on these sorts of films. There's an ending I would have preferred Rachel to have over the actual one just so that I could go "Ha! Serves you right!" but it wouldn't have been satisfactory for the other two points of the triangle. I'm not sure that any outcome could have left me content though.
There are some very striking visuals mixed through the film, most take part in the ruins of the city where we see the community living through the devastation of the city. I was intrigued to see that it was a BBC film, they usually have a certain feel to them but it wasn't really present in this.
As much as I enjoyed elements of this I can't say I would be fussed about seeing it again, if anything I think a second watch would remind me how annoying I found the ending.
What you should do
If you want to see Keira Knightley's character disrespecting her marriage then I would suggest watching Colette instead. However, if you want to have some strong feelings about Alexander Skarsgård then definitely see this one.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It goes without saying that I would like Alexander Skarsgård, but failing that then the ability to play the piano beautifully will have to do.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Fast & Furious 9 (2021) in Movies
Jul 10, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Spoilers
In the 9th instalment of the the 'Fast and Furious' franchise we have; backstory, fun with magnets, brothers who have never been mentioned before, the return of dead characters, plenty of set up for spin offs, doggy English accents and cars in space.
Fast and Furious 9 is a big film, with a lot going on, it acts as Dom's back story, continuation of the franchise and (possibly) a set up for some spinoffs. The latter is not a surprise as Vin Diesel has already said that, including F9 there are only 3 more films left, but that there will be more spin offs, like Hobbs and Shaw (There is a rumoured 'Cipher ' spin off in the works as well as Hobbs and Shaw 2).
A large part of Fast 9 is Dom's back story. We get to see the incident where Dom kills a man, as mentioned in Fast 1 and the impact this has on his biological family. We also get flash backs/more story to 'Tokyo Drift' which they tie into the main franchise a bit more.
Fast 9 seems to bring the cars back to the franchise, although the 7 & 8 did have cars they seemed to be loosing there way in favour of the action but 9 has both cars and action.
There are a lot of call backs to the other films with almost every past family member returning in a original scene, we even almost get to see the return of Brian, however this does make Hobbs' absents more obvious.
There were a couple of points that niggled at me a bit, the being that, in the flashbacks, young Dom and young Jakob were played by different actors (because it would be hard for Vin Diesel and John Cena to play their younger selves) but the actors (especially young Dom) didn't feel right. This isn't a criticism of the actors but there was just something that didn't quite Jell between the present and past characters.
Over all Fast and furious 9 is a good addition to an increasingly over blown film franchise although you do have to suspend reality a few times and you can see why the main franchise is coming to an end soon otherwise the 'Family' would probably end up colonising Mars or slipping into another reality.
In the 9th instalment of the the 'Fast and Furious' franchise we have; backstory, fun with magnets, brothers who have never been mentioned before, the return of dead characters, plenty of set up for spin offs, doggy English accents and cars in space.
Fast and Furious 9 is a big film, with a lot going on, it acts as Dom's back story, continuation of the franchise and (possibly) a set up for some spinoffs. The latter is not a surprise as Vin Diesel has already said that, including F9 there are only 3 more films left, but that there will be more spin offs, like Hobbs and Shaw (There is a rumoured 'Cipher ' spin off in the works as well as Hobbs and Shaw 2).
A large part of Fast 9 is Dom's back story. We get to see the incident where Dom kills a man, as mentioned in Fast 1 and the impact this has on his biological family. We also get flash backs/more story to 'Tokyo Drift' which they tie into the main franchise a bit more.
Fast 9 seems to bring the cars back to the franchise, although the 7 & 8 did have cars they seemed to be loosing there way in favour of the action but 9 has both cars and action.
There are a lot of call backs to the other films with almost every past family member returning in a original scene, we even almost get to see the return of Brian, however this does make Hobbs' absents more obvious.
There were a couple of points that niggled at me a bit, the being that, in the flashbacks, young Dom and young Jakob were played by different actors (because it would be hard for Vin Diesel and John Cena to play their younger selves) but the actors (especially young Dom) didn't feel right. This isn't a criticism of the actors but there was just something that didn't quite Jell between the present and past characters.
Over all Fast and furious 9 is a good addition to an increasingly over blown film franchise although you do have to suspend reality a few times and you can see why the main franchise is coming to an end soon otherwise the 'Family' would probably end up colonising Mars or slipping into another reality.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Thoughts on Toy Story 4
Characters – Woody is struggling with not being in control of the room anymore, he still wants to help make Bonnie happy, which sees him acting selfishly, he does try to fix his own mistakes which will see him facing a second chance, meeting an old friend and distancing himself from his current friends. Woody is the key figure in this film, this is very much his story. Forky is the newly created toy out of a spork and is learning everything as it unfolds even though he believes he is trash. Buzz Lightyear is trying to step up when Woody goes off, he does feel like a bigger idiot than we are used to, using his voice commands to help him, which seems like a huge step back on his character. Bo Peep coming back to the franchise is fun, she shows Woody a new life away from kids, where she helps toys, she is Woody’s big love in life too, kick ass fighter too. Gabby Gabby is an older toy like Woody, she has been damaged and is searching for something to hope she can be taken home one day, she is painted as the villain, though she is the weakest villain in the franchise. Duke Caboom is the best addition to the film a stuntman that has failed as a toy, he is always up for trying something new and is filled with confidence.
Story – The story here follows Woody trying to find himself a place in the world after becoming a smaller part in the life of his new owner Bonnie, he gets too involved and spends most of the story trying to make up for his mistake of letting Bonnie create a new toy, caught in the middle saving the day or breaking free. Now this is the 4th part of the franchise which did tie up nicely after the third one. The supporting characters do take a big back burner in the story which even sees Buzz getting less screen time, this is a full Woody story trying to figure out where his life is going on next. We do try to play on the heart strings, though it just doesn’t get to the levels it could have and has been there before. The new characters to bring the bright spark to the story, but we do end up going down the road, where this is becoming too unbelievable that these toys are acting like this.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure side of this film comes from the idea that Woody will need to go on a new adventure to save Forky, only to see Buzz on his own adventure which does cross paths with Woody, only his feels like a simple side to everything. the comedy from the new characters hits very well, its just old character seem to fall short.
Settings – Having the film use an Antique story is great idea because we get to see known toys that could add comedy in places, the carnival also adds potential new characters too.
Animation – The animation is Pixar at its very best, it looks perfect like we know they are used to bring us, bringing us larger scale environment to everything going on.
Scene of the Movie – Duke Caboom.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Buzz seems to be dumber.
Final Thoughts – This does end up feeling like a cash grab sequel, it doesn’t have the heart the previous films do and fails to use the original characters well enough.
Overall: By the book sequel.
Characters – Woody is struggling with not being in control of the room anymore, he still wants to help make Bonnie happy, which sees him acting selfishly, he does try to fix his own mistakes which will see him facing a second chance, meeting an old friend and distancing himself from his current friends. Woody is the key figure in this film, this is very much his story. Forky is the newly created toy out of a spork and is learning everything as it unfolds even though he believes he is trash. Buzz Lightyear is trying to step up when Woody goes off, he does feel like a bigger idiot than we are used to, using his voice commands to help him, which seems like a huge step back on his character. Bo Peep coming back to the franchise is fun, she shows Woody a new life away from kids, where she helps toys, she is Woody’s big love in life too, kick ass fighter too. Gabby Gabby is an older toy like Woody, she has been damaged and is searching for something to hope she can be taken home one day, she is painted as the villain, though she is the weakest villain in the franchise. Duke Caboom is the best addition to the film a stuntman that has failed as a toy, he is always up for trying something new and is filled with confidence.
Story – The story here follows Woody trying to find himself a place in the world after becoming a smaller part in the life of his new owner Bonnie, he gets too involved and spends most of the story trying to make up for his mistake of letting Bonnie create a new toy, caught in the middle saving the day or breaking free. Now this is the 4th part of the franchise which did tie up nicely after the third one. The supporting characters do take a big back burner in the story which even sees Buzz getting less screen time, this is a full Woody story trying to figure out where his life is going on next. We do try to play on the heart strings, though it just doesn’t get to the levels it could have and has been there before. The new characters to bring the bright spark to the story, but we do end up going down the road, where this is becoming too unbelievable that these toys are acting like this.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure side of this film comes from the idea that Woody will need to go on a new adventure to save Forky, only to see Buzz on his own adventure which does cross paths with Woody, only his feels like a simple side to everything. the comedy from the new characters hits very well, its just old character seem to fall short.
Settings – Having the film use an Antique story is great idea because we get to see known toys that could add comedy in places, the carnival also adds potential new characters too.
Animation – The animation is Pixar at its very best, it looks perfect like we know they are used to bring us, bringing us larger scale environment to everything going on.
Scene of the Movie – Duke Caboom.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Buzz seems to be dumber.
Final Thoughts – This does end up feeling like a cash grab sequel, it doesn’t have the heart the previous films do and fails to use the original characters well enough.
Overall: By the book sequel.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Cloverfield Paradox (2018) in Movies
Mar 23, 2018 (Updated Mar 24, 2018)
What? Why? How?
Right, quick disclaimer - this is going to be less of a review of the movie and more of a rant on how this movie ruins any Cloverfield movies going forward.
In terms of reviewing this film, I actually don't think that this film is as bad as most other people have been saying. There are actually some cool moments and neat ideas here, they just don't really work when they are all put together like this movie tried to do. I liked the cast, I thought that the set was cool, I even enjoyed some of the more cheesy sci-fi clichés in the film, but the whole point of the first two Cloverfield movies is that these planet altering events aren't explained. Even if you totally disregard the fact that this 'explanation,' actually makes no sense when you think about the timeline of the first movie's events, half the fun of the first movie was trying to work out exactly wtf was going on, this half arsed attempt at explaining it just ruins any of that potential fun.
Then, the second movie established that the 'Cloverfield,' label was more of an umbrella that went over these exciting sci-fi movies. Sure, it ties the movies together as a franchise, but there are no obvious links between the franchise entries and that's ok. Think of the 'Cloverfield,' title as being similar to the 'Twilight Zone.' Not everything has to make sense and call back/forward to another entry in the franchise. The tenuous links we had in the other movies, like how it was mentioned in 10CL that Howard worked at a satellite company before building his underground bunker, was more than enough to constitute a link and spark the online fan theories, we didn't need any more than that. Then there was all of the online marketing stuff involving Slusho and Tagruato, which was so clever and unique and elevated the first movie from being a mediocre monster flick to something intriguing and ripe for discussion.
Now this movie comes along and claims that all of these events are interconnected, even though the events of of the previous two movies took place years before the events of Cloverfield Paradox. Then they think by showing us a huge version of Clover from the first movie at the end of Paradox just automatically makes everything okay?
Why did they not just make this movie about a group of astronauts on a space station having some weird shit happening to them, (like the original script for this film was written,) and then call it Cloverfield: God Particle? (which was the movie's original title.) They could have still had Stambler's brother on the news at the start talking about how the crew's mission is dangerous and that would be enough to link this to the other movies. Why they included the appearance of Clover at the end of Paradox and the other half arsed attempts to tie the other two movies into this one is beyond me. It is so unnecessary and defeats the whole point of the Cloverfield franchise as a whole.
That is the reason I didn't like this movie, not because of the movie itself. The film itself was ok, but what it tried to do in terms of connecting these movies was stupid and unnecessary and may have ruined any other Cloverfield movies going forward.
In terms of reviewing this film, I actually don't think that this film is as bad as most other people have been saying. There are actually some cool moments and neat ideas here, they just don't really work when they are all put together like this movie tried to do. I liked the cast, I thought that the set was cool, I even enjoyed some of the more cheesy sci-fi clichés in the film, but the whole point of the first two Cloverfield movies is that these planet altering events aren't explained. Even if you totally disregard the fact that this 'explanation,' actually makes no sense when you think about the timeline of the first movie's events, half the fun of the first movie was trying to work out exactly wtf was going on, this half arsed attempt at explaining it just ruins any of that potential fun.
Then, the second movie established that the 'Cloverfield,' label was more of an umbrella that went over these exciting sci-fi movies. Sure, it ties the movies together as a franchise, but there are no obvious links between the franchise entries and that's ok. Think of the 'Cloverfield,' title as being similar to the 'Twilight Zone.' Not everything has to make sense and call back/forward to another entry in the franchise. The tenuous links we had in the other movies, like how it was mentioned in 10CL that Howard worked at a satellite company before building his underground bunker, was more than enough to constitute a link and spark the online fan theories, we didn't need any more than that. Then there was all of the online marketing stuff involving Slusho and Tagruato, which was so clever and unique and elevated the first movie from being a mediocre monster flick to something intriguing and ripe for discussion.
Now this movie comes along and claims that all of these events are interconnected, even though the events of of the previous two movies took place years before the events of Cloverfield Paradox. Then they think by showing us a huge version of Clover from the first movie at the end of Paradox just automatically makes everything okay?
Why did they not just make this movie about a group of astronauts on a space station having some weird shit happening to them, (like the original script for this film was written,) and then call it Cloverfield: God Particle? (which was the movie's original title.) They could have still had Stambler's brother on the news at the start talking about how the crew's mission is dangerous and that would be enough to link this to the other movies. Why they included the appearance of Clover at the end of Paradox and the other half arsed attempts to tie the other two movies into this one is beyond me. It is so unnecessary and defeats the whole point of the Cloverfield franchise as a whole.
That is the reason I didn't like this movie, not because of the movie itself. The film itself was ok, but what it tried to do in terms of connecting these movies was stupid and unnecessary and may have ruined any other Cloverfield movies going forward.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Hitman: Agent 47 (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Clinical and incomprehensible
The transition from video game to movie is notoriously difficult to get right. From box-office disasters like Super Mario Bros. to the poorly received Resident Evil franchise, it appears no film is spared from either financial woe or critically panning.
Hitman has become one of the most popular game series’ ever but the 2007 film of the same name failed to kick-start the franchise’s transition to the silver screen. Now, eight years later, Rupert Friend stars as the red tie-wearing assassin in Hitman: Agent 47, but does it succeed as a reboot?
Friend stars as the titular character, an emotionless killer hell-bent on tracking down the creator of the ‘Agent Program’ from which he was created. Alongside him for the ride is Hannah Ware’s Katia Van Dees, a young fearful woman searching for a man she does not know.
The usually excellent Zachary Quinto (Star Trek) also stars as a clichéd villain in a thankless role blighted by stilted dialogue and cardboard emotions. This most certainly isn’t his finest work.
The story is incredibly simple, barely fitting into the film’s slender 96 minute running time and the clinical filming style of director Aleksander Bach really doesn’t help. Beautiful locations like Berlin and Singapore are wasted in favour of sleek office sets, populated by one-dimensional characters that we couldn’t care less about.
Nevertheless, Friend plays the emotionless Agent 47 with ease and is one of the highlights in a film lacking in any real punch – it’s all been done before, and better.
Ware is disappointingly wooden, though her veneer seems to crack towards the finale and we get to see the character she could have played. It’s a shame that for the majority of Hitman’s running time we see no real prowess in her performance.
The action sequences are slick and nicely choreographed but Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation did them only last month and in a more detailed and ultimately successful style.
However, clever gun-work is mixed nicely with the film’s 15 certificate and each barrel discharge feels much more real. It’s certainly more interesting than the two sequels to Taken and many other action thrillers that sport the 12A rating.
The climax leaves things wide open for a sequel, but the ending is incomprehensible to anyone who hasn’t played the games and leaves a bad taste in the mouth – probably not a great thing when trying to get audiences excited for a follow up.
Overall, Hitman: Agent 47 is much like its titular character. A slick outer shell hides not a lot underneath with a cast of wasted talent and a been-there-done-that attitude to the stunts. There’s some great sequences, but you’ll have to dig deep to find any real merit here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/30/clinical-and-incomprehensible-hitman-agent-47-review/
Hitman has become one of the most popular game series’ ever but the 2007 film of the same name failed to kick-start the franchise’s transition to the silver screen. Now, eight years later, Rupert Friend stars as the red tie-wearing assassin in Hitman: Agent 47, but does it succeed as a reboot?
Friend stars as the titular character, an emotionless killer hell-bent on tracking down the creator of the ‘Agent Program’ from which he was created. Alongside him for the ride is Hannah Ware’s Katia Van Dees, a young fearful woman searching for a man she does not know.
The usually excellent Zachary Quinto (Star Trek) also stars as a clichéd villain in a thankless role blighted by stilted dialogue and cardboard emotions. This most certainly isn’t his finest work.
The story is incredibly simple, barely fitting into the film’s slender 96 minute running time and the clinical filming style of director Aleksander Bach really doesn’t help. Beautiful locations like Berlin and Singapore are wasted in favour of sleek office sets, populated by one-dimensional characters that we couldn’t care less about.
Nevertheless, Friend plays the emotionless Agent 47 with ease and is one of the highlights in a film lacking in any real punch – it’s all been done before, and better.
Ware is disappointingly wooden, though her veneer seems to crack towards the finale and we get to see the character she could have played. It’s a shame that for the majority of Hitman’s running time we see no real prowess in her performance.
The action sequences are slick and nicely choreographed but Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation did them only last month and in a more detailed and ultimately successful style.
However, clever gun-work is mixed nicely with the film’s 15 certificate and each barrel discharge feels much more real. It’s certainly more interesting than the two sequels to Taken and many other action thrillers that sport the 12A rating.
The climax leaves things wide open for a sequel, but the ending is incomprehensible to anyone who hasn’t played the games and leaves a bad taste in the mouth – probably not a great thing when trying to get audiences excited for a follow up.
Overall, Hitman: Agent 47 is much like its titular character. A slick outer shell hides not a lot underneath with a cast of wasted talent and a been-there-done-that attitude to the stunts. There’s some great sequences, but you’ll have to dig deep to find any real merit here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/30/clinical-and-incomprehensible-hitman-agent-47-review/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Jesus' Son (1999) in Movies
Jan 9, 2021
Terrible Ending to a Bad Movie
Jesus’ Son is a collection of stories revolving around main character FH. A great concept with poor execution, this movie reminds me more of a wannabe Tarantino movie.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 6
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 2
I could never latch on to what the movie was about or where things were ultimately heading. As a result, there never felt like there was any true conflict that I needed to care about. Most of the scenes felt like they weren’t of much consequence if they had been taken out or left in. This made it really hard to give two craps about the movie as a whole.
Entertainment Value: 6
Memorability: 7
I love the way director Alison Maclean approached the film. The way things are shot in story fashion with flashbacks and rewinds is very creative. While the execution didn’t deliver on the story I was hoping for, I applaud the attempt to be different.
Pace: 6
The movie isn’t overly long, there is just a little more fluff than what is needed. Again, not understanding the concept of what’s happening definitely makes it feel like time is moving slower. A better story would have alleviated this issue.
Plot: 2
Resolution: 4
About the best thing about the ending was that the movie was ending. Didn’t really tie anything up. Didn’t make me any more fulfilled for seeing the movie. No bueno.
Overall: 63
The reason why I enjoy my rating system so much is because you can come up short in some areas and still pass as a quality movie. Too much of a dip in multiple categories and you strike out. Jesus’ Son suffers from weak characters, minor conflict, and little “wow” quality. Not recommended.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 6
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 2
I could never latch on to what the movie was about or where things were ultimately heading. As a result, there never felt like there was any true conflict that I needed to care about. Most of the scenes felt like they weren’t of much consequence if they had been taken out or left in. This made it really hard to give two craps about the movie as a whole.
Entertainment Value: 6
Memorability: 7
I love the way director Alison Maclean approached the film. The way things are shot in story fashion with flashbacks and rewinds is very creative. While the execution didn’t deliver on the story I was hoping for, I applaud the attempt to be different.
Pace: 6
The movie isn’t overly long, there is just a little more fluff than what is needed. Again, not understanding the concept of what’s happening definitely makes it feel like time is moving slower. A better story would have alleviated this issue.
Plot: 2
Resolution: 4
About the best thing about the ending was that the movie was ending. Didn’t really tie anything up. Didn’t make me any more fulfilled for seeing the movie. No bueno.
Overall: 63
The reason why I enjoy my rating system so much is because you can come up short in some areas and still pass as a quality movie. Too much of a dip in multiple categories and you strike out. Jesus’ Son suffers from weak characters, minor conflict, and little “wow” quality. Not recommended.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Murder mystery films tend to be more fun in theory and anticipation than they are to watch. It’s a genre that I very much enjoy and have indulged in over the years. Yet, if I look back in detail at it, I find that it is the books, especially those of Agatha Christie, that I like much more than anything lasting a couple of hours on the screen. There’s something about the mystery being rushed and squeezed into the cinema artform that is usually anti-climactic or even a full on let down.
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part (2019) in Movies
Aug 28, 2020
Fun Film
The heroes of Bricksburg are back to save their city from the evil invaders LEGO DUPLO. Though not nearly as good as the first movie, The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part packs enough punch to be an entertaining watch.
Acting: 10
Chris Pratt is back playing the lovable Emmet. The depth of voice-acting in animated movies has grown stronger over the years and this movie is no exception. So many great actors and actresses lend their voices, my favorite of which being Will Arnett as Batman. Seriously, he just might be the best Batman out of all the Batmen that have graced the big screen.
Beginning: 2
Weak start for me. Not that it lacked action, it just didn’t quite suck me into the world as successfully as the first managed to do. I was mildly entertained after watching the first ten minutes.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The movie is surprisingly ambitious, sprawling across a number of different worlds that are visually stunning. From wasteland to spaceworld, you get a taste of a little bit of everything. I especially enjoyed Emmet’s home (and all of its features) out in the middle of nowhere, really nice touch.
Conflict: 7
Entertainment Value: 9
In addition to its creative setpieces, the movie succeeds in hilarity. It’s not perfect by any means, but I’m happy to say that it’s funny from start to finish. I was also pleasantly impressed with how creative some of the action sequences were. Sure, they were nods to other movies, but they did it with their own LEGO spin.
Memorability: 10
I commend the movie for going the extra mile to leave a mark. It was nice seeing appearances from characters like Gary Payton and members of the Harry Potter crew. I also appreciated the messaging around growing up but still keeping your childlike spirit.
Pace: 6
Plot: 10
Clever story that keeps the world fresh. I thought they would have a hard time matching the originality of the first, but they definitely succeeded here. Loved how they incorporate things like Ourmomaggedon to keep the tie to the real world. The story seamlessly provided a clear growth for the characters overall.
Resolution: 10
Great ending that was even better than the overall story itself. Makes up for the weak start. It had me looking forward to a potential third movie. Potential? Let’s be honest, there will be a third without a doubt.
Overall: 84
A part of what made the first movie so successful is not finding out about the tie to the real world until its conclusion. Knowing that throughout made the movie just slightly less enjoyable. For the most part, I liked this new addition to the franchise and I’m excited to see where it goes from here.
Acting: 10
Chris Pratt is back playing the lovable Emmet. The depth of voice-acting in animated movies has grown stronger over the years and this movie is no exception. So many great actors and actresses lend their voices, my favorite of which being Will Arnett as Batman. Seriously, he just might be the best Batman out of all the Batmen that have graced the big screen.
Beginning: 2
Weak start for me. Not that it lacked action, it just didn’t quite suck me into the world as successfully as the first managed to do. I was mildly entertained after watching the first ten minutes.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The movie is surprisingly ambitious, sprawling across a number of different worlds that are visually stunning. From wasteland to spaceworld, you get a taste of a little bit of everything. I especially enjoyed Emmet’s home (and all of its features) out in the middle of nowhere, really nice touch.
Conflict: 7
Entertainment Value: 9
In addition to its creative setpieces, the movie succeeds in hilarity. It’s not perfect by any means, but I’m happy to say that it’s funny from start to finish. I was also pleasantly impressed with how creative some of the action sequences were. Sure, they were nods to other movies, but they did it with their own LEGO spin.
Memorability: 10
I commend the movie for going the extra mile to leave a mark. It was nice seeing appearances from characters like Gary Payton and members of the Harry Potter crew. I also appreciated the messaging around growing up but still keeping your childlike spirit.
Pace: 6
Plot: 10
Clever story that keeps the world fresh. I thought they would have a hard time matching the originality of the first, but they definitely succeeded here. Loved how they incorporate things like Ourmomaggedon to keep the tie to the real world. The story seamlessly provided a clear growth for the characters overall.
Resolution: 10
Great ending that was even better than the overall story itself. Makes up for the weak start. It had me looking forward to a potential third movie. Potential? Let’s be honest, there will be a third without a doubt.
Overall: 84
A part of what made the first movie so successful is not finding out about the tie to the real world until its conclusion. Knowing that throughout made the movie just slightly less enjoyable. For the most part, I liked this new addition to the franchise and I’m excited to see where it goes from here.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Gunman (2015) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: The Gunman starts as we meet Terrier (Penn) a mercenary whose cover as a humanitarian working in Congo who assignment was to kill the new minster of mining whose new policy could bring the country to its knees again. With the mission being a success, Terrier is forced to flee the country for his own safety. Years past and Terrier believes he is being followed and turns to his old friends who worked on that last mission, Stanley (Winstone), Terrance (Rylance) and Felix (Bardem) to see if anyone leaked the information about the hit.
Not knowing who to trust Terrier must race against tie to figure out the truth with his own life and loved ones lives on the line as the past continues to come back and haunt him.
Thoughts on The Gunman
Characters – Terrier is a sniper mercenary who poses as a humanitarian, he knows how to make connections and uses them to complete jobs, though his latest job turns out to be his last as he goes into hiding. Learning his life is in danger he goes in search for answers about who is after him, giving him a chance to see his love once again. Annie is the woman that Terrier must leave when he goes into hiding, the woman he loved, she has moved on though she still does love Terrier even after all these years. Felix is one of the connections from the job, he had always been jealous of the relationship Terrier and Annie had, leaving him to make his move once Terrier is out of the picture. Stanley is the connection in London that is a good friend that will help out where needed. Terrance is the one of the group which continued his success and knows who is still in the loop.
Performances – When it comes to performances we need to face the reality that Sean Penn is trying his luck at the Liam Neeson style of action film, he just doesn’t have the same levels of action in him and for the most part he doesn’t do anything to make us truly care about his character. When we look at the supporting cast on the male side we get four big-names we know do solid enough supporting roles, while Jasmine Trinca is solid enough as the love interest for Terrier.
Story – The story follows a mercenary that finds his previous job exposed to the people it has effective, but soon needs to learn who released the information. The was sold to be a fast paced action thriller, though the story is slow burning political thriller which focuses on the ideas that have been put forward when the rich try to control countries for their own means. The slow pace takes us out of the story because things just become boring for the most part.
Action/Crime – For an action film we get the very basic levels of shooting and combat which are covering up the bigger crime going on between the men.
Settings – The film takes us from growing African country that the Europeans and Americans are looking to take advantage off, to Europe as we get the locations that are designed to show us the hiding places are in every city.
Special Effects – The effects come from how the wounds look and that is about it, for the most part they are the strongest part of the film.
Scene of the Movie – Sniper time.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The pacing.
Final Thoughts – This is a slow burning action crime thriller that lacks any tension, suspicious about who the villain is and ends up playing out like a paint by numbers cliché.
Overall: Cliched and boring.
Not knowing who to trust Terrier must race against tie to figure out the truth with his own life and loved ones lives on the line as the past continues to come back and haunt him.
Thoughts on The Gunman
Characters – Terrier is a sniper mercenary who poses as a humanitarian, he knows how to make connections and uses them to complete jobs, though his latest job turns out to be his last as he goes into hiding. Learning his life is in danger he goes in search for answers about who is after him, giving him a chance to see his love once again. Annie is the woman that Terrier must leave when he goes into hiding, the woman he loved, she has moved on though she still does love Terrier even after all these years. Felix is one of the connections from the job, he had always been jealous of the relationship Terrier and Annie had, leaving him to make his move once Terrier is out of the picture. Stanley is the connection in London that is a good friend that will help out where needed. Terrance is the one of the group which continued his success and knows who is still in the loop.
Performances – When it comes to performances we need to face the reality that Sean Penn is trying his luck at the Liam Neeson style of action film, he just doesn’t have the same levels of action in him and for the most part he doesn’t do anything to make us truly care about his character. When we look at the supporting cast on the male side we get four big-names we know do solid enough supporting roles, while Jasmine Trinca is solid enough as the love interest for Terrier.
Story – The story follows a mercenary that finds his previous job exposed to the people it has effective, but soon needs to learn who released the information. The was sold to be a fast paced action thriller, though the story is slow burning political thriller which focuses on the ideas that have been put forward when the rich try to control countries for their own means. The slow pace takes us out of the story because things just become boring for the most part.
Action/Crime – For an action film we get the very basic levels of shooting and combat which are covering up the bigger crime going on between the men.
Settings – The film takes us from growing African country that the Europeans and Americans are looking to take advantage off, to Europe as we get the locations that are designed to show us the hiding places are in every city.
Special Effects – The effects come from how the wounds look and that is about it, for the most part they are the strongest part of the film.
Scene of the Movie – Sniper time.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The pacing.
Final Thoughts – This is a slow burning action crime thriller that lacks any tension, suspicious about who the villain is and ends up playing out like a paint by numbers cliché.
Overall: Cliched and boring.