Search
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.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Robert Eggers made a striking introduction for himself in 2015 with the moody and disconcerting The Witch, bringing a future star to the world’s attention in Anya Taylor-Joy in the process. You could argue after seeing his sophomore effort, The Lighthouse, that in terms of creating deliberately nauseating landscapes his work is the third cog in the arthouse revival of intellectual “horror”, after Ari Aster (Hereditary / Midsommar) and Jordan Peele (Get Out / Us). The group actually sits quite well together, as there is an obvious social commentary by metaphor crossover going on here, as well as just a little bit of “crazy”.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Widows (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Before I'd even seen anything beyond the plot and a poster I was confused. It really just felt like the poster was designed to catch people. "Look, we've got these big names! Come and watch it!" I know that's what posters are meant to do, but considering the movie is about these women taking up the reins of their dearly departed I'd have had more respect for a poster that focused on them.
Widows has every chance to be great. Based on Lynda La Plante's Widows, with the screenplay written by Gillian Flynn and Steve McQueen, as well as being directed by the latter. Those three names should guarantee a success, and while it seems to be very popular among viewers it has left me some what cold.
The idea is a solid one that you would expect from La Plante's repertoire, and it's worked before. Unfortunately that could not bring it back from the brink for me.
I can't think of another film that has given me such an instant feeling of dislike. The opening scene made me cringe, and having it quickly change pace into a violently loud action scene and back again was jarring to watch.
The first inkling that something is awry comes fairly early on and even without much more you can see where the plot is going. I'm impressed that the trailers managed to stay away from anything obvious.
We have an interesting assortment of baddies and there are two perfectly contrasting ones in Jamal (Brian Tyree Henry) and Jatemme (Daniel Kaluuya) Manning. The former is charismatic and subtly scary, whereas the latter has no likable qualities (apart from a clear love of reading) and is extremely vicious. The other difference is that Jamal in enjoyable to watch and Jatemme isn't. Usually even the most loathed of villains is good to watch on screen, not in this case. Jamal comes out on top in the villain stakes even with the dog incident.
Normally I wouldn't think much beyond what you're presented with in each scene of the movie, but I quickly found myself wondering about a lot of things. Linda's interaction with Delia's husband was strange and one of many things that felt unnecessary. And while I'll happily believe that women could successfully execute a heist, I'm not really sure I can believe that THESE women could do it, I don't care how well documented his notebook was.
Something that seems to a popular device in this is "the flashback". At the beginning it lays up the backstory of the two crews quickly and gives you a good sense of the people, even though I feel the way it was executed on screen wasn't so hot. When the film starts to round up and these scenes give you the missing story at just the right point. The one's I didn't like were between Veronica and Harry. Not all of them were flashbacks, some were Veronica dealing with Harry's death. They seemed more on the dramatic side and didn't feel in-keeping with the rest of the film. (I will say that this film is listed on IMDb as "crime, drama, romance"... Romance seems like a bit of a stretch, and crime and drama as two separate things are very different to a "crime drama". I'll admit that it's a very slight difference, but I think it's still there.)
I'm not sure how the characters worked in the book, but I would assume that some liberties had to be taken to change the setting, and obviously when you're turning a book into a film then you're going to have to tie up some loopholes with jiggery-pokery. What was left were some characters with potential that never seemed to be filled and others that were so throwaway I had already forgotten about them when I read through the cast list after I'd seen it.
What you should do
I'd wait until this one is streaming. It doesn't require a big screen and I always think films like this are better if you can talk to the screen while you're watching them. "Why are you doing that?!" "Yeah, let's see how far that gets you!" and the like. It's got enough reasonable moments to watch it at least once.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Obviously the giant piles of money are always appealing, but I'm very tempted to go for Linda's store. I'd love to work all day in a shop selling fantastical dresses and tiaras watching people's faces light up when they found the right one. It's like the Disney Princess dream come to life!
Widows has every chance to be great. Based on Lynda La Plante's Widows, with the screenplay written by Gillian Flynn and Steve McQueen, as well as being directed by the latter. Those three names should guarantee a success, and while it seems to be very popular among viewers it has left me some what cold.
The idea is a solid one that you would expect from La Plante's repertoire, and it's worked before. Unfortunately that could not bring it back from the brink for me.
I can't think of another film that has given me such an instant feeling of dislike. The opening scene made me cringe, and having it quickly change pace into a violently loud action scene and back again was jarring to watch.
The first inkling that something is awry comes fairly early on and even without much more you can see where the plot is going. I'm impressed that the trailers managed to stay away from anything obvious.
We have an interesting assortment of baddies and there are two perfectly contrasting ones in Jamal (Brian Tyree Henry) and Jatemme (Daniel Kaluuya) Manning. The former is charismatic and subtly scary, whereas the latter has no likable qualities (apart from a clear love of reading) and is extremely vicious. The other difference is that Jamal in enjoyable to watch and Jatemme isn't. Usually even the most loathed of villains is good to watch on screen, not in this case. Jamal comes out on top in the villain stakes even with the dog incident.
Normally I wouldn't think much beyond what you're presented with in each scene of the movie, but I quickly found myself wondering about a lot of things. Linda's interaction with Delia's husband was strange and one of many things that felt unnecessary. And while I'll happily believe that women could successfully execute a heist, I'm not really sure I can believe that THESE women could do it, I don't care how well documented his notebook was.
Something that seems to a popular device in this is "the flashback". At the beginning it lays up the backstory of the two crews quickly and gives you a good sense of the people, even though I feel the way it was executed on screen wasn't so hot. When the film starts to round up and these scenes give you the missing story at just the right point. The one's I didn't like were between Veronica and Harry. Not all of them were flashbacks, some were Veronica dealing with Harry's death. They seemed more on the dramatic side and didn't feel in-keeping with the rest of the film. (I will say that this film is listed on IMDb as "crime, drama, romance"... Romance seems like a bit of a stretch, and crime and drama as two separate things are very different to a "crime drama". I'll admit that it's a very slight difference, but I think it's still there.)
I'm not sure how the characters worked in the book, but I would assume that some liberties had to be taken to change the setting, and obviously when you're turning a book into a film then you're going to have to tie up some loopholes with jiggery-pokery. What was left were some characters with potential that never seemed to be filled and others that were so throwaway I had already forgotten about them when I read through the cast list after I'd seen it.
What you should do
I'd wait until this one is streaming. It doesn't require a big screen and I always think films like this are better if you can talk to the screen while you're watching them. "Why are you doing that?!" "Yeah, let's see how far that gets you!" and the like. It's got enough reasonable moments to watch it at least once.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Obviously the giant piles of money are always appealing, but I'm very tempted to go for Linda's store. I'd love to work all day in a shop selling fantastical dresses and tiaras watching people's faces light up when they found the right one. It's like the Disney Princess dream come to life!
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Clue (1985) in Movies
Nov 3, 2020
The Multiple Endings (2 more)
The Cast
The Humor
All Time Favorites
Ive seen Clue about nine times now and it has become a tradition to watch Clue every October. I remember watching clue the first time and i laughed my ass off and i still do that. The humor is excellent, the cast is excellent, the multiple endings are excellent. Everything about Clue is excellent.
The plot: Based on the popular board game, this comedy begins at a dinner party hosted by Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving), where he admits to blackmailing his visitors. These guests, who have been given aliases, are Mrs. Peacock (Eileen Brennan), Miss Scarlet (Lesley Ann Warren), Mr. Green (Michael McKean), professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd), Mrs. White (Madeline Kahn) and Col. Mustard (Martin Mull). When Boddy turns up murdered, all are suspects, and together they try to figure out who is the killer.
The film was produced by Debra Hill and the story was by John Landis.
In keeping with the nature of the board game, the theatrical release included three possible endings, with different theaters receiving one of the three endings. In the film's home video release, all three endings were included.
The multiple-ending concept was developed by John Landis, who claimed in an interview to have invited playwright Tom Stoppard, writer and composer Stephen Sondheim, and actor Anthony Perkins to write the screenplay. The script was ultimately finished by director Jonathan Lynn.
A fourth ending was filmed, but Lynn removed it because as he later stated, "It really wasn't very good. I looked at it, and I thought, 'No, no, no, we've got to get rid of that.'" In the unused fourth ending, Wadsworth committed all of the murders. He was motivated by his desire for perfection. Having failed to be either the perfect husband or the perfect butler, he decided to be the perfect murderer instead. Wadsworth reports that he poisoned the champagne the guests had drunk earlier so they would soon die, leaving no witnesses. The police and the FBI arrive and Wadsworth is arrested. He breaks free and steals a police car, but his escape is thwarted when three police dogs lunge from the back seat. This ending is documented in Clue: The Storybook, a tie-in book released in conjunction with the film.
Carrie Fisher was originally contracted to portray Miss Scarlet, but withdrew to enter treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. Jonathan Lynn's first choice for the role of Wadsworth was Leonard Rossiter, but he died before filming commenced. The second choice was Rowan Atkinson, but it was decided that he wasn't well known enough at the time, so Tim Curry was eventually cast.
Mrs. White's famous "Flames" speech was improvised by Madeline Kahn.
A documentary about the movie is being made, including interviews already filmed with the director, writer, and several cast members including Lesley Ann Warren, Michael McKean, Colleen Camp, and Lee Ving.
I love Clue, it is one of my all time favorite films. In my top ten best films of all time at number #3 and just excellent.
Happy Halloween everybody.
The plot: Based on the popular board game, this comedy begins at a dinner party hosted by Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving), where he admits to blackmailing his visitors. These guests, who have been given aliases, are Mrs. Peacock (Eileen Brennan), Miss Scarlet (Lesley Ann Warren), Mr. Green (Michael McKean), professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd), Mrs. White (Madeline Kahn) and Col. Mustard (Martin Mull). When Boddy turns up murdered, all are suspects, and together they try to figure out who is the killer.
The film was produced by Debra Hill and the story was by John Landis.
In keeping with the nature of the board game, the theatrical release included three possible endings, with different theaters receiving one of the three endings. In the film's home video release, all three endings were included.
The multiple-ending concept was developed by John Landis, who claimed in an interview to have invited playwright Tom Stoppard, writer and composer Stephen Sondheim, and actor Anthony Perkins to write the screenplay. The script was ultimately finished by director Jonathan Lynn.
A fourth ending was filmed, but Lynn removed it because as he later stated, "It really wasn't very good. I looked at it, and I thought, 'No, no, no, we've got to get rid of that.'" In the unused fourth ending, Wadsworth committed all of the murders. He was motivated by his desire for perfection. Having failed to be either the perfect husband or the perfect butler, he decided to be the perfect murderer instead. Wadsworth reports that he poisoned the champagne the guests had drunk earlier so they would soon die, leaving no witnesses. The police and the FBI arrive and Wadsworth is arrested. He breaks free and steals a police car, but his escape is thwarted when three police dogs lunge from the back seat. This ending is documented in Clue: The Storybook, a tie-in book released in conjunction with the film.
Carrie Fisher was originally contracted to portray Miss Scarlet, but withdrew to enter treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. Jonathan Lynn's first choice for the role of Wadsworth was Leonard Rossiter, but he died before filming commenced. The second choice was Rowan Atkinson, but it was decided that he wasn't well known enough at the time, so Tim Curry was eventually cast.
Mrs. White's famous "Flames" speech was improvised by Madeline Kahn.
A documentary about the movie is being made, including interviews already filmed with the director, writer, and several cast members including Lesley Ann Warren, Michael McKean, Colleen Camp, and Lee Ving.
I love Clue, it is one of my all time favorite films. In my top ten best films of all time at number #3 and just excellent.
Happy Halloween everybody.
The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn - The Game
Games and Entertainment
App
“One of the best and most imaginative film tie-ins I’ve played for years. […] Both fans and...
The Adventures of Tintin™ - The Game
Games and Entertainment
App
“One of the best and most imaginative film tie-ins I’ve played for years. […] Both fans and...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
At the end of the 1984 Democratic Primaries a relative unknown Senator from Colorado, Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman), concedes victory to Walter Mondale. But being the runner up to the Democratic Party Presidential nominee catapults Hart to the national stage. Fast forward to 1988 and Hart is the overwhelming front runner to be not only the Democratic nominee but most likely the next President of the United States. He is a progressive and has a knack for explaining politics so that everyone can understand. He’s well spoken, has popular policies, a clear message for the future and is a handsome man to boot. It seems like nothing can stand in his way. That is until three weeks into the primary elections reporters from the Miami Herald, Tom Fiedler (Steve Zissis) and Pete Murphy (Bill Burr), get wind of a story of Hart and a young woman from Miami spending time together at yacht party. Since Hart is very much married to his wife, Lee Hart (Vera Farmiga), they decide to investigate. They find out that the two may be meeting in Washington D.C. at Hart’s townhouse. They follow the young woman, Donna Rice (Sara Paxton), from Miami to D.C. There they take photos of the two together and print a story. The media blitz is on and the story explodes. Hart now faces one of the first personal political scandals. He must try and navigate a new media age to not see his political career slip away.
Even though this is a true story and some of you may already know the facts I will put the disclaimer of spoilers ahead. This is the story of Senator Hart and his fall from grace as a sure fire Presidential Nominee to out of politics in the blink of an eye, in one of the first “tabloid” political scandals. The Jason Reitman (Up in the Air, Thank you for Smoking) directed film focuses heavily on the interaction between politicians and reporters. It shows, and touches on, how this relationship evolves/devolves so quickly. There are plenty of moments that you can tie into today’s media and how maybe this instance influenced how the media reported on the private lives of politicians.
Overall I thought the film was good. I thought that telling the story from the side of the media and the people on the campaign was really interesting. I just thought that it was not overly compelling. You can’t feel bad for Hart because it was his actions and how he handled the situation that led to the eventual result. Also yeah the media maybe went too far at some point but also you could see how the reporters were just trying to do their jobs. The film has a large ensemble cast. J.K Simmons, Molly Ephraim, Chris Coy, Alfred Molina, Kevin Pollak, Mamoudou Athie and the list goes on. They all do okay but really this is all about Jackman. His performance is outstanding. The story did drag a little at points but for a political drama it was not overboard. I think it could have been a little shorter.
To use a real story that had such a media spotlight on it was ambitious and I give the filmmakers credit for that. But you can see some of the limitation on screen. Not really a theater must see but definitely if this is a story you are not familiar with it is worth the watch. Again it draws a lot of parallels and makes a lot of nods to today’s media and political climate.
Even though this is a true story and some of you may already know the facts I will put the disclaimer of spoilers ahead. This is the story of Senator Hart and his fall from grace as a sure fire Presidential Nominee to out of politics in the blink of an eye, in one of the first “tabloid” political scandals. The Jason Reitman (Up in the Air, Thank you for Smoking) directed film focuses heavily on the interaction between politicians and reporters. It shows, and touches on, how this relationship evolves/devolves so quickly. There are plenty of moments that you can tie into today’s media and how maybe this instance influenced how the media reported on the private lives of politicians.
Overall I thought the film was good. I thought that telling the story from the side of the media and the people on the campaign was really interesting. I just thought that it was not overly compelling. You can’t feel bad for Hart because it was his actions and how he handled the situation that led to the eventual result. Also yeah the media maybe went too far at some point but also you could see how the reporters were just trying to do their jobs. The film has a large ensemble cast. J.K Simmons, Molly Ephraim, Chris Coy, Alfred Molina, Kevin Pollak, Mamoudou Athie and the list goes on. They all do okay but really this is all about Jackman. His performance is outstanding. The story did drag a little at points but for a political drama it was not overboard. I think it could have been a little shorter.
To use a real story that had such a media spotlight on it was ambitious and I give the filmmakers credit for that. But you can see some of the limitation on screen. Not really a theater must see but definitely if this is a story you are not familiar with it is worth the watch. Again it draws a lot of parallels and makes a lot of nods to today’s media and political climate.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
There has definitely been a shift in the characters that women are portraying in the movies. No longer happy to be relegated to the damsel in distress who is looking for their Prince Charming to rescue them, they become bad-ass avengers who aren’t afraid to kick-butt and take names. There is no better example of this than Lisbeth Salander, everyone’s favorite goth super-hacker and vigilante. In The Girl in the Spider’s Web, based on the best-selling novel of the same name, we see Lisbeth at her finest and it is an action packed, butt kicking good time.
Lisbeth (Claire Foy) leads a life as a vigilante who targets men that abuse woman ensuring they pay for their evil deeds. She’s not afraid to play hardball and threaten their very existence to ensure that justice is served. In the middle of punishing all the right people, Lisbeth receives a hacking opportunity that she can’t refuse, involving an application where simply logging in allows you to take over the world’s nuclear weapons. This super application was originally created and sold to the NSA in Washington and Lisbeth is tasked with stealing it back and returning it to the original creator so that it can be properly destroyed. Lisbeth successfully steals the application but that then makes her the target of not only the NSA whom she had stolen it from originally, but also another secretive group who has their own nefarious plans.
The film quickly goes from Lisbeth and her “simple” vigilante ways to becoming a global thriller that spans multiple countries and agencies. Not only does the plot change quickly but Lisbeth’s character also morph’s from being a Black Canary type vigilante to becoming a female version of Mission Impossible’s Ethan Hunt. Even though playing a female Ethan Hunt is different from Lisbeth’s usual trope her skills fit nicely into her new role. Her ability to hack into any computer system comes in handy quite a few times and lets us have a tie to the Lisbeth we know and love, but we also get to see her flex her wits and general bad-assery a bit deeper during her “impossible mission”. The film was definitely not what I expected but I was still pleasantly surprised.
The Swedish setting where the movie takes place was gorgeous and varies from desolate abandoned buildings to chases in the middle of sprawling cities. It utilizes the snow-covered landscape and decrepit buildings to create a sense of isolation, even when the streets themselves are packed with cars. Along with the isolation from the setting we also see the use of both old and new technology, which gives a low-tech feel to what is an otherwise a high stakes mission. Both the setting and the technology allows us to see that Lisbeth is a force to be reckoned with no matter what type of adversity she faces.
Which brings me to the one of the best parts of the movie and that is Claire Foy’s absolutely amazing portrayal of Lisbeth. We already knew she did a great job playing a royal in The Crown and as the wife of astronaut Neil Armstrong in First Man but relinquishing her usual elegant and classy portrayals to spectacularly play one of the biggest, baddest female characters around shows the true depth of her talent. She is definitely the star of the show and now I am an even bigger fan of hers than I already was. I was also impressed with the other main characters, including investigative journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Sverrir Gudnason), who plays less of role than in the original The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo but does a great job nonetheless, and the young boy, August Balder (Christopher Convery) that holds the key to the entire mission excellently played by Christopher Convery. The trio make an unusual team, but how the characters (and actors) play on each other’s strengths and weaknesses to complement each other brings heart to a movie that could have easily been 100% an action adventure.
The one aspect I feel could (and should) have been fleshed out more, was Lisbeth’s character as a battered woman’s vigilante. The movie started off with a very strong vigilante scene, but the vigilante theme is quickly forgotten until the very end of the film where we find out it was the sole catalyst of the main adversary. This oversight sadly turned what could have been a woman’s justice vigilante movie into a more run-of-the-mill super spy movie. That’s not necessarily bad, it is still action packed and full of twists and turns, but it’s definitely a missed opportunity to show more of who Lisbeth is.
The Girl in the Spider’s Web is filled with action, gadgets, and car chases though beautiful scenery and it is an excellent movie to see if you are looking for something different than green grinches and Nazi zombies. It’s not the movie I went in expecting to see, but I’m not complaining as it is still a solid film. Even though it diverts away from the more artistic The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo it is a very good action-packed thriller that would stack up nicely next to the Mission Impossible movies it is reminiscent of. It’s definitely a movie I recommend to action movie fans everywhere.
Lisbeth (Claire Foy) leads a life as a vigilante who targets men that abuse woman ensuring they pay for their evil deeds. She’s not afraid to play hardball and threaten their very existence to ensure that justice is served. In the middle of punishing all the right people, Lisbeth receives a hacking opportunity that she can’t refuse, involving an application where simply logging in allows you to take over the world’s nuclear weapons. This super application was originally created and sold to the NSA in Washington and Lisbeth is tasked with stealing it back and returning it to the original creator so that it can be properly destroyed. Lisbeth successfully steals the application but that then makes her the target of not only the NSA whom she had stolen it from originally, but also another secretive group who has their own nefarious plans.
The film quickly goes from Lisbeth and her “simple” vigilante ways to becoming a global thriller that spans multiple countries and agencies. Not only does the plot change quickly but Lisbeth’s character also morph’s from being a Black Canary type vigilante to becoming a female version of Mission Impossible’s Ethan Hunt. Even though playing a female Ethan Hunt is different from Lisbeth’s usual trope her skills fit nicely into her new role. Her ability to hack into any computer system comes in handy quite a few times and lets us have a tie to the Lisbeth we know and love, but we also get to see her flex her wits and general bad-assery a bit deeper during her “impossible mission”. The film was definitely not what I expected but I was still pleasantly surprised.
The Swedish setting where the movie takes place was gorgeous and varies from desolate abandoned buildings to chases in the middle of sprawling cities. It utilizes the snow-covered landscape and decrepit buildings to create a sense of isolation, even when the streets themselves are packed with cars. Along with the isolation from the setting we also see the use of both old and new technology, which gives a low-tech feel to what is an otherwise a high stakes mission. Both the setting and the technology allows us to see that Lisbeth is a force to be reckoned with no matter what type of adversity she faces.
Which brings me to the one of the best parts of the movie and that is Claire Foy’s absolutely amazing portrayal of Lisbeth. We already knew she did a great job playing a royal in The Crown and as the wife of astronaut Neil Armstrong in First Man but relinquishing her usual elegant and classy portrayals to spectacularly play one of the biggest, baddest female characters around shows the true depth of her talent. She is definitely the star of the show and now I am an even bigger fan of hers than I already was. I was also impressed with the other main characters, including investigative journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Sverrir Gudnason), who plays less of role than in the original The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo but does a great job nonetheless, and the young boy, August Balder (Christopher Convery) that holds the key to the entire mission excellently played by Christopher Convery. The trio make an unusual team, but how the characters (and actors) play on each other’s strengths and weaknesses to complement each other brings heart to a movie that could have easily been 100% an action adventure.
The one aspect I feel could (and should) have been fleshed out more, was Lisbeth’s character as a battered woman’s vigilante. The movie started off with a very strong vigilante scene, but the vigilante theme is quickly forgotten until the very end of the film where we find out it was the sole catalyst of the main adversary. This oversight sadly turned what could have been a woman’s justice vigilante movie into a more run-of-the-mill super spy movie. That’s not necessarily bad, it is still action packed and full of twists and turns, but it’s definitely a missed opportunity to show more of who Lisbeth is.
The Girl in the Spider’s Web is filled with action, gadgets, and car chases though beautiful scenery and it is an excellent movie to see if you are looking for something different than green grinches and Nazi zombies. It’s not the movie I went in expecting to see, but I’m not complaining as it is still a solid film. Even though it diverts away from the more artistic The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo it is a very good action-packed thriller that would stack up nicely next to the Mission Impossible movies it is reminiscent of. It’s definitely a movie I recommend to action movie fans everywhere.
Darren (1599 KP) rated An Acceptable Loss (2018) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: An Acceptable Loss starts as Libby (Sumpter) takes a new job in education, her former career saw her working under the Vice President Rachel (Curtis) being part of a campaign known as ‘Total Victory’ which saw her career change. Libby’s new job shows how she doesn’t have any forms of communication and one of the students Martin (Tavassoli) has taken an extra interest in her life, following her around, spying her on her.
Rachel now being President sends her Chief of Staff Adrian (Hephner) and former lover of Libby to make sure she isn’t going to spill the beans on what happened in this case, all while Libby is trying to make sure she can just get on with her life.
Thoughts on An Acceptable Loss
Characters – Libby once worked for the Vice President on one of the most controversial projects in defence and dealing with potential terrorist against America, she has left this job because of what happened trying to find a new career in education, she wants to stay off the radar with how she lives, which sees her avoid her former colleagues and fellow members of the faculty. Rachel is the former Vice-President, now President who is trying to tie up the loose ends of operation Total Victory, this will see her challenge Libby on whether she will expose the truth of her actions. Martin is a student that has taken an interest in Libby following her around spying on her looking for some kind of answer. Adrian is the Chief of Staff and former lover of Libby’s, he has been assigned to keep Libby quiet.
Performances – Tika Sumpter does give us a strong performance, we do see how her guilt is controlling her life, while showing how she will do what she can to fix her mistake. Jamie Lee Curtis is the star of the film because every time she is on camera we seeing everything upped to the next level. Ben Tavassoli and Jeff Hepnher both complete the main cast and both do a solid enough role.
Story – The story follows a former staff worker for the Vice President and one of the major parts of a project which saw many people killed, she has moved on with her life away from politics, hoping to one day tell the truth against the now current President. This story is a heavy political set up which shows us just how they will do anything to cover up any secrets, the story does jump around between the two times and careers that Libby has which does just come and go way to often. The problem with this story comes from the fact this could have been a lot more intense because of the subject matter we are going into.
Thriller – The could be a thriller that is truly one of the most intense movies of the year, because the subject could have been showing bigger consequences instead of a couple of friendly conversations.
Settings – The film is set in the everyday location, it shows how easy it could be to get people coming after somebody who might hold a secret.
Scene of the Movie – Jamie Lee Curtis scenes.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does become very predictable.
Final Thoughts – This is a predictable thriller that does tackle a bigger subject matter that goes through cover ups, we are saved by Jamie Lee Curtis scene stealing performance.
Overall: Predictable, through entertaining.
Rachel now being President sends her Chief of Staff Adrian (Hephner) and former lover of Libby to make sure she isn’t going to spill the beans on what happened in this case, all while Libby is trying to make sure she can just get on with her life.
Thoughts on An Acceptable Loss
Characters – Libby once worked for the Vice President on one of the most controversial projects in defence and dealing with potential terrorist against America, she has left this job because of what happened trying to find a new career in education, she wants to stay off the radar with how she lives, which sees her avoid her former colleagues and fellow members of the faculty. Rachel is the former Vice-President, now President who is trying to tie up the loose ends of operation Total Victory, this will see her challenge Libby on whether she will expose the truth of her actions. Martin is a student that has taken an interest in Libby following her around spying on her looking for some kind of answer. Adrian is the Chief of Staff and former lover of Libby’s, he has been assigned to keep Libby quiet.
Performances – Tika Sumpter does give us a strong performance, we do see how her guilt is controlling her life, while showing how she will do what she can to fix her mistake. Jamie Lee Curtis is the star of the film because every time she is on camera we seeing everything upped to the next level. Ben Tavassoli and Jeff Hepnher both complete the main cast and both do a solid enough role.
Story – The story follows a former staff worker for the Vice President and one of the major parts of a project which saw many people killed, she has moved on with her life away from politics, hoping to one day tell the truth against the now current President. This story is a heavy political set up which shows us just how they will do anything to cover up any secrets, the story does jump around between the two times and careers that Libby has which does just come and go way to often. The problem with this story comes from the fact this could have been a lot more intense because of the subject matter we are going into.
Thriller – The could be a thriller that is truly one of the most intense movies of the year, because the subject could have been showing bigger consequences instead of a couple of friendly conversations.
Settings – The film is set in the everyday location, it shows how easy it could be to get people coming after somebody who might hold a secret.
Scene of the Movie – Jamie Lee Curtis scenes.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does become very predictable.
Final Thoughts – This is a predictable thriller that does tackle a bigger subject matter that goes through cover ups, we are saved by Jamie Lee Curtis scene stealing performance.
Overall: Predictable, through entertaining.