Search
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
If you check back in the archives of The Wasteland you will see that from time to time I do find myself down the dark, fascinating yet morbid rabbit hole of true crime documentary. I do find the majority of them a little ghoulish, but when done particularly well they can become incredible insights into the human condition at its worst, and the state of the legal and punitive systems that deal with the most extreme cases. How these systems fail, and why, is more of a draw for me than any attempt to understand the person behind the evil crimes. Although I must admit to some curiosity in that regard on a certain level.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
Lonely Planet Central Asia
Lonely Planet, Mark Elliott, Bradley Mayhew and Tom Masters
Book
Lonely Planet: The world's leading travel guide publisher Lonely Planet Central Asia is your...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated After Earth (2013) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
M Night Shyamalan is a director of two-halves. On one hand we have the man who gave us the amazing blockbusters Signs, Unbreakable and The Sixth Sense, which were met with commercial and critical success; and on the other hand we have the man who tortured the cinema-going public with abominations like The Lady in the Water, The Village and perhaps one of the worst films of all time, The Happening.
However, despite his recent offerings, the studios are allowing him to have another go, teaming up with Will Smith and his son Jaden in the sci-fi thriller After Earth. But can it mark a return to form for the struggling director?
After Earth begins with Jaden Smith getting the audience up to speed with exactly what has happened before the film began. The human race has had to leave the planet to ensure the continuation of our species after purging all the resources Earth had to offer.
Their new home, Nova Prime is a hostile environment, not unlike Mars in appearance with its rugged, red rocks and sweeping planes of space sand. After years of peace, an alien race intends to conquer their new home and enslave mankind with their secret weapons, the Ursas. These predatory beasts are technically blind, but sense fear and because of their grotesque appearance, it is easy to see why they can kill so quickly. The only way to survive an Ursa attack is to ‘ghost’, to not secrete the fear they need to ‘see’ you.
Jaden Smith plays Kitai, a young cadet who is on a training regime to become a ranger like his father Cypher (Will Smith). It’s fair to say they have a fraught relationship which is in part to Cypher being away for long periods of time defending Nova Prime, and partly because of the death of his daughter at the hands of an Ursa; something which Kitai blames himself for.
In an attempt to bond the pair together, their mother Faia, played briefly by Sophie Okonedo, convinces Cypher to take Kitai on his last voyage before retirement. On their journey their ship is severely damaged by an asteroid field and subsequently crashes on an inhospitable planet; no prizes for guessing where.
After discovering that his father has two badly broken legs, Kitai realises, with a little help from his dad, that he must travel 100km through Earth’s once pleasant land to retrieve an emergency signalling beacon – otherwise, they will die.
What ensues is a formulaic father, son bonding story mixed in with some mildly entertaining action pieces which try and get the heart racing. The problem with the film as a whole is that we, as the audience, never really sense any danger. Despite Kitai being attacked by a troop of baboons, poisoned by a leech and almost eviscerated by a group of big cats, we never think anything too awful is going to happen, simply because the film would be pointless if the duo weren’t rescued in the end.
Side-lining one of Hollywood’s most loved actors with two broken legs was a brave move by Shyamalan and it is done with a small degree of success. Smith senior suffers as a result of being bed-ridden for the duration and doesn’t perform as well as some of his other recent roles; I am Legend and I, Robot being prime examples. This isn’t to say that he isn’t engaging, as he always is, but it falls well short of his best characterisations.
The major fault with After Earth is in its leading man. Jaden Smith is a good actor, but he is not good enough to carry an entire film for over 90 minutes, we see him shout, pout and look into the camera longingly, but there is little else here and that’s a shame. He lacks the charisma and the charm that has made his father such a joy to watch over the years.
Special effects are a mixed bag, in some sequences, like the sweeping shots of Nova Prime and the cities which are dotted across its landscape, the effect is very good and the 4k resolution that Shyamalan has filmed in makes everything look crisp and sharp. However, the CGI animals, especially the big cats and the Ursa alien look a little like something pre-2000 and are disappointing.
Overall, After Earth is not as bad as the reviews and its dire box-office performance would suggest, and comparing it to Battlefield Earth is downright ridiculous. It is by no means a masterpiece, but as a slice of cheesy, sentimental popcorn entertainment it succeeds and does so well. Will Smith and his son Jaden are good, but not outstanding and the special effects look rushed – but this is offset by a wonderful soundtrack and a surprisingly deep and meaningful story. It may not be the career revival that Shyamalan was hoping for, but if this is the last film he directs he can at least be content. Set your expectations low and you’ll come out pleasantly surprised.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/06/08/after-earth-review-2013/
However, despite his recent offerings, the studios are allowing him to have another go, teaming up with Will Smith and his son Jaden in the sci-fi thriller After Earth. But can it mark a return to form for the struggling director?
After Earth begins with Jaden Smith getting the audience up to speed with exactly what has happened before the film began. The human race has had to leave the planet to ensure the continuation of our species after purging all the resources Earth had to offer.
Their new home, Nova Prime is a hostile environment, not unlike Mars in appearance with its rugged, red rocks and sweeping planes of space sand. After years of peace, an alien race intends to conquer their new home and enslave mankind with their secret weapons, the Ursas. These predatory beasts are technically blind, but sense fear and because of their grotesque appearance, it is easy to see why they can kill so quickly. The only way to survive an Ursa attack is to ‘ghost’, to not secrete the fear they need to ‘see’ you.
Jaden Smith plays Kitai, a young cadet who is on a training regime to become a ranger like his father Cypher (Will Smith). It’s fair to say they have a fraught relationship which is in part to Cypher being away for long periods of time defending Nova Prime, and partly because of the death of his daughter at the hands of an Ursa; something which Kitai blames himself for.
In an attempt to bond the pair together, their mother Faia, played briefly by Sophie Okonedo, convinces Cypher to take Kitai on his last voyage before retirement. On their journey their ship is severely damaged by an asteroid field and subsequently crashes on an inhospitable planet; no prizes for guessing where.
After discovering that his father has two badly broken legs, Kitai realises, with a little help from his dad, that he must travel 100km through Earth’s once pleasant land to retrieve an emergency signalling beacon – otherwise, they will die.
What ensues is a formulaic father, son bonding story mixed in with some mildly entertaining action pieces which try and get the heart racing. The problem with the film as a whole is that we, as the audience, never really sense any danger. Despite Kitai being attacked by a troop of baboons, poisoned by a leech and almost eviscerated by a group of big cats, we never think anything too awful is going to happen, simply because the film would be pointless if the duo weren’t rescued in the end.
Side-lining one of Hollywood’s most loved actors with two broken legs was a brave move by Shyamalan and it is done with a small degree of success. Smith senior suffers as a result of being bed-ridden for the duration and doesn’t perform as well as some of his other recent roles; I am Legend and I, Robot being prime examples. This isn’t to say that he isn’t engaging, as he always is, but it falls well short of his best characterisations.
The major fault with After Earth is in its leading man. Jaden Smith is a good actor, but he is not good enough to carry an entire film for over 90 minutes, we see him shout, pout and look into the camera longingly, but there is little else here and that’s a shame. He lacks the charisma and the charm that has made his father such a joy to watch over the years.
Special effects are a mixed bag, in some sequences, like the sweeping shots of Nova Prime and the cities which are dotted across its landscape, the effect is very good and the 4k resolution that Shyamalan has filmed in makes everything look crisp and sharp. However, the CGI animals, especially the big cats and the Ursa alien look a little like something pre-2000 and are disappointing.
Overall, After Earth is not as bad as the reviews and its dire box-office performance would suggest, and comparing it to Battlefield Earth is downright ridiculous. It is by no means a masterpiece, but as a slice of cheesy, sentimental popcorn entertainment it succeeds and does so well. Will Smith and his son Jaden are good, but not outstanding and the special effects look rushed – but this is offset by a wonderful soundtrack and a surprisingly deep and meaningful story. It may not be the career revival that Shyamalan was hoping for, but if this is the last film he directs he can at least be content. Set your expectations low and you’ll come out pleasantly surprised.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/06/08/after-earth-review-2013/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Old (2021) in Movies
Aug 22, 2021
Having been out of the "coming soon" game for quite a while so this one came as a surprise when I saw the trailer. It looked good, but there's always that "what is Shyamalan going to do" feeling.
An idyllic resort, a glorious beach. What starts out to be a pleasant day trip turns into tragedy and horror as the guests start ageing at an accelerated rate. What's going on and why can't they seem to do anything about it?
I'm going to mix this up a bit from my usual reviews because it seems appropriate for this oddity of a film.
As a whole, the film probably has a place in the Lost extended universe (especially considering Miles' role in it). Mystery and generalised horror abound, and you're left for prolonged periods of time with more questions than answers. Let's cover the biggie though.
That whole ageing thing... it is in the trailer so I'm going to do my best not to be spoilery.
Let's face it... there's a massive inconsistency. I'm happy to go with the fact that kids will change more physically with age than the adults will initially... no problem with that bit. But the assembled people on the beach have been there for (more or less) two different periods of time. While I don't remember it being established when the first arrived, I would have expected a more pronounced visual than the one we were presented with.
When the group get to the beach, Maddox is 11 and her brother Trent is 6. then there's Kara who is also 6. They progressively age throughout the events and we end up with three teenage looking kids. I'm still on board here, perfectly "logical". But here is also where I start to tail off into what could be a massive psychological debate... their bodies age, but their minds are only exposed to what is around them in that time, so are their actions in line with that?
Thomasin McKenzie seemed to have the right balance, with her character at a starting age of 11 she has the best chance of getting away with it, and her effort was good. I'm not sure the same is true of Alex Wolff and Eliza Scanlen though. Their storyline together, and their behaviour, didn't feel consistent. Particularly with Trent. Mentally the pair should still have been 6, or at least more immature than their look, but that didn't come across very effectively.
We're introduced to all of the characters in fairly quick succession at the beginning, but you do get a very clear idea about what you can expect from them going forward. They don't all really work together, and if chaos wasn't a necessary part of the film then I think I would have tired quickly of them all. As it was, I didn't particularly like any of the characters, including the parents of Trent and Maddox, but at least their journey evolved well through the film.
I feel like I need to mention the dubious sexualisation of the kids, in particular when we have Thomasin McKenzie as Maddox. When they discover the kids have aged up, Mum tells her to change into a swimsuit she has in her bag. The swimsuit she was already wearing covered everything relatively well, and actually has more cloth on it than the alternative. When I think about the things I bring to a beach in my bag with me, I bring a t-shirt, shorts, a sarong... never a second bikini. Would it not have been more logical to give her something different to wear? And was it really necessary to be there at all? I also have another point under this, but it would constitute spoilers I'm afraid.
Old's beach location is stunning, and some of the features allow for a slightly sinister edge. But a lot of the atmosphere is brought in with the cameras, and at one point I felt a rage come over me because of a collection of panning shots of the group. Yes, I know there are better things to be annoyed about, but it bugged me, I couldn't help it!
As a quick round-up of other points:
- I quite enjoyed Shyamalan's role
- Listening to people pronounce my surname wrong gives me palpitations, and
- The one bit of massively noticeable CGI was bad, so very, very, bad.
I'm interested to read the source material and see how its ending compares to what Shyamalan conjured. It's difficult to discuss the end without spoilers, but that's probably just as well because it'll lead to another heavy discussion. The actual resolution though does have a satisfying moment, even though it felt a little wrong.
Now for my overall feelings on the film... I enjoyed the mystery of it, and there are plenty of debates that arise. But the inconsistent moments in the ageing and how the ending comes around, sadly ate into my total score.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/old-movie-review.html
An idyllic resort, a glorious beach. What starts out to be a pleasant day trip turns into tragedy and horror as the guests start ageing at an accelerated rate. What's going on and why can't they seem to do anything about it?
I'm going to mix this up a bit from my usual reviews because it seems appropriate for this oddity of a film.
As a whole, the film probably has a place in the Lost extended universe (especially considering Miles' role in it). Mystery and generalised horror abound, and you're left for prolonged periods of time with more questions than answers. Let's cover the biggie though.
That whole ageing thing... it is in the trailer so I'm going to do my best not to be spoilery.
Let's face it... there's a massive inconsistency. I'm happy to go with the fact that kids will change more physically with age than the adults will initially... no problem with that bit. But the assembled people on the beach have been there for (more or less) two different periods of time. While I don't remember it being established when the first arrived, I would have expected a more pronounced visual than the one we were presented with.
When the group get to the beach, Maddox is 11 and her brother Trent is 6. then there's Kara who is also 6. They progressively age throughout the events and we end up with three teenage looking kids. I'm still on board here, perfectly "logical". But here is also where I start to tail off into what could be a massive psychological debate... their bodies age, but their minds are only exposed to what is around them in that time, so are their actions in line with that?
Thomasin McKenzie seemed to have the right balance, with her character at a starting age of 11 she has the best chance of getting away with it, and her effort was good. I'm not sure the same is true of Alex Wolff and Eliza Scanlen though. Their storyline together, and their behaviour, didn't feel consistent. Particularly with Trent. Mentally the pair should still have been 6, or at least more immature than their look, but that didn't come across very effectively.
We're introduced to all of the characters in fairly quick succession at the beginning, but you do get a very clear idea about what you can expect from them going forward. They don't all really work together, and if chaos wasn't a necessary part of the film then I think I would have tired quickly of them all. As it was, I didn't particularly like any of the characters, including the parents of Trent and Maddox, but at least their journey evolved well through the film.
I feel like I need to mention the dubious sexualisation of the kids, in particular when we have Thomasin McKenzie as Maddox. When they discover the kids have aged up, Mum tells her to change into a swimsuit she has in her bag. The swimsuit she was already wearing covered everything relatively well, and actually has more cloth on it than the alternative. When I think about the things I bring to a beach in my bag with me, I bring a t-shirt, shorts, a sarong... never a second bikini. Would it not have been more logical to give her something different to wear? And was it really necessary to be there at all? I also have another point under this, but it would constitute spoilers I'm afraid.
Old's beach location is stunning, and some of the features allow for a slightly sinister edge. But a lot of the atmosphere is brought in with the cameras, and at one point I felt a rage come over me because of a collection of panning shots of the group. Yes, I know there are better things to be annoyed about, but it bugged me, I couldn't help it!
As a quick round-up of other points:
- I quite enjoyed Shyamalan's role
- Listening to people pronounce my surname wrong gives me palpitations, and
- The one bit of massively noticeable CGI was bad, so very, very, bad.
I'm interested to read the source material and see how its ending compares to what Shyamalan conjured. It's difficult to discuss the end without spoilers, but that's probably just as well because it'll lead to another heavy discussion. The actual resolution though does have a satisfying moment, even though it felt a little wrong.
Now for my overall feelings on the film... I enjoyed the mystery of it, and there are plenty of debates that arise. But the inconsistent moments in the ageing and how the ending comes around, sadly ate into my total score.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/old-movie-review.html
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Poking fun at the old west is fine, it should work and some of the jokes are acceptable. The endless toilet jokes make it feel like an Adam Sandler film and the poorly written sex jokes get boring quickly. You have the old storyline of trying to impress someone only to fall for the one helping you. It is advertised incorrectly as it makes out from the trailer that he is training to beat Clinch while in actual fact the training is for another dual all together. After watching and enjoying Ted I was expecting a lot better than this lazy comedy for someone with a good comic mind. (3/10)
Actor Reviews
Seth MacFarlane: Albert the cowardly sheep farmer from the Frontier who gets upset when his girlfriend dumps him and puts his life in danger because he is depressed only to discover he is brave deep down. Seth really doesn’t suit being a lead actor at all. (2/10)
seth
Charlize Theron: Anna the beautiful mysterious woman who comes to town and ends up becoming friends with Albert while training him to shot. Good performance from someone not known for comedy. (7/10)
theron
Amanda Seyfried: Louise the girl who dumps Albert and moves on, but looks like she could have changed her mind too late. Standard performance really, never gets given anything to do. (5/10)
Liam Neeson: Clinch the deadly gunslinger who wants revenge after Albert kisses his wife. We see what he is capable of and that he will cheat but we hardly see him considering he is meant to be the villain. (5/10)
neeson
Giovanni Ribisi: Edward Albert’s best friend who is very religious while his girlfriend is being a prostitute. Gets to have fun with the role and would be fair to say get most laughs.(6/10)
Director Review: Seth MacFarlane – With his history for good quality comedy I would expect to see a lot better than this from him. (3/10)
Comedy: Poor jokes throughout that get boring quickly but the few cameos will get most laughs. (4/10)
Settings: Good authentic western town created. (8/10)
Suggestion: Don’t bother, I think even the most diehard Seth MacFarlane fans will be disappointed. (Avoid)
Best Part: Cameos
Worst Part: The Jokes
Funniest Scene: Doc Brown
Kill Of The Film: The Ice Block
Believability: No just a spoof (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: Yes
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $35 Million (So Far)
Budget: N/A
Runtime: 1 Hour 50 Minutes
Tagline: Bring Protection
Overall: Lazy Comedy
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/06/07/a-million-ways-to-die-in-the-west-2014/
Actor Reviews
Seth MacFarlane: Albert the cowardly sheep farmer from the Frontier who gets upset when his girlfriend dumps him and puts his life in danger because he is depressed only to discover he is brave deep down. Seth really doesn’t suit being a lead actor at all. (2/10)
seth
Charlize Theron: Anna the beautiful mysterious woman who comes to town and ends up becoming friends with Albert while training him to shot. Good performance from someone not known for comedy. (7/10)
theron
Amanda Seyfried: Louise the girl who dumps Albert and moves on, but looks like she could have changed her mind too late. Standard performance really, never gets given anything to do. (5/10)
Liam Neeson: Clinch the deadly gunslinger who wants revenge after Albert kisses his wife. We see what he is capable of and that he will cheat but we hardly see him considering he is meant to be the villain. (5/10)
neeson
Giovanni Ribisi: Edward Albert’s best friend who is very religious while his girlfriend is being a prostitute. Gets to have fun with the role and would be fair to say get most laughs.(6/10)
Director Review: Seth MacFarlane – With his history for good quality comedy I would expect to see a lot better than this from him. (3/10)
Comedy: Poor jokes throughout that get boring quickly but the few cameos will get most laughs. (4/10)
Settings: Good authentic western town created. (8/10)
Suggestion: Don’t bother, I think even the most diehard Seth MacFarlane fans will be disappointed. (Avoid)
Best Part: Cameos
Worst Part: The Jokes
Funniest Scene: Doc Brown
Kill Of The Film: The Ice Block
Believability: No just a spoof (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: Yes
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $35 Million (So Far)
Budget: N/A
Runtime: 1 Hour 50 Minutes
Tagline: Bring Protection
Overall: Lazy Comedy
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/06/07/a-million-ways-to-die-in-the-west-2014/
Wake Up, Sir!
Jonathan Ames and Jamie Keenan
Book
A brilliant contemporary reimagining of the greatest comic relationship of all time, which goes far...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Suffragette (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
I have read reviews before, that use the words “riveting” and “captivating” and “compelling”…. And usually I sort of just roll my eyes and hope that the movie is as good as the review says, because “usually” I find that the movie doesn’t actually match those words.
Suffragette, on the other hand, is all that, and more.
The movie has Meryl Streep in it, but she doesn’t have very much screen time. As much as I like Meryl Streep, this movie does just fine, all on its own, even with Streep only having a presence on its fringes.
I have not seen any other movies with the actress starring in the film, Carey Mulligan, but based on her performance in this movie, I would definitely be willing to see another.
Suffragette centers around the fight of women in London to be allowed the right to vote. Even trying to write this review, remembering the movie and trying to pull the words out, I get chills and tear up.
It was emotional, and angry, and incredibly sad. Brave and wild, sneaky and smart. Cruel and dangerous.
All of that, in one movie. I spent the last half, crying my eyes out. Quite literally, sobbing in the theatre, trying to not be obvious. The struggles those women faced, were REAL. They sacrificed their ability to work, their families, and their very LIVES to the cause of being treated equally to men, and having equal rights to vote, and equal pay as well.
Suffragette is a movie that everyone should see.
Men, women, children old enough to understand the implications of a struggle that spanned many years, and even today isn’t fully finished. The list at the end, of the countries in the world and when women got the right to vote, and the countries where women are STILL NOT ALLOWED to vote, was breathtaking…. And utterly heartbreaking.
Suffragette shows us how far we have come, and how very far we have yet to go, worldwide.
http://sknr.net/2015/11/06/suffragette/
Suffragette, on the other hand, is all that, and more.
The movie has Meryl Streep in it, but she doesn’t have very much screen time. As much as I like Meryl Streep, this movie does just fine, all on its own, even with Streep only having a presence on its fringes.
I have not seen any other movies with the actress starring in the film, Carey Mulligan, but based on her performance in this movie, I would definitely be willing to see another.
Suffragette centers around the fight of women in London to be allowed the right to vote. Even trying to write this review, remembering the movie and trying to pull the words out, I get chills and tear up.
It was emotional, and angry, and incredibly sad. Brave and wild, sneaky and smart. Cruel and dangerous.
All of that, in one movie. I spent the last half, crying my eyes out. Quite literally, sobbing in the theatre, trying to not be obvious. The struggles those women faced, were REAL. They sacrificed their ability to work, their families, and their very LIVES to the cause of being treated equally to men, and having equal rights to vote, and equal pay as well.
Suffragette is a movie that everyone should see.
Men, women, children old enough to understand the implications of a struggle that spanned many years, and even today isn’t fully finished. The list at the end, of the countries in the world and when women got the right to vote, and the countries where women are STILL NOT ALLOWED to vote, was breathtaking…. And utterly heartbreaking.
Suffragette shows us how far we have come, and how very far we have yet to go, worldwide.
http://sknr.net/2015/11/06/suffragette/
Fred (860 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Jan 24, 2019
Listening to other people's reviews, I thought I would see a great movie about one of the greatest bands of all time & maybe the greatest singer of all time. But, in the end, I thought it was just okay.
Let's start with Rami Malek. Rami Malek was unbelievable & he deserves to win best actor. One of the best portrayals of a real person I've ever seen. He was Freddie Mercury. every move, every mannerism, perfect. The music is the best, because it's Queen & a couple of other great songs. Although the movie was over 2 hours long, it seemed rushed. Some great songs were missing and the time frame for some of the songs seemed way off. But any Queen songs is good enough.
But my main problem was I did find the movie to not be that interesting. There was nothing shocking, nothing we didn't already know. Freddie comes off as an egotistical prick, which he deserved to be, but it's not enjoyable to watch. There was not that much drama. And the drama there is, was just not played out right. Like the father is against his ways, but doesn't say anything. There's no tension there. When Mary breaks up with him because she knows he's gay, it's like nothing happens. Freddie is lonely so he throws big parties with people who aren't his friends. Yeah, we've seen that before. They play "Under Pressure" but no mention of David Bowie at all. Felt like they had to keep Freddie lonely for an attempt at some fake drama. They end the movie with a replica of Queen's appearance at Live Aid, which was great. It sent chills down my spine. And I'm guessing people are basing their love for the film, based on how the movie leaves them feeling. It was also great seeing Freddie Mercury himself singing during the credits. I enjoyed the movie over-all, but don't think I'd watch it again. I'd rather watch a Queen concert or Live Aid again.
Let's start with Rami Malek. Rami Malek was unbelievable & he deserves to win best actor. One of the best portrayals of a real person I've ever seen. He was Freddie Mercury. every move, every mannerism, perfect. The music is the best, because it's Queen & a couple of other great songs. Although the movie was over 2 hours long, it seemed rushed. Some great songs were missing and the time frame for some of the songs seemed way off. But any Queen songs is good enough.
But my main problem was I did find the movie to not be that interesting. There was nothing shocking, nothing we didn't already know. Freddie comes off as an egotistical prick, which he deserved to be, but it's not enjoyable to watch. There was not that much drama. And the drama there is, was just not played out right. Like the father is against his ways, but doesn't say anything. There's no tension there. When Mary breaks up with him because she knows he's gay, it's like nothing happens. Freddie is lonely so he throws big parties with people who aren't his friends. Yeah, we've seen that before. They play "Under Pressure" but no mention of David Bowie at all. Felt like they had to keep Freddie lonely for an attempt at some fake drama. They end the movie with a replica of Queen's appearance at Live Aid, which was great. It sent chills down my spine. And I'm guessing people are basing their love for the film, based on how the movie leaves them feeling. It was also great seeing Freddie Mercury himself singing during the credits. I enjoyed the movie over-all, but don't think I'd watch it again. I'd rather watch a Queen concert or Live Aid again.
Jane Austen: pocket GIANTS
Book
There's something about Jane...Jane Austen lived only just into her forties, never married, never...
The Dead Wife's Handbook
Book
The Dead Wife's Handbook is the stunning emotional debut from author Hannah Beckerman. 'Today is my...