Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Anna (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Appearances are deceiving, not only with our main character Anna but with the trailer for this film too. What I was expecting was Atomic Blonde, what I got was Atomic Blonde mixed with Red Sparrow but with none of the redeeming features of either.
I would normally at this point write a slightly expanded synopsis of the film, but reading back my notes even I can't remember (or work out) what happened at the beginning of the film.
This confusion is the one consistent thing throughout the whole film.
The TV shows Hustle and Leverage like to do the reveal where they show you a scene unfold and then play it back a little later showing you the truth behind what actually happened. Anna does this too, excessively. We jump around the timeline so much that eventually when you see the words "X months earlier" you just let out a resigned sigh.
I've been contemplating how the film would have played out if they'd don't it in a more traditional/chronological order. I'm not sure that there would have been enough to keep you interested in what was going on. It certainly would have left the ending surprise heavy with little to no pay off for your patience.
Anna looked to be a serious action-fest and in the trailer we see a well choreographed restaurant fight that I had particularly been looking forward to. The finished product was somehow incredibly dull and unengaging and I think that's entirely down to the music. In the trailer they picked an upbeat track and the action is cut to coincide with the punchy notes, it makes you react to what's happening. The music in the final cut does not contribute anything to what's going on at all. I've seen this happen previously with Kingsman: The Golden Circle, although in that case the scene wasn't hurt as much as here.
Luke Evans is the main Russian spy, Alex, he's strong and decisive. Cillian Murphy is the CIA agent, Lenny, he's abrasive and suspicious. Both characters are ultimately the same, but different. There's little to work out about either man or their relationship with Anna.
Anna is played by Sasha Luss, her only other acting credit is in Valerian and the City with a longer than necessary name (actual title of the film... I'm sure of it), I honestly wouldn't have recognised her from it. There's little that's memorable about her in this, which is worrying as the main character. The part was let down by the story, and while I'm sure she has the ability to do Anna justice I don't think anything here gave her the opportunity to try.
We're also treated to Helen Mirren, she is wonderful all the time, and this wasn't any different. I loved her performance in this as it was something a bit grittier, but I don't think her character and the script really aligned. She's shown as an astute spy and she picks up on the little details... unless it's essential to the plot that she doesn't.
Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but the promise of the trailer and the delivery of the film held very different things for the viewer. There are much better examples of this sort of film out there, it doesn't feel like it brings anything new to the table.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/anna-movie-review.html
I would normally at this point write a slightly expanded synopsis of the film, but reading back my notes even I can't remember (or work out) what happened at the beginning of the film.
This confusion is the one consistent thing throughout the whole film.
The TV shows Hustle and Leverage like to do the reveal where they show you a scene unfold and then play it back a little later showing you the truth behind what actually happened. Anna does this too, excessively. We jump around the timeline so much that eventually when you see the words "X months earlier" you just let out a resigned sigh.
I've been contemplating how the film would have played out if they'd don't it in a more traditional/chronological order. I'm not sure that there would have been enough to keep you interested in what was going on. It certainly would have left the ending surprise heavy with little to no pay off for your patience.
Anna looked to be a serious action-fest and in the trailer we see a well choreographed restaurant fight that I had particularly been looking forward to. The finished product was somehow incredibly dull and unengaging and I think that's entirely down to the music. In the trailer they picked an upbeat track and the action is cut to coincide with the punchy notes, it makes you react to what's happening. The music in the final cut does not contribute anything to what's going on at all. I've seen this happen previously with Kingsman: The Golden Circle, although in that case the scene wasn't hurt as much as here.
Luke Evans is the main Russian spy, Alex, he's strong and decisive. Cillian Murphy is the CIA agent, Lenny, he's abrasive and suspicious. Both characters are ultimately the same, but different. There's little to work out about either man or their relationship with Anna.
Anna is played by Sasha Luss, her only other acting credit is in Valerian and the City with a longer than necessary name (actual title of the film... I'm sure of it), I honestly wouldn't have recognised her from it. There's little that's memorable about her in this, which is worrying as the main character. The part was let down by the story, and while I'm sure she has the ability to do Anna justice I don't think anything here gave her the opportunity to try.
We're also treated to Helen Mirren, she is wonderful all the time, and this wasn't any different. I loved her performance in this as it was something a bit grittier, but I don't think her character and the script really aligned. She's shown as an astute spy and she picks up on the little details... unless it's essential to the plot that she doesn't.
Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but the promise of the trailer and the delivery of the film held very different things for the viewer. There are much better examples of this sort of film out there, it doesn't feel like it brings anything new to the table.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/anna-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fast & Furious 9 (2021) in Movies
Jul 24, 2021
Enjoyable...enough
If you have any interest in checking out F9:THE FAST SAGA, then you have seen at least 1 (if not more) of the other 9 films in this series - and you pretty much know what to expect.
And this film delivers on that expectation - no more, no less.
Director Justin Lin - a veteran of these films - knows what needs to happen in this series. So we get fast cars, macho men, kick-ass women, super villains and over-the-top stunts and situations. All brought to us with a wink and a shrug. Unapologetic about the absurdities that we are viewing (not to spoil, but I don’t think magnets really work the way they work in this film) and “upping the ante” at every turn.
This film largely delivers…if not spectacularly. The action sequences (which is really why we watch these films) are “good enough”. Nothing really new here, but I caught myself cackling at the events on the screen from time to time.
The “family” is back together and Vin Diesel & Michelle Rodriguez are the pseudo Mom and Dad of this ragtag group of heroes that include the smart one (Game Of Thrones’ Nathalie Emanuel) and the wise guys (Chris “Ludicrous” Bridges and Tyrese Gibson) - who know exactly what type of film they are making and what their roles in this film are as well as the “emotional center”, Jordana Brewster. All of these deliver their wooden lines with gritty resolve while clenching their jaws during their close-ups during the action scenes.
There also is a boatload of cameos from veterans of previous Fast and Furious films from the likes of Kurt Russell, Helen Mirren, Lucas Black, Shea Wigham and Charlize Theron as well as brief appearances by “newcomers” like Michael Rooker and Cardi B. They all join in on the fun at the appropriate level and look like they are having a good time.
The biggest disappointment for me was John Cena as the main villain in this piece. He just wasn’t “villainous” enough and came off pretty generic and “meh” - never a good thing for a bad guy in these types of films.
Oh…and there is a “surprise return” by a presumably thought dead character, that is no surprise at all, since his face is shown prominently in the advertisements for this film. I won’t spoil it for you here, but he does bring some needed energy to this film. Which leads me to speculate that Gal Gadot will probably show up in the next film (her character was killed off many Fast and Furious films ago when she started becoming a SuperStar).
Ultimately, what is missing from F9 is some “fun energy”. Something that…oh…a good villain…or someone like…Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson would bring. But, alas, “The Rock” and Vin Diesel did not get along in their previous outings together, so we will need to limp along with what we have.
Which is what the 10th film in this Universe ultimately does - limp along just good enough to be enjoyable, but not more than that, which makes F9 neither Fast nor Furious.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And this film delivers on that expectation - no more, no less.
Director Justin Lin - a veteran of these films - knows what needs to happen in this series. So we get fast cars, macho men, kick-ass women, super villains and over-the-top stunts and situations. All brought to us with a wink and a shrug. Unapologetic about the absurdities that we are viewing (not to spoil, but I don’t think magnets really work the way they work in this film) and “upping the ante” at every turn.
This film largely delivers…if not spectacularly. The action sequences (which is really why we watch these films) are “good enough”. Nothing really new here, but I caught myself cackling at the events on the screen from time to time.
The “family” is back together and Vin Diesel & Michelle Rodriguez are the pseudo Mom and Dad of this ragtag group of heroes that include the smart one (Game Of Thrones’ Nathalie Emanuel) and the wise guys (Chris “Ludicrous” Bridges and Tyrese Gibson) - who know exactly what type of film they are making and what their roles in this film are as well as the “emotional center”, Jordana Brewster. All of these deliver their wooden lines with gritty resolve while clenching their jaws during their close-ups during the action scenes.
There also is a boatload of cameos from veterans of previous Fast and Furious films from the likes of Kurt Russell, Helen Mirren, Lucas Black, Shea Wigham and Charlize Theron as well as brief appearances by “newcomers” like Michael Rooker and Cardi B. They all join in on the fun at the appropriate level and look like they are having a good time.
The biggest disappointment for me was John Cena as the main villain in this piece. He just wasn’t “villainous” enough and came off pretty generic and “meh” - never a good thing for a bad guy in these types of films.
Oh…and there is a “surprise return” by a presumably thought dead character, that is no surprise at all, since his face is shown prominently in the advertisements for this film. I won’t spoil it for you here, but he does bring some needed energy to this film. Which leads me to speculate that Gal Gadot will probably show up in the next film (her character was killed off many Fast and Furious films ago when she started becoming a SuperStar).
Ultimately, what is missing from F9 is some “fun energy”. Something that…oh…a good villain…or someone like…Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson would bring. But, alas, “The Rock” and Vin Diesel did not get along in their previous outings together, so we will need to limp along with what we have.
Which is what the 10th film in this Universe ultimately does - limp along just good enough to be enjoyable, but not more than that, which makes F9 neither Fast nor Furious.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Barbie (2023) in Movies
Jul 21, 2023
More Than Meets The Eye
The Margot Robbie/Ryan Gosling curiosity BARBIE is a subversive film. This Greta Gerwig directed move lures you in by presenting a farcical/satirical look at the pastel colored “Barbieland” and the myriad of outfits and “golly-gosh” goodness of the world of this iconic Mattel doll (and her boyfriend, Ken). Once you are comfortably settled into this world, you are transformed to the “real world” and the much deeper themes of a women’s place in a patriarchal world.
As another toy’s slogan puts it, “there’s more than meets the eye” to this film.
And one should have expected something more than just a “surfacey-fun” film from the Writer/Director of such fare as LADYBIRD and FRANCES HA. Gerwing uses the stereotypes of Barbie and Ken to take a look at our society and the inherent hierarchy of the sexes while peeling back the layers of the key players to make them more than the plastic dolls they portray.
And…it works surprisingly well for adults - not so much for kids.
Margot Robbie, of course, is perfectly cast as the titular Barbie. She has the looks and the vacuous devil-may-care attitude of “Stereotype Barbie” and is a comfortable, pleasing entity to share this adventure with. But, with Gerwig’s direction, Robbie’s performance reveals, subtly, layer after layer until - at the end - we end up with a full fledged character and not just a living doll.
Ryan Gosling is just as strong as Barbie’s counterpart, Ken. He morphs from a Barbie worshipping boyfriend to something else once he encounters the real, male-dominated world. The BankofMarquis wondered why Gosling would agree to do a film that, on it’s surface, appears to be a one-note joke-fest, but once the film really drives to it’s point, one can see why Gosling agreed to be in this.
Issa Rae, Kate McKinnon, Simu Liu, Michael Cerra, Helen Mirren (as the narrator) and America Ferrara all spark - at times - during this film while it was good to see Rhea Perlman (Carla on CHEERS) have a role that she could sink her teeth into.
Only Will Ferrell - as the money hungry CEO of Mattel - falls short of interesting. His character - one of the only “real world” characters in this film - stays stereotypical throughout the movie. He is the only complete caricature in this film…and perhaps that is on purpose.
Credit for the surprising depth of this film goes to Gerwig who brings her sensibilities to this film to make a comment on our society. It’s a bold move by Gerwig and works well…unless you are a Mom that is bringing your 5 or 6 year old child to this film.
And, that is the caution to this movie. It’s not, necessarily, made for the youngsters that play with Barbies. The kids will love the early going of this film, but the more adult themes in the middle of the movie will probably make a good deal of them squirm in their seats, since these moments of depth will go over their heads.
A surprisingly fun…and deeper than it appears to be….film, this Barbie is a multi-level dreamhouse.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the BankofMarquis
As another toy’s slogan puts it, “there’s more than meets the eye” to this film.
And one should have expected something more than just a “surfacey-fun” film from the Writer/Director of such fare as LADYBIRD and FRANCES HA. Gerwing uses the stereotypes of Barbie and Ken to take a look at our society and the inherent hierarchy of the sexes while peeling back the layers of the key players to make them more than the plastic dolls they portray.
And…it works surprisingly well for adults - not so much for kids.
Margot Robbie, of course, is perfectly cast as the titular Barbie. She has the looks and the vacuous devil-may-care attitude of “Stereotype Barbie” and is a comfortable, pleasing entity to share this adventure with. But, with Gerwig’s direction, Robbie’s performance reveals, subtly, layer after layer until - at the end - we end up with a full fledged character and not just a living doll.
Ryan Gosling is just as strong as Barbie’s counterpart, Ken. He morphs from a Barbie worshipping boyfriend to something else once he encounters the real, male-dominated world. The BankofMarquis wondered why Gosling would agree to do a film that, on it’s surface, appears to be a one-note joke-fest, but once the film really drives to it’s point, one can see why Gosling agreed to be in this.
Issa Rae, Kate McKinnon, Simu Liu, Michael Cerra, Helen Mirren (as the narrator) and America Ferrara all spark - at times - during this film while it was good to see Rhea Perlman (Carla on CHEERS) have a role that she could sink her teeth into.
Only Will Ferrell - as the money hungry CEO of Mattel - falls short of interesting. His character - one of the only “real world” characters in this film - stays stereotypical throughout the movie. He is the only complete caricature in this film…and perhaps that is on purpose.
Credit for the surprising depth of this film goes to Gerwig who brings her sensibilities to this film to make a comment on our society. It’s a bold move by Gerwig and works well…unless you are a Mom that is bringing your 5 or 6 year old child to this film.
And, that is the caution to this movie. It’s not, necessarily, made for the youngsters that play with Barbies. The kids will love the early going of this film, but the more adult themes in the middle of the movie will probably make a good deal of them squirm in their seats, since these moments of depth will go over their heads.
A surprisingly fun…and deeper than it appears to be….film, this Barbie is a multi-level dreamhouse.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the BankofMarquis
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A fantasy that’s glossy and beautiful to look at.
Before the heavyweight juggernaut of “Mary Poppins Returns” arrives at Christmas, here’s another Disney live action feature to get everyone in the festive spirit.
The Plot.
It’s Victorian London and Young Clara (Mackenzie Foy) lives with her father (Matthew Macfadyen), her older sister Louise (Ellie Bamber) and her younger brother Fritz (Tom Sweet). It’s Christmas and the family are having a hard time as they are grieving the recent death of wife and mother Marie (Anna Madeley). Like her mother, Clara has an astute mind with an engineering bias and is encouraged in this pursuit by her quirky inventor godfather, Drosselmeyer (Morgan Freeman). At his fabled Christmas ball, Clara asks for his help in accessing a gift Clara’s mother has bequeathed to her. This leads Clara on a magical adventure to a parallel world with four realms, where everything is not quite peace and harmony.
The Review.
This is a film that visually delights from the word go. The film opens with a swooping tour of Victorian London (who knew the Disney castle was in the capital’s suburbs?!) via Westminster bridge and into the Stahlbaum’s attic. It’s a spectacular tour-de-force of special-effects wizardry and sets up the expectation of what’s to come. For every scene that follows is a richly decorated feast for the eyes. Drosselmeyer’s party is a glorious event, full of extras, strong on costume design and with a rich colour palette as filmed by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“). When we are pitched into the Four Realms – no wardrobe required – the magical visions continue.
The film represents a Narnia-esque take on the four compass-point lands of Oz, and on that basis it’s a bit formulaic. But the good vs evil angles are more subtley portrayed. Of the Four Realms leaders, Keira Knightley as Sugar Plum rather steals the show from the others (played by Richard E. Grant, Eugenio Derbez and Helen Mirren). Mirren in particular is given little to do.
What age kids would this be suitable for? Well, probably a good judge would be the Wizard of Oz. If your kids are not completely freaked out by the Wicked Witch of the West and the flying monkeys, then they will probably cope OK with the scary bits of the “Realm of Entertainment”. Although those who suffer from either musophobia or (especially) coulrophobia might want to give it a miss! All kids are different though, and the “loss of the mother” is also an angle to consider: that might worry and upset young children. It is definitely a “PG” certificate rather than a “U” certificate.
Young people who also enjoy ballet (I nearly fell into a sexist trap there!) will also get a kick out of some of the dance sequences, which are “Fantasia-esque” in their presentation and feature Misty Copeland, famously the first African American Female Principal Dancer with the American Ballet Theatre. (I have no appreciation at all for ballet, but I’m sure it was brilliant!)
As for the moral tone of the film, the female empowerment message is rather ladled on with a trowel, but as it’s a good message I have no great problem with that. I am often appalled at how lacking in confidence young people are in their own abilities. Here is a young lady (an engineer!) learning self-resilience and the confidence to be able to do anything in life she puts her mind to. Well said.
The story is rather generic – child visits a magical other world – but the screenplay is impressive given its the first-feature screenplay for Ashleigh Powell: there is an article on her approach to screenwriting that you might find interesting here.
The film is credited with two directors. This – particularly if there is also an army of screenwriters – is normally a warning sign on a film. (As a case in point, the chaotic 1967 version of “Casino Royale” had six different directors, and it shows!). Here, there clearly were issues with the filming since Disney insisted on reshoots for which the original director, Lasse Hallström, was not available. This is where the “Captain America” director Joe Johnston stepped in.
The turns.
I really enjoyed Mackenzie Foy‘s performance as Clara. Now 18, she is a feisty and believable Disney princess for the modern age. (If, like me, you are struggling to place where you’ve heard her name before, she was the young Murph in Nolan’s “Interstellar“).
Another name I was struggling with was Ellie Bamber as her sister. Ellie was excellent in the traumatic role of the daughter in the brilliant “Nocturnal Animals“, one of my favourite films of 2016. (Hopefully the therapy has worked and Ellie can sleep at night again!).
A newcomer with a big role is Jayden Fowora-Knight as the Nutcracker soldier: Jayden had a bit part in “Ready Player One” but does a great job here in a substantial role in the film. He stands out as a black actor in a Disney feature: notwithstanding the Finn character in “Star Wars”, this is a long-overdue and welcome approach from Disney.
British comedians Omid Djalili and Jack Whitehouse turn up to add some light relief, but the humour seems rather forced and not particularly fitting.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one much, but I did. Prinicipally because it is such a visual feast and worth going to see just for that alone: I have a prediction that this film will be nominated for production design, costume design and possible special effects.
I think kids of the right age – I would have thought 6 to 10 sort of range – will enjoy this a lot, particularly if they like dance. Young girls in particular will most relate to the lead character. For such kids, I’d rate this a 4*. The rating below reflects my rating as an adult: so I don’t think ‘drag-a-long’ parents in the Christmas holidays (if it is still on by then) will not be totally bored.
The Plot.
It’s Victorian London and Young Clara (Mackenzie Foy) lives with her father (Matthew Macfadyen), her older sister Louise (Ellie Bamber) and her younger brother Fritz (Tom Sweet). It’s Christmas and the family are having a hard time as they are grieving the recent death of wife and mother Marie (Anna Madeley). Like her mother, Clara has an astute mind with an engineering bias and is encouraged in this pursuit by her quirky inventor godfather, Drosselmeyer (Morgan Freeman). At his fabled Christmas ball, Clara asks for his help in accessing a gift Clara’s mother has bequeathed to her. This leads Clara on a magical adventure to a parallel world with four realms, where everything is not quite peace and harmony.
The Review.
This is a film that visually delights from the word go. The film opens with a swooping tour of Victorian London (who knew the Disney castle was in the capital’s suburbs?!) via Westminster bridge and into the Stahlbaum’s attic. It’s a spectacular tour-de-force of special-effects wizardry and sets up the expectation of what’s to come. For every scene that follows is a richly decorated feast for the eyes. Drosselmeyer’s party is a glorious event, full of extras, strong on costume design and with a rich colour palette as filmed by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“). When we are pitched into the Four Realms – no wardrobe required – the magical visions continue.
The film represents a Narnia-esque take on the four compass-point lands of Oz, and on that basis it’s a bit formulaic. But the good vs evil angles are more subtley portrayed. Of the Four Realms leaders, Keira Knightley as Sugar Plum rather steals the show from the others (played by Richard E. Grant, Eugenio Derbez and Helen Mirren). Mirren in particular is given little to do.
What age kids would this be suitable for? Well, probably a good judge would be the Wizard of Oz. If your kids are not completely freaked out by the Wicked Witch of the West and the flying monkeys, then they will probably cope OK with the scary bits of the “Realm of Entertainment”. Although those who suffer from either musophobia or (especially) coulrophobia might want to give it a miss! All kids are different though, and the “loss of the mother” is also an angle to consider: that might worry and upset young children. It is definitely a “PG” certificate rather than a “U” certificate.
Young people who also enjoy ballet (I nearly fell into a sexist trap there!) will also get a kick out of some of the dance sequences, which are “Fantasia-esque” in their presentation and feature Misty Copeland, famously the first African American Female Principal Dancer with the American Ballet Theatre. (I have no appreciation at all for ballet, but I’m sure it was brilliant!)
As for the moral tone of the film, the female empowerment message is rather ladled on with a trowel, but as it’s a good message I have no great problem with that. I am often appalled at how lacking in confidence young people are in their own abilities. Here is a young lady (an engineer!) learning self-resilience and the confidence to be able to do anything in life she puts her mind to. Well said.
The story is rather generic – child visits a magical other world – but the screenplay is impressive given its the first-feature screenplay for Ashleigh Powell: there is an article on her approach to screenwriting that you might find interesting here.
The film is credited with two directors. This – particularly if there is also an army of screenwriters – is normally a warning sign on a film. (As a case in point, the chaotic 1967 version of “Casino Royale” had six different directors, and it shows!). Here, there clearly were issues with the filming since Disney insisted on reshoots for which the original director, Lasse Hallström, was not available. This is where the “Captain America” director Joe Johnston stepped in.
The turns.
I really enjoyed Mackenzie Foy‘s performance as Clara. Now 18, she is a feisty and believable Disney princess for the modern age. (If, like me, you are struggling to place where you’ve heard her name before, she was the young Murph in Nolan’s “Interstellar“).
Another name I was struggling with was Ellie Bamber as her sister. Ellie was excellent in the traumatic role of the daughter in the brilliant “Nocturnal Animals“, one of my favourite films of 2016. (Hopefully the therapy has worked and Ellie can sleep at night again!).
A newcomer with a big role is Jayden Fowora-Knight as the Nutcracker soldier: Jayden had a bit part in “Ready Player One” but does a great job here in a substantial role in the film. He stands out as a black actor in a Disney feature: notwithstanding the Finn character in “Star Wars”, this is a long-overdue and welcome approach from Disney.
British comedians Omid Djalili and Jack Whitehouse turn up to add some light relief, but the humour seems rather forced and not particularly fitting.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one much, but I did. Prinicipally because it is such a visual feast and worth going to see just for that alone: I have a prediction that this film will be nominated for production design, costume design and possible special effects.
I think kids of the right age – I would have thought 6 to 10 sort of range – will enjoy this a lot, particularly if they like dance. Young girls in particular will most relate to the lead character. For such kids, I’d rate this a 4*. The rating below reflects my rating as an adult: so I don’t think ‘drag-a-long’ parents in the Christmas holidays (if it is still on by then) will not be totally bored.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Fate of the Furious (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Blood is thicker than Diesel.
All work and no play makes bob-the-movie-man a tardy reviewer. Still, what better way to break the fast than with “Fast and Furious 8” (aka “The Fate of the Furious”)?
Well, quite a lot of things actually!
Now, I have a confession to make (and I know for some this will be the equivalent of an appalling statement like “I’ve never seen Star Wars”). I have actually never ever seen Fast and Furious 1 through 7! (If it’s any mitigation to this cinematic crime, I did see the F-and-F wannabe “Need for Speed“).
So I was going to be completely lost with the “plot” right? Well actually, no. It was pretty easy to jump in and follow as a piece of popcorn nonsense.
The M25 water main burst was a real bitch for the Monday morning rush-hour.
For nonsense it is (hence the “rabbit ears” round the word “plot” above). The story isn’t just a bit far-fetched. It’s bat-shit crazy where the bat in question has downed a questionable vindaloo two hours earlier!
Dom (Vin Diesel) has turned on his “family”, including his squeeze, the lovely Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), and Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson, “San Andreas“), to team with the above-the-law (and above the clouds) cyber-super-terrorist Cipher (Charlize Theron, “Mad Max: Fury Road“). They have teamed up, apparently, for no other reason than to allow Cipher to ‘kick some global ass’ with a nuclear threat. But given his caring and sharing side, why the sudden betrayal of his nearest and dearest by Dom?
Ice Queen Metallica fan Theron, showing off her hardware.
Where do you begin with the nonsensical story? Jumping from Cuba (with some admittedly fun scenes, but shamelessly objectifying scantily-clad women) via Berlin and New York to the icy wastes of Siberia, it’s just an excuse to show fast cars doing ludicrously unlikely things. There is zero logic within any of the script. Here are just a handful of examples:
the team know (through enormous jumps of speculation) to be present at a particular location in the world and at exactly the time that Dom is there (arrive, look through binoculars, “Oh, there he is”!);
all cars can be automatically hijacked and remotely driven (who knew), but NOT those of the team (obviously);
fast cars/tanks/etc can be magicked from New York to Siberia (wot, no Hertz Siberia available?);
Russian nuclear codes are stolen, so obviously they can’t be changed?
a nuclear submarine is out of the water on wooden blocks, but spin the propeller really REALLY fast and it can suddenly be sailing away.
Muscle for muscle it never looked like being a fair fight.
I appreciate I am being enormously po-faced about this, and this is designed as pure escapism. But is there REALLY any need for this to be such mindless escapism? The director (Gary Gray, “The Italian Job”) and writer (Chris Morgan, responsible for parts 6 and 7) should credit their audience with rather more in the way of intelligence.
Diesel and Johnson are never going to set the acting ablaze, but Rodriquez (“Lost”) is as watchable as ever. Theron has fun with her villainy and the supporting turns by Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris are enjoyable. Nathalie Emmanuel though as Ramsey seems as uncomfortable with her “sexy English” stereotype as she should be.
A long way from Brookside. Nathalie Emmanuel uncomfortable as “the sexy one”.
Luke Evans (“The Hobbit“), Kurt Russell (“Deepwater Horizon“) and Helen Mirren (“Eye in the Sky“) turn up in entertaining but underused cameos, but it is Jason Statham as Deckard that has the most fun in the whole film, and his scenes – done largely for comic effect – are the best part of the movie. (But “math” Jason? “MATH”?? I hope your old maths teacher back in London doesn’t get to see this film).
Parking enforcement by the City Council was getting more and more stringent.
If you’re willing to park your brain at the door for two hours then it has some fun moments. But I felt the damage to my IQ might not have been worth the risk, and this really didn’t fill my cinematic tank.
Well, quite a lot of things actually!
Now, I have a confession to make (and I know for some this will be the equivalent of an appalling statement like “I’ve never seen Star Wars”). I have actually never ever seen Fast and Furious 1 through 7! (If it’s any mitigation to this cinematic crime, I did see the F-and-F wannabe “Need for Speed“).
So I was going to be completely lost with the “plot” right? Well actually, no. It was pretty easy to jump in and follow as a piece of popcorn nonsense.
The M25 water main burst was a real bitch for the Monday morning rush-hour.
For nonsense it is (hence the “rabbit ears” round the word “plot” above). The story isn’t just a bit far-fetched. It’s bat-shit crazy where the bat in question has downed a questionable vindaloo two hours earlier!
Dom (Vin Diesel) has turned on his “family”, including his squeeze, the lovely Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), and Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson, “San Andreas“), to team with the above-the-law (and above the clouds) cyber-super-terrorist Cipher (Charlize Theron, “Mad Max: Fury Road“). They have teamed up, apparently, for no other reason than to allow Cipher to ‘kick some global ass’ with a nuclear threat. But given his caring and sharing side, why the sudden betrayal of his nearest and dearest by Dom?
Ice Queen Metallica fan Theron, showing off her hardware.
Where do you begin with the nonsensical story? Jumping from Cuba (with some admittedly fun scenes, but shamelessly objectifying scantily-clad women) via Berlin and New York to the icy wastes of Siberia, it’s just an excuse to show fast cars doing ludicrously unlikely things. There is zero logic within any of the script. Here are just a handful of examples:
the team know (through enormous jumps of speculation) to be present at a particular location in the world and at exactly the time that Dom is there (arrive, look through binoculars, “Oh, there he is”!);
all cars can be automatically hijacked and remotely driven (who knew), but NOT those of the team (obviously);
fast cars/tanks/etc can be magicked from New York to Siberia (wot, no Hertz Siberia available?);
Russian nuclear codes are stolen, so obviously they can’t be changed?
a nuclear submarine is out of the water on wooden blocks, but spin the propeller really REALLY fast and it can suddenly be sailing away.
Muscle for muscle it never looked like being a fair fight.
I appreciate I am being enormously po-faced about this, and this is designed as pure escapism. But is there REALLY any need for this to be such mindless escapism? The director (Gary Gray, “The Italian Job”) and writer (Chris Morgan, responsible for parts 6 and 7) should credit their audience with rather more in the way of intelligence.
Diesel and Johnson are never going to set the acting ablaze, but Rodriquez (“Lost”) is as watchable as ever. Theron has fun with her villainy and the supporting turns by Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris are enjoyable. Nathalie Emmanuel though as Ramsey seems as uncomfortable with her “sexy English” stereotype as she should be.
A long way from Brookside. Nathalie Emmanuel uncomfortable as “the sexy one”.
Luke Evans (“The Hobbit“), Kurt Russell (“Deepwater Horizon“) and Helen Mirren (“Eye in the Sky“) turn up in entertaining but underused cameos, but it is Jason Statham as Deckard that has the most fun in the whole film, and his scenes – done largely for comic effect – are the best part of the movie. (But “math” Jason? “MATH”?? I hope your old maths teacher back in London doesn’t get to see this film).
Parking enforcement by the City Council was getting more and more stringent.
If you’re willing to park your brain at the door for two hours then it has some fun moments. But I felt the damage to my IQ might not have been worth the risk, and this really didn’t fill my cinematic tank.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Before you read this review of Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw, I just want you to know that I can’t stand this franchise. I gave up keeping up with them after Furious 7 and felt like the Fast & Furious franchise peaked/was tolerable around Fast Five and never really went anywhere worthwhile before or since. I have not seen all the films and really only seemed to watch every other entry, but whether you’re in a heist or a drag race that lethal dose of masculinity being projectile vomited all over you by an entire cast (women included) for two hours straight is dull and tiresome. In fact, just call this franchise “Dull & Tiresome” from here on out and I doubt anyone would notice. It’s even got “tire” in there for car…stuff.
Ignoring the fact that screenwriters Chris Morgan (writer of every Fast and Furious entry since Tokyo Drift) and Drew Pearce (writer and director of the flop known as Hotel Artemis) were involved, I actually like David Leitch’s work (co-director of John Wick, director of Deadpool 2 and Atomic Blonde) even if he is probably going to screw up that Enter the Dragon remake. The trailers also made Hobbs & Shaw look like the stupid kind of action film I might enjoy; a bunch of fight scenes and chase sequences that give the middle finger to physics. But when a big moment in the film is a group of the good guys willingly bringing a bunch of sharp sticks to a battle where the villains are loaded to the teeth with highly advanced firearms, then you know you’ve jumped headfirst into the deep end of ridiculous without a special needs helmet.
The film is quick to point out that even though Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) is in Los Angeles and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is in London, they’re essentially similar characters. Hobbs is a big dude who likes to Hulk smash everything while Shaw likes to think he has more class and finesse to his ass beatings and exaggerated torture devices. Despite their different cultures and supposedly unique way of approaching their work, they do nothing but talk trash, jack things up, simultaneously kick unsuspecting guys in the balls, and track stuff that needs tracking because that’s what trackers do. They reluctantly join forces and are in constant competition with one another to find some CT17 virus, which is currently inside Shaw’s MI6 operative sister Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby) and is being hunted by formerly dead, cyber genetically altered, and current superhuman criminal mastermind Brixton Lore (Idris Elba). Don’t get too attached to the whole virus thing since even the film can’t keep up with what the hell it’s supposed to be.
The highlight of Hobbs & Shaw is the amount of cameos it’s able to squeeze into its excruciating two-hour-and-fifteen-minute runtime. The film utilizes about a third of the cast of a certain sequel to a certain film starring a certain Regenerating Degenerate and that cast is responsible for the humor that works best in whatever this spinoff is supposed to accomplish. Idris Elba is unbelievably cool as Brixton Lore. He’s this cocky and unstoppable bad ass who has a history with Shaw and his car chase on his self-driving motorcycle where he slides under a bus in slow motion is too sick for words. Vanessa Kirby has this on-screen presence that outshines the consistent bickering between Hobbs and Shaw. She’s the one capable female character in the film (Helen Mirren sitting behind glass doesn’t count) who seems to be the only one thinking logically, but it took her doing the dumbest thing imaginable at the beginning of the film to get that way.
This action film smorgasbord rides on the chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham, but that gets old as soon as they start sort-of working together. Their incessant ribbing of each other, desire to always outdo one another, and nonstop unfiltered machismo being this palpable elephant in the room leads to nothing but verbal dick size comparisons and leaves you thinking that maybe they’ll make out or grope each other by the end of the film. Spoiler alert: maybe they’re saving that for the sequel.
There isn’t enough of a differentiation between action sequences in Hobbs & Shaw to make it feel worthwhile. There’s chemistry between the cast that is undeniable and some of its outrageousness is entertaining, but it all begins to feel similar and falls apart far sooner than it should. For those who care, there is a mid-credits and after-credits scene but neither is surprising. The cheesy motivational speeches, forced heartfelt stories, and, “all technology in the world doesn’t beat heart,” mumbo jumbo doesn’t help matters. The supposed story for this film is basically a dunce cap disguised as a pocket protector. There are intelligent elements used in ludicrous ways and maybe that’s what could describe the Fast & Furious franchise as a whole. You can bury a diamond in a dog turd and say it’s extravagant and that it’s valuable, but it’s still a dog turd that smells awful and lingers long after it’s been flushed away.
Ignoring the fact that screenwriters Chris Morgan (writer of every Fast and Furious entry since Tokyo Drift) and Drew Pearce (writer and director of the flop known as Hotel Artemis) were involved, I actually like David Leitch’s work (co-director of John Wick, director of Deadpool 2 and Atomic Blonde) even if he is probably going to screw up that Enter the Dragon remake. The trailers also made Hobbs & Shaw look like the stupid kind of action film I might enjoy; a bunch of fight scenes and chase sequences that give the middle finger to physics. But when a big moment in the film is a group of the good guys willingly bringing a bunch of sharp sticks to a battle where the villains are loaded to the teeth with highly advanced firearms, then you know you’ve jumped headfirst into the deep end of ridiculous without a special needs helmet.
The film is quick to point out that even though Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) is in Los Angeles and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is in London, they’re essentially similar characters. Hobbs is a big dude who likes to Hulk smash everything while Shaw likes to think he has more class and finesse to his ass beatings and exaggerated torture devices. Despite their different cultures and supposedly unique way of approaching their work, they do nothing but talk trash, jack things up, simultaneously kick unsuspecting guys in the balls, and track stuff that needs tracking because that’s what trackers do. They reluctantly join forces and are in constant competition with one another to find some CT17 virus, which is currently inside Shaw’s MI6 operative sister Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby) and is being hunted by formerly dead, cyber genetically altered, and current superhuman criminal mastermind Brixton Lore (Idris Elba). Don’t get too attached to the whole virus thing since even the film can’t keep up with what the hell it’s supposed to be.
The highlight of Hobbs & Shaw is the amount of cameos it’s able to squeeze into its excruciating two-hour-and-fifteen-minute runtime. The film utilizes about a third of the cast of a certain sequel to a certain film starring a certain Regenerating Degenerate and that cast is responsible for the humor that works best in whatever this spinoff is supposed to accomplish. Idris Elba is unbelievably cool as Brixton Lore. He’s this cocky and unstoppable bad ass who has a history with Shaw and his car chase on his self-driving motorcycle where he slides under a bus in slow motion is too sick for words. Vanessa Kirby has this on-screen presence that outshines the consistent bickering between Hobbs and Shaw. She’s the one capable female character in the film (Helen Mirren sitting behind glass doesn’t count) who seems to be the only one thinking logically, but it took her doing the dumbest thing imaginable at the beginning of the film to get that way.
This action film smorgasbord rides on the chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham, but that gets old as soon as they start sort-of working together. Their incessant ribbing of each other, desire to always outdo one another, and nonstop unfiltered machismo being this palpable elephant in the room leads to nothing but verbal dick size comparisons and leaves you thinking that maybe they’ll make out or grope each other by the end of the film. Spoiler alert: maybe they’re saving that for the sequel.
There isn’t enough of a differentiation between action sequences in Hobbs & Shaw to make it feel worthwhile. There’s chemistry between the cast that is undeniable and some of its outrageousness is entertaining, but it all begins to feel similar and falls apart far sooner than it should. For those who care, there is a mid-credits and after-credits scene but neither is surprising. The cheesy motivational speeches, forced heartfelt stories, and, “all technology in the world doesn’t beat heart,” mumbo jumbo doesn’t help matters. The supposed story for this film is basically a dunce cap disguised as a pocket protector. There are intelligent elements used in ludicrous ways and maybe that’s what could describe the Fast & Furious franchise as a whole. You can bury a diamond in a dog turd and say it’s extravagant and that it’s valuable, but it’s still a dog turd that smells awful and lingers long after it’s been flushed away.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Why is this even prefaced everywhere with Fast & Furious? Apart from a couple of characters and the fact there are cars with a crapload of action they aren't really the same thing.
Hattie Shaw and her MI6 team have secured a virus that could threaten everyone if it gets into the wrong hands. In a surprise attacked by Brixton, an enhanced "bad guy", her entire team is killed and she has to make a quick decision.
As the story of the missing vial gets out handlers call in their top assets to retrieve it. The trouble is that they hate each other and working together isn't something that's going to work. Hobbs goes looking for Hattie on the streets and Shaw heads to her flat, both set some action they weren't expecting to, highlighting just what they're up against.
As an offshoot from the Fast & Furious franchise you expect the action, but Hobbs & Shaw takes a much bigger step towards comedy, which thankfully both Johnson and Statham are good at. Individually they'll get me to see a film, I might wish I hadn't when I come out of it, but you can pretty much guarantee that they'll give you a consistent result when it comes to the acting.
The two of them together are fun and they bounce off each other with impeccable timing, but there might be just a little bit too much insulting back and forth thrown into this one. It's not that it's bad, it's just that when it happens it can occasionally feel too long. It's almost as if they told them to improvise and they'd cut out a whole load of it and then never did. [One of my favourite bits of them together in the film is at the beginning of the trailer above.]
Vanessa Kirby as Shaw's sister Hattie is a bit more sensible than the leading men, that doesn't mean she's any less engaged in the action though. Right from the off they're showing her as tough and no-nonsense which fits in with the family characteristics. You get some great glimpses of the Shaw kids showing shared traits and it's really nice to see that link on the screen. Outside of the action and the family moments she sadly doesn't feel like a very well-formed character, there are several inconsistencies in her that I found to be confusing. You'd think one of those would be the age gap between her and Deckard, but honestly, until I saw some people mention it online I hadn't noticed it... it's a summer blockbuster... who's watching for those sorts of technicalities?!
Our bad guy Brixton, portrayed by Idris Elba is... yummy. I don't feel like there's much to say about Brixton, he kicks ass, he's got great tech and there's a good history with Shaw... but... he didn't really feel like a bad guy. Eteon certainly felt like an evil empire, but Brixton is just a minion in the grand scheme of things. I have my theories about Eteon, but that would mean major spoilers I'm afraid. I imagine we'll see more of them in the next one.
We get another wonderful pop up from Helen Mirren. Yeeeeeess, Queen! She's brilliant as always. There are a few cameos, and I'm impressed they managed to keep them secret. It was a fun discovery and definitely added to the humour of the whole thing, had you taken them out of the mix then you would have been left a much more "sensible" action film, but they went with it and it was certainly entertaining.
Obviously there's a lot of action, in a lot of different scenes. As ridiculous as it is, I did like the London chase that happens shortly after the jog down the building that you see in the trailer. It includes some good jaw-dropping moments and ends with a particularly satisfying moment. As fun as this sequence was, it does include the most dubious bit of CGI in the whole film... watch for that bike.
My other favourite scene is the finale, the whole thing is kind of long but specifically I'm thinking about Hobbs, Shaw and Brixton facing off. Even before going into the film you know exactly what needs to happen to get to the resolution, so when they get to that point you're sat going "about time!" As the storm sets in we get an amazing sequence with slow-mo of the three of them fighting in the rain. It was immense... some may say daft, but that's totally why I turned up for it. There's also some great glitching of Brixton's tech that I thought worked really well with everything. My only issue is that there's one moment where Jason Statham appears to genuinely smile and it feels completely out of character.
There are some things I want to mention before I finish.
- There feels like a lot of product placement happening throughout, including for things that aren't even real products.
- You do not... I repeat... DO NOT drive by a Greggs without stopping for a chicken bake.
Let's face it, if you even remotely enjoy action and comedy together then you're going to be enjoying this movie. You don't need to switch your brain on to watch this, it's just pure entertainment.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/hobbs-shaw-movie-review.html
Hattie Shaw and her MI6 team have secured a virus that could threaten everyone if it gets into the wrong hands. In a surprise attacked by Brixton, an enhanced "bad guy", her entire team is killed and she has to make a quick decision.
As the story of the missing vial gets out handlers call in their top assets to retrieve it. The trouble is that they hate each other and working together isn't something that's going to work. Hobbs goes looking for Hattie on the streets and Shaw heads to her flat, both set some action they weren't expecting to, highlighting just what they're up against.
As an offshoot from the Fast & Furious franchise you expect the action, but Hobbs & Shaw takes a much bigger step towards comedy, which thankfully both Johnson and Statham are good at. Individually they'll get me to see a film, I might wish I hadn't when I come out of it, but you can pretty much guarantee that they'll give you a consistent result when it comes to the acting.
The two of them together are fun and they bounce off each other with impeccable timing, but there might be just a little bit too much insulting back and forth thrown into this one. It's not that it's bad, it's just that when it happens it can occasionally feel too long. It's almost as if they told them to improvise and they'd cut out a whole load of it and then never did. [One of my favourite bits of them together in the film is at the beginning of the trailer above.]
Vanessa Kirby as Shaw's sister Hattie is a bit more sensible than the leading men, that doesn't mean she's any less engaged in the action though. Right from the off they're showing her as tough and no-nonsense which fits in with the family characteristics. You get some great glimpses of the Shaw kids showing shared traits and it's really nice to see that link on the screen. Outside of the action and the family moments she sadly doesn't feel like a very well-formed character, there are several inconsistencies in her that I found to be confusing. You'd think one of those would be the age gap between her and Deckard, but honestly, until I saw some people mention it online I hadn't noticed it... it's a summer blockbuster... who's watching for those sorts of technicalities?!
Our bad guy Brixton, portrayed by Idris Elba is... yummy. I don't feel like there's much to say about Brixton, he kicks ass, he's got great tech and there's a good history with Shaw... but... he didn't really feel like a bad guy. Eteon certainly felt like an evil empire, but Brixton is just a minion in the grand scheme of things. I have my theories about Eteon, but that would mean major spoilers I'm afraid. I imagine we'll see more of them in the next one.
We get another wonderful pop up from Helen Mirren. Yeeeeeess, Queen! She's brilliant as always. There are a few cameos, and I'm impressed they managed to keep them secret. It was a fun discovery and definitely added to the humour of the whole thing, had you taken them out of the mix then you would have been left a much more "sensible" action film, but they went with it and it was certainly entertaining.
Obviously there's a lot of action, in a lot of different scenes. As ridiculous as it is, I did like the London chase that happens shortly after the jog down the building that you see in the trailer. It includes some good jaw-dropping moments and ends with a particularly satisfying moment. As fun as this sequence was, it does include the most dubious bit of CGI in the whole film... watch for that bike.
My other favourite scene is the finale, the whole thing is kind of long but specifically I'm thinking about Hobbs, Shaw and Brixton facing off. Even before going into the film you know exactly what needs to happen to get to the resolution, so when they get to that point you're sat going "about time!" As the storm sets in we get an amazing sequence with slow-mo of the three of them fighting in the rain. It was immense... some may say daft, but that's totally why I turned up for it. There's also some great glitching of Brixton's tech that I thought worked really well with everything. My only issue is that there's one moment where Jason Statham appears to genuinely smile and it feels completely out of character.
There are some things I want to mention before I finish.
- There feels like a lot of product placement happening throughout, including for things that aren't even real products.
- You do not... I repeat... DO NOT drive by a Greggs without stopping for a chicken bake.
Let's face it, if you even remotely enjoy action and comedy together then you're going to be enjoying this movie. You don't need to switch your brain on to watch this, it's just pure entertainment.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/hobbs-shaw-movie-review.html