Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Monsters University (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Monsters University brings Billy Crystal, John Goodman, and the whole gang back in what I can only describe as a huge win.
Twelve years after Disney and Pixar brought us the wildly successful Monsters Inc., Pixar finally follows up with this year’s must-see family movie, which comes to us in the form of a prequel.
Monsters University opens by showing us a very young Mike Wazowski, who gets lost on a school trip to a very familiar scare floor at Monsters Inc. After surviving a trip to the human realm, he receives a hat from one of the professional scarers, emblazoned with MU. From that point on, a wide-eyed Wazowski dedicates his life to getting into Monsters University.
Fast forward many years and Mike is at his first day of college. MU becomes the backdrop for the education, friendships, scare games, and destiny-setting events that lead into the original movie we already know and love.
I was a bit skeptical going in I was a fan of the original, but prequels are damned hard to pull off, and kid/family movies aren’t typically my preference. Fortunately, after the first 15 minutes, the humor started picking up. The writers, designers, and artists did a masterful job of combining kid-humor antics with adult humor. Like many Pixar films, it contains one-liners and inside jokes that require life experience to really appreciate. (There was nothing dirty, just more adult-themed quips.)
I was impressed by the pacing, the detail, and the seamless flow of the animation, not to mention the excellent voice talent. Crystal, Goodman, Nathan Fillion, Steve Buscemi, Helen Mirren, and all the other actors did top-notch work.
I do have two complaints. There was not one mention of Mike Wazowski’s parents. We don’t know who they were or what they did, nor did we even get a visual of what they looked like. In a world occupied by such a wide variety of monsters, my curiosity was piqued. Even more maddening was the repeated mention of James P (Sulley) Sullivan’s father, who was apparently a very famous scarer. Sully is repeatedly reminded of living up to the family name, yet we never see so much as a picture showcasing his family. Perhaps this was addressed in a scene that didn’t make it from storyboards to the final cut.
Those minor issues aside, Monsters University is done very well, and it is extremely entertaining. From the many laugh-out-loud moments to the solemn, tear-jerking scenes, this movie is a real win.
Twelve years after Disney and Pixar brought us the wildly successful Monsters Inc., Pixar finally follows up with this year’s must-see family movie, which comes to us in the form of a prequel.
Monsters University opens by showing us a very young Mike Wazowski, who gets lost on a school trip to a very familiar scare floor at Monsters Inc. After surviving a trip to the human realm, he receives a hat from one of the professional scarers, emblazoned with MU. From that point on, a wide-eyed Wazowski dedicates his life to getting into Monsters University.
Fast forward many years and Mike is at his first day of college. MU becomes the backdrop for the education, friendships, scare games, and destiny-setting events that lead into the original movie we already know and love.
I was a bit skeptical going in I was a fan of the original, but prequels are damned hard to pull off, and kid/family movies aren’t typically my preference. Fortunately, after the first 15 minutes, the humor started picking up. The writers, designers, and artists did a masterful job of combining kid-humor antics with adult humor. Like many Pixar films, it contains one-liners and inside jokes that require life experience to really appreciate. (There was nothing dirty, just more adult-themed quips.)
I was impressed by the pacing, the detail, and the seamless flow of the animation, not to mention the excellent voice talent. Crystal, Goodman, Nathan Fillion, Steve Buscemi, Helen Mirren, and all the other actors did top-notch work.
I do have two complaints. There was not one mention of Mike Wazowski’s parents. We don’t know who they were or what they did, nor did we even get a visual of what they looked like. In a world occupied by such a wide variety of monsters, my curiosity was piqued. Even more maddening was the repeated mention of James P (Sulley) Sullivan’s father, who was apparently a very famous scarer. Sully is repeatedly reminded of living up to the family name, yet we never see so much as a picture showcasing his family. Perhaps this was addressed in a scene that didn’t make it from storyboards to the final cut.
Those minor issues aside, Monsters University is done very well, and it is extremely entertaining. From the many laugh-out-loud moments to the solemn, tear-jerking scenes, this movie is a real win.
JT (287 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
As an action connoisseur I know what I like. I’m easily pleased and not overly bothered by plot. It doesn’t always have to make sense, and set pieces can be incoherently over the top. This is why Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw is so enjoyable.
It’s clear to see that out of the franchise’s many characters Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) have been by far the most entertaining. Johnson arrived in Fast & Furious 5 as the agent tasked with capturing Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and his crew, while Statham’s debut was via a mid-credits scene during Fast & Furious 6 which connected to Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift.
What carries the film through the odd bump here and there is the chemistry between Johnson and Statham. They are not pleased at having to work together in order to locate a deadly virus called ‘Snowflake’. The pair engage in a number of funny put-downs and quips that start to build a love hate relationship. By the end of the film it’s pretty much guaranteed they are going to be back for a sequel.
Fast & Furious is well known for pushing boundaries when it comes to action sequences and this installment continues the trend. From running down a high-rise building to a chase through the streets of London, culminating with a totally bonkers helicopter finale that must be seen to be believed. The fight scenes are well choreographed and slick, all catering to the actor in question, with a vast array of objects at hand to be used as lethal weapons.
Idris Elba‘s Brixton Lore is an admirable villain. With built in cybernetic augmentations he has a spidey sense that is second to none. But he doesn’t get the screen time he deserves and his back story feels rushed. That said, his motorbike has a distinct Transformers feel about it and not surprisingly it emanates a familiar sound during a high speed pursuit.
What carries the film through the odd bump here and there is the chemistry between Johnson and Statham.
As if all of that wasn’t enough, there are a couple of great cameos thrown which actually work quite well [we won’t spoil them]. Helen Mirren pops up as Queenie, the matriarch of the Shaw family and Deckard’s sister Hattie (Vanessa Kirby) has an integral role to play.
Whatever you might think of the franchise or how tired it has become, there is no getting away from the fact that it has made a shed load of money. Things certainly don’t look like slowing down either, with the release of Fast & Furious 9 due out next year – although it could be minus this dynamic duo.
It’s clear to see that out of the franchise’s many characters Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) have been by far the most entertaining. Johnson arrived in Fast & Furious 5 as the agent tasked with capturing Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and his crew, while Statham’s debut was via a mid-credits scene during Fast & Furious 6 which connected to Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift.
What carries the film through the odd bump here and there is the chemistry between Johnson and Statham. They are not pleased at having to work together in order to locate a deadly virus called ‘Snowflake’. The pair engage in a number of funny put-downs and quips that start to build a love hate relationship. By the end of the film it’s pretty much guaranteed they are going to be back for a sequel.
Fast & Furious is well known for pushing boundaries when it comes to action sequences and this installment continues the trend. From running down a high-rise building to a chase through the streets of London, culminating with a totally bonkers helicopter finale that must be seen to be believed. The fight scenes are well choreographed and slick, all catering to the actor in question, with a vast array of objects at hand to be used as lethal weapons.
Idris Elba‘s Brixton Lore is an admirable villain. With built in cybernetic augmentations he has a spidey sense that is second to none. But he doesn’t get the screen time he deserves and his back story feels rushed. That said, his motorbike has a distinct Transformers feel about it and not surprisingly it emanates a familiar sound during a high speed pursuit.
What carries the film through the odd bump here and there is the chemistry between Johnson and Statham.
As if all of that wasn’t enough, there are a couple of great cameos thrown which actually work quite well [we won’t spoil them]. Helen Mirren pops up as Queenie, the matriarch of the Shaw family and Deckard’s sister Hattie (Vanessa Kirby) has an integral role to play.
Whatever you might think of the franchise or how tired it has become, there is no getting away from the fact that it has made a shed load of money. Things certainly don’t look like slowing down either, with the release of Fast & Furious 9 due out next year – although it could be minus this dynamic duo.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Arthur (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Arthur Bach is a spoiled, boyish, alcoholic, New York City playboy with amazing hair and heir to the family business and fortune. He and his faithful sidekick Bitterman travel far and wide to have fun and drink. Well, Arthur drinks, Bitterman drives. He is also very dependent on his nanny Hobson who has been with him since he was born and still takes care of him. One day his mother Vivienne decides she’s had it with his antics, embarrassing her and the family company, so she gives him an ultimatum: either he marries Susan Johnson or he will be cut-off and have to fend for himself on the mean streets of New York City.
Though he doesn’t love Susan, he eventually decides to go along with his mother’s wishes and propose to her. But during this time he also meets the enchanting Naomi, an unlicensed tour guide of Grand Central Terminal who has dreams of being a children’s author. As the wedding day draws nearer and nearer, Arthur and Naomi grow closer and closer. Then tragedy strikes. How this affects Arthur could change his entire life. Does he marry Susan and keep his wealth but gain the world’s scariest father-in-law? Does he choose the mean streets of New York City to be with Naomi? Or do he and Bitterman jump into the Batmobile and drive off into the sunset?
This remake of the 1981 movie Arthur honored the wonderful story that many of us know and love from the original film while still possessing its own unique flair. I believe Dudley Moore would have been very happy with Russell Brand’s excellent performance as Arthur Bach (if you disagree, hold a seance and prove me wrong). Helen Mirren does an amazing job as Hobson and she pretty much owns any scene she is in. Nick Nolte & Jennifer Garner were great as Burt (world’s scariest future father-in-law) and Susan Johnson (Arthur’s total-10-on-the-L.A.-scale) fiancee. Last but not least, I thoroughly enjoyed the performances of: Greta Gerwig as Naomi (Arthur’s love interest), Geraldine James as Vivienne Bach (Arthur’s Mom) and Luis Guzman as Bitterman his faithful sidekick and chauffeur (though I do wish Luis would have been given more screen time). The film definitely kept the audiences attention from start to finish but we were all laughing so much that I have to see it again to hear the jokes that I missed the first time.
If you were sober when you saw the original movie you probably remember the key parts of the story line but if not then this movie will seem like an entirely original movie to you.
Though he doesn’t love Susan, he eventually decides to go along with his mother’s wishes and propose to her. But during this time he also meets the enchanting Naomi, an unlicensed tour guide of Grand Central Terminal who has dreams of being a children’s author. As the wedding day draws nearer and nearer, Arthur and Naomi grow closer and closer. Then tragedy strikes. How this affects Arthur could change his entire life. Does he marry Susan and keep his wealth but gain the world’s scariest father-in-law? Does he choose the mean streets of New York City to be with Naomi? Or do he and Bitterman jump into the Batmobile and drive off into the sunset?
This remake of the 1981 movie Arthur honored the wonderful story that many of us know and love from the original film while still possessing its own unique flair. I believe Dudley Moore would have been very happy with Russell Brand’s excellent performance as Arthur Bach (if you disagree, hold a seance and prove me wrong). Helen Mirren does an amazing job as Hobson and she pretty much owns any scene she is in. Nick Nolte & Jennifer Garner were great as Burt (world’s scariest future father-in-law) and Susan Johnson (Arthur’s total-10-on-the-L.A.-scale) fiancee. Last but not least, I thoroughly enjoyed the performances of: Greta Gerwig as Naomi (Arthur’s love interest), Geraldine James as Vivienne Bach (Arthur’s Mom) and Luis Guzman as Bitterman his faithful sidekick and chauffeur (though I do wish Luis would have been given more screen time). The film definitely kept the audiences attention from start to finish but we were all laughing so much that I have to see it again to hear the jokes that I missed the first time.
If you were sober when you saw the original movie you probably remember the key parts of the story line but if not then this movie will seem like an entirely original movie to you.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover (1989) in Movies
Jan 29, 2019
Intriguing Movie
A woman begins a torrid romance of infidelity and tries to keep it from her nefarious husband.
Acting: 10
There is a reason Helen Mirren is one of my favorite actresses. She can be vulnerable and powerful all in the same breath. She makes you sympathize with her character and champion for her to win. She plays Georgina, the wife of a thug. She hates her life and is longing for more. The way she expresses that longing is done in subtle fashion, yet you can feel exactly what she is feeling. There are a number of strong performances in the film, but none quite as strong as hers.
Beginning: 1
I couldn’t tell up from down when the movie started. I didn’t know what to think, who to hate, or who to root for. That all eventually became clear, but the beginning was very muddled and had me losing hope that the movie could be good. Good thing there’s more to this film than the first ten minutes.
Characters: 7
The title, of course, gives away the characters that dominate the story. Each character carries their own weight and adds a different value to the story. Outside of Georgina, I enjoyed watching Alan Howard act out his role of Michael the Lover. He has an air of ignorance with a touch of nobility. He’s a good guy that enjoys being alone, not realizing that he is looking for someone special in his life. That is, until he meets Georgina who turns his life upside down. The interactions between the two provide for a number of great scenes. And, no, I’m not just referring to the sex, although there are some steamy scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 8
Definitely not the best drama I’ve seen, but hands-down, one of the most unique. I can honestly say I’ve never seen anything quite like this movie. It’s different for a lot of reasons, but mainly in the way the film is shot which helps push the overall tone. It shines with a special kind of flare that sticks in your memory.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 5
Plot: 10
Unique story with an interesting twist. I appreciate when movies try and do something different, and that’s where (insert long title here) succeeds. It’s a gut-wrenching love story told with conviction and passion.
Resolution: 10
Can’t talk about this movie without talking about that ending. Wow, what an ending! Didn’t see it coming in the least. It was both unbelievable and gratifying at the same time. If you haven’t heard of or seen this movie, I won’t ruin it for you. I’ll just say prepare to be pleasantly shocked.
Overall: 77
A stronger beginning and a quicker pace could have made this movie excellent, but it’s still solid enough for a one-time watch. I can guarantee you The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover will be unlike anything you’ve ever seen before.
Acting: 10
There is a reason Helen Mirren is one of my favorite actresses. She can be vulnerable and powerful all in the same breath. She makes you sympathize with her character and champion for her to win. She plays Georgina, the wife of a thug. She hates her life and is longing for more. The way she expresses that longing is done in subtle fashion, yet you can feel exactly what she is feeling. There are a number of strong performances in the film, but none quite as strong as hers.
Beginning: 1
I couldn’t tell up from down when the movie started. I didn’t know what to think, who to hate, or who to root for. That all eventually became clear, but the beginning was very muddled and had me losing hope that the movie could be good. Good thing there’s more to this film than the first ten minutes.
Characters: 7
The title, of course, gives away the characters that dominate the story. Each character carries their own weight and adds a different value to the story. Outside of Georgina, I enjoyed watching Alan Howard act out his role of Michael the Lover. He has an air of ignorance with a touch of nobility. He’s a good guy that enjoys being alone, not realizing that he is looking for someone special in his life. That is, until he meets Georgina who turns his life upside down. The interactions between the two provide for a number of great scenes. And, no, I’m not just referring to the sex, although there are some steamy scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 8
Definitely not the best drama I’ve seen, but hands-down, one of the most unique. I can honestly say I’ve never seen anything quite like this movie. It’s different for a lot of reasons, but mainly in the way the film is shot which helps push the overall tone. It shines with a special kind of flare that sticks in your memory.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 5
Plot: 10
Unique story with an interesting twist. I appreciate when movies try and do something different, and that’s where (insert long title here) succeeds. It’s a gut-wrenching love story told with conviction and passion.
Resolution: 10
Can’t talk about this movie without talking about that ending. Wow, what an ending! Didn’t see it coming in the least. It was both unbelievable and gratifying at the same time. If you haven’t heard of or seen this movie, I won’t ruin it for you. I’ll just say prepare to be pleasantly shocked.
Overall: 77
A stronger beginning and a quicker pace could have made this movie excellent, but it’s still solid enough for a one-time watch. I can guarantee you The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover will be unlike anything you’ve ever seen before.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Delivers EXACTLY what is expected - and that's a good thing
If you are heading into the multi-plex to check out FAST AND FURIOUS PRESENTS: HOBBS & SHAW, the 9th(!) entry in the Fast and Furious Universe, you pretty much know (and expect) what you are about to watch.
And HOBBS & SHAW does not disappoint - delivering over-the-top action with unsinkable heroes and unblinking villains battling each other with explosions galore and disposable henchmen being...well...disposed of left and right.
Reprising their roles as "Lawman" Luke Hobbs and "Outcast" Deckard Shaw (F&F terms for them) are the charismatic Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and the smoldering Jason Statham. Their two characters can't stand each other, so - naturally - they are forced to work in concert with each other to stop Super-Villain Brixton (Edris Elba). Can these 2 "frenemies" learn to put aside their differences and work together to stop a Villain that they cannot stop by themselves?
What do you think?
But...it's the journey...not the destination that's the fun of this film and this film is fun, fun, fun, indeed. Both Johnson and Statham know EXACTLY what type of film they are in - and know what their core audience is coming to this film to see - and they deliver in spades. They are perfect for these characters and are perfectly paired together. While the script, at times, seemed forced, these 2 action SuperStars make even the clunkiest of dialogue work and they are "game" for whatever is thrown at them.
Elba joins in strongly as the villain and newcomer (at least to this franchise) Vanessa Kirby (the White Widow in MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT) just as strongly counterbalances all 3 of them as the "McGuffin" of this film - the thing that the good guys and the bad guys are fighting each other for. Dame Helen Mirren is back as the criminal mother of Statham's character and she understands what type of film she's in as well. So does Eddie Marsan, who looks like he is having an absolute ball as a scientist brought into the fray.
There are also 2 "secret cameos" in this film that are fun - and I perked up in my seat when both of these cameos injected energy into this testosterone-infused flick.
Former Stuntman and Director David Leitch (DEADPOOL 2, ATOMIC BLONDE) throws a ton of action, car chases, guns, fights and explosions at the audience - all to good effect. His answer to bad acting and huge, implausible plot holes? Blow things up! And that works very, very well for this film. Leitch delivers exactly what is expected here - and that's just fine for me.
I was extremely entertained by this movie. I was in the mood for it - and it delivered exactly what I was looking for. Kind of like eating a good burger.
Letter Grade: A- (though, don't expect to break into "discussion groups" afterward)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And HOBBS & SHAW does not disappoint - delivering over-the-top action with unsinkable heroes and unblinking villains battling each other with explosions galore and disposable henchmen being...well...disposed of left and right.
Reprising their roles as "Lawman" Luke Hobbs and "Outcast" Deckard Shaw (F&F terms for them) are the charismatic Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and the smoldering Jason Statham. Their two characters can't stand each other, so - naturally - they are forced to work in concert with each other to stop Super-Villain Brixton (Edris Elba). Can these 2 "frenemies" learn to put aside their differences and work together to stop a Villain that they cannot stop by themselves?
What do you think?
But...it's the journey...not the destination that's the fun of this film and this film is fun, fun, fun, indeed. Both Johnson and Statham know EXACTLY what type of film they are in - and know what their core audience is coming to this film to see - and they deliver in spades. They are perfect for these characters and are perfectly paired together. While the script, at times, seemed forced, these 2 action SuperStars make even the clunkiest of dialogue work and they are "game" for whatever is thrown at them.
Elba joins in strongly as the villain and newcomer (at least to this franchise) Vanessa Kirby (the White Widow in MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT) just as strongly counterbalances all 3 of them as the "McGuffin" of this film - the thing that the good guys and the bad guys are fighting each other for. Dame Helen Mirren is back as the criminal mother of Statham's character and she understands what type of film she's in as well. So does Eddie Marsan, who looks like he is having an absolute ball as a scientist brought into the fray.
There are also 2 "secret cameos" in this film that are fun - and I perked up in my seat when both of these cameos injected energy into this testosterone-infused flick.
Former Stuntman and Director David Leitch (DEADPOOL 2, ATOMIC BLONDE) throws a ton of action, car chases, guns, fights and explosions at the audience - all to good effect. His answer to bad acting and huge, implausible plot holes? Blow things up! And that works very, very well for this film. Leitch delivers exactly what is expected here - and that's just fine for me.
I was extremely entertained by this movie. I was in the mood for it - and it delivered exactly what I was looking for. Kind of like eating a good burger.
Letter Grade: A- (though, don't expect to break into "discussion groups" afterward)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Good popcorn nonsense.
“Remember who we are. The Shaw family. We never, never, never give up.”
(That title is especially for my friends the Shaw family!).
Well, the patchy British summer’s just about up, and autumn’s chilly fingers are touching up the UK. And yet I still hadn’t seen the summer hit “Hobbs and Shaw”! Until last night.
It’s utter nonsense of course, like most of the “Fast and Furious” films, but I have to admit it’s done with some tongue in cheek style.
The plot
A vicious cyber-soldier, Brixton (Idris Elba) tries to steal a deadly virus but is thwarted by brave MI6 agent Hattie (Vanessa Kirby). To help recover the virus, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is recruited in London by CIA agent Loeb (Rob Delaney, the “non-super” hero Peter in “Deadpool 2“). In an interesting piece of related casting, the Eteon Director (Champ Nightengale – LoL, a cameo for someone far more famous) recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) in LA as a part of the team.
Both agents know they are heading for trouble… but do they really appreciate how much the pair hate each other’s guts?
The trail leads from London to the Ukraine to (a very picturesque) Samoa in a race against time to both defeat the undefeatable Brixton and save Hattie: now a ticking time bomb of global destruction. And Hattie has relations!
Absurd stunts.
As a “Fast and Furious” film there are of course some truly absurd car stunts involved and – unlike the Mission Impossible films – you are never quite sure what is “real” and what is CGI generated. Which is a shame.
For me, the gold standard for chases remains Tom Cruise‘s chase through Paris in “Mission Impossible: Fallout“. Here, the car chase through London – whilst impressive – never quite reaches the seat clenching tension of MI6.
And a final stunt with a helicopter is – I’m sorry – just plain ridiculous. If a chopper can partially lift 5 x load then why can’t it completely lift 1 x load. Give me a break!
To round things off, there is one of the most unbelievable “100% survival of a car crashing off a cliff” scenes in movie history!
Acting
The acting is largely from the Arnie Swartzenegger school, with Johnson and Statham giving it the old shtick. Dwayne Johnson may be one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars (the boy has done REAL good for himself), but he can’t do serious acting. His “pathos” scenes with his daughter (a vibrant Eliana Sua) are excruciating.
Dropping in as class acts are Helen Mirren as the elder Shaw and the excellent Vanessa Kirby as Hattie. Kirby gets a lot more to get her teeth into than in the last Mission Impossible movie, and is really very good. Mirren is rather too posh to be the incarcerated East End con, but is a fun turn nevertheless.
Also excellent, as always, is Eddie Marsan as the key scientist. Marsan really turns in a splendid performance in every film he’s in. He’s top of “Division 2” in my books. Never the star, but always starring.
Mexican actress Eiza González (from “Baby Driver“) also crops up as an unfeasibly good-looking Russian femme fatale.
“I hate you”. “No, I hate you”. Blah, blah, blah.
Writers Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce do a good job at keeping the script light and fluffy. The animosity between Hobbs and Shaw is played to 110%, and for me the interplay frankly became a bit tiresome. But it’s a fun-enough film to entertain, although it’s bladder-testing running time of 2 hours 17 minutes is at least 30 minutes too long. There is a natural Ukraine-based finale, but it’s not taken, and the film goes on… and on… and on…. and on. Enough already.
I’ve said many times before that comedies shouldn’t last more than 90 minutes, and although an “action film” this is fundamentally a comedy and the rule should apply. It would have been a much better film if it was compacted.
Sexism diverted.
I did criticize “Fast and Furious 8” for scenes that brazenly objectified women. And there was a moment – just one, fortunately – with a gyrating bikini-clad beauty – where I thought “uh, oh” – this franchise has not moved with the times.
But actually, this was the only scene where I thought that. Cinema has moved along massively in the last two years, driven by the “Times Up” movement. Here the women are all given pretty leading “kick-ass” roles, and they generally show the muscle-bound morons up, often saving their arses.
Final Thoughts.
It’s summer popcorn nonsense, but its well done popcorn nonsense. Probably not a film high on my list of films I want to see again, but as an entertainment vehicle it was not too shabby.
(That title is especially for my friends the Shaw family!).
Well, the patchy British summer’s just about up, and autumn’s chilly fingers are touching up the UK. And yet I still hadn’t seen the summer hit “Hobbs and Shaw”! Until last night.
It’s utter nonsense of course, like most of the “Fast and Furious” films, but I have to admit it’s done with some tongue in cheek style.
The plot
A vicious cyber-soldier, Brixton (Idris Elba) tries to steal a deadly virus but is thwarted by brave MI6 agent Hattie (Vanessa Kirby). To help recover the virus, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is recruited in London by CIA agent Loeb (Rob Delaney, the “non-super” hero Peter in “Deadpool 2“). In an interesting piece of related casting, the Eteon Director (Champ Nightengale – LoL, a cameo for someone far more famous) recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) in LA as a part of the team.
Both agents know they are heading for trouble… but do they really appreciate how much the pair hate each other’s guts?
The trail leads from London to the Ukraine to (a very picturesque) Samoa in a race against time to both defeat the undefeatable Brixton and save Hattie: now a ticking time bomb of global destruction. And Hattie has relations!
Absurd stunts.
As a “Fast and Furious” film there are of course some truly absurd car stunts involved and – unlike the Mission Impossible films – you are never quite sure what is “real” and what is CGI generated. Which is a shame.
For me, the gold standard for chases remains Tom Cruise‘s chase through Paris in “Mission Impossible: Fallout“. Here, the car chase through London – whilst impressive – never quite reaches the seat clenching tension of MI6.
And a final stunt with a helicopter is – I’m sorry – just plain ridiculous. If a chopper can partially lift 5 x load then why can’t it completely lift 1 x load. Give me a break!
To round things off, there is one of the most unbelievable “100% survival of a car crashing off a cliff” scenes in movie history!
Acting
The acting is largely from the Arnie Swartzenegger school, with Johnson and Statham giving it the old shtick. Dwayne Johnson may be one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars (the boy has done REAL good for himself), but he can’t do serious acting. His “pathos” scenes with his daughter (a vibrant Eliana Sua) are excruciating.
Dropping in as class acts are Helen Mirren as the elder Shaw and the excellent Vanessa Kirby as Hattie. Kirby gets a lot more to get her teeth into than in the last Mission Impossible movie, and is really very good. Mirren is rather too posh to be the incarcerated East End con, but is a fun turn nevertheless.
Also excellent, as always, is Eddie Marsan as the key scientist. Marsan really turns in a splendid performance in every film he’s in. He’s top of “Division 2” in my books. Never the star, but always starring.
Mexican actress Eiza González (from “Baby Driver“) also crops up as an unfeasibly good-looking Russian femme fatale.
“I hate you”. “No, I hate you”. Blah, blah, blah.
Writers Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce do a good job at keeping the script light and fluffy. The animosity between Hobbs and Shaw is played to 110%, and for me the interplay frankly became a bit tiresome. But it’s a fun-enough film to entertain, although it’s bladder-testing running time of 2 hours 17 minutes is at least 30 minutes too long. There is a natural Ukraine-based finale, but it’s not taken, and the film goes on… and on… and on…. and on. Enough already.
I’ve said many times before that comedies shouldn’t last more than 90 minutes, and although an “action film” this is fundamentally a comedy and the rule should apply. It would have been a much better film if it was compacted.
Sexism diverted.
I did criticize “Fast and Furious 8” for scenes that brazenly objectified women. And there was a moment – just one, fortunately – with a gyrating bikini-clad beauty – where I thought “uh, oh” – this franchise has not moved with the times.
But actually, this was the only scene where I thought that. Cinema has moved along massively in the last two years, driven by the “Times Up” movement. Here the women are all given pretty leading “kick-ass” roles, and they generally show the muscle-bound morons up, often saving their arses.
Final Thoughts.
It’s summer popcorn nonsense, but its well done popcorn nonsense. Probably not a film high on my list of films I want to see again, but as an entertainment vehicle it was not too shabby.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Trumbo (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
What is it that makes, not a great, but even a good biopic? It is certainly no enviable task, trying to condense decades of a person’s life into a mere two hours. Choosing what to keep and what to leave, stringing events together so that they feel as though they are one complete narrative opposed to a series of vignettes. And then there are the inevitable purists who will write off the entire product based on a single detail either left out or composited due to running time or budgetary restrictions. Over the years, I have found myself wrestling with my opinion of Braveheart. Do I enjoy it for its epic qualities, or do I cast it aside as the wretched historical inaccuracies fly in the face of what is one of the most important times in a country’s past?
The answer is simply, and stolen from another great historical epic, are you not entertained? Film can and should be powerful and informative. It can and should influence our thinking and encourage an emotional response, but above all, it should entertain. Trumbo does all of the above, ticks all the necessary boxes on the list of what makes a great biopic and whatever historical inaccuracies lie within be damned. Director Jay Roach, writer John McNamara and an ensemble so good it has to be seen to be believed have made, if not the best biopic of the year (that distinction still stays with Steve Jobs for now), then certainly the most enjoyable.
Where I find myself in reviewing Trumbo is trying not to sound monotonous in singing its high praises. Whether you’re interested in a message or not, because there is a good one in there, it’s a film that demands to be seen just on the strength of the cohesiveness that comes from the writing, the acting and (I still can’t believe I’m about to write this about the man who made all three Austin Powers movies) the directing.
I could prattle on endlessly about how overwhelmingly good this cast is, but the names speak for themselves. Bryan Cranston showcases that he is not just the best thing on television, but also a big-screen powerhouse. Helen Mirren, in her inimitable fashion and with beautiful understatement, is a force to be reckoned with, seething venom and self-righteousness. Louis C.K. finally breaks out of his stand-up comic persona to give a truly heartfelt performance played with surprisingly restrained vulnerability. The chemistry between him and Bryan Cranston will no doubt leave you wanting more. And John Goodman… well, it’s John Goodman. He continues to prove that no matter how small a part he has to play, it will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. Hands down, and these are only four out of a dozen terrific performances, there hasn’t been an ensemble this stunning since L.A. Confidential.
It should also be mentioned that Michael Stuhlbarg, David James Elliott and Dean O’Gorman, who portray Edward G. Robinson, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas respectively, are unquestionably destined to go down as the unsung heroes of Trumbo. Their efforts, not just to imitate but to fully realize these Hollywood stars of a by-gone era, are a further complement to inspired casting and commitment to honoring the lives of the people portrayed on screen.
In short (and well done for making it this far through monotonous and truly well-deserved praise), if you have to see one film this Thanksgiving season that doesn’t star Tom Hardy as England’s notorious Kray brothers, see Trumbo.
The answer is simply, and stolen from another great historical epic, are you not entertained? Film can and should be powerful and informative. It can and should influence our thinking and encourage an emotional response, but above all, it should entertain. Trumbo does all of the above, ticks all the necessary boxes on the list of what makes a great biopic and whatever historical inaccuracies lie within be damned. Director Jay Roach, writer John McNamara and an ensemble so good it has to be seen to be believed have made, if not the best biopic of the year (that distinction still stays with Steve Jobs for now), then certainly the most enjoyable.
Where I find myself in reviewing Trumbo is trying not to sound monotonous in singing its high praises. Whether you’re interested in a message or not, because there is a good one in there, it’s a film that demands to be seen just on the strength of the cohesiveness that comes from the writing, the acting and (I still can’t believe I’m about to write this about the man who made all three Austin Powers movies) the directing.
I could prattle on endlessly about how overwhelmingly good this cast is, but the names speak for themselves. Bryan Cranston showcases that he is not just the best thing on television, but also a big-screen powerhouse. Helen Mirren, in her inimitable fashion and with beautiful understatement, is a force to be reckoned with, seething venom and self-righteousness. Louis C.K. finally breaks out of his stand-up comic persona to give a truly heartfelt performance played with surprisingly restrained vulnerability. The chemistry between him and Bryan Cranston will no doubt leave you wanting more. And John Goodman… well, it’s John Goodman. He continues to prove that no matter how small a part he has to play, it will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. Hands down, and these are only four out of a dozen terrific performances, there hasn’t been an ensemble this stunning since L.A. Confidential.
It should also be mentioned that Michael Stuhlbarg, David James Elliott and Dean O’Gorman, who portray Edward G. Robinson, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas respectively, are unquestionably destined to go down as the unsung heroes of Trumbo. Their efforts, not just to imitate but to fully realize these Hollywood stars of a by-gone era, are a further complement to inspired casting and commitment to honoring the lives of the people portrayed on screen.
In short (and well done for making it this far through monotonous and truly well-deserved praise), if you have to see one film this Thanksgiving season that doesn’t star Tom Hardy as England’s notorious Kray brothers, see Trumbo.
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