Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Upside (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Not the 5* French classic, but a fun and moving movie nonetheless.
So, the movie-going audience for this film will divide into two categories:
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spielberg (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
On making Drew Barrymore cry.
“Spielberg” is an HBO-produced documentary by documentarian Susan Lacy. You’ll never guess who the subject is?!
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Pitch Perfect 3 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Aca-bysmal.
Mr Plot and Miss Tale were teenage sweethearts. They met at Storyville High School and inseparable, but were viciously cursed by a jealous school nurse, bitter from a recent split. Notwithstanding this setback, they realised that they were soul-mates, got engaged and were married in the following summer. Everyone wished them well, and spoke of the time when the sound of little Plots would ring out around their new house. Unfortunately, however hard they tried, no little Plot arrived. The ancient curse of the school nurse rang in their ears. They paid to see the most expensive doctors on Harley Street, but noone could help them. It turned out that not only was Mrs Plot infertile, but so was Mr Plot. It was hopeless, and because of an unfortunate conviction for marujiana possession in Mr Plot’s teenage years they couldn’t even adapt, sorry, adopt a little Plot from someone else. So they lived together with sadness and bitterness building up inside them. Would the curse ever be lifted? Would they work through their differences to find new purpose in life? Or would they part acromoniously with Mrs Plot joining a convent to sing mournful songs of grief and missed opportunities in the Swiss Alps? TO… BE…CONTINUED.
There. You were there, weren’t you? Living it. You want to know what happens next? Sure you do. You see, even I can come up with a story…. and I’m not a “professional Hollywood scriptwriter”.
Why then, I ask you. Why oh why oh why oh why oh why do the scriptwriters of Pitch Perfect 3 – Kay Cannon (the original PP screenwriter) and Mike White (“The Emoji Movie”) – think that this dreadfully lazy set of loosely connected scenes represent a viable basis for a movie? Is the view from the guys who green-lit this thing that the crowd that loved “Pitch Perfect” and the pretty dreadful sequel “Pitch Perfect 2” will pay their box office money regardless? Let’s advertise the hell out of it and cash in our chips before word of mouth gets out!?
In this ‘adventure’ the Bellas go on a US Forces overseas tour (though this is not really explained until they suddenly appear in Spain – what? how?). The really REALLY annoying commentators John (John Michael Higgins) and Gail (Elizabeth Banks, “Love and Mercy“) tag along, filming some lame half-arsed documentary about them until even the scriptwriters get fed up of that tedious plot-line and it quietly withers on the vine.
Fat Amy (is this still an acceptable nickname in 2017?) also runs into her nefarious father again after many years (John Lithgow, “Interstellar“, “Daddy’s Home 2“). Lithgow – sporting a wonderful Australian accent – is about the best thing in the film. The “plot” (sorry, I can barely bring myself to use that word) revolves around Daddy trying to get something of Amy’s that he needs, for reasons – given the yacht he sails – that makes no sense whatsoever. Will he succeed? Will the Bellas get selected to headline with DJ Khaled (who is apparently a thing, but I’ve never heard him on BBC Radio 2)? Does anyone really care?
As my wife pointed out, it’s a bit unfortunate that the only Bellas who are not stick-thin size zeroes are the obese and annoyingly loud one, the black lesbian one and two that nobody knows why they are there. The message to the target female teen audience is clear: if you want to be “in” you’d better diet… hard. Nice.
Looking for all the world like sticks of candy-cane. The size 0 Bellas.
What can I say that’s vaguely nice about this monstrosity?
Some of the acapella song and dance numbers are fun enough, particularly “Toxic” that opens the film;
The closing number by Anna Kendrick (“Table 19“) is quite appealing;
There are also about 5 funny lines that made me smile: not laugh… smile;
It’s also a relief that John and Gail, unlike in “Pitch Perfect 2“, only come out with one xenophobic/racist comment in the film (and that’s about the French, so that hardly counts 🙂 ).
And I’m out…
There will be no doubt die-hard teenage fans who will love this one too. But my wife was a great fan of the first film (as indeed was I); she tolerated the second one; but even she declared this to be “Aca-Awful”. It’s not as toxically dreadful as “Dirty Grandpa“… what could be? But, seriously, life is too short for this.
There. You were there, weren’t you? Living it. You want to know what happens next? Sure you do. You see, even I can come up with a story…. and I’m not a “professional Hollywood scriptwriter”.
Why then, I ask you. Why oh why oh why oh why oh why do the scriptwriters of Pitch Perfect 3 – Kay Cannon (the original PP screenwriter) and Mike White (“The Emoji Movie”) – think that this dreadfully lazy set of loosely connected scenes represent a viable basis for a movie? Is the view from the guys who green-lit this thing that the crowd that loved “Pitch Perfect” and the pretty dreadful sequel “Pitch Perfect 2” will pay their box office money regardless? Let’s advertise the hell out of it and cash in our chips before word of mouth gets out!?
In this ‘adventure’ the Bellas go on a US Forces overseas tour (though this is not really explained until they suddenly appear in Spain – what? how?). The really REALLY annoying commentators John (John Michael Higgins) and Gail (Elizabeth Banks, “Love and Mercy“) tag along, filming some lame half-arsed documentary about them until even the scriptwriters get fed up of that tedious plot-line and it quietly withers on the vine.
Fat Amy (is this still an acceptable nickname in 2017?) also runs into her nefarious father again after many years (John Lithgow, “Interstellar“, “Daddy’s Home 2“). Lithgow – sporting a wonderful Australian accent – is about the best thing in the film. The “plot” (sorry, I can barely bring myself to use that word) revolves around Daddy trying to get something of Amy’s that he needs, for reasons – given the yacht he sails – that makes no sense whatsoever. Will he succeed? Will the Bellas get selected to headline with DJ Khaled (who is apparently a thing, but I’ve never heard him on BBC Radio 2)? Does anyone really care?
As my wife pointed out, it’s a bit unfortunate that the only Bellas who are not stick-thin size zeroes are the obese and annoyingly loud one, the black lesbian one and two that nobody knows why they are there. The message to the target female teen audience is clear: if you want to be “in” you’d better diet… hard. Nice.
Looking for all the world like sticks of candy-cane. The size 0 Bellas.
What can I say that’s vaguely nice about this monstrosity?
Some of the acapella song and dance numbers are fun enough, particularly “Toxic” that opens the film;
The closing number by Anna Kendrick (“Table 19“) is quite appealing;
There are also about 5 funny lines that made me smile: not laugh… smile;
It’s also a relief that John and Gail, unlike in “Pitch Perfect 2“, only come out with one xenophobic/racist comment in the film (and that’s about the French, so that hardly counts 🙂 ).
And I’m out…
There will be no doubt die-hard teenage fans who will love this one too. But my wife was a great fan of the first film (as indeed was I); she tolerated the second one; but even she declared this to be “Aca-Awful”. It’s not as toxically dreadful as “Dirty Grandpa“… what could be? But, seriously, life is too short for this.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Colossal (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Marvel-ous Indie Movie
Well!! I’ve been really surprised (in a good way) by two films this year, and both have involved monsters (the first being “A Monster Calls” back in January).
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Predator (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A soft reboot that actually works
1987; feels like a long time ago doesn’t it? In fact, most of you reading this I imagine weren’t even born way back in the late 80s. I mean, I was only a twinkle in my parents’ eyes at that time. But I digress.
What’s so special about 1987? Well, it was the year that Arnold Schwarzenegger kicked serious alien butt in the first Predator movie. Of course, the franchise’s now infamous fall from grace is the stuff of legend, and along with Alien, the original remains a true high point in the sci-fi horror genre.
Rebooted for 2018 with Iron Man 3 director Shane Black at the helm, The Predator aims to revitalise the public’s interest in this flagging horror franchise. Looking at Shane Black’s unusual resume, he seems a strange choice to take charge here, but we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. But just how good, or bad, is The Predator?
From the outer reaches of space to the small-town streets of suburbia, the hunt comes home. The universe’s most lethal hunters are stronger, smarter and deadlier than ever before, having genetically upgraded themselves with DNA from other species. When a boy accidentally triggers their return to Earth, only a ragtag crew of ex-soldiers and an evolutionary biologist can prevent the end of the human race.
The aforementioned ragtag crew of ex-soldiers includes Boyd Holbrook, a vastly underused presence in last year’s Logan, that thankfully receives much higher billing here. Trevante Rhodes, Keegan-Michael Key, Thomas Jane and Augusto Aguilera make up the rest of the team and whilst their backstories are limited to one scene on a bus, they feel fleshed out enough to carry the film.
Less successful is Olivia Munn’s Casey Bracket. Biologist and when required by the screenwriters, experienced military personnel, she’s probably the most badass biologist you’ll see on screen this decade, when the script requires it of course.
Finally, we have the ridiculously talented Jacob Tremblay as Holbrooks son, Rory. His subplot which surrounds his daily struggles with autism is poorly realised but should be praised for bringing awareness to the condition in a mainstream Hollywood film.
Thankfully, Shane Black injects his trademark dark humour throughout and surprisingly, it works better than I had anticipated. The jokes are well-placed across the running time and each one manages to at least raise a titter.
Now let’s get to the part everyone reading this is interested in; the Predator’s return. Portrayed by stuntman Brian A. Prince, this Predator is virtually identical to the 1987 original in every way. And that’s a good thing, because when the 11ft hybrid shows up, it spoils the party a little. Rendered in CGI, rather than practical effects, its movements are a little too fluid and lack that sense of realism you get with a real man in a suit. The addition of the Predator Dogs however is an inspired choice and they work well despite some sloppy CG at times.
The Predator is a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards
Nevertheless, the film is shot very well and the copious amounts of gore are both restrained and animalistic. It earns its 15 rating most definitely as the Predator works its way through a massive number of victims, but it never crosses the line in which you’d have people saying ‘enough is enough’.
The special effects are on the whole, very good indeed. Considering a relatively modest $88million budget, there are only a few instances of poor CGI and the practical effects used throughout are a nice touch. It’s a shame then that there are some case of poor editing in the film however. A couple of character decisions will leave you scratching your head as you wonder how on earth our band of heroes managed to figure out certain problems.
But this is very much fan service to the original and for that, you’ll either love or hate it. There are many references to its predecessors, some subtle, some smack you in the face obvious. The classic Arnie line “get to the chopper” is there, but that’s definitely in the latter camp, and it’s one reference that doesn’t quite hit the spot.
Overall, The Predator is definitely the best film since the original, although that really isn’t saying much. And that’s a little bit of a disservice to what Shane black and the cast has managed to achieve. It’s a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards. Is it a horror movie like the original was classed to be? Absolutely not. But it’s worth a watch for both Predator fans and those looking to scratch their sci-fi itch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/09/14/the-predator-review-a-soft-reboot-that-actually-works/
What’s so special about 1987? Well, it was the year that Arnold Schwarzenegger kicked serious alien butt in the first Predator movie. Of course, the franchise’s now infamous fall from grace is the stuff of legend, and along with Alien, the original remains a true high point in the sci-fi horror genre.
Rebooted for 2018 with Iron Man 3 director Shane Black at the helm, The Predator aims to revitalise the public’s interest in this flagging horror franchise. Looking at Shane Black’s unusual resume, he seems a strange choice to take charge here, but we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. But just how good, or bad, is The Predator?
From the outer reaches of space to the small-town streets of suburbia, the hunt comes home. The universe’s most lethal hunters are stronger, smarter and deadlier than ever before, having genetically upgraded themselves with DNA from other species. When a boy accidentally triggers their return to Earth, only a ragtag crew of ex-soldiers and an evolutionary biologist can prevent the end of the human race.
The aforementioned ragtag crew of ex-soldiers includes Boyd Holbrook, a vastly underused presence in last year’s Logan, that thankfully receives much higher billing here. Trevante Rhodes, Keegan-Michael Key, Thomas Jane and Augusto Aguilera make up the rest of the team and whilst their backstories are limited to one scene on a bus, they feel fleshed out enough to carry the film.
Less successful is Olivia Munn’s Casey Bracket. Biologist and when required by the screenwriters, experienced military personnel, she’s probably the most badass biologist you’ll see on screen this decade, when the script requires it of course.
Finally, we have the ridiculously talented Jacob Tremblay as Holbrooks son, Rory. His subplot which surrounds his daily struggles with autism is poorly realised but should be praised for bringing awareness to the condition in a mainstream Hollywood film.
Thankfully, Shane Black injects his trademark dark humour throughout and surprisingly, it works better than I had anticipated. The jokes are well-placed across the running time and each one manages to at least raise a titter.
Now let’s get to the part everyone reading this is interested in; the Predator’s return. Portrayed by stuntman Brian A. Prince, this Predator is virtually identical to the 1987 original in every way. And that’s a good thing, because when the 11ft hybrid shows up, it spoils the party a little. Rendered in CGI, rather than practical effects, its movements are a little too fluid and lack that sense of realism you get with a real man in a suit. The addition of the Predator Dogs however is an inspired choice and they work well despite some sloppy CG at times.
The Predator is a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards
Nevertheless, the film is shot very well and the copious amounts of gore are both restrained and animalistic. It earns its 15 rating most definitely as the Predator works its way through a massive number of victims, but it never crosses the line in which you’d have people saying ‘enough is enough’.
The special effects are on the whole, very good indeed. Considering a relatively modest $88million budget, there are only a few instances of poor CGI and the practical effects used throughout are a nice touch. It’s a shame then that there are some case of poor editing in the film however. A couple of character decisions will leave you scratching your head as you wonder how on earth our band of heroes managed to figure out certain problems.
But this is very much fan service to the original and for that, you’ll either love or hate it. There are many references to its predecessors, some subtle, some smack you in the face obvious. The classic Arnie line “get to the chopper” is there, but that’s definitely in the latter camp, and it’s one reference that doesn’t quite hit the spot.
Overall, The Predator is definitely the best film since the original, although that really isn’t saying much. And that’s a little bit of a disservice to what Shane black and the cast has managed to achieve. It’s a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards. Is it a horror movie like the original was classed to be? Absolutely not. But it’s worth a watch for both Predator fans and those looking to scratch their sci-fi itch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/09/14/the-predator-review-a-soft-reboot-that-actually-works/
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Mar 22, 2018 (Updated Mar 22, 2018)
An Uninspired Take On the Iconic Character
This is the greatest video game movie ever made.
Now, I know what you are thinking, "Dan, you scored this thing a 6, you can't open your review with a statement like that!" Well the thing is, every other video game movie is so shit, that this mediocre action adventure flick is the gold standard in comparison.
If you played the 2013 Tomb Raider reboot game, then you will see a lot of similarities here, except most of it isn't done as well as it was done in the game. First of all, they spend far too much time following Lara in London before she goes on her adventure. For some reason she lives a poor life as a delivery girl that can't even afford to pay her gym membership, even though she has a massive fortune of inheritance money sitting there, that is hers once she signs off on her father's death certificate. Her dad is played by Dominic West, who is one of my favourite actors, but unfortunately he is kind of wasted here. He went missing seven years ago and is the catalyst for Lara's adventure to begin.
So she goes to Thailand to look for the guy that her dad bought the boat from to go to the remote island with the treasure on it. The guy she finds from Into The Badlands, turns out to be his son and he agrees to help her for some cash. He is actually pretty enjoyable in the movie and probably does a better job selling his character than his Oscar winning co-star, but we will get back to that later. So the two of them go to this remote island and a storm hits the boat, forcing the two of them overboard. Lara wakes up with Walton Goggins' character Mathias holding her at gun point. Mathias is nothing like he was in the game, where he was a mad priest type character, here he is a tired faithless mercenary that just wants to get the job done and go home. Walton Goggins, who again is one of my favourite actors, does his best with the material that he is giving, the issue being that the material is pretty garbage, which is the case for this movie's script in general. From here, Lara goes through the motions of becoming more of a badass survivor. This leads us into some exciting action set pieces that call back to the original game and are probably the best parts of the movie, so I won't spoil them here.
Let's talk about Alicia Vikander as Lara Croft. I have liked Alicia Vikander in every other role that I have seen her in and I was looking forward to seeing her performance as this iconic character. However, she just doesn't sell the character for me. I'm not sure if it's the material that the filmmakers gave her to work with, but she is totally underwhelming and never defines the character in any major way or makes it her own. You could have cast any young actress in this role and you would have gotten the same result. The other rumoured names before Vikander was officially cast were Emelia Clarke and Daisey Ridley. Any one of those would yielded the exact same results meaning that while Vikander was perfectly serviceable, she brought nothing special or original to the role.
Next I want to cover some of the movie's technical elements. The special effects were actually pretty impressive overall. The CGI backdrops all looked pretty convincing and even the character animation that was sprinkled in here and there looked pretty good and didn't distract or take me out of the movie too much. However, everything else was totally unremarkable. From the direction, to the lighting, to the cinematography, to the score, it was all just passable and nothing more.
Before I conclude this review, I want to briefly touch on something that this movie does that I hate seeing in movies. For some reason this movie repeatedly shows us flashbacks of something that happened just minutes beforehand. It is so frustrating and totally breaks the pace of the movie. It also feels as if the filmmakers are treating their audience like complete idiots that can't piece their predictable plot together without explicitly spelling it out by showing us the same flashback for the fourth time. Hollywood please stop doing this, it totally breaks any flow that your movie almost had and is so painfully unnecessary it hurts, give us some credit as moviegoers.
Overall, this is a decent action adventure romp that works okay if you don't think about it too much. It isn't anything special in any way and doesn't do anything that hasn't been done better by another franchise before. You will have a decent time with this as long as you don't expect something that is going to bring the video game movie into legendary status.
Now, I know what you are thinking, "Dan, you scored this thing a 6, you can't open your review with a statement like that!" Well the thing is, every other video game movie is so shit, that this mediocre action adventure flick is the gold standard in comparison.
If you played the 2013 Tomb Raider reboot game, then you will see a lot of similarities here, except most of it isn't done as well as it was done in the game. First of all, they spend far too much time following Lara in London before she goes on her adventure. For some reason she lives a poor life as a delivery girl that can't even afford to pay her gym membership, even though she has a massive fortune of inheritance money sitting there, that is hers once she signs off on her father's death certificate. Her dad is played by Dominic West, who is one of my favourite actors, but unfortunately he is kind of wasted here. He went missing seven years ago and is the catalyst for Lara's adventure to begin.
So she goes to Thailand to look for the guy that her dad bought the boat from to go to the remote island with the treasure on it. The guy she finds from Into The Badlands, turns out to be his son and he agrees to help her for some cash. He is actually pretty enjoyable in the movie and probably does a better job selling his character than his Oscar winning co-star, but we will get back to that later. So the two of them go to this remote island and a storm hits the boat, forcing the two of them overboard. Lara wakes up with Walton Goggins' character Mathias holding her at gun point. Mathias is nothing like he was in the game, where he was a mad priest type character, here he is a tired faithless mercenary that just wants to get the job done and go home. Walton Goggins, who again is one of my favourite actors, does his best with the material that he is giving, the issue being that the material is pretty garbage, which is the case for this movie's script in general. From here, Lara goes through the motions of becoming more of a badass survivor. This leads us into some exciting action set pieces that call back to the original game and are probably the best parts of the movie, so I won't spoil them here.
Let's talk about Alicia Vikander as Lara Croft. I have liked Alicia Vikander in every other role that I have seen her in and I was looking forward to seeing her performance as this iconic character. However, she just doesn't sell the character for me. I'm not sure if it's the material that the filmmakers gave her to work with, but she is totally underwhelming and never defines the character in any major way or makes it her own. You could have cast any young actress in this role and you would have gotten the same result. The other rumoured names before Vikander was officially cast were Emelia Clarke and Daisey Ridley. Any one of those would yielded the exact same results meaning that while Vikander was perfectly serviceable, she brought nothing special or original to the role.
Next I want to cover some of the movie's technical elements. The special effects were actually pretty impressive overall. The CGI backdrops all looked pretty convincing and even the character animation that was sprinkled in here and there looked pretty good and didn't distract or take me out of the movie too much. However, everything else was totally unremarkable. From the direction, to the lighting, to the cinematography, to the score, it was all just passable and nothing more.
Before I conclude this review, I want to briefly touch on something that this movie does that I hate seeing in movies. For some reason this movie repeatedly shows us flashbacks of something that happened just minutes beforehand. It is so frustrating and totally breaks the pace of the movie. It also feels as if the filmmakers are treating their audience like complete idiots that can't piece their predictable plot together without explicitly spelling it out by showing us the same flashback for the fourth time. Hollywood please stop doing this, it totally breaks any flow that your movie almost had and is so painfully unnecessary it hurts, give us some credit as moviegoers.
Overall, this is a decent action adventure romp that works okay if you don't think about it too much. It isn't anything special in any way and doesn't do anything that hasn't been done better by another franchise before. You will have a decent time with this as long as you don't expect something that is going to bring the video game movie into legendary status.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Clerks II (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In 1994, Writer/Director/Producer Kevin Smith emerged as a talented filmmaker to watch with his independent film Clerks The film was a no holds barred look at the lives of two desk clerks, who toil away behind the counters of a video and convince store.
The film was made on a tight budget with a cast of unknowns who discussed all manner of issues from life, love, and beyond in very graphic and outlandish terms as they go through a very long day and evening on the job.
The film went on to be a darling at Sundance and paved the way from Kevin Smith to do a series of films which featured lovable yet realistic characters trying to understand life, and get by in a world where they do not always seem to fit. Of course the films always had Smith’s trademark ability to discuss topics in new and unique ways that blended raunchy moments with inspired dialogue and genuine emotions.
A few years back I interviewed Kevin Smith in support of his film Jersey Girl and it seemed that he was on the fast track to do films such as The Green Hornet and Fletch Lives. Despite the series of frustrations due to reported studio conflicts over his Superman Lives script, it seemed that Kevin was moving towards larger budget studio films.
Fate can be a funny thing, especially in Hollywood, and while preparing the 10th anniversary DVD edition of Clerks as well as the work on the short-lived Clerks animated series, Smith reportedly became inspired as to what the characters from his breakout film had become ten years further on.
Despite some delays caused by the departure of the Weinstein brothers from Miramax and the reluctance of one of the principal cast members, who was concerned that they would not be able to recapture the magic of the first film, “Clerks II” has arrived and is easily one of the funniest films I have ever seen.
The stars of the first film Dante (Brian O’Halloran), and Randal (Jeff Anderson), now find themselves working at a fast food store called Moobys, and as usual, Randal never finds a shortage of bizarre and outrageous topics to impart his wisdom and theories to a usual shocked Dante. It is learned that Dante is about to work his last shift, as in the morning he is moving to Florida from his New Jersey home, in order to get married and start a new career as a manager at a business owned by his future father in law.
Dante also must contend with his friendship with his manager Becky (Rosario Dawson), who wants to make sure that he is moving and getting married for the right reasons and not because it is expected of him.
Of course there are no shortage of characters in the film who add to the merriment, from the customers, to an employee named Elias (Trevor Fehrman), whose mild mannered ways and bizarre obsession with Lord of the Rings makes him a constant foil for the ever irascible Randal, who never loses interest in finding new ways to give Elias a hard time.
Then there are series favorites Jay and Silent Bob, (Jason: Mewes), and (Kevin Smith). The two slackers and drug dealers have now cleaned up their act. They still sell drugs; they just no longer use them. Jay is also prone to spouting his theories on religion to his customers, as he attempts to pass the faith while passing pot.
The duo feature throughout the film and offer some of the funniest moments in the film including a hilarious parody of The Silence of the Lambs.
As the day and evening plays out, one manner of hilarious and outrageous event after another occurs, which forces Dante and Randal to evaluate their lives, as well as what truly being happy and successful means.
While some may say this film is just a collection of crude humor that would be underscoring the true triumph of the film. Smith once again shows that he can portray flawed but realistic characters with surprising realism and charm. The characters know who they are, and make no apologies for being what society would call rough around the edges or failures they are being true to themselves and it is their frank and blunt ways of communicating that make them real and endear them to the audience.
They face the same issues that most of us have to face in life when we examine the paths we take, as well as the decisions we make and the resulting consequences which underscores the ultimate fact that one must be true to themselves.
A true classic and easily the best film Kevin Smith has ever done do not miss this film.
The film was made on a tight budget with a cast of unknowns who discussed all manner of issues from life, love, and beyond in very graphic and outlandish terms as they go through a very long day and evening on the job.
The film went on to be a darling at Sundance and paved the way from Kevin Smith to do a series of films which featured lovable yet realistic characters trying to understand life, and get by in a world where they do not always seem to fit. Of course the films always had Smith’s trademark ability to discuss topics in new and unique ways that blended raunchy moments with inspired dialogue and genuine emotions.
A few years back I interviewed Kevin Smith in support of his film Jersey Girl and it seemed that he was on the fast track to do films such as The Green Hornet and Fletch Lives. Despite the series of frustrations due to reported studio conflicts over his Superman Lives script, it seemed that Kevin was moving towards larger budget studio films.
Fate can be a funny thing, especially in Hollywood, and while preparing the 10th anniversary DVD edition of Clerks as well as the work on the short-lived Clerks animated series, Smith reportedly became inspired as to what the characters from his breakout film had become ten years further on.
Despite some delays caused by the departure of the Weinstein brothers from Miramax and the reluctance of one of the principal cast members, who was concerned that they would not be able to recapture the magic of the first film, “Clerks II” has arrived and is easily one of the funniest films I have ever seen.
The stars of the first film Dante (Brian O’Halloran), and Randal (Jeff Anderson), now find themselves working at a fast food store called Moobys, and as usual, Randal never finds a shortage of bizarre and outrageous topics to impart his wisdom and theories to a usual shocked Dante. It is learned that Dante is about to work his last shift, as in the morning he is moving to Florida from his New Jersey home, in order to get married and start a new career as a manager at a business owned by his future father in law.
Dante also must contend with his friendship with his manager Becky (Rosario Dawson), who wants to make sure that he is moving and getting married for the right reasons and not because it is expected of him.
Of course there are no shortage of characters in the film who add to the merriment, from the customers, to an employee named Elias (Trevor Fehrman), whose mild mannered ways and bizarre obsession with Lord of the Rings makes him a constant foil for the ever irascible Randal, who never loses interest in finding new ways to give Elias a hard time.
Then there are series favorites Jay and Silent Bob, (Jason: Mewes), and (Kevin Smith). The two slackers and drug dealers have now cleaned up their act. They still sell drugs; they just no longer use them. Jay is also prone to spouting his theories on religion to his customers, as he attempts to pass the faith while passing pot.
The duo feature throughout the film and offer some of the funniest moments in the film including a hilarious parody of The Silence of the Lambs.
As the day and evening plays out, one manner of hilarious and outrageous event after another occurs, which forces Dante and Randal to evaluate their lives, as well as what truly being happy and successful means.
While some may say this film is just a collection of crude humor that would be underscoring the true triumph of the film. Smith once again shows that he can portray flawed but realistic characters with surprising realism and charm. The characters know who they are, and make no apologies for being what society would call rough around the edges or failures they are being true to themselves and it is their frank and blunt ways of communicating that make them real and endear them to the audience.
They face the same issues that most of us have to face in life when we examine the paths we take, as well as the decisions we make and the resulting consequences which underscores the ultimate fact that one must be true to themselves.
A true classic and easily the best film Kevin Smith has ever done do not miss this film.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
It might sound like we’re damning Terminator: Dark Fate with faint praise by declaring it the best Terminator sequel since T2, however that seems to be the way many Hollywood franchises are going nowadays.
After all, last year’s Halloween sequel was declared the best one yet simply because it retconned the events of its mostly dreadful predecessors and blasted them out of existence. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom was declared (by us anyway) the very best sequel the franchise has ever gotten, but The Lost World and Jurassic Park III were hardly critical darlings.
The similarities between the Terminator and Jurassic franchises don’t end there though. You see, in an effort to reboot the flagging sci-fi series, Deadpool director Tim Miller has been brought in with the legend that is James Cameron returning to the franchise in a producing role, similar to how Steven Spielberg still produces the Jurassic movies to this day.
Yes, it appears that ignoring poor sequels allows film-makers to go back to the good old days, rather than trying to shoehorn poor sequel after poor sequel until audiences stop turning up at the cinema. That’s what has happened with the Terminator franchise. Following James Cameron’s incredible first two films, the sequels that followed ranged from dreadful to downright shambolic. But is Dark Fate actually good? Or just better than what came before it?
Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton returning to the role that defined her career) and a hybrid cyborg human, Grace (Mackenzie Davis) must protect a young girl (Natalia Reyes) from a newly modified liquid Terminator from the future.
Seeing Linda Hamilton return to such an iconic role after almost 30 years is a real highlight over the course of the film and she slots back into Sarah Connor’s shoes particularly well. She gets a few clunky one-liners but manages to stop them from sounding too ridiculous.
Elsewhere, Mackenzie Davis is absolutely cracking as Grace, a human-cyborg sent from the future. She’s full of heart and the script allows her to develop more of a personality than we’re used to from this franchise. Grace is a nicely fleshed out character with enough backstory to allow the audience to care for wellbeing.
Of course, Terminator fans are here to see Arnie and although his screen time is more limited than we’d like, it’s nice to see both him and Hamilton squaring up against each other again. We won’t spoil the plot devices used to bring about his return to the series, but they’re very well integrated and don’t feel as clunky as you might expect.
Set piece after set piece after set piece is thrown at the audience… but each one is so inventive that the probability of you getting bored is very slim indeed
Unfortunately, Natalia Reyes’ Dani is a little more wooden compared to her on-screen co-stars. There’s nothing particularly wrong with her character, but she’s merely there as a plot device and doesn’t really get to do much. It’s no easy feat to go up against Sarah Connor and the T-800 and while she tries her best, she falls a little short.
When it comes to action, Dark Fate pulls no punches. Set piece after set piece after set piece is thrown at the audience in an almost Fast & Furious-like way, but each one is so inventive that the probability of you getting bored is very slim indeed. The film starts with a very nicely choreographed chase on a freeway, culminating in a tense showdown at a power plant.
Dotted in between these rollercoaster moments however are some touching moments and well-timed comedy. While not on a level with Miller’s Deadpool, there are a couple of instances that raised a chuckle from the audience, though most of them involved Arnold Schwarzenegger and his deadpan line delivery.
Terminator: Dark Fate - Official Trailer (2019) - Paramount Pictures - YouTube
The CGI is mostly successful, though the lack of practical effects like those we saw in the film’s predecessors does lend an unnaturally glossy and artificial look to not only the Terminators themselves, but some of the landscapes. This is a bit of a shame as CGI body doubles are all too evident from time-to-time, but never does it pull you out of the film completely.
Overall, Terminator: Dark Fate is indeed the best sequel since T2. This is a film that successfully reboots a franchise that had been flagging for decades and is one of the year’s best action flicks. Not only does it bring back two of cinema’s most iconic characters, it places them in a film which is nicely shot, reasonably well-written and absolutely thrilling from start to finish. Now, if only the same winning formula could be applied to the Alien series, James Cameron may able to sleep soundly at night.
After all, last year’s Halloween sequel was declared the best one yet simply because it retconned the events of its mostly dreadful predecessors and blasted them out of existence. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom was declared (by us anyway) the very best sequel the franchise has ever gotten, but The Lost World and Jurassic Park III were hardly critical darlings.
The similarities between the Terminator and Jurassic franchises don’t end there though. You see, in an effort to reboot the flagging sci-fi series, Deadpool director Tim Miller has been brought in with the legend that is James Cameron returning to the franchise in a producing role, similar to how Steven Spielberg still produces the Jurassic movies to this day.
Yes, it appears that ignoring poor sequels allows film-makers to go back to the good old days, rather than trying to shoehorn poor sequel after poor sequel until audiences stop turning up at the cinema. That’s what has happened with the Terminator franchise. Following James Cameron’s incredible first two films, the sequels that followed ranged from dreadful to downright shambolic. But is Dark Fate actually good? Or just better than what came before it?
Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton returning to the role that defined her career) and a hybrid cyborg human, Grace (Mackenzie Davis) must protect a young girl (Natalia Reyes) from a newly modified liquid Terminator from the future.
Seeing Linda Hamilton return to such an iconic role after almost 30 years is a real highlight over the course of the film and she slots back into Sarah Connor’s shoes particularly well. She gets a few clunky one-liners but manages to stop them from sounding too ridiculous.
Elsewhere, Mackenzie Davis is absolutely cracking as Grace, a human-cyborg sent from the future. She’s full of heart and the script allows her to develop more of a personality than we’re used to from this franchise. Grace is a nicely fleshed out character with enough backstory to allow the audience to care for wellbeing.
Of course, Terminator fans are here to see Arnie and although his screen time is more limited than we’d like, it’s nice to see both him and Hamilton squaring up against each other again. We won’t spoil the plot devices used to bring about his return to the series, but they’re very well integrated and don’t feel as clunky as you might expect.
Set piece after set piece after set piece is thrown at the audience… but each one is so inventive that the probability of you getting bored is very slim indeed
Unfortunately, Natalia Reyes’ Dani is a little more wooden compared to her on-screen co-stars. There’s nothing particularly wrong with her character, but she’s merely there as a plot device and doesn’t really get to do much. It’s no easy feat to go up against Sarah Connor and the T-800 and while she tries her best, she falls a little short.
When it comes to action, Dark Fate pulls no punches. Set piece after set piece after set piece is thrown at the audience in an almost Fast & Furious-like way, but each one is so inventive that the probability of you getting bored is very slim indeed. The film starts with a very nicely choreographed chase on a freeway, culminating in a tense showdown at a power plant.
Dotted in between these rollercoaster moments however are some touching moments and well-timed comedy. While not on a level with Miller’s Deadpool, there are a couple of instances that raised a chuckle from the audience, though most of them involved Arnold Schwarzenegger and his deadpan line delivery.
Terminator: Dark Fate - Official Trailer (2019) - Paramount Pictures - YouTube
The CGI is mostly successful, though the lack of practical effects like those we saw in the film’s predecessors does lend an unnaturally glossy and artificial look to not only the Terminators themselves, but some of the landscapes. This is a bit of a shame as CGI body doubles are all too evident from time-to-time, but never does it pull you out of the film completely.
Overall, Terminator: Dark Fate is indeed the best sequel since T2. This is a film that successfully reboots a franchise that had been flagging for decades and is one of the year’s best action flicks. Not only does it bring back two of cinema’s most iconic characters, it places them in a film which is nicely shot, reasonably well-written and absolutely thrilling from start to finish. Now, if only the same winning formula could be applied to the Alien series, James Cameron may able to sleep soundly at night.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Bumblebee (2018) in Movies
Jan 23, 2019 (Updated Jan 23, 2019)
Chock-full of tropes (1 more)
Pretty lazy in most aspects
Bit of a Buzzkill
When this movie dropped late last year, I never paid any attention to it. Everything in the Transformers series has been awful since the first movie and although I knew that Michael Bay wasn't directing this one, I was still more than happy to skip it. However, after it opened to rave reviews, it peaked my interest a bit. I was hearing all sorts of good things, with this movie even being compared to the likes of ET and The Goonies. Well last night we went to the cinema planning to see Glass, but had missed the previous showing and didn't want to wait around for hours until the next one so we decided to check out Bumblebee to see if it could live up to the hype surrounding it.
TL;DR - It didn't...
I think that I did go into this movie with fairly lofty expectations, but that was due to what I had heard from other people through word-of-mouth. In fact, I don't think I heard one bad review for this thing, so I really was expecting something great. Unfortunately, what you get is a mediocre Hollywood shlock-fest with some pretty impressive CGI, but a painfully formulaic story with a lazy script and actors phoning in their performances.
Let's start with the main positive of the movie; the CGI. The animators really did do an incredible job here and there are some truly awesome action sequences that were really impressive to witness, (it's just unfortunate that we had already seen most of these sequences prior to seeing the movie in the trailers.) The robots also felt much more grimy, weighty and realistic in this film as opposed to the more slick and polished feel that they all had in Bay's Transformers movies, which helped to make it more convincing that the robots were actually present in the room with the actors rather than being added in later in post production.
The other bright spot in the movie was John Cena. Sure, he has played the stereotypical army jarhead plenty of times before, but he is still charismatic and engaging whenever he is onscreen. His career is definitely benefitting from taking roles like this where he is able to be taken less seriously rather than trying to be a super serious action star in forgettable movies like The Marine.
Unfortunately that is about it for the positives, everything else is extremely lazy and generic. The direction is serviceable, the cinematography is nothing special and the score goes through the motions it has to in order to meet the tone of each scene. The script is full of extremely cheesy lines which is delivered half heartedly by the cast who it feels like are pretty much sleepwalking through this thing for the most part. Some characters are fairly irritating such as Memo and Ron, but nothing anywhere near as egregious as Mudflap and Skids from the previous Transformers movies.
And that last statement pretty much sums up my opinion on this movie. Sure, it isn't anywhere near as annoying, obnoxious, or cringe-inducing as the movies that Michael Bay previously gave us in the main Transformers series, but it is still really cheesy and lazy and isn't anything special at all.
I think that this movie serves as a lesson for managing your expectations when going to see a film. Due to the fact that the previous Transformers movies are SO bad and so poorly regarded, most people went into this one with little to no expectation that it would be any good. When it actually turned out to be surprisingly half decent, people were so shocked that they began telling everyone else how fantastic this thing was, when it actually isn't fantastic in any way, it's just less garbage than what we were getting before with these movies. Then, because of all of these brilliant reviews, I have went in expecting something substantial and meaningful and came away sorely disappointed because it turned out to be unremarkable and mediocre.
Overall, I probably would have got more out of this movie if I was told beforehand to just switch off my brain and expect a cheesy popcorn flick. Instead I went in expecting this generation's E.T because of the overblown reviews and was let down pretty hard. It's not the worst film of last year and it is better than anything else in the Transformers series since the first movie, but it's still not anything special. There are a few highs throughout the movie, but in general it's pretty unremarkable and I don't seeing it standing the test of time in the same way that the movies that it's being compared to have done.
TL;DR - It didn't...
I think that I did go into this movie with fairly lofty expectations, but that was due to what I had heard from other people through word-of-mouth. In fact, I don't think I heard one bad review for this thing, so I really was expecting something great. Unfortunately, what you get is a mediocre Hollywood shlock-fest with some pretty impressive CGI, but a painfully formulaic story with a lazy script and actors phoning in their performances.
Let's start with the main positive of the movie; the CGI. The animators really did do an incredible job here and there are some truly awesome action sequences that were really impressive to witness, (it's just unfortunate that we had already seen most of these sequences prior to seeing the movie in the trailers.) The robots also felt much more grimy, weighty and realistic in this film as opposed to the more slick and polished feel that they all had in Bay's Transformers movies, which helped to make it more convincing that the robots were actually present in the room with the actors rather than being added in later in post production.
The other bright spot in the movie was John Cena. Sure, he has played the stereotypical army jarhead plenty of times before, but he is still charismatic and engaging whenever he is onscreen. His career is definitely benefitting from taking roles like this where he is able to be taken less seriously rather than trying to be a super serious action star in forgettable movies like The Marine.
Unfortunately that is about it for the positives, everything else is extremely lazy and generic. The direction is serviceable, the cinematography is nothing special and the score goes through the motions it has to in order to meet the tone of each scene. The script is full of extremely cheesy lines which is delivered half heartedly by the cast who it feels like are pretty much sleepwalking through this thing for the most part. Some characters are fairly irritating such as Memo and Ron, but nothing anywhere near as egregious as Mudflap and Skids from the previous Transformers movies.
And that last statement pretty much sums up my opinion on this movie. Sure, it isn't anywhere near as annoying, obnoxious, or cringe-inducing as the movies that Michael Bay previously gave us in the main Transformers series, but it is still really cheesy and lazy and isn't anything special at all.
I think that this movie serves as a lesson for managing your expectations when going to see a film. Due to the fact that the previous Transformers movies are SO bad and so poorly regarded, most people went into this one with little to no expectation that it would be any good. When it actually turned out to be surprisingly half decent, people were so shocked that they began telling everyone else how fantastic this thing was, when it actually isn't fantastic in any way, it's just less garbage than what we were getting before with these movies. Then, because of all of these brilliant reviews, I have went in expecting something substantial and meaningful and came away sorely disappointed because it turned out to be unremarkable and mediocre.
Overall, I probably would have got more out of this movie if I was told beforehand to just switch off my brain and expect a cheesy popcorn flick. Instead I went in expecting this generation's E.T because of the overblown reviews and was let down pretty hard. It's not the worst film of last year and it is better than anything else in the Transformers series since the first movie, but it's still not anything special. There are a few highs throughout the movie, but in general it's pretty unremarkable and I don't seeing it standing the test of time in the same way that the movies that it's being compared to have done.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Nun (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
I’ve always been a sucker for supernatural thrillers that are based on “actual events”, even if the way it’s portrayed in the movies nowhere resembles the truth. For some reason, it’s always intriguing to watch a film and imagine that these things could potentially happen. This has always been the draw of The Conjuring films, which are loosely based on the lives of Ed and Lorraine Warren, whose paranormal investigations were the inspiration behind not only this series but the Amityville Horror. So, when I heard that The Nun was another movie set in the same cinematic universe as The Conjuring franchise I anxiously awaited the opportunity to review it.
The Nun begins with two nuns who are attempting to destroy an evil being that has cursed an abbey in a small Romanian village for hundreds of years. After a young man who goes by the name Frenchie (Jonas Bloquet) discovers one of the nuns has hung herself, the Vatican summons Father Burke (Demián Bichir), who is known for his special skills in exorcisms and Sister Irene (Taissa Farmiga), a young nun-in-training to investigate the matter. With Frenchie as their guide, they travel to the abbey to uncover the mysteries of the nun’s suicide.
The Nun reintroduces us to a familiar demonic figure that was originally introduced in The Conjuring 2. Sadly, this is where the similarities to the other Conjuring films end. The Nun has its share of jump scares, but the entire film seems to be a compilation of various horror tropes including everything from crosses turning upside down to using holy water to get rid of demons. All the typical exorcism movie elements are there, but none of them really add any context to the story or answer any questions as to why the priest and nun were sent to investigate the suicide. There is no discernable path that the characters take to unravel the mystery, and it attempts to build suspense only to “Hollywood-up” the ending. They sacrificed suspense and mystery and replaced it with monster filled battles and cheesy one-liners. Instead of beautifully haunting ghosts and demons we got what I could only describe as nun-mummies which can now be taken down with shovels and shotguns. A shotgun was not part of Father Burke’s exorcism arsenal but towards the end of the movie you start to think maybe that should have been his weapon of choice all along (who needs a cross and holy water, when you have your trusty 12-gauge).
The setting is as beautiful as it is creepy, and it’s hard not to wonder how they could take such an amazing setting and dumb it down. The Nun herself is particularly creepy and the characters at first glance appear to be interesting which is why it’s so disappointing that the movie feels so much like a missed opportunity. The pacing of the movie is incredibly slow as well, with all the buildup of the investigation most of the time you are just waiting for something to happen. To make it even worse, most of the buildups lead the audience down a path of confusion and not only raise more questions that will never be answered, but also destroy any believability of the story.
Ultimately, fans of The Conjuring franchise will likely leave disappointed and with even more longing for The Conjuring 3 to be released. The movie lacks much of the suspense and outright terror that the previous movies in the series were well known for and ultimately feels like a spinoff movie that lacks any real connection to the movies preceding it. The Nun isn’t a terrible movie, and I didn’t leave feeling as though I had completely wasted an hour and a half of my time, it just really doesn’t do anything to break new ground or move the franchise along in any meaningful way. While there are parts of the movie that will have you jump, the reality is, that the scenes following these moments will keep you bewildered and likely cause you to forget what made you jump in the first place. It has some interesting concepts, but nothing that hasn’t been done better in similar movies before it. In the end it’s a movie that people will not likely hate but will not feel satisfied with either. I certainly wouldn’t recommend paying full price to see it, but it may be worth the Saturday matinee price or watching it when it comes to Blu-ray. If you want a good ghost or demon movie to get you in the Halloween spirit, this isn’t it. You’d be much better off watching the spectacularly classic Poltergeist or The Exorcist if you really want to be scared out of your wits.
What I liked: The setting and atmosphere, The Nun herself was pretty freaky
What I liked less: Disjointed story, Too many unanswered questions, Overall “meh” feeling
The Nun begins with two nuns who are attempting to destroy an evil being that has cursed an abbey in a small Romanian village for hundreds of years. After a young man who goes by the name Frenchie (Jonas Bloquet) discovers one of the nuns has hung herself, the Vatican summons Father Burke (Demián Bichir), who is known for his special skills in exorcisms and Sister Irene (Taissa Farmiga), a young nun-in-training to investigate the matter. With Frenchie as their guide, they travel to the abbey to uncover the mysteries of the nun’s suicide.
The Nun reintroduces us to a familiar demonic figure that was originally introduced in The Conjuring 2. Sadly, this is where the similarities to the other Conjuring films end. The Nun has its share of jump scares, but the entire film seems to be a compilation of various horror tropes including everything from crosses turning upside down to using holy water to get rid of demons. All the typical exorcism movie elements are there, but none of them really add any context to the story or answer any questions as to why the priest and nun were sent to investigate the suicide. There is no discernable path that the characters take to unravel the mystery, and it attempts to build suspense only to “Hollywood-up” the ending. They sacrificed suspense and mystery and replaced it with monster filled battles and cheesy one-liners. Instead of beautifully haunting ghosts and demons we got what I could only describe as nun-mummies which can now be taken down with shovels and shotguns. A shotgun was not part of Father Burke’s exorcism arsenal but towards the end of the movie you start to think maybe that should have been his weapon of choice all along (who needs a cross and holy water, when you have your trusty 12-gauge).
The setting is as beautiful as it is creepy, and it’s hard not to wonder how they could take such an amazing setting and dumb it down. The Nun herself is particularly creepy and the characters at first glance appear to be interesting which is why it’s so disappointing that the movie feels so much like a missed opportunity. The pacing of the movie is incredibly slow as well, with all the buildup of the investigation most of the time you are just waiting for something to happen. To make it even worse, most of the buildups lead the audience down a path of confusion and not only raise more questions that will never be answered, but also destroy any believability of the story.
Ultimately, fans of The Conjuring franchise will likely leave disappointed and with even more longing for The Conjuring 3 to be released. The movie lacks much of the suspense and outright terror that the previous movies in the series were well known for and ultimately feels like a spinoff movie that lacks any real connection to the movies preceding it. The Nun isn’t a terrible movie, and I didn’t leave feeling as though I had completely wasted an hour and a half of my time, it just really doesn’t do anything to break new ground or move the franchise along in any meaningful way. While there are parts of the movie that will have you jump, the reality is, that the scenes following these moments will keep you bewildered and likely cause you to forget what made you jump in the first place. It has some interesting concepts, but nothing that hasn’t been done better in similar movies before it. In the end it’s a movie that people will not likely hate but will not feel satisfied with either. I certainly wouldn’t recommend paying full price to see it, but it may be worth the Saturday matinee price or watching it when it comes to Blu-ray. If you want a good ghost or demon movie to get you in the Halloween spirit, this isn’t it. You’d be much better off watching the spectacularly classic Poltergeist or The Exorcist if you really want to be scared out of your wits.
What I liked: The setting and atmosphere, The Nun herself was pretty freaky
What I liked less: Disjointed story, Too many unanswered questions, Overall “meh” feeling