Search
Search results
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Bridget Jones's Diary (2001) in Movies
Dec 29, 2018
Lovable & heartwarming rom-com
Out of all the rom-coms out there, Bridget Jones Diary is one of my favourites. For a start Bridget herself isn’t your usual perfect rom-com lead - she’s not stick thin and drinks and smokes far too much - for me that makes Bridget all the more endearing. I think most women can relate to Bridget in some way. She’s funny, loud mouthed and not very coherent at public speaking, and can’t help but make an idiot out of herself, and this is what makes this film all the more lovable.
It’s a heartwarming story of love, not only for Bridget but for her parents too. And it’s also funny and a little on the adult side with a great soundtrack, and yes the plot is predictable but this is one of those films where it doesn’t matter. Yes we can predict what the ending will be, but it’s the getting there that matters.
It has a great cast. I’ve never been a fan of Renee Zellweger but I couldn’t imagine anyone else playing Bridget. And to have both Colin Firth and Hugh Grant as the male leads was always going to be a winner - the fight the two have us hilarious. It’s an altogether lovely, funny rom-com that despite being 17 years old (which i find so hard to believe) is still so relatable today.
I’ll be honest, I’m virtually the same age as Bridget and I actually feel like so much like Bridget right now it’s scary, some of the scenes in this are exactly how I’ve been behaving these past few months! Albeit sadly without the Mark Darcy, or even a charming, sex-pest boss....
It’s a heartwarming story of love, not only for Bridget but for her parents too. And it’s also funny and a little on the adult side with a great soundtrack, and yes the plot is predictable but this is one of those films where it doesn’t matter. Yes we can predict what the ending will be, but it’s the getting there that matters.
It has a great cast. I’ve never been a fan of Renee Zellweger but I couldn’t imagine anyone else playing Bridget. And to have both Colin Firth and Hugh Grant as the male leads was always going to be a winner - the fight the two have us hilarious. It’s an altogether lovely, funny rom-com that despite being 17 years old (which i find so hard to believe) is still so relatable today.
I’ll be honest, I’m virtually the same age as Bridget and I actually feel like so much like Bridget right now it’s scary, some of the scenes in this are exactly how I’ve been behaving these past few months! Albeit sadly without the Mark Darcy, or even a charming, sex-pest boss....
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Bridget Jones's Diary (2001) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020
Renée is of course perfect, as are Hugh and Colin and all three of their respective characters. In fact this is still just as tight, snappy, and cute as it was back in the day - but per no real fault of its own this (or at least a hefty amount of its elements) became the basis for pretty much *every* chintzy romcom clone that was to come for the foreseeable future to the point where a lot of this just feels rather rote now in light of that *and* today's version of the mainstream romcom. Not that there still isn't revolutionary stuff that stands out, particularly the representation of a demographic that wasn't usually seen as romantic lead status at the time given by this lead. Though while it starts out lovely enough there's a clear dip in quality at a point and it treads water by the end. I find the first half very interesting in that - at the time - it probably played as a very adorable yet scandalous romp but now plays more like a biting, ballsy foray into societal satire in light of the #MeToo movement. Plus that's when the witty dialogue, engrossment, and visual competence is at its best anyway. But those aforementioned cringey and overused romcom clichés (people falling off boats, making a mess while cooking, interrupting some sort of wedding announcement, cheeky but actually annoying best friends who serve no purpose, etc etc) bog it down more and more until it runs on full autopilot mode. The parent subplot is a nonentity too but that's whatever I guess. Though I do stand with the majority in that the Firth x Grant fight scene is - naturally - a masterpiece. Agreeable even though approximately no interesting threads get pulled.
JT (287 KP) rated A Good Year (2006) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
This is certainly not your conventional Ridley Scott film, but it’s one that was well shot but not very well written. Investment broker Max Skinner (Russell Crowe) knows only one thing, how to make money. But when he inherits his Uncle’s chateau in Provence where he spent much of his childhood he must decide between the life he has in London or the life in France.
After arriving in Provence the only thing on his mind is to sell, but with childhood memories floating all around him as well as women it’s not long before the predictable is happening.It provides enough and features some telling performances but it’s simply not funny enough to register as the comedy it so desperately strives to be. The film most notably reunited Scott with Crowe and their first foray into a romantic comedy, with not a great deal of success.
A Good Year has scenery could not be more fitting for a romantic comedy, and the picturesque winery is paramount to the beautiful shots it creates. However, at times it looks more like a car advert than a film.
On the comedy aspect there are a few small laughs but they fall flat as Crowe is not able to deliver on them, you wonder if Hugh Grant might have done a better job. Crowe’s upper class English accent is out of place against the free flowing French that is predominant throughout and he’d probably feel more at home with large sword in his hand as opposed to a wine bottle.
The introduction of Uncle Henry’s supposedly long lost daughter throws a complicated spanner in the works which does more harm than good. It’s a heartwarming tale and it will tug on the heart strings of all the old romantics out there, but Scott and Crowe have never made a romantic comedy before and it certainly shows. It’s not got the characteristics of a fine wine, but may get past some peoples tastes.
After arriving in Provence the only thing on his mind is to sell, but with childhood memories floating all around him as well as women it’s not long before the predictable is happening.It provides enough and features some telling performances but it’s simply not funny enough to register as the comedy it so desperately strives to be. The film most notably reunited Scott with Crowe and their first foray into a romantic comedy, with not a great deal of success.
A Good Year has scenery could not be more fitting for a romantic comedy, and the picturesque winery is paramount to the beautiful shots it creates. However, at times it looks more like a car advert than a film.
On the comedy aspect there are a few small laughs but they fall flat as Crowe is not able to deliver on them, you wonder if Hugh Grant might have done a better job. Crowe’s upper class English accent is out of place against the free flowing French that is predominant throughout and he’d probably feel more at home with large sword in his hand as opposed to a wine bottle.
The introduction of Uncle Henry’s supposedly long lost daughter throws a complicated spanner in the works which does more harm than good. It’s a heartwarming tale and it will tug on the heart strings of all the old romantics out there, but Scott and Crowe have never made a romantic comedy before and it certainly shows. It’s not got the characteristics of a fine wine, but may get past some peoples tastes.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Their Finest (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Keep Calm and Carry on Writing.
In a well-mined category, “Their Finest” is a World War 2 comedy/drama telling a tale I haven’t seen told before: the story behind the British Ministry of Information and their drive to produce propaganda films that support morale and promote positive messages in a time of national crisis. For it is 1940 and London is under nightly attack by the Luftwaffe during the time known as “The Blitz”. Unfortunately the Ministry is run by a bunch of toffs, and their output is laughably misaligned with the working class population, and especially the female population: with their husbands fighting overseas, these two groups are fast becoming one and the same. For women are finding and enjoying new empowerment and freedom in being socially unshackled from the kitchen sink.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 6, 2020 (Updated Jan 6, 2020)
A funny angle
Gentleman is Guy Richie's attempt to bring the british gangster movies from the past back into the modern time and while it may just be an updated version of Snatch its a bloody enjoyable update. It seems like years ago now since I grew out of the 'British Gangster' film phase of my life and while I actaully find Snatch to be over rated myself instead much preferring Guy Richie's other work I can still understand why it has such a big following. Gentleman follows the same formula either deliberately or coincidentally and while this does feel repetative/outdated I couldnt help but be pulled in and deliciously entertained by it. Playing out a bit like reading a comic book Gentleman is satisfyingly violent, full of cusing/crudness and full of mostly satisfying twists and turns. At first I hated it but after the first 20 minutes I just let go and finally started getting back in to this sort of style. Full to the brim with exposition dialog but its handled in a refreshing new way which made hearing it less eye rolling and instead kept it constantly entertaining. Essentially one big power struggle between an assortment of characters non of which are actually very nice people but the ones Hugh Grant and Charlie hunnam play are extremely likeable. Watching these two interact on screen is the absolute bread and butter and they both play interesting characters both with very unique individual traits and characteristics. Colin Farrell is also superb and memorable too and the film has a wicked sense of humor that kept me laughing the whole way through. If you are easily offended its safe to say this is not the film for you as its not only full of extreame cursing but constant racism and violence too. By no means a perfect film or a gangster masterpiece Gentleman is still and absolute blast to watch and has enough twists/turns, quirky characters, witty dialog, fresh ideas, tension, violence/mucking about to entertain and offend pretty much anyone. Highly enjoyable.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
It’s been a while since Guy Ritchie dealt with some proper geezers doing crime and talking bollocks. Maybe there were elements of it in The Man From U.N.C.L.E. but really it’s Rock ‘n Rolla from 2008 we are talking about. Personally I hadn’t missed it. I pretty much think he took it as far as it needed to be taken, and I much prefer the Sherlock Holmes stuff, anyway.
Judging from the inexplicably high rating (currently 7.8) for this on IMDb somehow someone had missed it big time though! Or is it just easy for those in search of a nutter with a gun and a swear word or six to click 9/10? I don’t want to speculate. Suffice to say The Gentlemen is not very good. Not awful. Colin Farrell wins by having a lot of fun hamming up a bonkers creation of a man (as he does so expertly and effortlessly), and Hugh Grant comes out of it with credit too, for at least looking engaged and having some of the best lines to deliver.
As for Matthew McConnaughey, who is surely to be considered top billing, I can’t honestly remember a thing about his role in this forgettable fable some 9 weeks after seeing it. Literally, can’t recall anything he does in it to mind. Bad sign. And Charlie Hunnam doesn’t fare much better, but that’s probably because he isn’t that good or memorable in anything in the first place. There are a couple of women in this as well, but they really don’t make a difference to anything, and no one cares (sadly).
We’ve seen the whole thing before, I’m afraid, and even first time the style wasn’t for everyone and felt a bit “wrong” to a 21st century sensibility. It really is just guns and violence and swearing in ever decreasing creativity. I liked some of the costumes though.
No one involved’s best work, by a long way. A distracting way to kill a few hours if you are completely stuck for ideas, but little more than that. In a year or two no one will remember or talk about it at all. May that be a lesson to you Mr Ritchie. Leave outdated indulgences, even with your pals, in the past where they belong.
Judging from the inexplicably high rating (currently 7.8) for this on IMDb somehow someone had missed it big time though! Or is it just easy for those in search of a nutter with a gun and a swear word or six to click 9/10? I don’t want to speculate. Suffice to say The Gentlemen is not very good. Not awful. Colin Farrell wins by having a lot of fun hamming up a bonkers creation of a man (as he does so expertly and effortlessly), and Hugh Grant comes out of it with credit too, for at least looking engaged and having some of the best lines to deliver.
As for Matthew McConnaughey, who is surely to be considered top billing, I can’t honestly remember a thing about his role in this forgettable fable some 9 weeks after seeing it. Literally, can’t recall anything he does in it to mind. Bad sign. And Charlie Hunnam doesn’t fare much better, but that’s probably because he isn’t that good or memorable in anything in the first place. There are a couple of women in this as well, but they really don’t make a difference to anything, and no one cares (sadly).
We’ve seen the whole thing before, I’m afraid, and even first time the style wasn’t for everyone and felt a bit “wrong” to a 21st century sensibility. It really is just guns and violence and swearing in ever decreasing creativity. I liked some of the costumes though.
No one involved’s best work, by a long way. A distracting way to kill a few hours if you are completely stuck for ideas, but little more than that. In a year or two no one will remember or talk about it at all. May that be a lesson to you Mr Ritchie. Leave outdated indulgences, even with your pals, in the past where they belong.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Dungeons and Dragons: Honour Among Thieves (2023) in Movies
May 26, 2023
A Ton of Fun
The BankofMarquis is not into Dungeons & Dragons - the role playing/fantasy game that the film DUNGEONS & DRAGONS: HONOR AMONG THIEVES is based on, so any Easter Eggs for fans of the game is lost here. What the BankofMarquis is into is a good, fun action/adventure film and DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS: HONOR AMONG THIEVES is all that…and more.
The 4th film to be based on the RPG game, this D&D is no relation to the previous three and should be viewed as a reboot of the franchise…and if HONOR AMONG THIEVES is an indication of where this film series will go, then the audience is in for a fun ride, indeed.
Written and Directed by John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein, D&D follows a smooth talking, good-looking musician (the perfectly cast Chris Pine), his tough-as-nails best friend (the perfectly cast Michelle Rodriguez) and their merry band of thieves as they go on a quest to right wrongs and achieve a goal.
What that goal is doesn’t really matter as it is the journey - not the destination - that matters and the journey is quite fun thanks to an enjoyable cast and a script and direction that evokes memories of THE PRINCESS BRIDE, THE LORD OF THE RINGS and, yes, MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL along the way.
The cast (Pine, Rodriguez, Rege-Jean Page, Justice Smith, Sophia Lillis and Hugh Grant) know exactly what type of film they are making and jump in with both feet to have some fun, fight some creatures and make a family-friendly medieval action/adventure comedy that works.
Credit, of course, goes to Daley & Goldstein and this appears to be their first film together as Directors. If that is the case, the BankofMarquis is eager to see where they go from here.
While, I’m sure, there are plenty of Easter Eggs in this film for the D&D fan, the BankofMarquis caught none of that and just sat back and had a really fun 2+ hours, chuckling out loud on more than one occassion.
This film is now streaming on Paramount Plus. If you run across, check it out, you’ll have a good time.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The 4th film to be based on the RPG game, this D&D is no relation to the previous three and should be viewed as a reboot of the franchise…and if HONOR AMONG THIEVES is an indication of where this film series will go, then the audience is in for a fun ride, indeed.
Written and Directed by John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein, D&D follows a smooth talking, good-looking musician (the perfectly cast Chris Pine), his tough-as-nails best friend (the perfectly cast Michelle Rodriguez) and their merry band of thieves as they go on a quest to right wrongs and achieve a goal.
What that goal is doesn’t really matter as it is the journey - not the destination - that matters and the journey is quite fun thanks to an enjoyable cast and a script and direction that evokes memories of THE PRINCESS BRIDE, THE LORD OF THE RINGS and, yes, MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL along the way.
The cast (Pine, Rodriguez, Rege-Jean Page, Justice Smith, Sophia Lillis and Hugh Grant) know exactly what type of film they are making and jump in with both feet to have some fun, fight some creatures and make a family-friendly medieval action/adventure comedy that works.
Credit, of course, goes to Daley & Goldstein and this appears to be their first film together as Directors. If that is the case, the BankofMarquis is eager to see where they go from here.
While, I’m sure, there are plenty of Easter Eggs in this film for the D&D fan, the BankofMarquis caught none of that and just sat back and had a really fun 2+ hours, chuckling out loud on more than one occassion.
This film is now streaming on Paramount Plus. If you run across, check it out, you’ll have a good time.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated Paddington 2 (2017) in Movies
Nov 26, 2019
Verdict: Charming and Entertaining
Story: Paddington 2 starts as Paddington is a welcome member of the Brown family, the neighbours are always willing to accept his help and now Paddington sees a gift for his Aunt Lucy in Mr Gruber (Broadbent) antique shop and decides to get a job to pay for it.
Just about to buy the present, Paddington catches a thief breaking into the store and goes in chase, only to find himself captured and thrown in prison. Paddington soon makes friends with the prisoners including the feared Knuckles (Gleeson), while the Brown family Henry (Bonneville) and Mary (Hawkins) try to free Paddington, learning that the once famous actor Phoenix Buchanan (Grant) is behind the crime.
Thoughts on Paddington 2
Characters – Paddington is the kind-hearted marmalade loving bear living in London, he has made countless friends both human and animal, he wants to get a present for his Aunt which sees him trying to get a job. He does try to do the right thing by helping with a robbery only to be found guilty. Paddington always the people bear makes friends, while believing that everybody has good about them. Henry, Mary Brown and Mrs Bird treat Paddington like their third child and will do everything to help get him out of prison. Phoenix Buchanan is the once famous actor that has moved in next door to the Browns, he is very eccentric and trying to rebuild his fortune which sees him stealing the book and learning about the clues in the book, always trying to stay ahead of the people trying to capture him, using his different costumes from his career. Knuckles McGinty is the prison chef, he is feared by the other inmates, but Paddington breaks down those barriers showing him to be a good man inside, one that could bring the prisoners together.
Performances – When we go into the performances, the original cast are all wonderfully, but it is the addition members of the cast that truly shine, Hugh Grant practically steals every scene, while Brendan Gleeson proves that he can be the funniest man on camera, these two are outstanding in every single scene they are in.
Story – The story here follows Paddington’s next adventure as he tries to give his Aunt a present of seeing London only for him to get framed and thrown in prison, while the Brown family try to figure out who really committed the crime. This is a coming together story, it shows how somebody’s good nature can change everything in life and without them around you will notice the change in life. The idea that Paddington is facing off against an evil washed up actor is entertaining too, though it would have been nice to see more of the treasure hunt side of the story. While most of the story is largely predictable it does have a huge heart behind it and shows that good people will rub off on others to show kindness can be a change to life for the better.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure side of the film seems to be focused more on the villains adventure, more than seeing what Paddington must get up to, the comedy comes from seeing just what Paddington gets himself into and the trouble he causes with his innocent nature.
Settings – We keep London as the main backdrop for the film, while we do have Paddington in a prison and the major landmarks being used as clues to a treasure, most places are locations we are expecting to see in any London based movie.
Special Effects – The effects are brilliant putting Paddington in every scene like he is really there, it never looks out of place which shows just how far this technology has come.
Scene of the Movie – Lets make marmalade.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Surely, Mr Gruber would be the one who decides whether to press charges against Paddington?
Final Thoughts – This is a entertaining, big hearted movie that could be enjoyed by the whole family and would leave a smile on everybody’s face.
Overall: Big Heart Movie.
Story: Paddington 2 starts as Paddington is a welcome member of the Brown family, the neighbours are always willing to accept his help and now Paddington sees a gift for his Aunt Lucy in Mr Gruber (Broadbent) antique shop and decides to get a job to pay for it.
Just about to buy the present, Paddington catches a thief breaking into the store and goes in chase, only to find himself captured and thrown in prison. Paddington soon makes friends with the prisoners including the feared Knuckles (Gleeson), while the Brown family Henry (Bonneville) and Mary (Hawkins) try to free Paddington, learning that the once famous actor Phoenix Buchanan (Grant) is behind the crime.
Thoughts on Paddington 2
Characters – Paddington is the kind-hearted marmalade loving bear living in London, he has made countless friends both human and animal, he wants to get a present for his Aunt which sees him trying to get a job. He does try to do the right thing by helping with a robbery only to be found guilty. Paddington always the people bear makes friends, while believing that everybody has good about them. Henry, Mary Brown and Mrs Bird treat Paddington like their third child and will do everything to help get him out of prison. Phoenix Buchanan is the once famous actor that has moved in next door to the Browns, he is very eccentric and trying to rebuild his fortune which sees him stealing the book and learning about the clues in the book, always trying to stay ahead of the people trying to capture him, using his different costumes from his career. Knuckles McGinty is the prison chef, he is feared by the other inmates, but Paddington breaks down those barriers showing him to be a good man inside, one that could bring the prisoners together.
Performances – When we go into the performances, the original cast are all wonderfully, but it is the addition members of the cast that truly shine, Hugh Grant practically steals every scene, while Brendan Gleeson proves that he can be the funniest man on camera, these two are outstanding in every single scene they are in.
Story – The story here follows Paddington’s next adventure as he tries to give his Aunt a present of seeing London only for him to get framed and thrown in prison, while the Brown family try to figure out who really committed the crime. This is a coming together story, it shows how somebody’s good nature can change everything in life and without them around you will notice the change in life. The idea that Paddington is facing off against an evil washed up actor is entertaining too, though it would have been nice to see more of the treasure hunt side of the story. While most of the story is largely predictable it does have a huge heart behind it and shows that good people will rub off on others to show kindness can be a change to life for the better.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure side of the film seems to be focused more on the villains adventure, more than seeing what Paddington must get up to, the comedy comes from seeing just what Paddington gets himself into and the trouble he causes with his innocent nature.
Settings – We keep London as the main backdrop for the film, while we do have Paddington in a prison and the major landmarks being used as clues to a treasure, most places are locations we are expecting to see in any London based movie.
Special Effects – The effects are brilliant putting Paddington in every scene like he is really there, it never looks out of place which shows just how far this technology has come.
Scene of the Movie – Lets make marmalade.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Surely, Mr Gruber would be the one who decides whether to press charges against Paddington?
Final Thoughts – This is a entertaining, big hearted movie that could be enjoyed by the whole family and would leave a smile on everybody’s face.
Overall: Big Heart Movie.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 12, 2020
I checked up on the BBFC about language allowed in the different rated films. A 15 may have frequent strong language, "the strongest terms may be acceptable if justified by the context", it also says that "aggressive or repeated use of the strongest language is unlikely to be acceptable."
Language has never really been something to bother me unless it's used in a malicious way, and even then the "standard" words still don't have much of an effect, but I had reports back from friends that there was a lot to deal with in it... so I decided to try and keep count. I can't guarantee that I caught them all (or that I managed to add them up properly) but I think the count for f*** was 56 and c*** was 21, I'm fairly certain that half of C was saved specifically for Colin Farrell in one scene.
Mickey is looking to get out of the drug business, he's built a thriving empire, well hidden, well connected, and now he just needs to find an interested party to take it all off his hands. After a couple of meetings one of Mickey's labs takes a hit, it can't be a coincidence. Luckily there's a lead, but it might be a bit more complicated than they'd hoped.
I had some fun watching this but I don't feel like it was quite what I'd been hoping for. There were some bits that I frustrating and some that were just plain annoying. The highlight for me was the relatively small part of Colin Farrell as Coach. When we first meet him it's a great scene and gets across the sort of man he is. A significant portion of the swearing is saved especially for him and it sits quite easily with his parts of the script.
Ask yourselves this, was this sort of role suited to Henry Golding? I'm not sure. In the trailer he looked a little on the cartoonish side and that didn't work for me, sadly the full performance didn't work for me either. At moments I was almost on board, it felt believable and a comfortable bit of acting, but then the over the top characteristics would come back and I'd be lost again.
Matthew McConaughey is a very good actor, I still think that after seeing Serenity, and this is definitely a role he took in his stride. I thought it suited him well and he was very comfortable with everything from love to hate. Good job Mr M.
*deep sigh* Hugh Grant. Fletcher is quite a character and there's no denying that Grant filled out the role well, his happy-go-lucky demeanour combined with the strange hybrid accent began to grate just a little, it was at least broken up by the rest of the story... some days you just don't need peppy, you know? The main issue I had with Fletcher is the strand of storyline that he brought that capped either end of the film, it didn't quite make sense to me and felt entirely dispensable, its only purpose seemed to be getting viewers to use the word "meta" when talking about it.
I don't know how I feel about the 18 rating here. The violence definitely could have had it at a 15 and while the language was all "okay" and jokey in its use it wasn't really needed, I imagine that's where the 18 came from. My screening was very busy, and lots of people were telling me the same thing about theirs too, I think this plugged a gap in cinema offerings and while I'm sure it could easily have been toned down to fit a 15 I'm not sure that would have been much of a boost to it.
While there was a lot that was enjoyable about The Gentlemen (the only thing I excluded from the review that I loved was the music video in the middle) I didn't come out with a desire to see it again instantly. If it was on I'd probably watch it but I wasn't hyped enough for this to be an instant win.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-gentlemen-movie-review.html
Language has never really been something to bother me unless it's used in a malicious way, and even then the "standard" words still don't have much of an effect, but I had reports back from friends that there was a lot to deal with in it... so I decided to try and keep count. I can't guarantee that I caught them all (or that I managed to add them up properly) but I think the count for f*** was 56 and c*** was 21, I'm fairly certain that half of C was saved specifically for Colin Farrell in one scene.
Mickey is looking to get out of the drug business, he's built a thriving empire, well hidden, well connected, and now he just needs to find an interested party to take it all off his hands. After a couple of meetings one of Mickey's labs takes a hit, it can't be a coincidence. Luckily there's a lead, but it might be a bit more complicated than they'd hoped.
I had some fun watching this but I don't feel like it was quite what I'd been hoping for. There were some bits that I frustrating and some that were just plain annoying. The highlight for me was the relatively small part of Colin Farrell as Coach. When we first meet him it's a great scene and gets across the sort of man he is. A significant portion of the swearing is saved especially for him and it sits quite easily with his parts of the script.
Ask yourselves this, was this sort of role suited to Henry Golding? I'm not sure. In the trailer he looked a little on the cartoonish side and that didn't work for me, sadly the full performance didn't work for me either. At moments I was almost on board, it felt believable and a comfortable bit of acting, but then the over the top characteristics would come back and I'd be lost again.
Matthew McConaughey is a very good actor, I still think that after seeing Serenity, and this is definitely a role he took in his stride. I thought it suited him well and he was very comfortable with everything from love to hate. Good job Mr M.
*deep sigh* Hugh Grant. Fletcher is quite a character and there's no denying that Grant filled out the role well, his happy-go-lucky demeanour combined with the strange hybrid accent began to grate just a little, it was at least broken up by the rest of the story... some days you just don't need peppy, you know? The main issue I had with Fletcher is the strand of storyline that he brought that capped either end of the film, it didn't quite make sense to me and felt entirely dispensable, its only purpose seemed to be getting viewers to use the word "meta" when talking about it.
I don't know how I feel about the 18 rating here. The violence definitely could have had it at a 15 and while the language was all "okay" and jokey in its use it wasn't really needed, I imagine that's where the 18 came from. My screening was very busy, and lots of people were telling me the same thing about theirs too, I think this plugged a gap in cinema offerings and while I'm sure it could easily have been toned down to fit a 15 I'm not sure that would have been much of a boost to it.
While there was a lot that was enjoyable about The Gentlemen (the only thing I excluded from the review that I loved was the music video in the middle) I didn't come out with a desire to see it again instantly. If it was on I'd probably watch it but I wasn't hyped enough for this to be an instant win.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-gentlemen-movie-review.html
Lee (2222 KP) rated Missing Link (2019) in Movies
Jan 21, 2020
Despite being a huge fan of Coraline and Kubo and the Two Strings, I'd managed to miss out on Missing Link, the latest movie from stop-motion masters Laika, last year when it was originally shown in cinemas. Having recently won the Golden Globe for Best Animated Feature Film, and on the receiving end of a number of other nominations, including an Oscar nom for Best Animated Feature, I was very happy to discover (by chance!) that it had now made its way onto Netflix.
Missing Link is set in Victorian England and tells the story of Sir Lionel Frost (voiced by Hugh Jackman), an adventurer with a passion for exploration and the discovery of mythical creatures. When we first meet Sir Lionel, he is on a small boat with his assistant, hoping to obtain photographic evidence of the existence of the elusive Loch Ness monster. Such evidence would hopefully grant him membership to the exclusive "Society of Great Men", which is run by Lord Piggot-Dunceby (Stephen Fry). Unfortunately, despite Nessie making an appearance to Frost, things don't quite go according to plan and he returns home without any evidence. And in need of a new assistant!
Another shot at entry into the society comes in the form of a letter, which is addressed to Frost on his return home to London. The letter describes the legendary Sasquatch and tells of sightings in the Pacific Northwest so Frost immediately makes a deal with Piggot-Dunceby that will see him accepted should he return with proof that the Sasquatch is real. But Piggot-Dunceby has no such plans to admit Frost and enlists the services of an assassin (Timothy Olyphant) to follow and eliminate him before he gets chance to make it back to England.
When Frost eventually arrives in the forest, he not only discovers the Sasquatch, but also that the Sasquatch can talk and was in fact the one who sent the letter! Sir Lionel names him "Mr. Link" and learns that he just wanted his help in finding his relatives, the Yetis who live in the Himalayas. They join forces and set off, back across America, across the Ocean and across Europe, all the while trying to avoid and outwit the deadly assassin.
Missing Link is more vibrant, more detailed and exhibits a much smoother animation style than any of the previous movies from Laika. It is an outstanding achievement from everyone involved and I am always in awe whenever I see the behind the scenes making of videos from Laika. However, despite looking amazing and featuring some very funny moments from a talented and on-form voice cast, I found Missing Link to the be the weakest in terms of story when compared to Coraline and Kubo. It's certainly not a bad movie, it just didn't grab me at any point, and I didn't feel it was particularly memorable when I'd finished it either.
Missing Link is set in Victorian England and tells the story of Sir Lionel Frost (voiced by Hugh Jackman), an adventurer with a passion for exploration and the discovery of mythical creatures. When we first meet Sir Lionel, he is on a small boat with his assistant, hoping to obtain photographic evidence of the existence of the elusive Loch Ness monster. Such evidence would hopefully grant him membership to the exclusive "Society of Great Men", which is run by Lord Piggot-Dunceby (Stephen Fry). Unfortunately, despite Nessie making an appearance to Frost, things don't quite go according to plan and he returns home without any evidence. And in need of a new assistant!
Another shot at entry into the society comes in the form of a letter, which is addressed to Frost on his return home to London. The letter describes the legendary Sasquatch and tells of sightings in the Pacific Northwest so Frost immediately makes a deal with Piggot-Dunceby that will see him accepted should he return with proof that the Sasquatch is real. But Piggot-Dunceby has no such plans to admit Frost and enlists the services of an assassin (Timothy Olyphant) to follow and eliminate him before he gets chance to make it back to England.
When Frost eventually arrives in the forest, he not only discovers the Sasquatch, but also that the Sasquatch can talk and was in fact the one who sent the letter! Sir Lionel names him "Mr. Link" and learns that he just wanted his help in finding his relatives, the Yetis who live in the Himalayas. They join forces and set off, back across America, across the Ocean and across Europe, all the while trying to avoid and outwit the deadly assassin.
Missing Link is more vibrant, more detailed and exhibits a much smoother animation style than any of the previous movies from Laika. It is an outstanding achievement from everyone involved and I am always in awe whenever I see the behind the scenes making of videos from Laika. However, despite looking amazing and featuring some very funny moments from a talented and on-form voice cast, I found Missing Link to the be the weakest in terms of story when compared to Coraline and Kubo. It's certainly not a bad movie, it just didn't grab me at any point, and I didn't feel it was particularly memorable when I'd finished it either.