Search
Search results
Lee KM Pallatina (951 KP) rated X-Men (2000) in Movies
Jun 16, 2019
X-Men: first cast
Xmen follows Logan, a violent mutant without a past, eventually being forced back on the road he meets Rogue, a mutant with an unknown power that accidentally killed her boyfriend.
Attacked on the road and rescued by storm & Cyclops, the two quickly (for the plots sake) meet the X-Men, and after 50 no's and a yes, Wolverine reluctantly agrees to be an X-Men.
But with heroes come villains including, Magneto, toad, Sabretooth & mystique (because the studio couldn't afford more characters then either?)
A good movie at the time, which still holds up quite well today, decent graphics, acceptable action scenes and an easy to follow plot with some cheesy jokes.
Starring Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, Anna Paquin, Ian Mckellen, Famke Janssen, Rebecca Romijn, James Marsden, Ray Park & Tyler Mane.
Attacked on the road and rescued by storm & Cyclops, the two quickly (for the plots sake) meet the X-Men, and after 50 no's and a yes, Wolverine reluctantly agrees to be an X-Men.
But with heroes come villains including, Magneto, toad, Sabretooth & mystique (because the studio couldn't afford more characters then either?)
A good movie at the time, which still holds up quite well today, decent graphics, acceptable action scenes and an easy to follow plot with some cheesy jokes.
Starring Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, Anna Paquin, Ian Mckellen, Famke Janssen, Rebecca Romijn, James Marsden, Ray Park & Tyler Mane.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Good Liar (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Mirren and McKellen are acting in 2 different movies
In a time where large comic-book, CGI-infused monster fests are all the rage in the Cineplex, it is a welcome relief to find a cleverly written, acting-rich mystery story featuring two world class actors of "a certain age", defying the odds to make a memorable motion picture.
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Good Liar (2019) in Movies
Nov 9, 2019
Murder She Wrote
The good liar is creaky but enjoyable little movie that screams 80s British murder mystery Tv show and while its extreamly predictable theres enough twists to keep you entertained. Whats aparent right from the start is Ian Mckellen and Helen Mirren's on screen chemistry, the two are just fantastic to watch interacting with each other and really help to carry the entire film with thier acting skills alone. Sadly I really cant say the same about the rest of the cast most of whomb come across as stiff, lifeless souls with no personality making most of thier scenes dull and unitresting filler (russell toveys character especially). Plot wise its fine and actually tries some quite brave ideas for this kind of film taking the movie places I really didnt expect it to go. Trouble is the film feels caught between what it wants to be switching between grisly violent crime thriller back to tame old light hearted drama randomly without the two ever seeming connected. Also while ian mckellen is fantastic the film tries far to hard to make the viewer dislike him by using seemingly forced reasons eg showing him far to often randomly cursing profoudly, smoking, drinking or comitting a random out of place extreame act of violence its all very unnecisary and seems only there to hide a twist that comes later in the film. Music cues frustrate too cheaply placed into the film to tell us how we should be feeling during certain scenes but instead making the film feel outdated. Theres no real sense of nail biting tension either and while the story is fun to watch play out with no real danger, urgency or any griping scenes its all just one tone throughout. A big plot twist can also be seen coming right from the start too but thankfully theres enough twists and turns to make that not to much of a problem. All this being said I did have a good time with good liar the two leads clearly enjoyed working together and while the film is extreamly out dated as far as film making goes it will no doubt spark nostalgia and bring enjoyment to people that grew up with shows such a Poirot and Coloumbo.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated X-Men (2000) in Movies
Jun 7, 2019 (Updated Jun 8, 2019)
The first X-Men has not aged particularly well, but it's important to recognise it's impact on the movie landscape, especially for comic book films.
Although there has been comic book movies before, X-Men paved the way for everything that has come since, the good and the awful!
At the time it was almost magical, seeing characters I had grown up with flying about the screen (I was 12 when it was released), and the casting was inspired for the most part - Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Hugh Jackman and Anna Paquin in particular.
It also started the trend of lacing the theatrics and seriousness with subtle humour thought, and the balance here is pretty good.
Even now, the CGI isn't terrible (certainly better than the later released Origins)
By the same merit, the costumes look goofy these days, some of the scripting is very 2000s, and why on Earth did they cast Tyler Mane as a weirdly mute Sabretooth will always be beyond me.
All in all, there are much better X-Men films out there, and there are a lot worse, and I'll always have a soft spot for it!
Although there has been comic book movies before, X-Men paved the way for everything that has come since, the good and the awful!
At the time it was almost magical, seeing characters I had grown up with flying about the screen (I was 12 when it was released), and the casting was inspired for the most part - Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Hugh Jackman and Anna Paquin in particular.
It also started the trend of lacing the theatrics and seriousness with subtle humour thought, and the balance here is pretty good.
Even now, the CGI isn't terrible (certainly better than the later released Origins)
By the same merit, the costumes look goofy these days, some of the scripting is very 2000s, and why on Earth did they cast Tyler Mane as a weirdly mute Sabretooth will always be beyond me.
All in all, there are much better X-Men films out there, and there are a lot worse, and I'll always have a soft spot for it!
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Jul 27, 2017
Emma Watson (2 more)
The Beast
CGI
Just watch the original animated version instead
The original animated version is one of my all time favourite films from when I was a kid, so this was always going to be a hard sell.
Sadly it lived up to my very low expectations, they've really messed this up. One major problem is the casting. Emma Watson is just not right for Belle, I've said this from the second she was cast & I'm afraid she hasn't proven me wrong. Even some of the other fantastic actors like Ian McKellen and Emma Thompson seem strangely out of place as the voices. The second major issue is the CGI. The beast looks ridiculous (and what's with his voice?!) and the household appliances just don't translate over well into CGI. The only saving graces for this film were the fact that it gave you a sense of nostalgia for the original (something it seemed to rely on) and the only decent casting was Luke Evans and Josh Gad as Gaston and Le Fou. They're the only ones that seemed to be having fun and are the only thing I enjoyed, and it's them alone that deserve the very few stars I've given this.
Sadly it lived up to my very low expectations, they've really messed this up. One major problem is the casting. Emma Watson is just not right for Belle, I've said this from the second she was cast & I'm afraid she hasn't proven me wrong. Even some of the other fantastic actors like Ian McKellen and Emma Thompson seem strangely out of place as the voices. The second major issue is the CGI. The beast looks ridiculous (and what's with his voice?!) and the household appliances just don't translate over well into CGI. The only saving graces for this film were the fact that it gave you a sense of nostalgia for the original (something it seemed to rely on) and the only decent casting was Luke Evans and Josh Gad as Gaston and Le Fou. They're the only ones that seemed to be having fun and are the only thing I enjoyed, and it's them alone that deserve the very few stars I've given this.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated All Is True (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I have reservations about anything that Kenneth Branagh is in on the big screen. I'm sorry but I'm going to say it... he needs to stop. Stay behind the camera or on stage. I'm already pre-disappointed for Death On The Nile.
Regardless of that feeling I was excited to see Judy Dench and Ian McKellen in action, it was also a nice surprise to see Ben Elton's name on it... I'm not sure how that had escaped my notice.
Even with those redeeming features I was left bored? Disappointed? No, definitely bored.
I know lots of different snippets about Shakespeare. Whether they're true or not always seems to be up for debate but there are plenty of facts out there. One of the things I had never heard before was this film's addition of the Shakespeare/Wriothesley friendship. By this point I was already feeling disengaged so adding it in pushed me even closer to the edge. I was actually annoyed to be presented with something completely unknown. I know that's mad.
The story as a whole wasn't going to be action-packed and therefore a little slower paced, but everything we were presented with didn't seem connected to anything else. One of the notes I made just said "nothing seems to have a real purpose" and I don't think that opinion changed by the time the film ended. I didn't understand the ultimate point of this film, I know it's about the end of his life and yet... *quizzical shrug*.
You say Ben Elton and you think Blackadder and The Thin Blue Line, at least I do. He's built for comedy and in this there just isn't any and it shows. Everything feels bland and is punctuated with silences that bring the awkwardness of the characters right out into the audience. Unfortunately a real awkwardness and not an "I identify with this character" one.
As for the star-studded cast, I enjoyed Judi Dench's performance the most but even that can't bring up the score on this for me. McKellen gave a fantastic performance but it didn't feel like it belonged in this film, it felt like he was acting in a Shakespeare play and not in a film about Shakespeare.
Had you taken Dench and McKellen out there would have been very little in this film to stop it from sliding into obscurity.
What you should do
I can't recommend this one, I wouldn't even bother when it appears on TV. It does have its audience somewhere though, as I and several other people heaved a sigh of relief when it ended the little old lady across the aisle exclaimed "ooooh weren't that lovely!"
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like to take home the two hours of my life I spent on this film, if that's possible?
Regardless of that feeling I was excited to see Judy Dench and Ian McKellen in action, it was also a nice surprise to see Ben Elton's name on it... I'm not sure how that had escaped my notice.
Even with those redeeming features I was left bored? Disappointed? No, definitely bored.
I know lots of different snippets about Shakespeare. Whether they're true or not always seems to be up for debate but there are plenty of facts out there. One of the things I had never heard before was this film's addition of the Shakespeare/Wriothesley friendship. By this point I was already feeling disengaged so adding it in pushed me even closer to the edge. I was actually annoyed to be presented with something completely unknown. I know that's mad.
The story as a whole wasn't going to be action-packed and therefore a little slower paced, but everything we were presented with didn't seem connected to anything else. One of the notes I made just said "nothing seems to have a real purpose" and I don't think that opinion changed by the time the film ended. I didn't understand the ultimate point of this film, I know it's about the end of his life and yet... *quizzical shrug*.
You say Ben Elton and you think Blackadder and The Thin Blue Line, at least I do. He's built for comedy and in this there just isn't any and it shows. Everything feels bland and is punctuated with silences that bring the awkwardness of the characters right out into the audience. Unfortunately a real awkwardness and not an "I identify with this character" one.
As for the star-studded cast, I enjoyed Judi Dench's performance the most but even that can't bring up the score on this for me. McKellen gave a fantastic performance but it didn't feel like it belonged in this film, it felt like he was acting in a Shakespeare play and not in a film about Shakespeare.
Had you taken Dench and McKellen out there would have been very little in this film to stop it from sliding into obscurity.
What you should do
I can't recommend this one, I wouldn't even bother when it appears on TV. It does have its audience somewhere though, as I and several other people heaved a sigh of relief when it ended the little old lady across the aisle exclaimed "ooooh weren't that lovely!"
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like to take home the two hours of my life I spent on this film, if that's possible?
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Exorcist in Opera House Manchester (Manchester, United Kingdom) in Shows
Jul 22, 2020
Brilliant set design
I went to watch The Exorcist at the Opera House in Manchester in October 2019. I've never been a huge fan of The Exorcist film, I think it's a tad overrated but I was intrigued to see how they'd bring a story like this to life on the stage. And they've put together a well produced and atmospheric show. The set design is brilliant and the effects are spot on, producing a chilly and at times scary show, which isn't something you'd usually expect in such a big theatre and a large audience. The show is that well produced that it's a shame it's rather let down by the acting. A lot of the acting seemed very over the top and exaggerated, and some was just plain poor. Which is a shame as there was a standout performance from Tristram Wymark as Burke who was downright hilarious and a welcome relief to the scarier aspects of the show. Also having Ian McKellen voice the demon is a work of genius. Hearing such a seasoned actor voice a horrible character is brilliant and the young girl miming him is impressively good, even if she does seem to overact at times.
Overall definitely worth seeing for the production if nothing else, and I would've marked a little higher had it not been for some of the acting!
Overall definitely worth seeing for the production if nothing else, and I would've marked a little higher had it not been for some of the acting!
Elli H Burton (1288 KP) rated The Hobbit Trilogy (2015) in Movies
Jun 14, 2019
Going On an Adventure
I was a late comer to J.R. Tolkien and LOTR so when The Hobbit came out I was super excited that I had more to delve into and fall in love with as I had with LOTR.
So yes - the films are super long but personally I didn't feel the length of the film (as some bad films feel twice as long and you just scream HURRY UP AND END) where as with The Hobbit at the end of Unexpected Journey I couldn't wait for the next one.
Obviously with this being made years after, the Actors from LOTR would have unfortunately aged but Sir. Ian Mckellen looks not a day older and although Orlando Bloom is obviously not in his early twenties anymore, it was easy to overlook. Bilbo Baggins had to be a different actor but I definitely think Martin Freeman was the man for the job. I also loved that in the beginning Elijah Wood made an appearance, making it genuinely feel like part of the LOTR we've all come to love.
The Battle of the Five Armies was the main film I have qualms with, after countless googles I still don't understand the Five Armies part, but that could just be me! Also, when Smaugs rain of terror is finally ended it sort of felt bittersweet and kind of Anti Climactic as it happens rather quickly into the film.
So yes - the films are super long but personally I didn't feel the length of the film (as some bad films feel twice as long and you just scream HURRY UP AND END) where as with The Hobbit at the end of Unexpected Journey I couldn't wait for the next one.
Obviously with this being made years after, the Actors from LOTR would have unfortunately aged but Sir. Ian Mckellen looks not a day older and although Orlando Bloom is obviously not in his early twenties anymore, it was easy to overlook. Bilbo Baggins had to be a different actor but I definitely think Martin Freeman was the man for the job. I also loved that in the beginning Elijah Wood made an appearance, making it genuinely feel like part of the LOTR we've all come to love.
The Battle of the Five Armies was the main film I have qualms with, after countless googles I still don't understand the Five Armies part, but that could just be me! Also, when Smaugs rain of terror is finally ended it sort of felt bittersweet and kind of Anti Climactic as it happens rather quickly into the film.
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated The Hobbit Trilogy (2015) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
In Decembers of 2012, 2013 and 2014 the three movies of The Hobbit came out, The Hobbit: an unexpected journey, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug and The Hobbit: Battle of the Five armies forming The Hobbit Trilogy. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayor and Newline Cinema each released part of the trilogy with Director Peter Jackson at the helm (he directed The Lord of the Rings trilogy too). The movies follow the book but have been expanded to include extra material from the Lord of the Rings appendices as well as having recurring characters from the Lord of the Rings Movies such as Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellen), Frodo Baggins (Elijah wood), Legolas (Orlando Bloom), Lord Elrond (Hugo Weaving), lady Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), Gollom/Smegol (Andy Sirkis) and Saruman (Sir Christopher Lee 1922-2015).
In my opinion whilst the movies were very good having pretty much been handled by the team who shot and produced The Lord of the Rings. It felt sort of stretched, I'm pretty sure they could have gotten away with having two movies maybe even just the one if they cut some of the extra material away. The Hobbit in my eyes was essentially its own story and having the extra material padding it up to three movies-whilst useful and giving us a glimpse of the world at large just clumped it a bit. Other than that it was a good set of movies and I'm grateful that the team behind the Lord of the Rings was behind these ones, kept a good thread of continuity going.
In my opinion whilst the movies were very good having pretty much been handled by the team who shot and produced The Lord of the Rings. It felt sort of stretched, I'm pretty sure they could have gotten away with having two movies maybe even just the one if they cut some of the extra material away. The Hobbit in my eyes was essentially its own story and having the extra material padding it up to three movies-whilst useful and giving us a glimpse of the world at large just clumped it a bit. Other than that it was a good set of movies and I'm grateful that the team behind the Lord of the Rings was behind these ones, kept a good thread of continuity going.