Search
Search results
The Art of Losing by The Anchoress
Album
AWARD-WINNING WELSH MULTI-INSTRUMENTALIST THE ANCHORESS RETURNS WITH HER CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED SECOND...
Cineplex Mobile
Entertainment and Lifestyle
App
Get the latest from Cineplex Entertainment, Canada’s largest motion picture exhibitor, and SCENE,...
Big Carp Magazine
Sports and Magazines & Newspapers
App
For over 20 years Big Carp has been the serious carp anglers favourite read. Written and read by the...
ELSA Speak - Accent Reduction
Education and Games
App
Learn to speak English doesn’t have to be scary and lonely anymore. With ELSA - your English...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Johnny English Strikes Again (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Spy spoof caper that’s only passably amusing.
It’s a HILARIOUS concept. It’s Bond but not as we know it: a suave, sophisticated, well-dressed hero but someone who’s a complete klutz when it comes to the spy business. Rowan Atkinson is perfect in the role: because when he plays his face ”straight” he IS strangely good-looking and certainly pulls off the air of confidence, intelligence and sophistication well.
So it was that 2003’s Johnny English was a refreshing novelty. Roll forwards 15 years (via 2011’s “Johnny English Reborn”) and the concoction needs… you know… actual JOKES.
For “Johnny English Strikes Again” is unfortunately a pretty lame affair.
The Plot
Johnny English (Atkinson) is retired from MI7 and living life as a Geography teacher at a public school. Aside from teaching them about sheep farming in Australia and magma, English delights in teaching his young pupils the tricks of the spy trade: “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight”, with a twinkle and a vodka martini in hand. “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight” repeats the class.
But the quiet life of English is about to end, since a cyber-attack has exposed all of MI7’s current agents and the Prime Minister (Emma Thompson) needs to re-hire a retired agent who is currently ‘off the grid’. But noone – friend or foe – is safe when the bumbling English and his faithful helper Bough (Ben Miller) go back into the field.
The Turns
As UK comedy professionals, Atkinson and Miller deliver their English/Bough schtick serviceably enough. The brilliant Emma Thompson though is woefully underused as a straight-woman, being asked to do little more than an exasperated Theresa May impersonation.
If you need a sexy and sophisticated femme fatale for a Bond spoof, what better than a real ex-Bond girl? So the extremely sexy and sophisticated Olga Kurylenko (Camille from “Quantum of Solace”) plays Ophelia Bhuletova, which sounds much funnier when pronounced by Atkinson. And a very good job she does too.
The Review
To emphasise the positive for a moment, the film is suitably glossy, which are table stakes for a spy caper like this or Austin Powers.
But the script by William Davies (who did the previous Johnny Englishes, but nothing much since “Reborn”) doesn’t deliver any real laugh-out-loud moments. My hopes were raised when the “pensioner interviews” happened and Charles Dance, Edward Fox and Michael Gambon turned up. Great, I thought… having the old timers play off Atkinson will be fun. But unfortunately they were nothing but cameos and (although one of the film’s comedy highlights) they came and went in the blink of an eye.
Elsewhere the film relied too much on a few running jokes: ostensibly the need for health and safety in MI7, where guns are rather frowned upon, given their potential to caused injury or worse. A ‘virtual reality’ training mission also delivers smiles but outstays its welcome.
The film is a first-time feature for TV-comedy director David Kerr.
Final thoughts
There are films which are wildly offensive. There are films that are just plain bad. This is neither: it is as Douglas Adams might have described it as “Mostly Harmless”. But to get any more than the rating I have given it, a comedy film has to make me laugh and this one failed miserably. It’s a watchable TV film for a rainy afternoon, but not worth heading out to the cinema to watch.
So it was that 2003’s Johnny English was a refreshing novelty. Roll forwards 15 years (via 2011’s “Johnny English Reborn”) and the concoction needs… you know… actual JOKES.
For “Johnny English Strikes Again” is unfortunately a pretty lame affair.
The Plot
Johnny English (Atkinson) is retired from MI7 and living life as a Geography teacher at a public school. Aside from teaching them about sheep farming in Australia and magma, English delights in teaching his young pupils the tricks of the spy trade: “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight”, with a twinkle and a vodka martini in hand. “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight” repeats the class.
But the quiet life of English is about to end, since a cyber-attack has exposed all of MI7’s current agents and the Prime Minister (Emma Thompson) needs to re-hire a retired agent who is currently ‘off the grid’. But noone – friend or foe – is safe when the bumbling English and his faithful helper Bough (Ben Miller) go back into the field.
The Turns
As UK comedy professionals, Atkinson and Miller deliver their English/Bough schtick serviceably enough. The brilliant Emma Thompson though is woefully underused as a straight-woman, being asked to do little more than an exasperated Theresa May impersonation.
If you need a sexy and sophisticated femme fatale for a Bond spoof, what better than a real ex-Bond girl? So the extremely sexy and sophisticated Olga Kurylenko (Camille from “Quantum of Solace”) plays Ophelia Bhuletova, which sounds much funnier when pronounced by Atkinson. And a very good job she does too.
The Review
To emphasise the positive for a moment, the film is suitably glossy, which are table stakes for a spy caper like this or Austin Powers.
But the script by William Davies (who did the previous Johnny Englishes, but nothing much since “Reborn”) doesn’t deliver any real laugh-out-loud moments. My hopes were raised when the “pensioner interviews” happened and Charles Dance, Edward Fox and Michael Gambon turned up. Great, I thought… having the old timers play off Atkinson will be fun. But unfortunately they were nothing but cameos and (although one of the film’s comedy highlights) they came and went in the blink of an eye.
Elsewhere the film relied too much on a few running jokes: ostensibly the need for health and safety in MI7, where guns are rather frowned upon, given their potential to caused injury or worse. A ‘virtual reality’ training mission also delivers smiles but outstays its welcome.
The film is a first-time feature for TV-comedy director David Kerr.
Final thoughts
There are films which are wildly offensive. There are films that are just plain bad. This is neither: it is as Douglas Adams might have described it as “Mostly Harmless”. But to get any more than the rating I have given it, a comedy film has to make me laugh and this one failed miserably. It’s a watchable TV film for a rainy afternoon, but not worth heading out to the cinema to watch.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated The Incredible Hulk (2008) in Movies
May 9, 2019
"As far as I'm concerned, that man's whole body is property of the U.S. army."
I will defend this gem until the day I die.
The Incredible Hulk is without a doubt one of the most underrated, underappreciated film's that I have ever seen. There it is. I'm just putting it out there. Don't worry, I have my reasons that I'll get into but if you don't like this film, if you hate this film even, I encourage you to read this review. I encourage this because I hope to open your eyes to how beautiful and tragic The Incredible Hulk is.
For one, let's take it back to May 1962 when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby introduced to us, in his very own debut issue, the Hulk himself. According to interviews, Lee spoke of how this film truly captured the essence of the character and the comics. In those comics, General Thunderbolt Ross, along with the military, was always chasing Dr. Banner ever since the accident. This is portrayed brilliantly here by Louis Leterrier. I'm not a huge fan of his work but I got to give credit where credit's due.
I don't even know where to start for positives because there's so many. For one, Edward Norton is brilliant (yes brilliant) as Bruce Banner. His performance is so emotionally subdued, filled with great sadness and longing. They even show him suffering from PTSD, which has never been touched on with this character on film. Really great stuff on Norton's part. We also get to finally see Bruce Banner be a scientist. We've seen it in the future films sure, but not to this extent. Bruce is working with scraps, using solely his wits, in a third world country . . . just like in the comics.
The story of Hulk is really a tragic love story. I got serious King Kong vibes from the similar dynamic here and it's beautiful. The chemistry between Banner and Elizabeth Ross is great. It's so believable; two people put in an impossible situation and making it work. That's love.
Hulk's character is so well realized here. He suffers from PTSD like I said, but the actual monster himself is perfect. They even throw in a bit of a horror vibe for the first Hulk-out scene. Oh yeah, there's numerous Hulk-out scenes!!! There's so many great omages to the comics as well and I loved every bit of it.
Lastly, looking at it from a technical side it's great. The cinematography is extremely well done and a total feast for the eyes. The pacing is great and goes by like the snap of Thanos himself. The editing is top-notch. The soundtrack by Craig Armstrong is one of my favorites of all time and is so iconic and beautiful. Finally, there's a serious tone. FINALLY. There are some well incorporated jokes but unlike some other Marvel films, it's not overbearing.
As for negatives, they are almost none to nonexistent. Really just nitpicks. The taxi scene is a bit unrealistic and silly. It's the only scene of humor that felt a bit forced and silly, yet I can easily ignore it. But since this is an analysis, I had to mention it. Also, unlike Ruffalo's Hulk, Norton's Hulk doesn't look very similar to Norton himself. Again, purely a nitpick.
Overall, I absolutely love The Incredible Hulk
The Incredible Hulk is without a doubt one of the most underrated, underappreciated film's that I have ever seen. There it is. I'm just putting it out there. Don't worry, I have my reasons that I'll get into but if you don't like this film, if you hate this film even, I encourage you to read this review. I encourage this because I hope to open your eyes to how beautiful and tragic The Incredible Hulk is.
For one, let's take it back to May 1962 when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby introduced to us, in his very own debut issue, the Hulk himself. According to interviews, Lee spoke of how this film truly captured the essence of the character and the comics. In those comics, General Thunderbolt Ross, along with the military, was always chasing Dr. Banner ever since the accident. This is portrayed brilliantly here by Louis Leterrier. I'm not a huge fan of his work but I got to give credit where credit's due.
I don't even know where to start for positives because there's so many. For one, Edward Norton is brilliant (yes brilliant) as Bruce Banner. His performance is so emotionally subdued, filled with great sadness and longing. They even show him suffering from PTSD, which has never been touched on with this character on film. Really great stuff on Norton's part. We also get to finally see Bruce Banner be a scientist. We've seen it in the future films sure, but not to this extent. Bruce is working with scraps, using solely his wits, in a third world country . . . just like in the comics.
The story of Hulk is really a tragic love story. I got serious King Kong vibes from the similar dynamic here and it's beautiful. The chemistry between Banner and Elizabeth Ross is great. It's so believable; two people put in an impossible situation and making it work. That's love.
Hulk's character is so well realized here. He suffers from PTSD like I said, but the actual monster himself is perfect. They even throw in a bit of a horror vibe for the first Hulk-out scene. Oh yeah, there's numerous Hulk-out scenes!!! There's so many great omages to the comics as well and I loved every bit of it.
Lastly, looking at it from a technical side it's great. The cinematography is extremely well done and a total feast for the eyes. The pacing is great and goes by like the snap of Thanos himself. The editing is top-notch. The soundtrack by Craig Armstrong is one of my favorites of all time and is so iconic and beautiful. Finally, there's a serious tone. FINALLY. There are some well incorporated jokes but unlike some other Marvel films, it's not overbearing.
As for negatives, they are almost none to nonexistent. Really just nitpicks. The taxi scene is a bit unrealistic and silly. It's the only scene of humor that felt a bit forced and silly, yet I can easily ignore it. But since this is an analysis, I had to mention it. Also, unlike Ruffalo's Hulk, Norton's Hulk doesn't look very similar to Norton himself. Again, purely a nitpick.
Overall, I absolutely love The Incredible Hulk
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated The City of Brass: Daevabad Trilogy in Books
Mar 25, 2018
Fantastic world-building (1 more)
Character Development
So much to say about this outstanding debut novel! First I'd like to address the issues around the author, then I'll delve into the book itself. (It's fantastic, though!)
So the book has been touted as an "own voices" novel, seemingly much to the author's chagrin. She is Muslim, but she's a white convert (Chakraborty is her married name). She has striven to correct the misconception about her ethnicity when she finds it, tweeting about it and talking about it in interviews. (This interview is a good example.) Because the book is pure fantasy, in a fantasy realm after the first few chapters, I'm not too worried about it not actually being written by a middle-eastern author. She does note in the interview I linked that she's not qualified to write some stories because of her ethnicity, and I appreciate that recognition of privilege. As far as I can tell, (as a white person myself) she did justice to the bits of mythology that she included. (Given the reception by people who were so excited about it being an Own Voices book, I think I'm probably right.) Her twitter (@SChakrabs) is FULL of links to minority authors and retweets about their books. I am very impressed by the level of her advocacy for minority authors.
So that aside, I LOVED THIS BOOK. I almost always enjoy fantasy inspired by non-western mythology: Children of Blood and Bone was fantastic, and though Forest of a Thousand Lanterns had a western fairytale at its heart, being reimagined through an Asian lense was really neat to read. The Bear and The Nightingale and The Girl in the Tower were Russian inspired, as were The Crown's Game/The Crown's Fate. I really do try to pick up non-western inspired fantasy when I can. City of Brass scratched that itch perfectly.
City of Brass opens in Cairo, where our heroine, Nahri, is a con-woman with small healing magics. When a ritual goes awry, she's thrust into the world of the djinn. It's when Nahri and her accidental bodyguard, Dara, arrive at the Djinns' city of Daevabad that the story really gets started.
I'm still a little confused about the difference between djinn and Daeva; Daeva seem to be one of the tribes but also the name for the entire race, and some of them get offended at being called djinn but some of them don't? I'm not really sure about that distinction. There is a clear line between djinn and Ifrit, though - Ifrit are immensely powerful, immortal beings who refused to subject themselves to punishment many centuries ago. I'm not sure I actually see a downside to being Ifrit, other than the djinn all think they're evil. The Ifrit, however, are out to get Nahri, and Dara's not having any of THAT.
I love Dara - he's a fascinating character, with a violent, mysterious backstory. I'm very eager to read more about him and figure out exactly what's up with his background. Nahri is also awesome - a little arrogant, but by the end of the book she's starting to learn she might need help from those around her. Unfortunately, also by the end of the book she doesn't know who to trust. The naive djinn prince, Ali, is the third main character of the book, and while I can see him having an interesting story, his personality is still a little flat. Hopefully the second book will see advancement in all three of these characters' personalities.
And I can't WAIT for the second book! City of Brass didn't exactly end on a cliffhanger, but it did leave many questions unanswered and our main characters' fates uncertain. Unfortunately, I can't find any information on the sequel, just that it's being edited. No release date or title yet.
Read this book. It's fantastic.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
So the book has been touted as an "own voices" novel, seemingly much to the author's chagrin. She is Muslim, but she's a white convert (Chakraborty is her married name). She has striven to correct the misconception about her ethnicity when she finds it, tweeting about it and talking about it in interviews. (This interview is a good example.) Because the book is pure fantasy, in a fantasy realm after the first few chapters, I'm not too worried about it not actually being written by a middle-eastern author. She does note in the interview I linked that she's not qualified to write some stories because of her ethnicity, and I appreciate that recognition of privilege. As far as I can tell, (as a white person myself) she did justice to the bits of mythology that she included. (Given the reception by people who were so excited about it being an Own Voices book, I think I'm probably right.) Her twitter (@SChakrabs) is FULL of links to minority authors and retweets about their books. I am very impressed by the level of her advocacy for minority authors.
So that aside, I LOVED THIS BOOK. I almost always enjoy fantasy inspired by non-western mythology: Children of Blood and Bone was fantastic, and though Forest of a Thousand Lanterns had a western fairytale at its heart, being reimagined through an Asian lense was really neat to read. The Bear and The Nightingale and The Girl in the Tower were Russian inspired, as were The Crown's Game/The Crown's Fate. I really do try to pick up non-western inspired fantasy when I can. City of Brass scratched that itch perfectly.
City of Brass opens in Cairo, where our heroine, Nahri, is a con-woman with small healing magics. When a ritual goes awry, she's thrust into the world of the djinn. It's when Nahri and her accidental bodyguard, Dara, arrive at the Djinns' city of Daevabad that the story really gets started.
I'm still a little confused about the difference between djinn and Daeva; Daeva seem to be one of the tribes but also the name for the entire race, and some of them get offended at being called djinn but some of them don't? I'm not really sure about that distinction. There is a clear line between djinn and Ifrit, though - Ifrit are immensely powerful, immortal beings who refused to subject themselves to punishment many centuries ago. I'm not sure I actually see a downside to being Ifrit, other than the djinn all think they're evil. The Ifrit, however, are out to get Nahri, and Dara's not having any of THAT.
I love Dara - he's a fascinating character, with a violent, mysterious backstory. I'm very eager to read more about him and figure out exactly what's up with his background. Nahri is also awesome - a little arrogant, but by the end of the book she's starting to learn she might need help from those around her. Unfortunately, also by the end of the book she doesn't know who to trust. The naive djinn prince, Ali, is the third main character of the book, and while I can see him having an interesting story, his personality is still a little flat. Hopefully the second book will see advancement in all three of these characters' personalities.
And I can't WAIT for the second book! City of Brass didn't exactly end on a cliffhanger, but it did leave many questions unanswered and our main characters' fates uncertain. Unfortunately, I can't find any information on the sequel, just that it's being edited. No release date or title yet.
Read this book. It's fantastic.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Blair Witch Project (1999) in Movies
Oct 18, 2019
While this film is credited as being the first "found footage" film ever made, it is not true. I found several websites even saying the same thing. Not true. That award goes to Cannibal Holocaust (I am pretty sure) which was release almost two decades earlier (1980 vs. 1999).
The film begins with sort of standard documentary fare showing interviews with the Maryland locals discussing if they have heard of the legend of the Blair Witch. For those that had, they recalled their own memories of the stories they had heard from others or from their childhood. Eventually, the documentary filmmakers meet the odd-looking Mary Brown who details her first hand experience with the demon recalling its weird hairy appearance.
Heather, Josh and Michael then decide to go for an outdoor wooded adventure in an attempt to locate and document evidence of the existence of the local legend themselves, not knowing what lies ahead for them. The journey starts out pretty normal with Heather doing most of the onscreen explanations, the other two mostly relegated to replying to her whims or arguing with her about various topics.
Eventually, a few bad thing start to happen including the loss of their woodland map and hearing strange sounds during the blackness of night. They now wander the woods becoming increasingly agitated with each other and their situation when it is revealed they may be walking in circles and are no closer to completing their quest or finding their way out. They see various various stick and rock formations which are not naturally occurring which means someone else is out there with them.
I remember sitting in a darkened theatre in 1999 hearing about this film briefly before its release. Not much was known at the time, and I recall this being one of the first films to have significant internet buzz beforehand. The internet was only a few years old at the time, so this was also a relatively new concept. Modern audiences are spoiled with so much content for every film available online, that everyone almost loses the feeling of being completely surprised by a film you knew virtually nothing about going in.
For Blair Witch, the added element of the "found footage" style was foreign to pretty much everyone which added to the hype and box office success of the film. Virtually the entire viewing public were not completely sure if what they were watching actually happened or this was fiction. It helped that writer/directors Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez used an unknown cast so seeing someone they recognized onscreen would not ruin the experience of believing its authenticity.
I am down on sloppy modern moviemakers most of the time these days relying so heavily on CGI and making movies look like pretty perfection rather than focusing on the most important thing for a horror film (or any film) a good screenplay and implied tension. For Blair Witch, it has been said some scenes were improvised or given a general direction but not a full script; however, that doesn't detract from the authentic nature of the situation.
The 2nd half of the film has some truly terrifying moments which happen in the background or off-screen showing you don't need to spend all your money on a CGI monster, just make it scary. The scene and keyart for the film showing the top half of Heather's head which she speaks into the camera explaining her terror and anguish is so believable and mesmerizing it send chills down my spine every time I watch it.
The film also get bagged for the ending which might be considered too short or anti-climactic; however, I think it's perfect and really the only way the movie could have gone.
The film begins with sort of standard documentary fare showing interviews with the Maryland locals discussing if they have heard of the legend of the Blair Witch. For those that had, they recalled their own memories of the stories they had heard from others or from their childhood. Eventually, the documentary filmmakers meet the odd-looking Mary Brown who details her first hand experience with the demon recalling its weird hairy appearance.
Heather, Josh and Michael then decide to go for an outdoor wooded adventure in an attempt to locate and document evidence of the existence of the local legend themselves, not knowing what lies ahead for them. The journey starts out pretty normal with Heather doing most of the onscreen explanations, the other two mostly relegated to replying to her whims or arguing with her about various topics.
Eventually, a few bad thing start to happen including the loss of their woodland map and hearing strange sounds during the blackness of night. They now wander the woods becoming increasingly agitated with each other and their situation when it is revealed they may be walking in circles and are no closer to completing their quest or finding their way out. They see various various stick and rock formations which are not naturally occurring which means someone else is out there with them.
I remember sitting in a darkened theatre in 1999 hearing about this film briefly before its release. Not much was known at the time, and I recall this being one of the first films to have significant internet buzz beforehand. The internet was only a few years old at the time, so this was also a relatively new concept. Modern audiences are spoiled with so much content for every film available online, that everyone almost loses the feeling of being completely surprised by a film you knew virtually nothing about going in.
For Blair Witch, the added element of the "found footage" style was foreign to pretty much everyone which added to the hype and box office success of the film. Virtually the entire viewing public were not completely sure if what they were watching actually happened or this was fiction. It helped that writer/directors Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez used an unknown cast so seeing someone they recognized onscreen would not ruin the experience of believing its authenticity.
I am down on sloppy modern moviemakers most of the time these days relying so heavily on CGI and making movies look like pretty perfection rather than focusing on the most important thing for a horror film (or any film) a good screenplay and implied tension. For Blair Witch, it has been said some scenes were improvised or given a general direction but not a full script; however, that doesn't detract from the authentic nature of the situation.
The 2nd half of the film has some truly terrifying moments which happen in the background or off-screen showing you don't need to spend all your money on a CGI monster, just make it scary. The scene and keyart for the film showing the top half of Heather's head which she speaks into the camera explaining her terror and anguish is so believable and mesmerizing it send chills down my spine every time I watch it.
The film also get bagged for the ending which might be considered too short or anti-climactic; however, I think it's perfect and really the only way the movie could have gone.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Bruno (2009) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
Life is good for Austrian fashonista Bruno (Sacha Baron Cohen). As the star of the top Austrian fashion show, he is a fixture at all of the social events and is the flamboyant highpoint of any event he graces.
That is until things go awry and Bruno finds himself on the outside looking in and is blacklisted from the European fashion industry he lives for.
Undaunted, Bruno sets out to become a star and take America by storm in the shockingly outrageous and sure to be controversial “Bruno”. The film is a follow up to “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” which took the box office by storm when it was released three years ago.
Upon arriving in America, Bruno sets out to be a star, but soon runs into trouble when his first day on a television set goes out of control. If this was not bad enough, Bruno’s pitch for a variety shows scores badly with a focus group who are dismayed at the very graphic depiction of the male form and other outrageous humor.
Undaunted even when his attempts at celebrity interviews crash and burn around him, Bruno sets out to get tabloid attention by adopting a baby from Africa. This leads to a daring and outrageous segment on a Texas talk show where Bruno is verbally chastised by the predominately African American audience.
Unable to catch a break, Bruno travels to locales as diverse as Israel, Alabama, and Los Angeles hoping to get a break, but only finds failure. Despite his horrible luck, Bruno has the adoration of his assistant Lutz (Gustaf Hammarsten), which sadly for Gustaf is unrequited.
Desperate for acceptance, Bruno decides to become straight and sets off to the South to learn what being a straight man is all about which sets up some outrageous encounters ranging from a swingers party to a hilarious macho man event hosted by Bruno as “Straight Dave”.
While there are those who will see only the nudity and crude humor of the film and dismiss it, those who are more open minded will see the genius of Cohen who is a master of improvisational. It is fascinating to see how much he throws himself into a scene and literally becomes his characters. No matter how outrageous the scenario, Cohen is not afraid to push the boundaries and get people to expose their true selves.
While his scenarios shock, they also educate and enlighten as he gets his unsuspecting co-stars to show sides of themselves and human nature which people try to hide and ignore. Despite thinking we are an enlightened society, there are those that are shocked by a person who is so flamboyant and open, even swingers whose very lifestyle is considered by most to be out of the norm and for others to be unordinary.
Numerous celebrity appearances also grace the film, which I will refrain from spoiling but suffice it to say add to the enjoyment of the film.
The movie does not have much in the way of plot and character development, but that is not the intention of the film, as the plot is a framework to connect the segments which work well in my opinion.
Unlike a Saturday Night Live sketch turned into a movie, “Bruno” works well within the films run time without overstaying its welcome and losing momentum.
In the end, you will either love or hate the film, and much of this will depend on your tolerance for very mature, bawdy, and controversial humor. For my taste, this was one of the funniest films I have ever seen and I could not stop laughing.
That is until things go awry and Bruno finds himself on the outside looking in and is blacklisted from the European fashion industry he lives for.
Undaunted, Bruno sets out to become a star and take America by storm in the shockingly outrageous and sure to be controversial “Bruno”. The film is a follow up to “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” which took the box office by storm when it was released three years ago.
Upon arriving in America, Bruno sets out to be a star, but soon runs into trouble when his first day on a television set goes out of control. If this was not bad enough, Bruno’s pitch for a variety shows scores badly with a focus group who are dismayed at the very graphic depiction of the male form and other outrageous humor.
Undaunted even when his attempts at celebrity interviews crash and burn around him, Bruno sets out to get tabloid attention by adopting a baby from Africa. This leads to a daring and outrageous segment on a Texas talk show where Bruno is verbally chastised by the predominately African American audience.
Unable to catch a break, Bruno travels to locales as diverse as Israel, Alabama, and Los Angeles hoping to get a break, but only finds failure. Despite his horrible luck, Bruno has the adoration of his assistant Lutz (Gustaf Hammarsten), which sadly for Gustaf is unrequited.
Desperate for acceptance, Bruno decides to become straight and sets off to the South to learn what being a straight man is all about which sets up some outrageous encounters ranging from a swingers party to a hilarious macho man event hosted by Bruno as “Straight Dave”.
While there are those who will see only the nudity and crude humor of the film and dismiss it, those who are more open minded will see the genius of Cohen who is a master of improvisational. It is fascinating to see how much he throws himself into a scene and literally becomes his characters. No matter how outrageous the scenario, Cohen is not afraid to push the boundaries and get people to expose their true selves.
While his scenarios shock, they also educate and enlighten as he gets his unsuspecting co-stars to show sides of themselves and human nature which people try to hide and ignore. Despite thinking we are an enlightened society, there are those that are shocked by a person who is so flamboyant and open, even swingers whose very lifestyle is considered by most to be out of the norm and for others to be unordinary.
Numerous celebrity appearances also grace the film, which I will refrain from spoiling but suffice it to say add to the enjoyment of the film.
The movie does not have much in the way of plot and character development, but that is not the intention of the film, as the plot is a framework to connect the segments which work well in my opinion.
Unlike a Saturday Night Live sketch turned into a movie, “Bruno” works well within the films run time without overstaying its welcome and losing momentum.
In the end, you will either love or hate the film, and much of this will depend on your tolerance for very mature, bawdy, and controversial humor. For my taste, this was one of the funniest films I have ever seen and I could not stop laughing.
