Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Kung Fu Panda 3 (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The new Dreamworks Animation release Kung Fu Panda 3 has several big name actors voicing the characters. Among them are Jack Black as Po, Angelina Jolie as Tigress, Kate Hudson as Mei Mei, Bryan Cranston as Li, Dustin Hoffman as Shifu, Jackie Chan as Monkey,
Seth Rogan as Mantis and Lucy Liu as Viper.
Po discovers a long-lost relative who travels with him to a secret enclave of Panda relatives. Meanwhile, the trapped super-villain Kai escapes, and begins to defeat all the king-fu masters across the land.
Po must gather his new-found relatives and his long-time friends, and tries to train them to work together to defeat Kai.
What results is a heartwarming tale of friends & family working together to beat the odds, and of discovering that your strengths and abilities can be used in situations that might seem otherwise hopeless. It shows you that no matter what your capabilities are as an individual, working together can achieve great things.
The music throughout the film was engaging, and the graphics and animation were superb. This is one movie that is released in 3-D that is actually worth seeing in 3-D!
I had the 3 kids with me and they all loved it. The youngest, a girl, is 6, and her comment was ‘That movie was AWESOME!’, and her favorite part was ‘all the cool fighting scenes’
The oldest, a 9 year old boy, said ‘it was a GREAT movie!’, and his favorite part was when Po discovered his dad again.
The middle child, 7, a boy says ‘I thought it was so great that I wanted to cry’, and his favorite part was the baby pandas doing their tricks to help defeat Kai.
From an adult perspective I thought it was a great family film, with a message of acceptance and working together despite our differences in order to accomplish a common goal. I loved how Po’s adopted father and natural father worked together and got along and that they all ended up as ‘family’, without sides being chosen. I felt that was a really great message in this day & age.
I would give this movie a solid 4.5 out of 5 stars, and recommend it for any family looking for a fun activity to head out to on the weekend.
Seth Rogan as Mantis and Lucy Liu as Viper.
Po discovers a long-lost relative who travels with him to a secret enclave of Panda relatives. Meanwhile, the trapped super-villain Kai escapes, and begins to defeat all the king-fu masters across the land.
Po must gather his new-found relatives and his long-time friends, and tries to train them to work together to defeat Kai.
What results is a heartwarming tale of friends & family working together to beat the odds, and of discovering that your strengths and abilities can be used in situations that might seem otherwise hopeless. It shows you that no matter what your capabilities are as an individual, working together can achieve great things.
The music throughout the film was engaging, and the graphics and animation were superb. This is one movie that is released in 3-D that is actually worth seeing in 3-D!
I had the 3 kids with me and they all loved it. The youngest, a girl, is 6, and her comment was ‘That movie was AWESOME!’, and her favorite part was ‘all the cool fighting scenes’
The oldest, a 9 year old boy, said ‘it was a GREAT movie!’, and his favorite part was when Po discovered his dad again.
The middle child, 7, a boy says ‘I thought it was so great that I wanted to cry’, and his favorite part was the baby pandas doing their tricks to help defeat Kai.
From an adult perspective I thought it was a great family film, with a message of acceptance and working together despite our differences in order to accomplish a common goal. I loved how Po’s adopted father and natural father worked together and got along and that they all ended up as ‘family’, without sides being chosen. I felt that was a really great message in this day & age.
I would give this movie a solid 4.5 out of 5 stars, and recommend it for any family looking for a fun activity to head out to on the weekend.
The Ballad of John Latouche: An American Lyricist's Life and Work
Book
Born into a poor Virginian family, John Treville Latouche (1914-56), in his short life, made a...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Lethal Weapon 3 (1992) in Movies
Jul 10, 2020 (Updated Jul 10, 2020)
The Perfect Trio : Mel, Danny and Joe
Lethal Weapon 3- i love the chemistry between Mel, Danny and Joe. Its the perfect trio, their bounce off of each other. The comedy is excellent. The one liners are good. The action is good, the plot is good.
The plot: Veteran police detective Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover) is only days away from retiring when he and his tough partner, Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson), are roped into an important internal affairs case. Working with the beautiful, no-nonsense Sergeant Lorna Cole (Rene Russo) and aided by the shifty informant Leo Getz (Joe Pesci), Murtaugh and Riggs begin to close in on a black-market weapons operation involving corrupt cop and arms dealer Jack Travis (Stuart Wilson).
Director Richard Donner is an animal-rights and pro-choice activist, and placed many posters and stickers for these causes in the film. Of note are the T-shirt worn by one of Murtaugh's daughters (the actress's idea), an 18-wheeler with an anti-fur slogan on the side, and a sticker on a locker in the police station.
Director Richard Donner demanded some big changes on the script which included changing the original character of Lorna (who had a different name in earlier drafts) into a woman and turning her into Riggs's girlfriend. He also re-worked the script to be less story-oriented and not focus on the main villains but instead on the relationship between Riggs and Murtaugh. He also toned down action scenes from the script and brought back Leo Getz into the story. All of his scenes were written in afterwards. In the original script Leo had left L.A. for New York. Boam had some disagreements with changes that Donner made but he was not against them. Boam was fired after he wrote his first two drafts of the script. One of the reasons for this was because Donner wasn't interested in the script and he disagreed with some parts of Boam's original draft.
Carrie Fisher was an uncredited script doctor on the film.
Several versions of a Lethal Weapon video game were released in conjunction with this sequel's release, appearing on the NES, SNES, Game Boy, Amiga, Atari ST, and Commodore 64 platforms. Also released was a Lethal Weapon 3 pinball game.
Its a funny entertaining movie, on to the last one in the franchise. I've loved the franchise so far and hopefully the 4th one is good.
The plot: Veteran police detective Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover) is only days away from retiring when he and his tough partner, Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson), are roped into an important internal affairs case. Working with the beautiful, no-nonsense Sergeant Lorna Cole (Rene Russo) and aided by the shifty informant Leo Getz (Joe Pesci), Murtaugh and Riggs begin to close in on a black-market weapons operation involving corrupt cop and arms dealer Jack Travis (Stuart Wilson).
Director Richard Donner is an animal-rights and pro-choice activist, and placed many posters and stickers for these causes in the film. Of note are the T-shirt worn by one of Murtaugh's daughters (the actress's idea), an 18-wheeler with an anti-fur slogan on the side, and a sticker on a locker in the police station.
Director Richard Donner demanded some big changes on the script which included changing the original character of Lorna (who had a different name in earlier drafts) into a woman and turning her into Riggs's girlfriend. He also re-worked the script to be less story-oriented and not focus on the main villains but instead on the relationship between Riggs and Murtaugh. He also toned down action scenes from the script and brought back Leo Getz into the story. All of his scenes were written in afterwards. In the original script Leo had left L.A. for New York. Boam had some disagreements with changes that Donner made but he was not against them. Boam was fired after he wrote his first two drafts of the script. One of the reasons for this was because Donner wasn't interested in the script and he disagreed with some parts of Boam's original draft.
Carrie Fisher was an uncredited script doctor on the film.
Several versions of a Lethal Weapon video game were released in conjunction with this sequel's release, appearing on the NES, SNES, Game Boy, Amiga, Atari ST, and Commodore 64 platforms. Also released was a Lethal Weapon 3 pinball game.
Its a funny entertaining movie, on to the last one in the franchise. I've loved the franchise so far and hopefully the 4th one is good.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I do not know what The Rock is for? He’s certainly not for me! I’m sure he is a lovely man in real life, but how…? Why…? is he a movie star? It baffles me. Look, there is some fun to be had with this remake, and the themes it raises are actually reasonably smart and relevant to the world of teenagers in 2020, but it is just so second rate and lazy in so many ways. I am also not a fan of Kevin Hart’s schtick. I mean, he has made me laugh maybe twice in everything I’ve ever seen him do in the last ten years. Irritating sums it up better for me. Jack Black isn’t a whole lot better; his best films are good despite him, not because of him, in the main, and when he is bad he is very very poor indeed. That leaves Karen Gillan, and yes, she saves the show here, leaving the boys look awkward, forced and quite a bit dated.
It’s basically a body swap movie, a tried and tested recipe for Japes and easy gags in a kids movie. And as so it shamelessly borrows, adapts and full on steals every previous joke, observation and trick used in every body swap film ever made. Does it do anything new? Or better? Not as far as I could see. But, then again, I am no longer ten years old, and that is very much where this is pitched. Except it annoyed me most in the patronising choices it made for the ten year old of 2020 – are they all really that dumb? Because I remember the original Jumanji managing to be fun and intelligent at the same time. It’s very possible I have it wrong because it’s me that is getting further away from what kids identify with and enjoy these days, however.
Basically, I allowed it to wash over me whilst pining for the screen presence, comedic skill and empathy of Robin Williams. Therefore I was bound to hate it. Maybe one day I’ll see it in a better mood and accept that it is perfectly fine family fare. I have certainly witnessed worse over the years – at least the sense of adventure is mostly there, the production design is competent and it is ultimately harmless. It’s just not my bag.
It’s basically a body swap movie, a tried and tested recipe for Japes and easy gags in a kids movie. And as so it shamelessly borrows, adapts and full on steals every previous joke, observation and trick used in every body swap film ever made. Does it do anything new? Or better? Not as far as I could see. But, then again, I am no longer ten years old, and that is very much where this is pitched. Except it annoyed me most in the patronising choices it made for the ten year old of 2020 – are they all really that dumb? Because I remember the original Jumanji managing to be fun and intelligent at the same time. It’s very possible I have it wrong because it’s me that is getting further away from what kids identify with and enjoy these days, however.
Basically, I allowed it to wash over me whilst pining for the screen presence, comedic skill and empathy of Robin Williams. Therefore I was bound to hate it. Maybe one day I’ll see it in a better mood and accept that it is perfectly fine family fare. I have certainly witnessed worse over the years – at least the sense of adventure is mostly there, the production design is competent and it is ultimately harmless. It’s just not my bag.
CameraVision - Visual Presenter
Business and Utilities
App
"CameraVision" outputs the images of the built-in camera and the corresponding sounds from the...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Free Fire (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A movie with more than a whiff of cordite about it
As I write this, I’m really struggling to evaluate whether the latest film of Ben Wheatley (“High Rise”) is a masterpiece or just pulp trash. It’s certainly a brave and highly distinctive venture, with that you can’t argue.
Set in Boston in 1978, an arms deal is going down in a deserted warehouse. Brokered by Justine (Brie Larson, “Room”) an IRA team headed by Frank (Michael Smiley, “The World’s End“) with his business guy Chris (Cillian Murphy, “Inception”, “Batman Begins”) are on the buying side. As ‘roadies’ they’ve brought with them a couple of crack-head friends Stevo (Sam Riley, “Brighton Rock”, “Maleficent“) and Bernie (Enzo Cilenti, “The Martian“) who are far from stable.
On the selling side is South African dealer and “international asshole” Vern (Sharlto Copley, “Elysium“), his suave and wisecracking protector Ord (Armie Hammer, “The Man From Uncle”) and Vern’s right hand man Martin (Babou Ceesay, “Eye in the Sky“). What connects all of these individuals is that no-one likes or trusts anyone else.
Unfortunately, one of Vern’s van drivers is John Denver-lover Harry (the excellent Jack Treynor, “Sing Street”) who has very recent personal history with Stevo. The fuse is lit, and when the two meet chaos ensues: in the words of Anchorman’s Ron Burgundy, “That escalated quickly”!
And, for a 90 minute film, that’s basically it. If you think after viewing the trailer “there must be more to the film than this”…. you’re wrong!
However, what there is of it is enormously entertaining. Played ostensibly for laughs, with very very black humour and an F-word and a gunshot in every other sentence, some of the characters – notably those played by Sharlto Copley, Arnie Hammer and Brie Larson – have some hilarious dialogue. The star turn for me though was Jack Treynor who was just so impressive as the ‘lost at sea’ brother in the delightful “Sing Street” and here delivers a stand-out performance as another brother on a mission… this time a mission of vengeance. You are waiting throughout the film for the inevitable showdown between Harry and Stevo – – and when it comes it is both bloody and memorable.
A cracking 70’ soundtrack, put together by the Portishead duo of Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury, involves 70’s classics by Credence Clearwater Revival, John Denver and The Real Kids and it’s hammered out at top volume over the action. The downside of this effect is that – for my old ears at least – it sometimes make some of the dialogue hard to follow.
As a policing exercise, the film clearly has merit. In the same manner as Schwarzenegger’s “Running Man” put criminals in an arena to cull them, so this must have reduced the crime rates in both Boston and Belfast no end! While some may not approve of the levels of violence on show, it is all done in a highly cartoonish way: like a “Tom and Jerry” cartoon, or “Home Alone”, everyone seems to get shot multiple times and yet (in the main) is still active and mobile. All of this makes criticism of the performances something of a waste of time, but I would comment that some of the acting is of the “over the top” variety: surprisingly, I found some of Oscar winner Brie Larson’s scenes falling into this category and snapping me out of the narrative at times.
But overall, my evaluation is now done and I am rooting on the side of it being a brash and exhilarating minor masterpiece. Yes, it’s one-dimensional. Yes, it is virtually impossible to feel any empathy with any of the characters, as they are all universally loathsome. But it’s a movie whose flaws are forgivable based on the characterisation and the cracking good script by long-term collaborators Ben Wheatley and Amy Jump.
Tight as it is within its 90 minute running time, I very much doubt you will be bored.
Set in Boston in 1978, an arms deal is going down in a deserted warehouse. Brokered by Justine (Brie Larson, “Room”) an IRA team headed by Frank (Michael Smiley, “The World’s End“) with his business guy Chris (Cillian Murphy, “Inception”, “Batman Begins”) are on the buying side. As ‘roadies’ they’ve brought with them a couple of crack-head friends Stevo (Sam Riley, “Brighton Rock”, “Maleficent“) and Bernie (Enzo Cilenti, “The Martian“) who are far from stable.
On the selling side is South African dealer and “international asshole” Vern (Sharlto Copley, “Elysium“), his suave and wisecracking protector Ord (Armie Hammer, “The Man From Uncle”) and Vern’s right hand man Martin (Babou Ceesay, “Eye in the Sky“). What connects all of these individuals is that no-one likes or trusts anyone else.
Unfortunately, one of Vern’s van drivers is John Denver-lover Harry (the excellent Jack Treynor, “Sing Street”) who has very recent personal history with Stevo. The fuse is lit, and when the two meet chaos ensues: in the words of Anchorman’s Ron Burgundy, “That escalated quickly”!
And, for a 90 minute film, that’s basically it. If you think after viewing the trailer “there must be more to the film than this”…. you’re wrong!
However, what there is of it is enormously entertaining. Played ostensibly for laughs, with very very black humour and an F-word and a gunshot in every other sentence, some of the characters – notably those played by Sharlto Copley, Arnie Hammer and Brie Larson – have some hilarious dialogue. The star turn for me though was Jack Treynor who was just so impressive as the ‘lost at sea’ brother in the delightful “Sing Street” and here delivers a stand-out performance as another brother on a mission… this time a mission of vengeance. You are waiting throughout the film for the inevitable showdown between Harry and Stevo – – and when it comes it is both bloody and memorable.
A cracking 70’ soundtrack, put together by the Portishead duo of Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury, involves 70’s classics by Credence Clearwater Revival, John Denver and The Real Kids and it’s hammered out at top volume over the action. The downside of this effect is that – for my old ears at least – it sometimes make some of the dialogue hard to follow.
As a policing exercise, the film clearly has merit. In the same manner as Schwarzenegger’s “Running Man” put criminals in an arena to cull them, so this must have reduced the crime rates in both Boston and Belfast no end! While some may not approve of the levels of violence on show, it is all done in a highly cartoonish way: like a “Tom and Jerry” cartoon, or “Home Alone”, everyone seems to get shot multiple times and yet (in the main) is still active and mobile. All of this makes criticism of the performances something of a waste of time, but I would comment that some of the acting is of the “over the top” variety: surprisingly, I found some of Oscar winner Brie Larson’s scenes falling into this category and snapping me out of the narrative at times.
But overall, my evaluation is now done and I am rooting on the side of it being a brash and exhilarating minor masterpiece. Yes, it’s one-dimensional. Yes, it is virtually impossible to feel any empathy with any of the characters, as they are all universally loathsome. But it’s a movie whose flaws are forgivable based on the characterisation and the cracking good script by long-term collaborators Ben Wheatley and Amy Jump.
Tight as it is within its 90 minute running time, I very much doubt you will be bored.
Charmed & Dangerous
10.0
Rate It
Book
Magic takes many forms. From malignant hexes to love charms gone amok, you’ll find a vast array of...
Urban Fantasy Paranormal MM Romance
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated To Kill a Mockingbird in Books
Jan 2, 2019
Well, February is definitely the month for discovering classics I’ve missed! For some reason, I’d always classed To Kill a Mockingbird in amongst the Agatha Christie genre of murder mysteries – not that I’ve read those either – and didn’t know enough about it for it to have piqued my interest. Now I’ve read it though, I can see what all the fuss is about, and it’s not surprising that, despite being published in 1960, it was still the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/aug/09/best-selling-books-all-time-fifty-shades-grey-compare">65th best-selling book of all time</a> in 2012. Beware of spoilers!
The story is set in Maycomb, Alabama in the 1930s, and is written from the perspective of Jean Louise ‘Scout’ Finch, who is between six and eight years old as the story progresses. The start of the book does an effective job of introducing us to all the characters. Scout lives with her widowed father, Atticus, a lawyer, her brother Jem (who is 4 years older than her) and Calpurnia, a black woman who acts as a type of mother figure. A friend, Dill, also joins them in the summer. The three children are intrigued by Arthur ‘Boo’ Radley, who lives in the house on the corner but is never seen outside. I really enjoyed this part of the story; it set the scene brilliantly, as well as helping me reminisce about my own childhood. Even if there is no ‘haunted’ house, children will always make one – at least, my brother and I did! With the limitless amounts of imagination children have, there will always be adventures to be had and ‘monsters’ to escape from. There was one particular house, when we were around the same age as Jem and Scout, where they had a doorbell you pulled, like a cord. My brother Josh said it was a doorbell that made you scream every time you pulled it, so we obviously had great fun in pulling it, screaming, and running away. If by some fluke the person living there is reading this, I’m really sorry, but it still makes me laugh! There was also every Christmas, when we went carol singing. We had decided that the houses beyond the wood were richer than the others, and every year would link arms, lighting matches to try and find our way in the dark and telling ghost stories the whole time.
Once everything has been established, the book moves on to a case Atticus is defending. A black man, Tom, has been accused of raping Mayella Ewell, part of a trashy white family with very poor education and even less money. This is where the casual prejudice of the time is evident – Jem and Scout have to put up with people calling their family a “nigger-lover” (sorry if that language offends, it is a direct quote and I mean no harm); Atticus faces repercussions for his whole-hearted attempt to save Tom; and many of the Maycomb women look down on the black community. However, there’s still a touch of hope – the way Atticus defends Tom’s case makes everybody think, a great feat in the setting where black and white people are in completely different classes. In this part of the story, I really looked up to Atticus, in his seemingly-infinite wisdom.
In the final part of the story, Jem and Scout finally get to meet Boo Radley, and it is here that the title of the book becomes apparent. In the middle of the book, after Jem and Scout get air-rifles, it is said:
<blockquote>When he gave us our air-rifles Atticus wouldn’t teach us to shoot. Uncle Jack instructed us in the rudiments thereof; he said Atticus wasn’t interested in guns. Atticus said to Jem one day, “I’d rather you shoot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you’ll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit ‘em, but remember it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”
That was the only time I ever heard Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it.
“Your father’s right,” she said. “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs, they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”</blockquote>
Obviously, not knowing what was coming, I thought the story must eventually be about the children shooting a mockingbird. The last page of the book, though, I realised that it was a lot more subtle and symbolic than that. The mockingjay is Boo Radley, the man who gives when he can and causes no harm.
I really wish I’d read this story as a child, to see what sort of perspective I’d have had back then. Reading as an adult means that, while Scout was a brilliant perspective, I was almost reading as an outsider. I could see her maturing, slowly fitting the pieces together to start acting like an adult, but at the same time it was an undeniably adult reading. I really really enjoyed the book, but I have a feeling it’s one of those multi-faceted ones where you read something different every time. I can’t help thinking that reading it as a child would have been a lot more powerful.
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
The story is set in Maycomb, Alabama in the 1930s, and is written from the perspective of Jean Louise ‘Scout’ Finch, who is between six and eight years old as the story progresses. The start of the book does an effective job of introducing us to all the characters. Scout lives with her widowed father, Atticus, a lawyer, her brother Jem (who is 4 years older than her) and Calpurnia, a black woman who acts as a type of mother figure. A friend, Dill, also joins them in the summer. The three children are intrigued by Arthur ‘Boo’ Radley, who lives in the house on the corner but is never seen outside. I really enjoyed this part of the story; it set the scene brilliantly, as well as helping me reminisce about my own childhood. Even if there is no ‘haunted’ house, children will always make one – at least, my brother and I did! With the limitless amounts of imagination children have, there will always be adventures to be had and ‘monsters’ to escape from. There was one particular house, when we were around the same age as Jem and Scout, where they had a doorbell you pulled, like a cord. My brother Josh said it was a doorbell that made you scream every time you pulled it, so we obviously had great fun in pulling it, screaming, and running away. If by some fluke the person living there is reading this, I’m really sorry, but it still makes me laugh! There was also every Christmas, when we went carol singing. We had decided that the houses beyond the wood were richer than the others, and every year would link arms, lighting matches to try and find our way in the dark and telling ghost stories the whole time.
Once everything has been established, the book moves on to a case Atticus is defending. A black man, Tom, has been accused of raping Mayella Ewell, part of a trashy white family with very poor education and even less money. This is where the casual prejudice of the time is evident – Jem and Scout have to put up with people calling their family a “nigger-lover” (sorry if that language offends, it is a direct quote and I mean no harm); Atticus faces repercussions for his whole-hearted attempt to save Tom; and many of the Maycomb women look down on the black community. However, there’s still a touch of hope – the way Atticus defends Tom’s case makes everybody think, a great feat in the setting where black and white people are in completely different classes. In this part of the story, I really looked up to Atticus, in his seemingly-infinite wisdom.
In the final part of the story, Jem and Scout finally get to meet Boo Radley, and it is here that the title of the book becomes apparent. In the middle of the book, after Jem and Scout get air-rifles, it is said:
<blockquote>When he gave us our air-rifles Atticus wouldn’t teach us to shoot. Uncle Jack instructed us in the rudiments thereof; he said Atticus wasn’t interested in guns. Atticus said to Jem one day, “I’d rather you shoot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you’ll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit ‘em, but remember it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”
That was the only time I ever heard Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it.
“Your father’s right,” she said. “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs, they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”</blockquote>
Obviously, not knowing what was coming, I thought the story must eventually be about the children shooting a mockingbird. The last page of the book, though, I realised that it was a lot more subtle and symbolic than that. The mockingjay is Boo Radley, the man who gives when he can and causes no harm.
I really wish I’d read this story as a child, to see what sort of perspective I’d have had back then. Reading as an adult means that, while Scout was a brilliant perspective, I was almost reading as an outsider. I could see her maturing, slowly fitting the pieces together to start acting like an adult, but at the same time it was an undeniably adult reading. I really really enjoyed the book, but I have a feeling it’s one of those multi-faceted ones where you read something different every time. I can’t help thinking that reading it as a child would have been a lot more powerful.
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Jumanji: The Next Level (2019) in Movies
Dec 9, 2019
Half baked
jumanji next level is like an uninteresting game cutscene thats also unskippable its dull, frustrating, overlong and makes you wish you were doing something else. I actualy quite enjoyed the first instalment I it had some genuinely good ideas, great set pieces and some really fun action so i find it sad to say the sequel is not worth your time at all. Starting in the real world here lies its fist problem: not only are all the teens really boring and generic characters they are all also played by people that just cant act which absolutely kills any attachment to the characters and makes them seem more like one dimensional npcs in a cheap videogame. This would all be fine if the film jumped quickly into the game and the action but instead we get stuck with them for so long that i was begining to get restless way before we even begin to enter the jumanji. Once we do enter the game things do pick up but not by much as what we get is essentially a long drawn out re-skin of the first movie stuffed full of repetative humour and references. Its also contains some of the worst shot/lazy action scenes i have seen this year with not only poor cgi that offers no sense of weight but also no sense of thrill or excitement either. Long unnecessary scenes also plague the film too adding nothing to the story or character development and some jokes even go on for way to long even though they muster no laughs at all. Theres definitely some fun in watching the rock, kevin heart, jack black and karen gilinham act like thier in movie real world counterparts as they do a really impressive job of imitating the teen characters better than the teen actors do them selves. Another huge problem comes from each game character having only three lives as this immediately removes all threat/peril from the movie and again kills all tension too. If i had to sum up this sequel i would say its a movie made for people that talk through movies and i garantee if you go and see it at the cinema i bet thats what people will do because it lacks anything to keep even casual movie goers engaged and focused. More like disappointing dlc that you paid for upfront than 'next level' this movie really isnt worth your time. If you own the previous movies id stay home in the warm and watch them instead save yourself an over two hour slog of bad jokes and poor action.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Black Mass (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
He was one of the most dangerous men and most notorious gangsters in American history. For over sixteen years he evaded the FBI and law enforcement until his eventual capture in 2011. Black Mass tells the story of James “Whitey” Bulger and his alliance with the FBI. The film delves deep into the relationship that is built between Bulger and FBI agents which allows him to expand his power beyond the Boston area. Audiences will be awestruck by the actions permitted and overlooked on the part of FBI agents working with Bulger which fall in line with the advice that Bulger gives his son: “If no one saw it, it didn’t happen.”
Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean, Sleepy Hollow, Edward Scissorhands) assumes the role of Bulger and audiences will not be able to take their eyes off of him in this film. Every movement, word, and action that he provides on screen demonstrates his versatility and ability to wear the skin and assume identity of those that he portrays. His portrayal of Whitey Bulger separates him from the “Jack Sparrow” identity that his audiences have become accustomed to. Even more impressive about his acting is the way in which the film’s direction displays more of a human element to this monster. The audience is shown countless acts of brutality undertaken by Bulger or on his orders, but there are moments in which you feel a sense of sorrow for the character. In no way do the moments allow for redemption or offer excuses for his actions, but it allows for the portrayal of a more human element. Humanizing Bulger allows for a much fuller picture of what took place during his life and demonstrates that crime was not the only factor.
The film takes all of us into a very dark place. We see a monster in action. We see countless people fall victim to Bulger and his organization. Depp intimidates not only the other characters being portrayed, but the audience in the way that his eyes always seem so cold and heartless. It is said that when you look into someone’s eyes, you can see their soul. With Whitey Bulger, his soul is absent whenever he is portrayed onscreen. This helps to solidify Depp’s portrayal of Bulger and the way that he lived his life. He was a cold, heartless monster. The only sense of a soul or any humanity comes with the direction of the film to make this monster human.
Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean, Sleepy Hollow, Edward Scissorhands) assumes the role of Bulger and audiences will not be able to take their eyes off of him in this film. Every movement, word, and action that he provides on screen demonstrates his versatility and ability to wear the skin and assume identity of those that he portrays. His portrayal of Whitey Bulger separates him from the “Jack Sparrow” identity that his audiences have become accustomed to. Even more impressive about his acting is the way in which the film’s direction displays more of a human element to this monster. The audience is shown countless acts of brutality undertaken by Bulger or on his orders, but there are moments in which you feel a sense of sorrow for the character. In no way do the moments allow for redemption or offer excuses for his actions, but it allows for the portrayal of a more human element. Humanizing Bulger allows for a much fuller picture of what took place during his life and demonstrates that crime was not the only factor.
The film takes all of us into a very dark place. We see a monster in action. We see countless people fall victim to Bulger and his organization. Depp intimidates not only the other characters being portrayed, but the audience in the way that his eyes always seem so cold and heartless. It is said that when you look into someone’s eyes, you can see their soul. With Whitey Bulger, his soul is absent whenever he is portrayed onscreen. This helps to solidify Depp’s portrayal of Bulger and the way that he lived his life. He was a cold, heartless monster. The only sense of a soul or any humanity comes with the direction of the film to make this monster human.