Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Year One (2009) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
I had no idea what to expect with “Year One”. Would it be another flop like “Nacho Libre”? How does Michael Cera fit into this kind of film? Could this be unexpected comedy gold reminiscent of the 1981 Mel Brook’s classic “History of the World: Part I”?
“Year One” follows the journey of two cavemen, Zed (Jack Black) and Oh (Michael Cera), through a comedic adaptation of early mankind. Zed and Oh are lowly members of their tribe rebuffed by the women they desire. Desperate to be something more Zed consumes the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge and is immediately out casted from his tribe. Oh joins Zed and the two begin a trip encountering fractured Biblical stories and characters.
Eventually our heroes are led into the lecherous city of Sodom, where they find the tribe and their ladyloves have been taken as slaves. As the two attempt to free the women from a life of slavery eccentric vaguely plotted comedy ensues.
The cast, filled with the usual silly suspects, includes Paul Rudd as Abel, Christopher Mintz-Plasse as Issac, and Vinnie Jones as Sargon. But do not expect their normal brand of comedy because it has been replaced with visually graphic potty humor.
The sets and costumes are well created but near impossible to notice when there is a pile of sheep innards being interpreted by Oliver Platt, who plays the High Priest. The few interesting one-liners fail to save “Year One” from an aura similar to “Austin Powers in Goldmember“.
Why after great films like “School of Rock” and “Be Kind Rewind” is Jack Black purposely trying to end his career? Moreover, why has he decided to take Michael Cera with him? As for Michael Cera this awful sort of humor is not going to lead him out of the valley of “Juno” fandom.
The flick is better than “Nacho Libre”, but it is not comedy gold. If you enjoy simple potty humor you should definitely see the film, but if not plan to borrow the DVD from a friend only to be happy you did not purchase it.
“Year One” follows the journey of two cavemen, Zed (Jack Black) and Oh (Michael Cera), through a comedic adaptation of early mankind. Zed and Oh are lowly members of their tribe rebuffed by the women they desire. Desperate to be something more Zed consumes the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge and is immediately out casted from his tribe. Oh joins Zed and the two begin a trip encountering fractured Biblical stories and characters.
Eventually our heroes are led into the lecherous city of Sodom, where they find the tribe and their ladyloves have been taken as slaves. As the two attempt to free the women from a life of slavery eccentric vaguely plotted comedy ensues.
The cast, filled with the usual silly suspects, includes Paul Rudd as Abel, Christopher Mintz-Plasse as Issac, and Vinnie Jones as Sargon. But do not expect their normal brand of comedy because it has been replaced with visually graphic potty humor.
The sets and costumes are well created but near impossible to notice when there is a pile of sheep innards being interpreted by Oliver Platt, who plays the High Priest. The few interesting one-liners fail to save “Year One” from an aura similar to “Austin Powers in Goldmember“.
Why after great films like “School of Rock” and “Be Kind Rewind” is Jack Black purposely trying to end his career? Moreover, why has he decided to take Michael Cera with him? As for Michael Cera this awful sort of humor is not going to lead him out of the valley of “Juno” fandom.
The flick is better than “Nacho Libre”, but it is not comedy gold. If you enjoy simple potty humor you should definitely see the film, but if not plan to borrow the DVD from a friend only to be happy you did not purchase it.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Bridget Jones's Baby (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
No Big Bloomers?
Bridget Jones’s Diary is a classic example of the perfect British rom-com. Upon its release in 2001, yes 15 years ago, it catapulted Renée Zellweger into the public eye and made household names of its other stars.
Its sequel, The Edge of Reason, on the other hand was a dramatic fall from grace, with a lowly 27% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Since then, the series has fallen into a dormant state with talks of another sequel doing the rounds since as early as 2004.
Fast-forward 12 years and the prayers of fans the world over have finally been answered. However, the comedy genre has moved on from the warm, fuzzy rom-coms of the past and in its place are the foul-mouthed female-led films of the present. But does Bridget Jones’s Baby get the balance right? Or is it a good decade too late?
Breaking up with Mark Darcy (Colin Firth) leaves Bridget Jones (Renée Zellweger) over 40 and single again. Feeling that she has everything under control, Jones decides to focus on her career as a top news producer. Suddenly, her love life comes back from the dead when she meets a handsome American named Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Things couldn’t be better, until Bridget discovers that she is pregnant. From then on, the befuddled mum-to-be must figure out if the proud dad is Mark or Jack.
The casting choices throughout the film are spot on and it’s a pleasure to see Colin Firth back on the big screen. His quintessentially British persona has been a highlight of both previous films and it’s no exception here. Patrick Dempsey’s turn as the dashing American stallion is sheer perfection and both he and Firth remain intensely likeable as the movie progresses, despite their obvious flaws.
Of course, praise must go to Renée Zellweger who, despite 12 years in between filming, manages to channel that iconic character like it was yesterday. She may look different to how we all remember her, but as soon as she speaks, it’s impossible not to feel at home.
Elsewhere, Emma Thompson, Jim Broadbent and Celia Imrie all pop up from time to time with the former providing Bridget Jones’s Baby with some of its best comedic moments. Her character is sharp and very well written indeed.
It would be very easy to go picking around the plot; criticising its blatant lack of originality, but that’s not what director Sharon Maguire was aiming for. Instead, she cleverly crafts a film that remains faithful to its predecessors, all the while introducing a new generation of comedy fans to the titular character.
What does this mean? Well, it toes the line quite well between the heart-warming qualities of the original and the over-the-top hilarity of films like Bridesmaids and Spy. This may not sit well with some die-hard fans of the series, but it’s sure to be a winner for the more modern movie-goer.
Overall, Bridget Jones’s Baby is better than it ever had the right to be. It’s nostalgic, beautifully sweet, ridiculous, over-the-top and quite frankly, absolutely hilarious. I haven’t laughed that much in years, it’s a must see for fans and newcomers alike.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/17/no-big-bloomers-bridget-joness-baby-review/
Its sequel, The Edge of Reason, on the other hand was a dramatic fall from grace, with a lowly 27% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Since then, the series has fallen into a dormant state with talks of another sequel doing the rounds since as early as 2004.
Fast-forward 12 years and the prayers of fans the world over have finally been answered. However, the comedy genre has moved on from the warm, fuzzy rom-coms of the past and in its place are the foul-mouthed female-led films of the present. But does Bridget Jones’s Baby get the balance right? Or is it a good decade too late?
Breaking up with Mark Darcy (Colin Firth) leaves Bridget Jones (Renée Zellweger) over 40 and single again. Feeling that she has everything under control, Jones decides to focus on her career as a top news producer. Suddenly, her love life comes back from the dead when she meets a handsome American named Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Things couldn’t be better, until Bridget discovers that she is pregnant. From then on, the befuddled mum-to-be must figure out if the proud dad is Mark or Jack.
The casting choices throughout the film are spot on and it’s a pleasure to see Colin Firth back on the big screen. His quintessentially British persona has been a highlight of both previous films and it’s no exception here. Patrick Dempsey’s turn as the dashing American stallion is sheer perfection and both he and Firth remain intensely likeable as the movie progresses, despite their obvious flaws.
Of course, praise must go to Renée Zellweger who, despite 12 years in between filming, manages to channel that iconic character like it was yesterday. She may look different to how we all remember her, but as soon as she speaks, it’s impossible not to feel at home.
Elsewhere, Emma Thompson, Jim Broadbent and Celia Imrie all pop up from time to time with the former providing Bridget Jones’s Baby with some of its best comedic moments. Her character is sharp and very well written indeed.
It would be very easy to go picking around the plot; criticising its blatant lack of originality, but that’s not what director Sharon Maguire was aiming for. Instead, she cleverly crafts a film that remains faithful to its predecessors, all the while introducing a new generation of comedy fans to the titular character.
What does this mean? Well, it toes the line quite well between the heart-warming qualities of the original and the over-the-top hilarity of films like Bridesmaids and Spy. This may not sit well with some die-hard fans of the series, but it’s sure to be a winner for the more modern movie-goer.
Overall, Bridget Jones’s Baby is better than it ever had the right to be. It’s nostalgic, beautifully sweet, ridiculous, over-the-top and quite frankly, absolutely hilarious. I haven’t laughed that much in years, it’s a must see for fans and newcomers alike.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/17/no-big-bloomers-bridget-joness-baby-review/
David McK (3207 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Jun 23, 2019
Summmer 2008: at the time of writing this, now 11 years ago, and the cinematic landscape was rather different - the MCU was only just starting off (with Iron Man), and superheroes in the cinema were not as commonplace as they are today ( to the best of my memory).
While Christopher No.an had effectively rebooted perhaps DCs most famous character in Batman Begins, that film had (deliberately, IMO) kept the focus pretty much on Bruce Wayne/Batman rather than on his mos famous foes, ending with a deliberate tease of the introduction of the Joker.
And what an introduction he gets in this.
As portrayed by Heath Ledger (whose untimely death no doubt helped stoke the interest for this movie: his last full screen role), this Joker is very different than Jack Nicholson's 1989 portrayal. It's a definite magnetic tour de force from the actor, sure, although (personally) I've never really viewed the character as a Joker so much as as a genius psychopath.
"I'm an agent of chaos" he says at one point. "I'm a dog chasing a car. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it". And that, to me, is what is missing from the character-as-written.
Alongside Ledger, Aaron Eckhart also puts in a brilliant turn as Harvey Dent, completely blowing Tommy Lee Jones portrayal of the same character (in Batman Forever) out of the water. It's a far more realistic interpretation of what drives Dent to become Two-face, with some frightenly realistic effects.
And, finally, it may be a small thing: but in this Batman gets and operates (briefly) out of Gotham city, making his world seem more 'real' as a result.
While Christopher No.an had effectively rebooted perhaps DCs most famous character in Batman Begins, that film had (deliberately, IMO) kept the focus pretty much on Bruce Wayne/Batman rather than on his mos famous foes, ending with a deliberate tease of the introduction of the Joker.
And what an introduction he gets in this.
As portrayed by Heath Ledger (whose untimely death no doubt helped stoke the interest for this movie: his last full screen role), this Joker is very different than Jack Nicholson's 1989 portrayal. It's a definite magnetic tour de force from the actor, sure, although (personally) I've never really viewed the character as a Joker so much as as a genius psychopath.
"I'm an agent of chaos" he says at one point. "I'm a dog chasing a car. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it". And that, to me, is what is missing from the character-as-written.
Alongside Ledger, Aaron Eckhart also puts in a brilliant turn as Harvey Dent, completely blowing Tommy Lee Jones portrayal of the same character (in Batman Forever) out of the water. It's a far more realistic interpretation of what drives Dent to become Two-face, with some frightenly realistic effects.
And, finally, it may be a small thing: but in this Batman gets and operates (briefly) out of Gotham city, making his world seem more 'real' as a result.
Edgar Wright recommended Head (1968) in Movies (curated)
Kelly Knows (95 KP) rated The House of Doors in Books
Jun 28, 2019
Worlds of Horror
Wow, what a fantastic book. I am still surprised this story has not been optioned for a movie adaptation. House of Doors is a unique tale with a simple concept, the age old question of man meets aliens and how that first contact would go down. What if we were tested? Brutally? Would we measure up? This book answers those questions and more in terrifying fashion. Brian Lumley spins a rich tale of daring and adventure, with a new even more terrifying world behind each door the characters open. The illustrative text will illuminate wondrous monsters in your mind and fill your head to the brim with images of strange worlds twisted by alien machinery, born of the desires and fears within us all. The alien species in this story is unlike anything you've seen before. The characters are witty and engaging. Even the ones you hate are written so well you can't help but question your instinct to despise them. My personal favorite aspects of this book are the world designs. No spoilers, you'll just have to find out what I mean, but it is seriously awesome. Also bringing a lot to this fast paced thrill ride is the main character, Spencer Gill. A wry, clever man with more to him than meets the eye, Spencer Gill reminds me of the Indiana Jones/Jack Ryan, kind of heroes I grew up admiring. All of the characters involved have their moments to shine, whether it be a bright light or a darker moment. Even the sinister alien Thone get a role in the narrative in an unlikely writing style that pays off the investment, with interest. This is the kind of book that gets you into reading books, and if you like it, there is a pretty good sequel as well. Sci-fi and horror clash spectacularly as humanity finds out if they measure up, and the terrible consequences that will occur if they don't.
Ross (3282 KP) rated A Not So Dead Man's Journey in Books
Sep 20, 2019
Needs a good edit/proof-read
The first book in this new author's series immediately throws the reader into an exciting Indiana Jones-style ruined temple where the main character, Alden, is searching for ancient magical texts.
From the end of this scene, however, the tone changes dramatically as Alden returns home to a painfully dull and twee life with his wife and daughter. This section is laboured and very dull, going way beyond setting the scene and embedding the characters.
Alden is then thrown into a new quest as he is kidnapped by pirates and taken far away to take part in a magical ritual. From here, where the story should be hooking you and growing, the pace is all wrong and I felt like I was the one taken prisoner by this book.
Alden goes through something of a transformation (which is not explained in any way, but that is largely fine) and having been away for 10 years he travels home.
A number of things about the story are just absolutely implausible, and inconsistent. Characters who have barely met, let alone like each other are suddenly best friends with so many fond memories. Magical abilities are suddenly revealed which would have been very useful earlier in the story. And the underlying plot needs a lot of work to thrash out the details and character motivations.
The author's narrative tone is quite charming, but a little twee for some of the darker sections of the story, and the character's thoughts are quite irritatingly thrown in and generally add little of substance.
The writing needs a lot of work, there are so many spelling errors and grammar crimes. And the punctuation is all wrong as well, which may sound pedantic but at times it does throw the reader off and make them question what the sentence meant (see "helping your uncle jack off his horse").
I am convinced there is a good story in here somewhere but it needs a really thorough proof-read and substantial editing.
From the end of this scene, however, the tone changes dramatically as Alden returns home to a painfully dull and twee life with his wife and daughter. This section is laboured and very dull, going way beyond setting the scene and embedding the characters.
Alden is then thrown into a new quest as he is kidnapped by pirates and taken far away to take part in a magical ritual. From here, where the story should be hooking you and growing, the pace is all wrong and I felt like I was the one taken prisoner by this book.
Alden goes through something of a transformation (which is not explained in any way, but that is largely fine) and having been away for 10 years he travels home.
A number of things about the story are just absolutely implausible, and inconsistent. Characters who have barely met, let alone like each other are suddenly best friends with so many fond memories. Magical abilities are suddenly revealed which would have been very useful earlier in the story. And the underlying plot needs a lot of work to thrash out the details and character motivations.
The author's narrative tone is quite charming, but a little twee for some of the darker sections of the story, and the character's thoughts are quite irritatingly thrown in and generally add little of substance.
The writing needs a lot of work, there are so many spelling errors and grammar crimes. And the punctuation is all wrong as well, which may sound pedantic but at times it does throw the reader off and make them question what the sentence meant (see "helping your uncle jack off his horse").
I am convinced there is a good story in here somewhere but it needs a really thorough proof-read and substantial editing.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bridget Jones's Baby (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Come the F*** on Bridget… who’s the Daddy?
The world’s favourite lonely-hearts diarist is back. Bridget (Renée Zellweger) once again starts the film ‘all by herself’, haunted by occasional meetings with ex-flame Mark D’Arcy (Colin Firth) – now married to Camilla (Agni Scott) – and facing the natural discomfort of the early funeral of another friend who has died way too young. And at 43, Bridget’s biological clock is also ticking towards parental midnight.
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Jungle Cruise (2021) in Movies
Jul 30, 2021
A Ton of Fun - Reminiscent of the first PIRATES film
Are you looking for a family friendly action/adventure/comedy that will be good entertainment for the entire family? Then look no further than the Disney Live Action film JUNGLE BOOK.
Yes…Disney has made another movie based on one of it’s them park rides and this one is more like the first PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN film than most of the other attempts.
Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra (several Liam Neeson action flicks like NON-STOP), JUNGLE CRUISE is part PIRATES, part INDIANA JONES and part AFRICAN QUEEN (look it up, kids) as we follow an adventurous young lady in the 1910’s. She heads to the Amazon and hires a ne’er do well Jungle Cruise skipper to take her up river.
Pretty standard set-up, right? We’ve seen this “mis-matched” frenemies premise before but in the hands of Emily Blunt and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, it is a very entertaining (albeit familiar) ride with 2 tremendously charismatic performers working off each other very well and they look like they are having as good a time in this film as we are.
They are joined by a bevy of assorted characters that help fill out this journey. Edgar Ramirez and Veronica Falcon are enjoyable enough as a couple of characters along the way, while Jack Whitehall surprised the heck out of me as the wimpy brother to Blunt’s character who becomes more and more three dimensional as the film progressed - something I didn’t think this film would even think about doing.
A pair of wiley veterans - Jesse Plemons and good ol’ Paul Giamatti - are also on board and each add some (but not a lot) to this film. Plemons is the main villain and he just wasn’t villainous enough for my tastes while I wanted much, much more of Giamatti’s character than was in this film (and it is a rare film, indeed, that you are left wanting more with a Giamatti character).
But make no mistake, this is a Rock and Blunt flick and these two professionals hold the center of this film together very, very well.
Director Collet-Serra keeps the action (and comedy) moving along at about the right pace, never dwelling too long on any of the plot points (for if you were to think too much about any of it, it would fall apart) and (for the most part) keeps the action sequences fun and coherent and avoiding over-directing, over-CGI-ing and over-loading these sequences.
Speaking of CGI, the main issue with this film is the special effects work - it is not the best (probably a budget issue) and, at times, you really need to suspend disbelief in watching the CGI and convincing yourself that it is a Live Action film you are watching and not a cartoon.
But, since the intended audience for this film are families, the less-than-perfect CGI (at times) is forgivable as JUNGLE CRUISE provides plenty of PG-Rated action and fun that the entire family will enjoy.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes…Disney has made another movie based on one of it’s them park rides and this one is more like the first PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN film than most of the other attempts.
Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra (several Liam Neeson action flicks like NON-STOP), JUNGLE CRUISE is part PIRATES, part INDIANA JONES and part AFRICAN QUEEN (look it up, kids) as we follow an adventurous young lady in the 1910’s. She heads to the Amazon and hires a ne’er do well Jungle Cruise skipper to take her up river.
Pretty standard set-up, right? We’ve seen this “mis-matched” frenemies premise before but in the hands of Emily Blunt and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, it is a very entertaining (albeit familiar) ride with 2 tremendously charismatic performers working off each other very well and they look like they are having as good a time in this film as we are.
They are joined by a bevy of assorted characters that help fill out this journey. Edgar Ramirez and Veronica Falcon are enjoyable enough as a couple of characters along the way, while Jack Whitehall surprised the heck out of me as the wimpy brother to Blunt’s character who becomes more and more three dimensional as the film progressed - something I didn’t think this film would even think about doing.
A pair of wiley veterans - Jesse Plemons and good ol’ Paul Giamatti - are also on board and each add some (but not a lot) to this film. Plemons is the main villain and he just wasn’t villainous enough for my tastes while I wanted much, much more of Giamatti’s character than was in this film (and it is a rare film, indeed, that you are left wanting more with a Giamatti character).
But make no mistake, this is a Rock and Blunt flick and these two professionals hold the center of this film together very, very well.
Director Collet-Serra keeps the action (and comedy) moving along at about the right pace, never dwelling too long on any of the plot points (for if you were to think too much about any of it, it would fall apart) and (for the most part) keeps the action sequences fun and coherent and avoiding over-directing, over-CGI-ing and over-loading these sequences.
Speaking of CGI, the main issue with this film is the special effects work - it is not the best (probably a budget issue) and, at times, you really need to suspend disbelief in watching the CGI and convincing yourself that it is a Live Action film you are watching and not a cartoon.
But, since the intended audience for this film are families, the less-than-perfect CGI (at times) is forgivable as JUNGLE CRUISE provides plenty of PG-Rated action and fun that the entire family will enjoy.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 18, 2019
Not quite (Inter)stellar...
Ad Astra is a discreet sci-fi film set in an unspecified near future, and is the claustrophobic, deliberate and tense story of Major Roy McBride (played intentionally one-dimensional by Brad Pitt), a soldier and an astronaut, recruited to a top secret mission revolving around the father he never knew, portrayed by Tommy Lee Jones.
This is one of those films where you start watching it and find yourself pleasantly surprised at how little the trailer actually gave away. The story makes a couple of significant changes in direction throughout the 122min runtime. It begins as a standard semi-sci-fi affair, similar in tone and approach to "Arrival (2016)". It's a slow build, yet has comfortable pacing. Then, it takes inspiration from "2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)", "Gravity (2013)" and even "Alien (1979)", when a deep space distress call provides a brief diversion and introduces some horror undertones. Finally, it settles in for the home run, turning into a 'one man against the clock' thriller.
Pitt does a nice job of establishing the character's mindset early on, which is a primary focus of the movie. It's never so much about what's happening as it is about how it's affecting him personally. A big deal is made about how he's this emotionless, unflappable super astronaut, which is perhaps a little unbelievable at times, but serves to amplify the significance of the character's inevitable struggle with how things play out in the final act.
The soundtrack is especially clever throughout, guiding your own emotions with the peaks and troughs of dramatic music, helping build the tension when it needed to.
What I liked about this was that it reminded me of how "Minority Report (2002)" was made, in that it's a sci-fi film, but it doesn't play on the fact it's a sci-fi film. It carries on as if the setting is everyone's normal, which allows you to focus on the story without the distraction of this fantastic, make-believe world going on around you.
However, for all the things I can say it did well, it ultimately fell short of being anything other than a poor imitation of those who have come before it. Inevitable comparisons will be made with "Interstellar (2014)", "The Martian (2015)", and even "Event Horizon (1997)". It took clear inspiration from these genre heavyweights, taking elements of each and making them its own, but never quite does anything as well as these movies did. A prime example of being the jack of all trades and the master of none.
There's never really a true attachment to the characters. Every word is uttered with morose. The locations look both beautiful and barren at the same time - perhaps an unintentional reflection of the movie itself.
This wasn't a particularly bad film. It was okay. It just suffered because it spent way too long trying to be like something else, but never quite figured out exactly what it wanted to be like. The result is a film that, much like the story, drifts aimlessly through a void it never quite understood how to fill. A movie to watch if you're in the mood for something that requires an investment of your time, but don't have access to anything better.
This is one of those films where you start watching it and find yourself pleasantly surprised at how little the trailer actually gave away. The story makes a couple of significant changes in direction throughout the 122min runtime. It begins as a standard semi-sci-fi affair, similar in tone and approach to "Arrival (2016)". It's a slow build, yet has comfortable pacing. Then, it takes inspiration from "2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)", "Gravity (2013)" and even "Alien (1979)", when a deep space distress call provides a brief diversion and introduces some horror undertones. Finally, it settles in for the home run, turning into a 'one man against the clock' thriller.
Pitt does a nice job of establishing the character's mindset early on, which is a primary focus of the movie. It's never so much about what's happening as it is about how it's affecting him personally. A big deal is made about how he's this emotionless, unflappable super astronaut, which is perhaps a little unbelievable at times, but serves to amplify the significance of the character's inevitable struggle with how things play out in the final act.
The soundtrack is especially clever throughout, guiding your own emotions with the peaks and troughs of dramatic music, helping build the tension when it needed to.
What I liked about this was that it reminded me of how "Minority Report (2002)" was made, in that it's a sci-fi film, but it doesn't play on the fact it's a sci-fi film. It carries on as if the setting is everyone's normal, which allows you to focus on the story without the distraction of this fantastic, make-believe world going on around you.
However, for all the things I can say it did well, it ultimately fell short of being anything other than a poor imitation of those who have come before it. Inevitable comparisons will be made with "Interstellar (2014)", "The Martian (2015)", and even "Event Horizon (1997)". It took clear inspiration from these genre heavyweights, taking elements of each and making them its own, but never quite does anything as well as these movies did. A prime example of being the jack of all trades and the master of none.
There's never really a true attachment to the characters. Every word is uttered with morose. The locations look both beautiful and barren at the same time - perhaps an unintentional reflection of the movie itself.
This wasn't a particularly bad film. It was okay. It just suffered because it spent way too long trying to be like something else, but never quite figured out exactly what it wanted to be like. The result is a film that, much like the story, drifts aimlessly through a void it never quite understood how to fill. A movie to watch if you're in the mood for something that requires an investment of your time, but don't have access to anything better.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Old (2021) in Movies
Jul 28, 2021
Cinematography and Sound Design - very Hitchcockian (1 more)
Concept and initial set-up of the movie
Dafter than the Dharma initiative.
"Old" is the latest from the gloriously inconsistent writer/director M. Night Shyamalan. Will this be great Shyamalan (à la "The Sixth Sense") or dire Shyamalan (à la "The Last Airbender")? The answer, in my view, is somewhere in the middle. It's a curate's egg of a movie.
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
