Search
Search results
Coping with Chloe
Book
Anna and Chloe are twins. They share everything. Even Chloe's terrible accident hasn't split them...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nomadland (2020) in Movies
May 5, 2021
Frances McDormand - outstanding acting (2 more)
Cinematography
A novel slice of American alternative lifestyle
Don't exit with your sail-boat still in the driveway
"Nomadland" sees a widowed and depressed Fern (Frances McDormand) take what she needs from her lockup garage and head out on the road in her beat-up converted camper-van. Taking work wherever she can get it, she joins and befriends a similar set of 'nomads', all equally battered by life in different ways.
Positives:
- Undeniably a superior motion picture, full of memorable imagery and with an incredible central performance from the impeccably dour Frances McDormand. Few actors can 'listen' and react as well as she can.
- A key part of this is the superb cinematography from (Brit-born) Joshua James Richards. This is a movie which I MUST revisit on the big-screen when the cinemas reopen in the UK in 2 week's time. I thought "Mank" was terrific (rather against the grain of many other movie fans) largely because of Erik Messerschmitt's glorious black-and-white cinematography. But I suspect Mr Richards (interestingly, Chloé Zhao's partner) was mightily hacked-off for missing out on the golden prize, as well he might be.
- It's difficult to rate the script on this one, primarily because it's difficult to know sometimes where the scripted bits end and the 'ad lib' parts begin. The majority of the cast are real nomads, recounting - presumably - their genuine life experiences. (The only exceptions, I believe, are Frances McDormand, David Strathairn and his son Tay Strathairn. The two Strathairn's last appeared on screen together in 1988's "Eight Men Out" when Tay was just eight years old!). As such, the film is an interesting blend of fiction and documentary.
- The movie skewers both capitalism and materialism nicely. As someone who has recently got off the corporate rat-race by retiring, the tale of the man who died before he could use the retirement sail-boat parked in his driveway resonated strongly (and made me very pleased with my decision!). We all get so wrapped up with running around the maze trying to find the cheese that it's often difficult to appreciate that 'getting off and cutting back' is a stress-free and acceptable option. (Not that I'm particularly cutting back, a la Fern..... start saving the retirement coppers early kids!!)
- The movie is also an effective study of grief and the different ways in which people come to terms with it. (Although that does make the overall film feel like a bit of a downer).
- Beautiful classical accompanying music by the great Ludovico Einaudi.
Negatives:
- I really loved this movie for its first hour. But then, for me, the story didn't really maintain my full interest. It was all a bit grey and bland. Did Fern really have much of a story-arc here? She started off at point A and ended up at point B where AB is a short distance! True that perhaps she has a little more acceptance and contentment with her position. But I was looking for more. If this had been a 90 minute film rather than a 107 minute movie, it would have (imho) worked better.
Summary Thoughts on "Nomadland": When a movie gets so much awards-hype thrown at it, I often fear watching it in case I absolutely hate it! That's not really possible with Nomadland, since it is just so well made that you can't help but appreciate what Chloé Zhao and her team have done here. It successfully challenges your misconceptions of what a "normal life" can be. The life might not be for you, or me, but it is an option.
That being said, this is not a movie that will be on my "must re-watch repeatedly" list (although I definitely DO want to see it on the big screen). It sits on that 'worthy-but-dull' list, alongside "Lincoln" and "Moonlight": Movies that I can fully appreciate for their artistry but not for their entertainment value.
As a movie that explores an unexplored social strata in America, and does it in a novel semi-documentary manner, I can understand and accept why it was voted as the Best Film by the Academy. But 'entertainment' ranks highly on my list of criteria. So - for my personal Oscar Best Film choice - I would still go with "Promising Young Woman" every time.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/05/nomadland-dont-exit-with-your-sailboat-still-in-your-driveway/ . Thanks.)
Positives:
- Undeniably a superior motion picture, full of memorable imagery and with an incredible central performance from the impeccably dour Frances McDormand. Few actors can 'listen' and react as well as she can.
- A key part of this is the superb cinematography from (Brit-born) Joshua James Richards. This is a movie which I MUST revisit on the big-screen when the cinemas reopen in the UK in 2 week's time. I thought "Mank" was terrific (rather against the grain of many other movie fans) largely because of Erik Messerschmitt's glorious black-and-white cinematography. But I suspect Mr Richards (interestingly, Chloé Zhao's partner) was mightily hacked-off for missing out on the golden prize, as well he might be.
- It's difficult to rate the script on this one, primarily because it's difficult to know sometimes where the scripted bits end and the 'ad lib' parts begin. The majority of the cast are real nomads, recounting - presumably - their genuine life experiences. (The only exceptions, I believe, are Frances McDormand, David Strathairn and his son Tay Strathairn. The two Strathairn's last appeared on screen together in 1988's "Eight Men Out" when Tay was just eight years old!). As such, the film is an interesting blend of fiction and documentary.
- The movie skewers both capitalism and materialism nicely. As someone who has recently got off the corporate rat-race by retiring, the tale of the man who died before he could use the retirement sail-boat parked in his driveway resonated strongly (and made me very pleased with my decision!). We all get so wrapped up with running around the maze trying to find the cheese that it's often difficult to appreciate that 'getting off and cutting back' is a stress-free and acceptable option. (Not that I'm particularly cutting back, a la Fern..... start saving the retirement coppers early kids!!)
- The movie is also an effective study of grief and the different ways in which people come to terms with it. (Although that does make the overall film feel like a bit of a downer).
- Beautiful classical accompanying music by the great Ludovico Einaudi.
Negatives:
- I really loved this movie for its first hour. But then, for me, the story didn't really maintain my full interest. It was all a bit grey and bland. Did Fern really have much of a story-arc here? She started off at point A and ended up at point B where AB is a short distance! True that perhaps she has a little more acceptance and contentment with her position. But I was looking for more. If this had been a 90 minute film rather than a 107 minute movie, it would have (imho) worked better.
Summary Thoughts on "Nomadland": When a movie gets so much awards-hype thrown at it, I often fear watching it in case I absolutely hate it! That's not really possible with Nomadland, since it is just so well made that you can't help but appreciate what Chloé Zhao and her team have done here. It successfully challenges your misconceptions of what a "normal life" can be. The life might not be for you, or me, but it is an option.
That being said, this is not a movie that will be on my "must re-watch repeatedly" list (although I definitely DO want to see it on the big screen). It sits on that 'worthy-but-dull' list, alongside "Lincoln" and "Moonlight": Movies that I can fully appreciate for their artistry but not for their entertainment value.
As a movie that explores an unexplored social strata in America, and does it in a novel semi-documentary manner, I can understand and accept why it was voted as the Best Film by the Academy. But 'entertainment' ranks highly on my list of criteria. So - for my personal Oscar Best Film choice - I would still go with "Promising Young Woman" every time.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/05/nomadland-dont-exit-with-your-sailboat-still-in-your-driveway/ . Thanks.)
Bible from eBible.com with NIV NKJV KJV ESV NLT Amplified Message Chinese Spanish
Reference and Book
App
Super fast search and navigation. NIV, NKJV, KJV, ESV, NLT, Amplified, The Message and more. Get...
Ronyell (38 KP) rated How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000) in Movies
Jul 24, 2020
The Jim Carrey Grinch!
In the town of Whoville, all the Whos were getting ready it celebrate Christmas, but there was one Who that was curious about the true meaning of Christmas and that was Cindy Lou Who herself. Not only was Cindy Lou wondering about the true meaning of Christmas, but she was curious about one person who doesn't live in Whoville and that's the Grinch himself. The Whos almost never talk about the Grinch or want to be reminded of him, but Cindy Lou wanted to be friends with the Grinch and tried to invite him to the Whoville celebration. But, when the Grinch is humiliated at the celebration, he decided that he will steal all the Whos' presents on Christmas Eve.
Wow! I was actually pretty surprised that I enjoyed this movie! I never would have thought that Jim Carrey would do a great job at portraying the Grinch! Jim Carrey made the Grinch's character much more humorous and hammy, which made the film much funnier in tone and the Grinchs' jokes easily land at the right times. Taylor Momsen was fantastic as Cindy Lou Who as Cindy is shown as being a friendly and determined girl who only wanted to be friends with the Grinch and I liked the fact that she truly cares for the Grinch and only wanted to make him happy. James Horner's music was probably the highlight of this film as it surprisingly goes well with the emotional scenes in the movie, such as during the scene where we learn about the Grinch's tragic backstory. The special effects were surprisingly well done for the year 2000 and the film did a fantastic job at showcasing the bizarre yet beautiful world of Whoville and greatly captured the creative style from the original Dr. Seuss book.
My biggest issue with this movie is that the Whos seem to be portrayed in a negative way as they are much more cruel towards the Grinch in this version than in the original book and the 1960s cartoon special. Also, there were times where Jim Carrey's performance as the Grinch got so hammy that I couldn't take his more emotional scenes seriously, like he constantly gets upset whenever the Whos teased him. I also didn't like the fact that Martha, the Grinch's love interest, didn't have much of a role in the film other than just standing around and looking at the scenery and being a love interest.
I always have a problem with certain love interests not having much to do in the film other than just being defined as a love interest to the protagonist and not having a personality of their own. It would have been great if Martha had more scenes with the Grinch so that their relationship would be much more believable to me.
Overall, "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" is one of the most hilarious interpretations of the Grinch ever made on film and it is definitely worth the watch!
Originally posted on: https://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/movie-review-how-grinch-stole-christmas.html
Wow! I was actually pretty surprised that I enjoyed this movie! I never would have thought that Jim Carrey would do a great job at portraying the Grinch! Jim Carrey made the Grinch's character much more humorous and hammy, which made the film much funnier in tone and the Grinchs' jokes easily land at the right times. Taylor Momsen was fantastic as Cindy Lou Who as Cindy is shown as being a friendly and determined girl who only wanted to be friends with the Grinch and I liked the fact that she truly cares for the Grinch and only wanted to make him happy. James Horner's music was probably the highlight of this film as it surprisingly goes well with the emotional scenes in the movie, such as during the scene where we learn about the Grinch's tragic backstory. The special effects were surprisingly well done for the year 2000 and the film did a fantastic job at showcasing the bizarre yet beautiful world of Whoville and greatly captured the creative style from the original Dr. Seuss book.
My biggest issue with this movie is that the Whos seem to be portrayed in a negative way as they are much more cruel towards the Grinch in this version than in the original book and the 1960s cartoon special. Also, there were times where Jim Carrey's performance as the Grinch got so hammy that I couldn't take his more emotional scenes seriously, like he constantly gets upset whenever the Whos teased him. I also didn't like the fact that Martha, the Grinch's love interest, didn't have much of a role in the film other than just standing around and looking at the scenery and being a love interest.
I always have a problem with certain love interests not having much to do in the film other than just being defined as a love interest to the protagonist and not having a personality of their own. It would have been great if Martha had more scenes with the Grinch so that their relationship would be much more believable to me.
Overall, "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" is one of the most hilarious interpretations of the Grinch ever made on film and it is definitely worth the watch!
Originally posted on: https://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/movie-review-how-grinch-stole-christmas.html
Gotham is the kind of show where I wonder whether they tried to save money by just having the interns write the script. It's got that stilted, on-the-nose kind of dialogue that makes me just feel bad for the actors. For a while I thought the quality of the writing varied from scene to scene, but it was really just that a certain few actors (those that play Fish Mooney, Ed Nygma, and Harvey Bullock spring to mind) that were able to transcend the material they were working with, while others struggled and some just seemed to give up.
Season one starts off promisingly enough for a superhero themed crime show. The premise is solid - we get to watch how these superheroes and supervillians come to be. And that is really the draw that keeps me watching - the character driven moments where we see Nygma descend into madness, the Penguin rise through the ranks of the underworld, Mooney wrestle to keep control of her little patch of Gotham. The conflict James Gordon faces in the first season - a Lawful Good character up against rampant, insidious, and impossible to root up corruption throughout every level of Gotham's government is genuinely interesting and feels like a relevant emotional thread that keeps you going through all of the schlocky and improbable events. All three seasons seem to have a firm grasp of their season plot arc and tentpole moments, setting up the next season nicely for whatever main villain and evil will be explored, but I feel like the tone of the show has shifted wildly. The show can't decide if it's gritty or campy, whether it's a comic book or a crime procedural. It handwaves technology and superpowers in a way that fails to establish in-world rules or limitations. So every super power is all-powerful until plot convenient. I also just personally hate the third season "blood virus" arc and the non-canonical Mad Hatter who speaks in rhyming couplets.
Speaking of which, I'd love to tell the writers that a mass of contradictory, plot-convenient impulses does not a strong female character make. Barbara Kean's story arc makes absolutely no sense. Lee Thompkins seems only to exist to push Gordon to do things he wouldn't otherwise, and Selina Kyle is easily swapped out with every spunky street urchin ever.
I almost want to be offended that every single queer character is, or ends up being, a baddie, but honestly I think that's probably just because the antagonists are more interesting and fleshed out characters to begin with. Still, there's some serious issues with representation (shocker). The third season introduces a really icky variant of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope (watch the video by the Pop Culture Detective, it's worth it.)
Still, I think the casting is pretty great, acting ability aside. The costuming is good, although everything is hampered by the show's refusal to nail down any sort of time period. The dream sequences in the first two seasons are beautiful. I love Oswald Cobblepot and Ed Nygma, and I'd love to see the actor who plays Bruce Wayne master more than just his admittedly very good "holding back tears" expression.
If you're looking for something campy, if you like your villians and your superheroes, and if you need something to watch while you fold laundry or go to sleep, I would recommend this show. It's a show that thrives on tired old tropes, but it lifts those tropes from its source material, so fans of comics might enjoy it, or might be aggrieved at the retconning of beloved old character's backstories.
Whatever you do, don't call Nymga insane. He's better now. He has a certificate.
Season one starts off promisingly enough for a superhero themed crime show. The premise is solid - we get to watch how these superheroes and supervillians come to be. And that is really the draw that keeps me watching - the character driven moments where we see Nygma descend into madness, the Penguin rise through the ranks of the underworld, Mooney wrestle to keep control of her little patch of Gotham. The conflict James Gordon faces in the first season - a Lawful Good character up against rampant, insidious, and impossible to root up corruption throughout every level of Gotham's government is genuinely interesting and feels like a relevant emotional thread that keeps you going through all of the schlocky and improbable events. All three seasons seem to have a firm grasp of their season plot arc and tentpole moments, setting up the next season nicely for whatever main villain and evil will be explored, but I feel like the tone of the show has shifted wildly. The show can't decide if it's gritty or campy, whether it's a comic book or a crime procedural. It handwaves technology and superpowers in a way that fails to establish in-world rules or limitations. So every super power is all-powerful until plot convenient. I also just personally hate the third season "blood virus" arc and the non-canonical Mad Hatter who speaks in rhyming couplets.
Speaking of which, I'd love to tell the writers that a mass of contradictory, plot-convenient impulses does not a strong female character make. Barbara Kean's story arc makes absolutely no sense. Lee Thompkins seems only to exist to push Gordon to do things he wouldn't otherwise, and Selina Kyle is easily swapped out with every spunky street urchin ever.
I almost want to be offended that every single queer character is, or ends up being, a baddie, but honestly I think that's probably just because the antagonists are more interesting and fleshed out characters to begin with. Still, there's some serious issues with representation (shocker). The third season introduces a really icky variant of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope (watch the video by the Pop Culture Detective, it's worth it.)
Still, I think the casting is pretty great, acting ability aside. The costuming is good, although everything is hampered by the show's refusal to nail down any sort of time period. The dream sequences in the first two seasons are beautiful. I love Oswald Cobblepot and Ed Nygma, and I'd love to see the actor who plays Bruce Wayne master more than just his admittedly very good "holding back tears" expression.
If you're looking for something campy, if you like your villians and your superheroes, and if you need something to watch while you fold laundry or go to sleep, I would recommend this show. It's a show that thrives on tired old tropes, but it lifts those tropes from its source material, so fans of comics might enjoy it, or might be aggrieved at the retconning of beloved old character's backstories.
Whatever you do, don't call Nymga insane. He's better now. He has a certificate.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
This one belongs to James Spader
I doubt that Joss Whedon and the team down at Marvel knew just how successful 2012’s Avengers Assemble would go on to be. After just a few months of release it became the third highest-grossing film of all time, by no means an easy feat to achieve.
Therefore, Whedon and co had their work cut out trying to build on the solid foundations they had laid when it came to producing a sequel. However, three years and $250m later Avengers: Age of Ultron hits our screens. But is it the follow-up everyone was asking for?
Age of Ultron follows the dynamic team of superheroes as they continue to save the world following the near cataclysmic events of the 2009 predecessor and of course every Marvel film released since. Here however, they are tasked with taking down a robot hell bent on destroying the world – a tough day at the office to say the least.
All the fan favourites return as well as some new faces in a film that is technically spectacular but a little overambitious at times. There are 11, count them 11, major characters vying for screen time in Age of Ultron and while Whedon manages to give each of them their own story arc, at times it feels a little rushed.
Joining the cast is James Spader as the voice of Ultron, a robot accidentally created by Tony Stark, and he is by far the most intriguing character in an already impressive line-up. Robert Downey Jr. continues to be on fine form as the wise-cracking Iron Man/Stark with Chris Hemsworth providing the eye-candy as Thor.
It’s also nice to see Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner’s Black Widow and Hawkeye get some much-needed fleshing out after their fairly limited roles in previous Marvel films, and Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk is a joy to watch.
Kick-Ass’ Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Godzilla’s Elizabeth Olsen also join the cast as Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, two characters fans of the X-Men universe will recognise. However, due to legal requirements their origins are changed and the fact that they are mutants is never revealed, unfortunately limiting their appeal.
When it comes to special effects, Whedon has made sure every sequence is brimming with the highest quality CGI, and despite a couple of lapses early on in the film, the majority of the picture is flawless with some stunning global locations beautifully juxtaposed with the characters doing their thing.
What stands out in Age of Ultron however is the plot. Avengers Assemble was a fine film right up until the generic city-levelling, headache inducing climax that looked like it could have come straight out of a Michael Bay movie.
Thankfully, whilst the action is dialled up a few notches here, the plot is much more detailed and the final scenes are utterly breath-taking.
Overall, Avengers: Age of Ultron had a massive amount to live up to and in some respects it falls a little short, its overambitious nature is its downfall with too many characters needing screen time. However, as a good-time blockbuster it’s hard to find one better and James Spader is genuinely mesmerising as Ultron.
Is it the best film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Well, it’s definitely an improvement on its predecessor – but for me, Guardians of the Galaxy just takes that title by a whisker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/26/this-one-belongs-to-james-spader-avengers-age-of-ultron-review/
Therefore, Whedon and co had their work cut out trying to build on the solid foundations they had laid when it came to producing a sequel. However, three years and $250m later Avengers: Age of Ultron hits our screens. But is it the follow-up everyone was asking for?
Age of Ultron follows the dynamic team of superheroes as they continue to save the world following the near cataclysmic events of the 2009 predecessor and of course every Marvel film released since. Here however, they are tasked with taking down a robot hell bent on destroying the world – a tough day at the office to say the least.
All the fan favourites return as well as some new faces in a film that is technically spectacular but a little overambitious at times. There are 11, count them 11, major characters vying for screen time in Age of Ultron and while Whedon manages to give each of them their own story arc, at times it feels a little rushed.
Joining the cast is James Spader as the voice of Ultron, a robot accidentally created by Tony Stark, and he is by far the most intriguing character in an already impressive line-up. Robert Downey Jr. continues to be on fine form as the wise-cracking Iron Man/Stark with Chris Hemsworth providing the eye-candy as Thor.
It’s also nice to see Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner’s Black Widow and Hawkeye get some much-needed fleshing out after their fairly limited roles in previous Marvel films, and Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk is a joy to watch.
Kick-Ass’ Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Godzilla’s Elizabeth Olsen also join the cast as Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, two characters fans of the X-Men universe will recognise. However, due to legal requirements their origins are changed and the fact that they are mutants is never revealed, unfortunately limiting their appeal.
When it comes to special effects, Whedon has made sure every sequence is brimming with the highest quality CGI, and despite a couple of lapses early on in the film, the majority of the picture is flawless with some stunning global locations beautifully juxtaposed with the characters doing their thing.
What stands out in Age of Ultron however is the plot. Avengers Assemble was a fine film right up until the generic city-levelling, headache inducing climax that looked like it could have come straight out of a Michael Bay movie.
Thankfully, whilst the action is dialled up a few notches here, the plot is much more detailed and the final scenes are utterly breath-taking.
Overall, Avengers: Age of Ultron had a massive amount to live up to and in some respects it falls a little short, its overambitious nature is its downfall with too many characters needing screen time. However, as a good-time blockbuster it’s hard to find one better and James Spader is genuinely mesmerising as Ultron.
Is it the best film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Well, it’s definitely an improvement on its predecessor – but for me, Guardians of the Galaxy just takes that title by a whisker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/26/this-one-belongs-to-james-spader-avengers-age-of-ultron-review/
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated Road House (1989) in Movies
May 30, 2018
Very underrated
Contains spoilers, click to show
So what kind of film do you get when you have great one liners, bar fights, guns, knives, egos, strippers, blues music, a polar bear and a monster truck? You get one of the most enjoyable and entertaining films of the late 80's, Road House. The film follows James Dalton (Patrick Swayze) a cooler (bouncer) and the best in the business, as he takes employment with Frank Tilghman (Kevin Tighe) the owner of the Double Deuce in Jasper, Missouri. The bar is the roughest in town and he needs Dalton to clean it up. However corrupt business man and crime boss Brad Wesley (Ben Gazzara) stands in his way. After the classic "chick flick" Dirty Dancing, Patrick Swayze was Hollywood gold. Women loved him and men wanted to be him. The film was full of romance. Then along came Road House, a complete opposite to Dirty Dancing, a little romance and loads of action. The film has a great cast including Patrick Swayze, Kevin Tighe, Ben Gazzara, Kelly Lynch, Marshall R. Teague, Red West, Kathleen Wilhoite, John William Young, John Doe, Kurt James Stefka, Keith David & Terry Funk. The cast works well together and it is full of great performances. Naturally Patrick Swayze at the height of his career stands miles apart from the rest of the cast as Dalton. A character that can hurt you with his words just as much as his fists. Tragically, 20 years later Swayze had his life cut short by cancer. His death is still a major loss to the entertainment industry, but his legacy will live on in the great performances and memorable characters he played. The film also a features a great performance by the late great blues guitarist Jeff Healey as Cody. It's the music in the film that goes a long way to achieving the right feel for the film. Everything works well from the characters, the music to the setting. Set in a rural area the scenery is breath-taking and it is used to great effect. But it's the fight choreography that stands out from many other films. Great bar fights are pretty much a thing of the past, but here they are full of action and humour just like the classic westerns. The one on one fights are brutal, mainly for the realism they portray. The script is awesome and full of classic lines mainly from Dalton and although many are cheesy, when he says it, it feels right. The director surprisingly hasn't made many films but the ones I have seen of his I really like and I know I am in the minority. See my review of Gladiator (1992) for more by this director. This is truly a great film, although very underrated. It is also one of my personal all-time favourites. There are a couple of versions of this so ensure that you see the USA or UK version released after 2002 as these are the uncut editions. So grab a few beers and a few friends, but this on a big screen and turn the sound way up for a really great movie experience.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Monsters University (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Monsters University brings Billy Crystal, John Goodman, and the whole gang back in what I can only describe as a huge win.
Twelve years after Disney and Pixar brought us the wildly successful Monsters Inc., Pixar finally follows up with this year’s must-see family movie, which comes to us in the form of a prequel.
Monsters University opens by showing us a very young Mike Wazowski, who gets lost on a school trip to a very familiar scare floor at Monsters Inc. After surviving a trip to the human realm, he receives a hat from one of the professional scarers, emblazoned with MU. From that point on, a wide-eyed Wazowski dedicates his life to getting into Monsters University.
Fast forward many years and Mike is at his first day of college. MU becomes the backdrop for the education, friendships, scare games, and destiny-setting events that lead into the original movie we already know and love.
I was a bit skeptical going in I was a fan of the original, but prequels are damned hard to pull off, and kid/family movies aren’t typically my preference. Fortunately, after the first 15 minutes, the humor started picking up. The writers, designers, and artists did a masterful job of combining kid-humor antics with adult humor. Like many Pixar films, it contains one-liners and inside jokes that require life experience to really appreciate. (There was nothing dirty, just more adult-themed quips.)
I was impressed by the pacing, the detail, and the seamless flow of the animation, not to mention the excellent voice talent. Crystal, Goodman, Nathan Fillion, Steve Buscemi, Helen Mirren, and all the other actors did top-notch work.
I do have two complaints. There was not one mention of Mike Wazowski’s parents. We don’t know who they were or what they did, nor did we even get a visual of what they looked like. In a world occupied by such a wide variety of monsters, my curiosity was piqued. Even more maddening was the repeated mention of James P (Sulley) Sullivan’s father, who was apparently a very famous scarer. Sully is repeatedly reminded of living up to the family name, yet we never see so much as a picture showcasing his family. Perhaps this was addressed in a scene that didn’t make it from storyboards to the final cut.
Those minor issues aside, Monsters University is done very well, and it is extremely entertaining. From the many laugh-out-loud moments to the solemn, tear-jerking scenes, this movie is a real win.
Twelve years after Disney and Pixar brought us the wildly successful Monsters Inc., Pixar finally follows up with this year’s must-see family movie, which comes to us in the form of a prequel.
Monsters University opens by showing us a very young Mike Wazowski, who gets lost on a school trip to a very familiar scare floor at Monsters Inc. After surviving a trip to the human realm, he receives a hat from one of the professional scarers, emblazoned with MU. From that point on, a wide-eyed Wazowski dedicates his life to getting into Monsters University.
Fast forward many years and Mike is at his first day of college. MU becomes the backdrop for the education, friendships, scare games, and destiny-setting events that lead into the original movie we already know and love.
I was a bit skeptical going in I was a fan of the original, but prequels are damned hard to pull off, and kid/family movies aren’t typically my preference. Fortunately, after the first 15 minutes, the humor started picking up. The writers, designers, and artists did a masterful job of combining kid-humor antics with adult humor. Like many Pixar films, it contains one-liners and inside jokes that require life experience to really appreciate. (There was nothing dirty, just more adult-themed quips.)
I was impressed by the pacing, the detail, and the seamless flow of the animation, not to mention the excellent voice talent. Crystal, Goodman, Nathan Fillion, Steve Buscemi, Helen Mirren, and all the other actors did top-notch work.
I do have two complaints. There was not one mention of Mike Wazowski’s parents. We don’t know who they were or what they did, nor did we even get a visual of what they looked like. In a world occupied by such a wide variety of monsters, my curiosity was piqued. Even more maddening was the repeated mention of James P (Sulley) Sullivan’s father, who was apparently a very famous scarer. Sully is repeatedly reminded of living up to the family name, yet we never see so much as a picture showcasing his family. Perhaps this was addressed in a scene that didn’t make it from storyboards to the final cut.
Those minor issues aside, Monsters University is done very well, and it is extremely entertaining. From the many laugh-out-loud moments to the solemn, tear-jerking scenes, this movie is a real win.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated A Star Is Born (1954) in Movies
Jun 29, 2020
A Long Winding Road In Need of a Detour
An aspiring actress gets a her big break when discovered by an alcoholic film star.
Acting: 10
Apparently her first film since four years prior, Judy Garland makes the stage sizzle playing the main role of Vicki Lester. I loved her passion and charisma and the way she delivers her lines with a charm that just lights up the screen. There are a number of other shining roles as well, including a fun performance from James Brown playing the role of Glenn Wiliams.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 10
Although you don’t really get to fully see her development until two thirds of the way into the movie, Vicki Lester is definitely a character an audience can get behind. I rooted for her success in hopes that she would steer clear of the trap the movie was clearly setting for her. That’s the thing about movies, sometimes the audience can see from a mile away something it takes ages for the characters themselves to see. The movie would have been unbearable without solid characters to carry it through.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 8
There were a lot of pitfalls Vicki had to deal with along the way, namely her alcoholic husband who continues to bring her down. Had they delved into her backstory a lot quicker, I would’ve given this category a perfect score as her upbringing provided another potential pitfall for her future. Overall, with everything going on in the film, it’s clear the winding road is only leading to one place.
Entertainment Value: 8
Memorability: 7
Pace: 4
This version is the longest of the four coming in at almost three hours. Seeing how the other three were able to tell the same story with considerably less time, there is no reason for this version to be so long. It gets boring in a few spots and had me longing for the conclusion. While there are a number of shining moments, a slow pace kept this to a one-watch movie for me.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 78
A Star is Born is just unnecessarily long. I was expecting a legit reason for the length but, after watching the other three movies, I was at a loss. To hold an audience’s attention for almost three hours means you need plenty of meat for your story. The movie is good, but merely one-watch good. Unfortunately that’s not quite good enough.
Acting: 10
Apparently her first film since four years prior, Judy Garland makes the stage sizzle playing the main role of Vicki Lester. I loved her passion and charisma and the way she delivers her lines with a charm that just lights up the screen. There are a number of other shining roles as well, including a fun performance from James Brown playing the role of Glenn Wiliams.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 10
Although you don’t really get to fully see her development until two thirds of the way into the movie, Vicki Lester is definitely a character an audience can get behind. I rooted for her success in hopes that she would steer clear of the trap the movie was clearly setting for her. That’s the thing about movies, sometimes the audience can see from a mile away something it takes ages for the characters themselves to see. The movie would have been unbearable without solid characters to carry it through.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 8
There were a lot of pitfalls Vicki had to deal with along the way, namely her alcoholic husband who continues to bring her down. Had they delved into her backstory a lot quicker, I would’ve given this category a perfect score as her upbringing provided another potential pitfall for her future. Overall, with everything going on in the film, it’s clear the winding road is only leading to one place.
Entertainment Value: 8
Memorability: 7
Pace: 4
This version is the longest of the four coming in at almost three hours. Seeing how the other three were able to tell the same story with considerably less time, there is no reason for this version to be so long. It gets boring in a few spots and had me longing for the conclusion. While there are a number of shining moments, a slow pace kept this to a one-watch movie for me.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 78
A Star is Born is just unnecessarily long. I was expecting a legit reason for the length but, after watching the other three movies, I was at a loss. To hold an audience’s attention for almost three hours means you need plenty of meat for your story. The movie is good, but merely one-watch good. Unfortunately that’s not quite good enough.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Gray Man (2022) in Movies
Aug 6, 2022
Entertaining Enough...but...NOTHING NEW
Have you seen the touring company of Hamilton when it came to your town? You liked it, didn’t you? I sure did, but I didn’t like it as much as I liked the Broadway Company of Hamilton that I saw in NYC the year before.
Such is the case with the new Ryan Gosling/Chris Evans action flick THE GRAY MAN. It is reminiscent of the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films - and is very enjoyable - but I like the other movies better.
Directed by THE RUSSO BROTHERS (AVENGERS: ENDGAME) and written by Joe Russo, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (writers of AVENGERS: ENDGAME), based on the book by Mark Greaney, THE GRAY MAN stars Gosling (LA LA LAND) as an enigmatic secret agent (is their any other kind) who is sent on a deadly mission that, perhaps isn’t what it seems on the surface (are there any other)?
This is a plot VERY reminiscent of the aforementioned MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films and when Chris Evans (CAPTAIN AMERICA, of course) and Ana de Armas (the latest James Bond flick, NO TIME TO DIE) show up as a few other mercenaries who might be on Gosling’s side - or might not - you can’t help but be reminded of those other flicks.
And that’s the trouble with THE GRAY MAN, it just can’t compete (at least in my memory) with those other films, mostly because it doesn’t do anything new. It is your basic “Super Spy” flick, very professionally done, but it isn’t anything you haven’t seen before.
The actors (Gosling, de Armas and Evans) are very good in their roles and have enigmatic (Gosling), out of control (Evans) and mysterious (de Armas) down very well and are ably assisted by wily veterans like Alfre Woodard (CROSS CREEK) and good ol’ Billy Bob Thornton (SLINGBLADE) who seem to having a good time going along for the ride.
And…it’s a fun ride…the action scenes are well done, set-up and choreographed professionally with just enough unique ways to take out a henchman or blow-up some sort of transport to make it interesting to watch, but…again…it’s really nothing new.
An entertaining 2 hours of film-making - and a film that will have a sequel on the way - there are worst ways to spend your time and with good (enough) action sequences and interesting and charismatic performers to watch - THE GRAY MAN suits its purpose…it entertains.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with the new Ryan Gosling/Chris Evans action flick THE GRAY MAN. It is reminiscent of the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films - and is very enjoyable - but I like the other movies better.
Directed by THE RUSSO BROTHERS (AVENGERS: ENDGAME) and written by Joe Russo, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (writers of AVENGERS: ENDGAME), based on the book by Mark Greaney, THE GRAY MAN stars Gosling (LA LA LAND) as an enigmatic secret agent (is their any other kind) who is sent on a deadly mission that, perhaps isn’t what it seems on the surface (are there any other)?
This is a plot VERY reminiscent of the aforementioned MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE and JOHN WICK films and when Chris Evans (CAPTAIN AMERICA, of course) and Ana de Armas (the latest James Bond flick, NO TIME TO DIE) show up as a few other mercenaries who might be on Gosling’s side - or might not - you can’t help but be reminded of those other flicks.
And that’s the trouble with THE GRAY MAN, it just can’t compete (at least in my memory) with those other films, mostly because it doesn’t do anything new. It is your basic “Super Spy” flick, very professionally done, but it isn’t anything you haven’t seen before.
The actors (Gosling, de Armas and Evans) are very good in their roles and have enigmatic (Gosling), out of control (Evans) and mysterious (de Armas) down very well and are ably assisted by wily veterans like Alfre Woodard (CROSS CREEK) and good ol’ Billy Bob Thornton (SLINGBLADE) who seem to having a good time going along for the ride.
And…it’s a fun ride…the action scenes are well done, set-up and choreographed professionally with just enough unique ways to take out a henchman or blow-up some sort of transport to make it interesting to watch, but…again…it’s really nothing new.
An entertaining 2 hours of film-making - and a film that will have a sequel on the way - there are worst ways to spend your time and with good (enough) action sequences and interesting and charismatic performers to watch - THE GRAY MAN suits its purpose…it entertains.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)