Search
Search results
Rebecca Billcliff (2409 KP) rated Jurassic Park (1993) in Movies
Dec 4, 2019
Dino-mite Film!
Rearley does a film age well, particularly in tge 90s, but the quality of the anamatronics, CGI and practicàl effects let's this one stand the test of time (to an extent anyway).
Wealthy zoo lover John Hammond has invested his cash in the extraction of DNA from fossalised amber, lesing to the creation of dinosaurs!
As you can imagine, this is no walk in the park, and after a "incident" resulting in the death of a park worker, the insurance company want an investigation, and outside approval to declare the park safe to open.
Enter Drs Allan Grant ("Alan!") And Ellie Sattler, renowned paeleogolotists (the latter being a paeliobotpnist, no idea if that is spelt right...) As well as Dr Ian Malcolm.
They, along with the lawyer and John's grand kids take the tour of the park, but things do not go according to plan.
Filled with suspense, memorable moments, and more fake science than you can shake a fossle at, it is an epic tale of survival as "nature finds a way" to break it's bonds and sick a big middle claw up at OSHA.
I loved this film when I first saw it, and now, decades later, I still do. Even though I know the script by heart, I still find myself on the edge if my seat, holding my breath.
Parodied in thousands of other forms of media, I know I am not the only one.
I give this film 10 severed Samulal L. Jackson arms out if 10.
Wealthy zoo lover John Hammond has invested his cash in the extraction of DNA from fossalised amber, lesing to the creation of dinosaurs!
As you can imagine, this is no walk in the park, and after a "incident" resulting in the death of a park worker, the insurance company want an investigation, and outside approval to declare the park safe to open.
Enter Drs Allan Grant ("Alan!") And Ellie Sattler, renowned paeleogolotists (the latter being a paeliobotpnist, no idea if that is spelt right...) As well as Dr Ian Malcolm.
They, along with the lawyer and John's grand kids take the tour of the park, but things do not go according to plan.
Filled with suspense, memorable moments, and more fake science than you can shake a fossle at, it is an epic tale of survival as "nature finds a way" to break it's bonds and sick a big middle claw up at OSHA.
I loved this film when I first saw it, and now, decades later, I still do. Even though I know the script by heart, I still find myself on the edge if my seat, holding my breath.
Parodied in thousands of other forms of media, I know I am not the only one.
I give this film 10 severed Samulal L. Jackson arms out if 10.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Writing (3 more)
Characters
Inconsistencies
Not a horror book, as marketed
What if a powerful virus was released in the air? What if you had to be tested for it every time you tried to walk into a building? Does this sound a little familiar? What if I told you this scenario was written about back in 2010?
In her novel Feed, writer Mira Grant gives readers this very scenario of an airborne, blood transferred virus; something that seems very familiar in today's environment and day-to-day living- - - just minus the zombies.
Grant started out as an urban fantasy writer known as Seanan McGuire, with her first full-length novel being Rosemary and Rue. She received the 2010 John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, as well as many other awards for her work in fiction. There are four books in the Newsflash series (Feed being the first of these).
We meet our main characters, Georgia and Shaun, while they're out in the 'field' filming some zombies for their blog. Shaun is the more careless one, as we witness him poking at zombies with his hockey stick. The two suddenly have to leave when the zombies become a pack. This is where it gets a little strange- - -Georgia explains to the readers that when zombies are in a pack, they become stronger and somehow smarter, but throughout the rest of the book, it's never really explained how this happens.
In this world, blogging and your view count determines your quality of life. Georgia and Shaun have spent years making their blog- - - After the End Times- - - into a popular blog. Every blogger's dream is to be picked to follow the campaign trail of any upcoming politician, and that is exactly what happens to our main characters. Unfortunately, this is when the book turns into a political thriller- - - this happens within the first fifty pages. Zombies end up taking a backseat from here-on-out.
We still get to learn about the virus (Kellis-Amberlee) throughout the book. We're told that any animal that weighs more than 40 pounds is capable of having the virus, and that some people are even born with a dormant-type of the virus inside of them, but this is also never explained in the entire story, at least in book one. Georgia makes it quite clear throughout the novel that she is completely against anyone owning pets that weigh over 40 pounds, but this is due-to her family having lost their younger son to a pet that went viral. This becomes extremely repetitive. Every time that an animal is brought up or seen, Georgia has to retell her stance on owning pets, when once or twice was enough to let the readers know where she stands on the subject.
There are moments of zombie attacks- - - such as after a political rally in a small town where Georgia and her crew are following Senator Ryman on his race to become President, when bodyguards are attacked by a small group of the undead, and Georgia and Shaun become cornered by a few of them- - - these scenes read as if to just keep the zombie trope going, not to actually make the story better. Grant continually repeats herself throughout the book, and because of this, the story didn't have to be as long as it is. Such as with these few zombie attacks, the reader never feels much danger for the characters. And I found that the characters turn out to just not be that likable.
One such character that had potential is Buffy; the backbone of the After the End Times blog. Scenes that were meant to make the reader care for her fell short. Unlike scenes with Georgia and Shaun, including the bond between them, is not felt with Buffy's scenes; she merely seems like a filler character to make certain parts of the story make sense by constantly disappearing and reappearing wherever need be.
Georgia does have an interesting quirk in the book. She harbors the dormant Kellis-Amberlee virus, which has effected her eyes. She can't be in bright lights because they give her blinding headaches, so she wears sunglasses nearly everywhere: " I collapsed onto our bed at the local four-star hotel a little after dawn, my aching eyes already squeezed shut. Shaun was a bit steadier on his feet and he stayed upright long enough to make sure the room's blackout curtains were drawn. "
The technical side of the story - - - the computer world and the electronic usage- - - in Feed is done pretty well. It's like the movie Nightcrawler meets 28 Days Later, but with a lot less zombies. We get to see the seedy underbelly of journalism- - - where bloggers are willing to do anything to get their view count high. Readers also get to witness how life is like living in a world held hostage by a virus - - -something that is very relatable today.
Georgia constantly reminds readers that she doesn't care about other people, and that Shaun is the only person she cares for- - - and, of course, the view count. She continually blames her lack of empathy on their adoptive parents, stating that they only took them in for the their own blog view counts. Oddly after such information, Shaun doesn't seem to be the immature one in the duo.
I haven't read the other three books, one which is a republishing of Feed, but from a different point-of-view. This story was disguised as a horror novel, but just ended up being a political thriller with some zombies thrown in for a much wider reading audience. The book skims over what life would be like after a devastating virus takes over, but focuses on what politics would be like. I can't recommend Feed as a horror novel; the tagline is also misleading: " 'The good news: we survived. The bad news: so did they. " Unless Grant was talking about politicians....
I didn't give the story a low rating because it wasn't exactly a horror book, but instead for these reasons: throughout the story, Grant repeats a lot of information that was explained earlier in the book (and only needed to be explained once); she also had inconsistencies throughout, sometimes even in the very next sentence. Adding things that needed to be explained which weren't, and the afterthoughts that broke up the flow of the story, I just couldn't enjoy it. But, if you like political thrillers, then you might like this one. I won't be continuing this series.
In her novel Feed, writer Mira Grant gives readers this very scenario of an airborne, blood transferred virus; something that seems very familiar in today's environment and day-to-day living- - - just minus the zombies.
Grant started out as an urban fantasy writer known as Seanan McGuire, with her first full-length novel being Rosemary and Rue. She received the 2010 John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, as well as many other awards for her work in fiction. There are four books in the Newsflash series (Feed being the first of these).
We meet our main characters, Georgia and Shaun, while they're out in the 'field' filming some zombies for their blog. Shaun is the more careless one, as we witness him poking at zombies with his hockey stick. The two suddenly have to leave when the zombies become a pack. This is where it gets a little strange- - -Georgia explains to the readers that when zombies are in a pack, they become stronger and somehow smarter, but throughout the rest of the book, it's never really explained how this happens.
In this world, blogging and your view count determines your quality of life. Georgia and Shaun have spent years making their blog- - - After the End Times- - - into a popular blog. Every blogger's dream is to be picked to follow the campaign trail of any upcoming politician, and that is exactly what happens to our main characters. Unfortunately, this is when the book turns into a political thriller- - - this happens within the first fifty pages. Zombies end up taking a backseat from here-on-out.
We still get to learn about the virus (Kellis-Amberlee) throughout the book. We're told that any animal that weighs more than 40 pounds is capable of having the virus, and that some people are even born with a dormant-type of the virus inside of them, but this is also never explained in the entire story, at least in book one. Georgia makes it quite clear throughout the novel that she is completely against anyone owning pets that weigh over 40 pounds, but this is due-to her family having lost their younger son to a pet that went viral. This becomes extremely repetitive. Every time that an animal is brought up or seen, Georgia has to retell her stance on owning pets, when once or twice was enough to let the readers know where she stands on the subject.
There are moments of zombie attacks- - - such as after a political rally in a small town where Georgia and her crew are following Senator Ryman on his race to become President, when bodyguards are attacked by a small group of the undead, and Georgia and Shaun become cornered by a few of them- - - these scenes read as if to just keep the zombie trope going, not to actually make the story better. Grant continually repeats herself throughout the book, and because of this, the story didn't have to be as long as it is. Such as with these few zombie attacks, the reader never feels much danger for the characters. And I found that the characters turn out to just not be that likable.
One such character that had potential is Buffy; the backbone of the After the End Times blog. Scenes that were meant to make the reader care for her fell short. Unlike scenes with Georgia and Shaun, including the bond between them, is not felt with Buffy's scenes; she merely seems like a filler character to make certain parts of the story make sense by constantly disappearing and reappearing wherever need be.
Georgia does have an interesting quirk in the book. She harbors the dormant Kellis-Amberlee virus, which has effected her eyes. She can't be in bright lights because they give her blinding headaches, so she wears sunglasses nearly everywhere: " I collapsed onto our bed at the local four-star hotel a little after dawn, my aching eyes already squeezed shut. Shaun was a bit steadier on his feet and he stayed upright long enough to make sure the room's blackout curtains were drawn. "
The technical side of the story - - - the computer world and the electronic usage- - - in Feed is done pretty well. It's like the movie Nightcrawler meets 28 Days Later, but with a lot less zombies. We get to see the seedy underbelly of journalism- - - where bloggers are willing to do anything to get their view count high. Readers also get to witness how life is like living in a world held hostage by a virus - - -something that is very relatable today.
Georgia constantly reminds readers that she doesn't care about other people, and that Shaun is the only person she cares for- - - and, of course, the view count. She continually blames her lack of empathy on their adoptive parents, stating that they only took them in for the their own blog view counts. Oddly after such information, Shaun doesn't seem to be the immature one in the duo.
I haven't read the other three books, one which is a republishing of Feed, but from a different point-of-view. This story was disguised as a horror novel, but just ended up being a political thriller with some zombies thrown in for a much wider reading audience. The book skims over what life would be like after a devastating virus takes over, but focuses on what politics would be like. I can't recommend Feed as a horror novel; the tagline is also misleading: " 'The good news: we survived. The bad news: so did they. " Unless Grant was talking about politicians....
I didn't give the story a low rating because it wasn't exactly a horror book, but instead for these reasons: throughout the story, Grant repeats a lot of information that was explained earlier in the book (and only needed to be explained once); she also had inconsistencies throughout, sometimes even in the very next sentence. Adding things that needed to be explained which weren't, and the afterthoughts that broke up the flow of the story, I just couldn't enjoy it. But, if you like political thrillers, then you might like this one. I won't be continuing this series.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Dungeons and Dragons: Honour Among Thieves (2023) in Movies
May 26, 2023
A Ton of Fun
The BankofMarquis is not into Dungeons & Dragons - the role playing/fantasy game that the film DUNGEONS & DRAGONS: HONOR AMONG THIEVES is based on, so any Easter Eggs for fans of the game is lost here. What the BankofMarquis is into is a good, fun action/adventure film and DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS: HONOR AMONG THIEVES is all that…and more.
The 4th film to be based on the RPG game, this D&D is no relation to the previous three and should be viewed as a reboot of the franchise…and if HONOR AMONG THIEVES is an indication of where this film series will go, then the audience is in for a fun ride, indeed.
Written and Directed by John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein, D&D follows a smooth talking, good-looking musician (the perfectly cast Chris Pine), his tough-as-nails best friend (the perfectly cast Michelle Rodriguez) and their merry band of thieves as they go on a quest to right wrongs and achieve a goal.
What that goal is doesn’t really matter as it is the journey - not the destination - that matters and the journey is quite fun thanks to an enjoyable cast and a script and direction that evokes memories of THE PRINCESS BRIDE, THE LORD OF THE RINGS and, yes, MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL along the way.
The cast (Pine, Rodriguez, Rege-Jean Page, Justice Smith, Sophia Lillis and Hugh Grant) know exactly what type of film they are making and jump in with both feet to have some fun, fight some creatures and make a family-friendly medieval action/adventure comedy that works.
Credit, of course, goes to Daley & Goldstein and this appears to be their first film together as Directors. If that is the case, the BankofMarquis is eager to see where they go from here.
While, I’m sure, there are plenty of Easter Eggs in this film for the D&D fan, the BankofMarquis caught none of that and just sat back and had a really fun 2+ hours, chuckling out loud on more than one occassion.
This film is now streaming on Paramount Plus. If you run across, check it out, you’ll have a good time.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The 4th film to be based on the RPG game, this D&D is no relation to the previous three and should be viewed as a reboot of the franchise…and if HONOR AMONG THIEVES is an indication of where this film series will go, then the audience is in for a fun ride, indeed.
Written and Directed by John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein, D&D follows a smooth talking, good-looking musician (the perfectly cast Chris Pine), his tough-as-nails best friend (the perfectly cast Michelle Rodriguez) and their merry band of thieves as they go on a quest to right wrongs and achieve a goal.
What that goal is doesn’t really matter as it is the journey - not the destination - that matters and the journey is quite fun thanks to an enjoyable cast and a script and direction that evokes memories of THE PRINCESS BRIDE, THE LORD OF THE RINGS and, yes, MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL along the way.
The cast (Pine, Rodriguez, Rege-Jean Page, Justice Smith, Sophia Lillis and Hugh Grant) know exactly what type of film they are making and jump in with both feet to have some fun, fight some creatures and make a family-friendly medieval action/adventure comedy that works.
Credit, of course, goes to Daley & Goldstein and this appears to be their first film together as Directors. If that is the case, the BankofMarquis is eager to see where they go from here.
While, I’m sure, there are plenty of Easter Eggs in this film for the D&D fan, the BankofMarquis caught none of that and just sat back and had a really fun 2+ hours, chuckling out loud on more than one occassion.
This film is now streaming on Paramount Plus. If you run across, check it out, you’ll have a good time.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Their Finest (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Keep Calm and Carry on Writing.
In a well-mined category, “Their Finest” is a World War 2 comedy/drama telling a tale I haven’t seen told before: the story behind the British Ministry of Information and their drive to produce propaganda films that support morale and promote positive messages in a time of national crisis. For it is 1940 and London is under nightly attack by the Luftwaffe during the time known as “The Blitz”. Unfortunately the Ministry is run by a bunch of toffs, and their output is laughably misaligned with the working class population, and especially the female population: with their husbands fighting overseas, these two groups are fast becoming one and the same. For women are finding and enjoying new empowerment and freedom in being socially unshackled from the kitchen sink.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Pitching Tents (2017) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
If you have ever taken the time to listen to our Podcast you will have figured out that I am a big fan of Kevin Smith, John Hughes, Cameron Crowe dialogue heavy story driven movies. Throw one of those coming of age end of summer type movies and ill eat them up like a bowl of Shreddies (Other cereals are available I just happen to be eating a bowl as I write this).
Pitching Tents is exactly this type of movie. Its 1984 its the end of the school year and Danny (Micheal Grant) has very little clue what he is going to do with his life past High School, before he has to really worry about any of that he is having one last weekend at Trout Camp with his buddies. However before his weekend can really begin he is cornered by over zealous guidance counselor Mr. Mulligan (Jim Norton) who has pretty much guaranteed Danny a place at a good college. Obviously though things are never that simple because Danny’s dad (Eric Allan Kramer) has gone to the liberty of securing him a job at the local factory.
Torn between his passion for Art and his desire to please his father, Danny has a tough life choice ahead of him. Of course that can wait because a weekend of smoking weed, contemplating life, trying to get laid lies ahead of Danny and his closest friends. You know standard Dazed and Confused territory.
You could argue that there is not really anything original here and you would right, we have seen these movies before and often done better. However I personally felt the Tug of War between Danny, his father and the Counselor is an interesting spin of the teen coming of age drama. Add to this the supporting cast of friends all hugely believable and relate-able with good turns from Disney alumni BooBoo Stewart (Descendants) as Todd and everyone’s favorite child star Jonathan Lipnicki (who is all growed up nowadays) as Scott. Then there is the final third of the movie in which Danny is to make his choice and the movie shows a level of maturity rarely seen in this type of Flick. Props to director Jacob Cooney on this count.
This is a recommend if these movies take your fancy, I know they are not for everyone but personally it ticked a lot of my boxes, and its always good to see what Lipnicki is doing these days. Oh then theres the soundtrack, typical 80s movie soundtrack, but hey who doesnt love that.
Pitching Tents is exactly this type of movie. Its 1984 its the end of the school year and Danny (Micheal Grant) has very little clue what he is going to do with his life past High School, before he has to really worry about any of that he is having one last weekend at Trout Camp with his buddies. However before his weekend can really begin he is cornered by over zealous guidance counselor Mr. Mulligan (Jim Norton) who has pretty much guaranteed Danny a place at a good college. Obviously though things are never that simple because Danny’s dad (Eric Allan Kramer) has gone to the liberty of securing him a job at the local factory.
Torn between his passion for Art and his desire to please his father, Danny has a tough life choice ahead of him. Of course that can wait because a weekend of smoking weed, contemplating life, trying to get laid lies ahead of Danny and his closest friends. You know standard Dazed and Confused territory.
You could argue that there is not really anything original here and you would right, we have seen these movies before and often done better. However I personally felt the Tug of War between Danny, his father and the Counselor is an interesting spin of the teen coming of age drama. Add to this the supporting cast of friends all hugely believable and relate-able with good turns from Disney alumni BooBoo Stewart (Descendants) as Todd and everyone’s favorite child star Jonathan Lipnicki (who is all growed up nowadays) as Scott. Then there is the final third of the movie in which Danny is to make his choice and the movie shows a level of maturity rarely seen in this type of Flick. Props to director Jacob Cooney on this count.
This is a recommend if these movies take your fancy, I know they are not for everyone but personally it ticked a lot of my boxes, and its always good to see what Lipnicki is doing these days. Oh then theres the soundtrack, typical 80s movie soundtrack, but hey who doesnt love that.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Aladdin (1992) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Aladdin starts as we see the evil Jafar looking for a lamp but hi plans are put on hold when he needs to find a diamond in the rough. We move onto meet street thieve Aladdin who steals to survive and help others who are less fortunate. We also meet Princess Jasmin who needs to be married off by her Sultan father by her next birthday but wants to fall in love before marrying someone.
After Jasmine runs away she meets Aladdin who gets placed into helping Jafar retrieve the Lamp from the Cave of Wonders. Once Aladdin finds the lamp he awakens the Genie who grants him three wishes that could change his life forever.
Aladdin is one of the most popular Disney movies all time and I can see why. We have the unlikely hero that is good at heart but never given the chance to be the success he could be, we have a strong female lead and a villain tired of being in the shadows wanting power. Mixing all of these together we get a full story that does everything you need in a film taking the Disney Princess idea to a new world. This will always be considered a true classic that will forever be loved.
Character Review
Aladdin: Aladdin is the small town street thieve that does what he needs to, to survive. When he meets Jasmine he instantly falls in love but finds him the target of Jafar to steal a magic lamp. The lamp gives him three wishes that he uses to make himself a Prince to marry Jasmine but it isn’t long before his true self is discovered and he can become a hero by himself. Aladdin is a great character that shows just because he does criminal activities he is doing them for the right reason and is selfless at heart.
Genie: Genie comes from the lamp giving Aladdin three wishes having been trapped for years. He has rules but must grant wishes that don’t break these rules to his master. He loves working for Aladdin but ends up being forced into working for Jafar. Genie is one of Robin William best performance as the pure energy behind this film that you want to see every single scene he is in.
Jasmine: Jasmine is the princess that is being forced into marrying a prince but she keeps rejecting any that come her way. She escapes the kingdom and falls in love with Aladdin who is everything she shouldn’t be marrying. Jasmine is a strong princess which is unlike most of Disney’s for the time she wants love and will make sure she finds it.
Jafar: Jafar is the Sultan’s most trusted advisor but he has plans to become the Sultan himself and will look into to any means to make this happen including finding the lamp to wish for the power. Jafar is one of your typical villains you see in a Disney film that will always be one to hate.
Support Characters: Aladdin has good supporting comedy character that will make you laugh through the film.
Director Review: Ron Clements, John Musker – The pair give us one of the most memorable and stand out Disney films of all time.
Adventure: Aladdin takes us on an adventure as Aladdin goes from street thieve to worthy hand in marriage for Jasmine.
Animation: Aladdin had the brilliant animation you have come to know from Disney.
Comedy: Aladdin has great use of comedy with most coming from Robin Williams.
Family: Aladdin is one the whole family could enjoy with jokes for the whole family to understand.
Fantasy: Aladdin puts us in the middle of a fantasy world that is filled with genies that can grant wishes.
Romance: Aladdin has a romantic story that follows a princess who wants to fall in love rather than be forced into marriage.
Settings: Aladdin puts us into a world that shows the type of world that Aladdin is living in.
Suggestion: Aladdin is one that I think everyone should have watched at least once. (Watch)
Best Part: Whole New World.
Worst Part: Not one.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears:
Chances of Sequel: Has one.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won 2 Oscars
Budget: $28 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Tagline: A diamond in the rough.
Trivia: This film became the 14th (and the first animated movie) to gross more than $200,000,000.
Overall: One of the BEST Disney films of all time.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/07/06/aladdin-1992/
After Jasmine runs away she meets Aladdin who gets placed into helping Jafar retrieve the Lamp from the Cave of Wonders. Once Aladdin finds the lamp he awakens the Genie who grants him three wishes that could change his life forever.
Aladdin is one of the most popular Disney movies all time and I can see why. We have the unlikely hero that is good at heart but never given the chance to be the success he could be, we have a strong female lead and a villain tired of being in the shadows wanting power. Mixing all of these together we get a full story that does everything you need in a film taking the Disney Princess idea to a new world. This will always be considered a true classic that will forever be loved.
Character Review
Aladdin: Aladdin is the small town street thieve that does what he needs to, to survive. When he meets Jasmine he instantly falls in love but finds him the target of Jafar to steal a magic lamp. The lamp gives him three wishes that he uses to make himself a Prince to marry Jasmine but it isn’t long before his true self is discovered and he can become a hero by himself. Aladdin is a great character that shows just because he does criminal activities he is doing them for the right reason and is selfless at heart.
Genie: Genie comes from the lamp giving Aladdin three wishes having been trapped for years. He has rules but must grant wishes that don’t break these rules to his master. He loves working for Aladdin but ends up being forced into working for Jafar. Genie is one of Robin William best performance as the pure energy behind this film that you want to see every single scene he is in.
Jasmine: Jasmine is the princess that is being forced into marrying a prince but she keeps rejecting any that come her way. She escapes the kingdom and falls in love with Aladdin who is everything she shouldn’t be marrying. Jasmine is a strong princess which is unlike most of Disney’s for the time she wants love and will make sure she finds it.
Jafar: Jafar is the Sultan’s most trusted advisor but he has plans to become the Sultan himself and will look into to any means to make this happen including finding the lamp to wish for the power. Jafar is one of your typical villains you see in a Disney film that will always be one to hate.
Support Characters: Aladdin has good supporting comedy character that will make you laugh through the film.
Director Review: Ron Clements, John Musker – The pair give us one of the most memorable and stand out Disney films of all time.
Adventure: Aladdin takes us on an adventure as Aladdin goes from street thieve to worthy hand in marriage for Jasmine.
Animation: Aladdin had the brilliant animation you have come to know from Disney.
Comedy: Aladdin has great use of comedy with most coming from Robin Williams.
Family: Aladdin is one the whole family could enjoy with jokes for the whole family to understand.
Fantasy: Aladdin puts us in the middle of a fantasy world that is filled with genies that can grant wishes.
Romance: Aladdin has a romantic story that follows a princess who wants to fall in love rather than be forced into marriage.
Settings: Aladdin puts us into a world that shows the type of world that Aladdin is living in.
Suggestion: Aladdin is one that I think everyone should have watched at least once. (Watch)
Best Part: Whole New World.
Worst Part: Not one.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears:
Chances of Sequel: Has one.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won 2 Oscars
Budget: $28 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Tagline: A diamond in the rough.
Trivia: This film became the 14th (and the first animated movie) to gross more than $200,000,000.
Overall: One of the BEST Disney films of all time.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/07/06/aladdin-1992/
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated 47 Meters Down: Uncaged (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Shark Movie That Struggles To Stay Afloat
47 Meters Down Uncaged is a 2019 survival/horror movie directed by Johannes Robert and written by Robert and Ernest Riera with producers James Harris, Mark Lane and Robert Jones. It was produced by They Fyzz Facility and distributed by Entertainment Studios Motion Pictures. The film stars Corinne Foxx, Sophie Nelisse, Brianne Tju and Sistaine Stallone.
Mia (Sophie Nelisse), has had trouble fitting in living in Mexico which includes trouble with girls at school and adjusting to living with her father, step-mother (Nia Long) and sister. Three teenagers, Sasha (Corinne Foxx) her step-sister and her two friends convince her to go swimming with them at a secret lagoon rather than go on a glass bottom boat tour. The lagoon happens to be near a sunken Mayan city where Mia's father Grant (John Corbett) is working. The girls grab some scuba gear and decide to seize this opportunity to see the discovery for themselves and find that it is the hunting ground for deadly great white sharks. With their air supply running out and having to navigate the labyrinth of tunnels the girls find themselves in a race against time and the deadly sharks to try and survive.
This movie was okay but I thought it was going to be better. I hadn't seen the first one so I don't know if they are connected in anyway but I believe they are not. I wanted to see a good shark movie especially since during shark week a while back I had seen a lot of shark shows this year and the movie they did called Capsized which was pretty decent. This movie started off good but failed to set the tension in a gripping way. I didn't like the fact that since they were swimming in caves the lighting was dark and didn't allow for a lot of visuals. It was good for mood setting and ambiance but I thought it was a little gimmicky when they used the flares and it changed everything red. I say that because the CGI of the sharks left me underwhelmed as well. The sharks were supposed to be blind for having evolved or lived in caves the whole time and also adjusted to be more sensitive to sounds. To me the CGI looked unbelievable and threw off the emergence from enjoying the movie. They could have been better or the way they built the tension could have been better. The movie did have a couple of frightening "jump scares", one of which surprised and got me. For some reason I really didn't like the ending, for me it was the main character acting out of character and then there being to many "jump scares" back to back at the end. If you see it you'll know what I'm talking about. Anyways I give this movie a 5/10.
Mia (Sophie Nelisse), has had trouble fitting in living in Mexico which includes trouble with girls at school and adjusting to living with her father, step-mother (Nia Long) and sister. Three teenagers, Sasha (Corinne Foxx) her step-sister and her two friends convince her to go swimming with them at a secret lagoon rather than go on a glass bottom boat tour. The lagoon happens to be near a sunken Mayan city where Mia's father Grant (John Corbett) is working. The girls grab some scuba gear and decide to seize this opportunity to see the discovery for themselves and find that it is the hunting ground for deadly great white sharks. With their air supply running out and having to navigate the labyrinth of tunnels the girls find themselves in a race against time and the deadly sharks to try and survive.
This movie was okay but I thought it was going to be better. I hadn't seen the first one so I don't know if they are connected in anyway but I believe they are not. I wanted to see a good shark movie especially since during shark week a while back I had seen a lot of shark shows this year and the movie they did called Capsized which was pretty decent. This movie started off good but failed to set the tension in a gripping way. I didn't like the fact that since they were swimming in caves the lighting was dark and didn't allow for a lot of visuals. It was good for mood setting and ambiance but I thought it was a little gimmicky when they used the flares and it changed everything red. I say that because the CGI of the sharks left me underwhelmed as well. The sharks were supposed to be blind for having evolved or lived in caves the whole time and also adjusted to be more sensitive to sounds. To me the CGI looked unbelievable and threw off the emergence from enjoying the movie. They could have been better or the way they built the tension could have been better. The movie did have a couple of frightening "jump scares", one of which surprised and got me. For some reason I really didn't like the ending, for me it was the main character acting out of character and then there being to many "jump scares" back to back at the end. If you see it you'll know what I'm talking about. Anyways I give this movie a 5/10.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated 47 Meters Down: Uncaged (2019) in Movies
Aug 26, 2019
I love a good shark movie. Since as far back as I can remember, I have been fascinated by sharks. I think they’re some of the most interesting creatures on our planet. Even when I was a kid, I used to wear shark tooth necklaces because I thought they were so cool. Basically any time you’ve got sharks in a movie, I’m all in for it. Amusingly enough, that same sentiment does not apply to video games where I think they’re terrifying! (Jaws on the original Nintendo freaked-me-out as a child.) Having said all that, I was excited to see 47 Meters Down: Uncaged, even though I missed out on the original film back in 2017. Johannes Roberts, the director of the minimalistic first film, 47 Meters Down, returns for this sequel and brings back the great white sharks, but shakes up for the formula a bit by adding an underwater maze to the mix.
The sequel focuses on teenaged loner Mia (Sophie Nélisse) who has recently relocated to Mexico with her father and step-family. Her father Grant (John Corbett) scouts and maps out underwater locations for a living, and has recently discovered an ancient sunken Mayan city. With the help of his two assistants, he’s currently in the process of mapping out its maze-like design. One day, Mia joins her sister Sasha (Corinne Foxx) whose two friends, Alexa (Brianne Tju) and Nicole (Sistine Stallone), take them to a hidden local cove for a day of fun. This location turns out to be one of the entrances to the historic labyrinth that Mia’s father Grant has been exploring. Alexa, who once dated one of Grant’s assistants, had gone diving with this former boyfriend into the submerged city before. Upon finding enough extra scuba gear for all of them on a floating dock in this isolated cove, Alexa pressures her friends into joining her on a brief underwater tour that ends up being anything but.
This sunken Mayan labyrinth that the four girls go inside to explore is the setting for most of the film. They’re supposed to be following Alexa, who knows part of the maze well enough to navigate it without getting them lost, but their stubborn and defiant friend Nicole decides to venture off-course and winds up endangering them all. In the aftermath of Nicole’s senselessness, a pillar gets knocked over, creating a domino effect of destruction that causes the entrance they came in through to collapse and get sealed off. Now they’ll have to find another way out. With limited oxygen and even less light and visibility, the girls have to swim deeper into the maze to try to look for an exit.
Quickly the girls come to discover they’re not as alone in this labyrinth as they first thought, and they find themselves in the presence of great white sharks. These sharks, blind from living their whole lives in the darkness of this lost city, have their other senses heightened as a result, and they’re on the hunt for blood. The arrival of these sharks, however, opens up a big plot hole in the story. How is it that Mia’s father has never seen these deadly sharks nor made any reference to them when he’s already spent weeks, possibly even months, exploring this sunken city? I suppose it’s possible that in the collapse of the entrance, another passageway may have opened up that let the sharks in. However, that logic doesn’t hold up, because had they came in from outside, they wouldn’t be blind. These particular sharks evolved down here, so it’s hard to believe they were never noticed before, especially considering how violent and aggressive they are.
That’s far from being the only problem with these sharks, though. They also look flat out awful. The quality of their special effects in this film is simply pitiful. I’m not even exaggerating when I say they often reminded me of that infamously bad shark attack scene from Jaws 3D. They look so fake and unbelievable that instead of feeling any sense of fear when they randomly appeared, I couldn’t help but cringe. It literally looks almost as bad as the Sharknado movies, but the key difference is that unlike the intentionally campy Sharknado movies, 47 Meters Down: Uncaged is actually trying to take itself seriously. Plus it has even has double the budget to work with.
47 Meters Down: Uncaged takes a very lazy and bare-bones approach to filmmaking. The story lacks substance, the characters and dialogue lack depth, and the visuals throughout most of the film are muddied and unclear. It’s rough on the eyes because the visuals are so obscured and are shrouded in so much darkness that it’s hard to actually see what’s happening on screen. This is often exploited as a cheap tactic to create jump scares by having the sharks suddenly appear from literally out of nowhere, which seems especially hard to believe since it’s doubtful these large sharks could smoothly navigate most of these narrow passageways in the first place. Despite the restrictive maze design, the film fails to create a sense of claustrophobia, and instead just gave me a headache.
The story progression in the film mostly feels generic and expected. There are new complications that arise and circumstances that change, but it’s all pretty standard fare. The ending, however, sets up a decent scenario, but it ends up being ruined by how unrealistic it is. Besides, after wading through all of the garbage to get there, I couldn’t be bothered to care much at that point. The acting in the film is mostly poor, but truthfully they’re never given much to work with. It’s also difficult to keep track of who is who once they’re inside the maze anyway because the visuals are so muddled. The movie does feature its share of violence and death, but its light on the gore and to me it always felt unsatisfying.
In all, 47 Meters Down: Uncaged sinks right to the bottom of my rating list as the worst movie I’ve seen in 2019. It’s lazy and bland to the point of being exhausting. There’s ultimately not one single thing about it that I can sincerely commend. The only thing I’m probably going to remember this movie for is how dreadful it looks and the 90 minutes of boredom and disappointment it caused me.
The sequel focuses on teenaged loner Mia (Sophie Nélisse) who has recently relocated to Mexico with her father and step-family. Her father Grant (John Corbett) scouts and maps out underwater locations for a living, and has recently discovered an ancient sunken Mayan city. With the help of his two assistants, he’s currently in the process of mapping out its maze-like design. One day, Mia joins her sister Sasha (Corinne Foxx) whose two friends, Alexa (Brianne Tju) and Nicole (Sistine Stallone), take them to a hidden local cove for a day of fun. This location turns out to be one of the entrances to the historic labyrinth that Mia’s father Grant has been exploring. Alexa, who once dated one of Grant’s assistants, had gone diving with this former boyfriend into the submerged city before. Upon finding enough extra scuba gear for all of them on a floating dock in this isolated cove, Alexa pressures her friends into joining her on a brief underwater tour that ends up being anything but.
This sunken Mayan labyrinth that the four girls go inside to explore is the setting for most of the film. They’re supposed to be following Alexa, who knows part of the maze well enough to navigate it without getting them lost, but their stubborn and defiant friend Nicole decides to venture off-course and winds up endangering them all. In the aftermath of Nicole’s senselessness, a pillar gets knocked over, creating a domino effect of destruction that causes the entrance they came in through to collapse and get sealed off. Now they’ll have to find another way out. With limited oxygen and even less light and visibility, the girls have to swim deeper into the maze to try to look for an exit.
Quickly the girls come to discover they’re not as alone in this labyrinth as they first thought, and they find themselves in the presence of great white sharks. These sharks, blind from living their whole lives in the darkness of this lost city, have their other senses heightened as a result, and they’re on the hunt for blood. The arrival of these sharks, however, opens up a big plot hole in the story. How is it that Mia’s father has never seen these deadly sharks nor made any reference to them when he’s already spent weeks, possibly even months, exploring this sunken city? I suppose it’s possible that in the collapse of the entrance, another passageway may have opened up that let the sharks in. However, that logic doesn’t hold up, because had they came in from outside, they wouldn’t be blind. These particular sharks evolved down here, so it’s hard to believe they were never noticed before, especially considering how violent and aggressive they are.
That’s far from being the only problem with these sharks, though. They also look flat out awful. The quality of their special effects in this film is simply pitiful. I’m not even exaggerating when I say they often reminded me of that infamously bad shark attack scene from Jaws 3D. They look so fake and unbelievable that instead of feeling any sense of fear when they randomly appeared, I couldn’t help but cringe. It literally looks almost as bad as the Sharknado movies, but the key difference is that unlike the intentionally campy Sharknado movies, 47 Meters Down: Uncaged is actually trying to take itself seriously. Plus it has even has double the budget to work with.
47 Meters Down: Uncaged takes a very lazy and bare-bones approach to filmmaking. The story lacks substance, the characters and dialogue lack depth, and the visuals throughout most of the film are muddied and unclear. It’s rough on the eyes because the visuals are so obscured and are shrouded in so much darkness that it’s hard to actually see what’s happening on screen. This is often exploited as a cheap tactic to create jump scares by having the sharks suddenly appear from literally out of nowhere, which seems especially hard to believe since it’s doubtful these large sharks could smoothly navigate most of these narrow passageways in the first place. Despite the restrictive maze design, the film fails to create a sense of claustrophobia, and instead just gave me a headache.
The story progression in the film mostly feels generic and expected. There are new complications that arise and circumstances that change, but it’s all pretty standard fare. The ending, however, sets up a decent scenario, but it ends up being ruined by how unrealistic it is. Besides, after wading through all of the garbage to get there, I couldn’t be bothered to care much at that point. The acting in the film is mostly poor, but truthfully they’re never given much to work with. It’s also difficult to keep track of who is who once they’re inside the maze anyway because the visuals are so muddled. The movie does feature its share of violence and death, but its light on the gore and to me it always felt unsatisfying.
In all, 47 Meters Down: Uncaged sinks right to the bottom of my rating list as the worst movie I’ve seen in 2019. It’s lazy and bland to the point of being exhausting. There’s ultimately not one single thing about it that I can sincerely commend. The only thing I’m probably going to remember this movie for is how dreadful it looks and the 90 minutes of boredom and disappointment it caused me.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Spoiler! Her husband gets shot.
“Jackie” tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”) to a ‘Time’ journalist (Billy Crudup, “Watchmen”, “Spotlight”).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).