Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The Arthurian legend: but with Cockneys.
So, bit difficult to describe this one… so I asked my bloke Alfie from Londinium to explain what’s it all about…
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.
Fundamentals of Queueing Theory
John F. Shortle, James M. Thompson, Carl M. Harris and Donald Gross
Book
The definitive guide to queuing theory and it practical applications features numerous real-world...
Real Women, Real Leaders: Surviving and Succeeding in the Business World
Kathleen Hurley and Priscilla Shumway
Book
Plan your path to leadership with insight from real women at the top In Real Women, Real Leadership,...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated All the Money in the World (2017) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018
Bland with the exception of Christopher Plummer
By now, almost everyone knows about the last minute switch of Christopher Plummer in place of current-pariah Kevin Spacey as pivotal Billionaire J. Paul Getty in Ridley Scott's ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD, so when I checked out Plummer's Oscar nominated turn, I couldn't but help see if I could tell when Scott put in a new scene and where he just "augmented" his scenes with Plummer. And then, a funny thing happened...
I stopped looking at this for I was captivated by Plummer's performance.
A 3 time Oscar nominee (he is the oldest person to win an Academy Award - at the age of 82 - for his Supporting Role in BEGINNERS in 2010), the 88 year old Plummer shows that he can still command a movie for anytime he is on screen this film crackles and becomes interesting.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the rest of the film.
Telling the story of the kidnapping of Getty's grandson, and the "richest man in the world's" refusal to pay the ransom, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD stars Charlie Plummer (no relation) as John Paul Getty III (the kidnapped grandson), Mark Wahlberg as "fixer" Fletcher Chase, who was told by Getty to get his grandson back for "the lowest possible cost", Romain Duris as one of the kidnappers and the great Michelle Williams as the mother of the kidnapped boy - and the daughter-in-law of Getty, Gail Harris. Each one of these performances are good, but not great. Doing what needs to be done in what they are given to do but nothing more.
I think the problem with this film is one of focus. It spends about 50% of the time with William's character - and this is fine, but then it jumps to the kidnapped son, to "the fixer", to "the kidnapper", to the grandson and back to the mother, so no real through-line, continuity or strong character development can occur, with the exception of Christopher Plummer's J. Paul Getty. To be fair to Williams, C. Plummer has the showier role and she is just asked to be the center of this tale, the world in which all else revolves and that, ultimately, makes her character somewhat bland.
I place the blame for this on Screenwriter David Scarpa (based on the book by John Pearson) and Director Scott. I think their reach exceeded their grasp on this one. If they could have focused more on one of the characters - instead of spreading things out - perhaps this film would have become more interesting and less bland. It stays on one note - despite jumping to different people in vastly different situations - throughout it's 2 hour and 15 minute time frame.
All in all, a missed opportunity. It is a decent film that had the potential to be VERY good. The only one who was VERY good was Christopher Plummer - and certainly his performance is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
I stopped looking at this for I was captivated by Plummer's performance.
A 3 time Oscar nominee (he is the oldest person to win an Academy Award - at the age of 82 - for his Supporting Role in BEGINNERS in 2010), the 88 year old Plummer shows that he can still command a movie for anytime he is on screen this film crackles and becomes interesting.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the rest of the film.
Telling the story of the kidnapping of Getty's grandson, and the "richest man in the world's" refusal to pay the ransom, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD stars Charlie Plummer (no relation) as John Paul Getty III (the kidnapped grandson), Mark Wahlberg as "fixer" Fletcher Chase, who was told by Getty to get his grandson back for "the lowest possible cost", Romain Duris as one of the kidnappers and the great Michelle Williams as the mother of the kidnapped boy - and the daughter-in-law of Getty, Gail Harris. Each one of these performances are good, but not great. Doing what needs to be done in what they are given to do but nothing more.
I think the problem with this film is one of focus. It spends about 50% of the time with William's character - and this is fine, but then it jumps to the kidnapped son, to "the fixer", to "the kidnapper", to the grandson and back to the mother, so no real through-line, continuity or strong character development can occur, with the exception of Christopher Plummer's J. Paul Getty. To be fair to Williams, C. Plummer has the showier role and she is just asked to be the center of this tale, the world in which all else revolves and that, ultimately, makes her character somewhat bland.
I place the blame for this on Screenwriter David Scarpa (based on the book by John Pearson) and Director Scott. I think their reach exceeded their grasp on this one. If they could have focused more on one of the characters - instead of spreading things out - perhaps this film would have become more interesting and less bland. It stays on one note - despite jumping to different people in vastly different situations - throughout it's 2 hour and 15 minute time frame.
All in all, a missed opportunity. It is a decent film that had the potential to be VERY good. The only one who was VERY good was Christopher Plummer - and certainly his performance is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Never Grow Old (2019) in Movies
Apr 1, 2019
Under-the-Radar Good
Set in the 1800’s, when a band of unsavory men muscle their way into a small town, the town’s undertaker has to face the moral decision of reaping the benefits of their destruction or keeping his family and the town safe. It’s a lot harder of a decision than you might think which is part of the reason why I think this movie works so well. I thought I could easily decide one way or another, but by the end of it, I wasn’t so sure.
Acting: 10
I applaud Emile Hirsch for constantly taking on unique roles and stepping outside of comfort zones. In Never Grow Old, he is Pat the Irish undertaker. The role is original in and of itself, but he manages to take it and really make it his own. As Pat, he gives you that “Every Man” feel giving the sense that you would do the same types of things if put in his situation. You can feel his fear in knowing he may have to do some things he doesn’t want to do to protect his family.
Shout-out to John Cusack playing bounty hunter Dutch. He does an outstanding job of really making you hate his guts. By the end of it, you’re ready to seem him get taken out. I respected his performance because it never felt overdone or unbelievable like some actors struggle with when taking on an antagonist role. Think Thanos with a six-shooter.
Beginning: 9
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 7
Genre: 9
This film ranks up there in terms of Westerns if nothing else but for its originality. The genre is oversaturated with revenge tales, robberies, and the peacekeeping law. This takes you in an entirely different direction. It’s filled with action, grit, but, more importantly, thought.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 6
Plot: 10
Resolution: 7
Not the ending I was hoping for, but I understand why this directional path was chosen. it was almost unavoidable. I didn’t love it, but I definitely respect it.
Overall: 86
Never Grow Old is one of those hidden gem movies you will be wanting to tell your friends to go see. If you like Westerns, hell even if you don’t, this one is extremely enjoyable and memorable. One of my favorite under-the-radar movies.
Acting: 10
I applaud Emile Hirsch for constantly taking on unique roles and stepping outside of comfort zones. In Never Grow Old, he is Pat the Irish undertaker. The role is original in and of itself, but he manages to take it and really make it his own. As Pat, he gives you that “Every Man” feel giving the sense that you would do the same types of things if put in his situation. You can feel his fear in knowing he may have to do some things he doesn’t want to do to protect his family.
Shout-out to John Cusack playing bounty hunter Dutch. He does an outstanding job of really making you hate his guts. By the end of it, you’re ready to seem him get taken out. I respected his performance because it never felt overdone or unbelievable like some actors struggle with when taking on an antagonist role. Think Thanos with a six-shooter.
Beginning: 9
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 7
Genre: 9
This film ranks up there in terms of Westerns if nothing else but for its originality. The genre is oversaturated with revenge tales, robberies, and the peacekeeping law. This takes you in an entirely different direction. It’s filled with action, grit, but, more importantly, thought.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 6
Plot: 10
Resolution: 7
Not the ending I was hoping for, but I understand why this directional path was chosen. it was almost unavoidable. I didn’t love it, but I definitely respect it.
Overall: 86
Never Grow Old is one of those hidden gem movies you will be wanting to tell your friends to go see. If you like Westerns, hell even if you don’t, this one is extremely enjoyable and memorable. One of my favorite under-the-radar movies.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Sherlock Holmes (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr) has developed a reputation for having one of the most brilliant crime solving minds of his time. Along with his partner, Dr. John Watson (Jude Law), there is rarely ever a time when a case goes unsolved or a suspect is able to get the best of the two of them. However, that very well may be the case this time around. Holmes and Watson were able to apprehend Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), who is believed to be a master of black magic. Blackwood is hanged and that is thought to be the end of it until he returns from the grave. Somehow Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), an adversary of Holmes who he not only has feelings for but has gotten the best of him on more than one occasion, is wrapped up in all of this. Not to mention that the Blackwood case was supposed to be Watson's last as he settles down to get married. So Holmes takes the case to try and solve Blackwood's resurrection, figure out how Irene is involved, and convince Watson to stay on as his partner. What he doesn't count on is walking away from this case with an adversary that's just as cunning and brilliant as he is.
As a fan of the majority of Guy Ritchie's previous works (Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch, Revolver, RocknRolla) and the incredible streak Robert Downey Jr has of impressive performances that have turned him into one of the most entertaining and profitable leading actors of today, you could say the anticipation and expectations for this film were fairly high. Other reviews for the film seemed to be mixed as a lot of them mentioned the writing for the film being lackluster and most complained that Sherlock Holmes wasn't an action star, but the film still brought in around $65 million its opening weekend. So is Ritchie's version of Sherlock Holmes worth seeing? If you're looking for one final film to make you laugh, have hard-hitting action, have a great cast, and have a fairly well-written story, then look no further than Sherlock Holmes.
The chemistry between Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law is the main reason to see this film. Robert Downey Jr puts in another top notch performance as Sherlock Holmes. Despite Holmes being a rather selfish individual, you can't help but find his antics entertaining. It became easier to sympathize with him as the film went on since how much Watson means to him as a friend and as his partner is revealed in the latter half of the film. As impressive as Robert Downey Jr was, Jude Law as just as entertaining. The way Holmes and Watson argue with each other and the way Watson thinks Holmes guilts him into coming along on each case is pure delight to the audience. That's partially due to the impeccable comedic timing the two have, but also due to the fact that they're both extremely talented actors at the top of their game in this film.
One of the most interesting aspects of the film is the way the film seemed to allow its viewers inside the mind of Sherlock Holmes at times. There's two occasions where Holmes is dissecting the moves he's about to make in a fight before he makes them as he announces each blow and the damage each blow does to his opponent. As he's narrating, the film plays in slow motion. When he's done, we jump back to the moment before he started narrating and see the entire situation play out in real time. There were other times, like the time in the restaurant when he's waiting to meet Watson's fiancé, Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly), and when he's sitting in Blackwood's jail cell where it seemed like Holmes heard absolutely everything that was going on. It was as if he was aware of everything that was going on around him. Those parts of the film established just how adept Holmes really was.
The one flaw the film may have may be tucked away in the storyline somewhere. It felt convoluted at times. It may just need a repeat viewing or two to process everything rationally. So while just about everything is explained in full by Sherlock Holmes and everything is wrapped up by the time the credits roll (other than the open-ended finale that leaves it wide open for a sequel), it did seem like the writers were trying too hard or that they were reaching out too far for explanations or something.
Sherlock Holmes is Guy Ritchie's biggest box office success to date and it's safe to say that Robert Downey Jr has jumpstarted another successful and entertaining franchise. If you're familiar with Ritchie's previous works, then this film almost feels like the Sherlock Holmes character being thrown into the same world Ritchie established in Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch if they took place in the late nineteenth century. The film centers on Holmes' anti-social behavior, is inspired heavily by the martial art Bartitsu mentioned in the Sherlock Holmes story from 1901 entitled The Adventure of the Empty House, and focuses on Holmes' brilliant analytical mind. Sherlock Holmes is full of high octane-fueled action, entertaining comedy, and witty dialogue.
As a fan of the majority of Guy Ritchie's previous works (Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch, Revolver, RocknRolla) and the incredible streak Robert Downey Jr has of impressive performances that have turned him into one of the most entertaining and profitable leading actors of today, you could say the anticipation and expectations for this film were fairly high. Other reviews for the film seemed to be mixed as a lot of them mentioned the writing for the film being lackluster and most complained that Sherlock Holmes wasn't an action star, but the film still brought in around $65 million its opening weekend. So is Ritchie's version of Sherlock Holmes worth seeing? If you're looking for one final film to make you laugh, have hard-hitting action, have a great cast, and have a fairly well-written story, then look no further than Sherlock Holmes.
The chemistry between Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law is the main reason to see this film. Robert Downey Jr puts in another top notch performance as Sherlock Holmes. Despite Holmes being a rather selfish individual, you can't help but find his antics entertaining. It became easier to sympathize with him as the film went on since how much Watson means to him as a friend and as his partner is revealed in the latter half of the film. As impressive as Robert Downey Jr was, Jude Law as just as entertaining. The way Holmes and Watson argue with each other and the way Watson thinks Holmes guilts him into coming along on each case is pure delight to the audience. That's partially due to the impeccable comedic timing the two have, but also due to the fact that they're both extremely talented actors at the top of their game in this film.
One of the most interesting aspects of the film is the way the film seemed to allow its viewers inside the mind of Sherlock Holmes at times. There's two occasions where Holmes is dissecting the moves he's about to make in a fight before he makes them as he announces each blow and the damage each blow does to his opponent. As he's narrating, the film plays in slow motion. When he's done, we jump back to the moment before he started narrating and see the entire situation play out in real time. There were other times, like the time in the restaurant when he's waiting to meet Watson's fiancé, Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly), and when he's sitting in Blackwood's jail cell where it seemed like Holmes heard absolutely everything that was going on. It was as if he was aware of everything that was going on around him. Those parts of the film established just how adept Holmes really was.
The one flaw the film may have may be tucked away in the storyline somewhere. It felt convoluted at times. It may just need a repeat viewing or two to process everything rationally. So while just about everything is explained in full by Sherlock Holmes and everything is wrapped up by the time the credits roll (other than the open-ended finale that leaves it wide open for a sequel), it did seem like the writers were trying too hard or that they were reaching out too far for explanations or something.
Sherlock Holmes is Guy Ritchie's biggest box office success to date and it's safe to say that Robert Downey Jr has jumpstarted another successful and entertaining franchise. If you're familiar with Ritchie's previous works, then this film almost feels like the Sherlock Holmes character being thrown into the same world Ritchie established in Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch if they took place in the late nineteenth century. The film centers on Holmes' anti-social behavior, is inspired heavily by the martial art Bartitsu mentioned in the Sherlock Holmes story from 1901 entitled The Adventure of the Empty House, and focuses on Holmes' brilliant analytical mind. Sherlock Holmes is full of high octane-fueled action, entertaining comedy, and witty dialogue.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Footloose (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Public dancing is against the law in the small religious town of Bomont. But Boston-raised teenager, Ren McCormack and the Reverend’s daughter Ariel have other ideas in this remake of the 1984 classic.
The original “Footloose” requires a 1980s mindset and was successful partially due the disjointed storytelling of teen films during that era. Up until now it could be said that there is no “Footloose” without Kevin Bacon. But surprise! The remake is so good that you may need to step back.
The cast is more polished than the original, particularly in lead female role of Ariel Moore brought back to the screen by Julianne Hough. Hough’s performance is more engaging than that of the original portrayal by Lori Singer. Taking the reigns of the role that made Kevin Bacon famous is Kenny Wormald as city boy Ren. Wormald wears the role with charm and the required “Footloose” too-cool-for-school style.
Reverend Shaw Moore, now played by Dennis Quaid, is far more emotional than the original depiction of the character first played by a John Lithgow. However, the same cannot be said for his wife, Vi Moore, with a disappointing performance from Andy McDowell. This is balanced however by the truly enjoyable portrayal of Ren’s best friend Willard by the well-timed comedy of Miles Teller.
Yes, there were cheesy moments. There was even a sunset so over the top that it may remind you Star Wars buffs of a certain lengthy romance scene in Episode Two. And yes, more than one of the reanimated lines from the classic film was forced. But the flubs were few and far between as this “Footloose” remake manages to succeed in many places where the original could have been improved.
The explanation of tragedy that originally befell Bomont has been extended, giving the town’s anti-dance perspective a little more sway. And this time around “Footloose” directly addresses a number of the small town versus big city stereotypes with strong dual sided humor.
The new “Footloose” still has less dancing then you want from a film entirely about dance, but when it does occur the style is much more diverse, ranging from hip hop to that famous “Footloose” country. There were things missed from the original; particularly the precision of Bacon’s solo dance scene, but this remake honors the impact of the original while standing on its own.
Now where do you buy a pair of red cowboy boots?!
The original “Footloose” requires a 1980s mindset and was successful partially due the disjointed storytelling of teen films during that era. Up until now it could be said that there is no “Footloose” without Kevin Bacon. But surprise! The remake is so good that you may need to step back.
The cast is more polished than the original, particularly in lead female role of Ariel Moore brought back to the screen by Julianne Hough. Hough’s performance is more engaging than that of the original portrayal by Lori Singer. Taking the reigns of the role that made Kevin Bacon famous is Kenny Wormald as city boy Ren. Wormald wears the role with charm and the required “Footloose” too-cool-for-school style.
Reverend Shaw Moore, now played by Dennis Quaid, is far more emotional than the original depiction of the character first played by a John Lithgow. However, the same cannot be said for his wife, Vi Moore, with a disappointing performance from Andy McDowell. This is balanced however by the truly enjoyable portrayal of Ren’s best friend Willard by the well-timed comedy of Miles Teller.
Yes, there were cheesy moments. There was even a sunset so over the top that it may remind you Star Wars buffs of a certain lengthy romance scene in Episode Two. And yes, more than one of the reanimated lines from the classic film was forced. But the flubs were few and far between as this “Footloose” remake manages to succeed in many places where the original could have been improved.
The explanation of tragedy that originally befell Bomont has been extended, giving the town’s anti-dance perspective a little more sway. And this time around “Footloose” directly addresses a number of the small town versus big city stereotypes with strong dual sided humor.
The new “Footloose” still has less dancing then you want from a film entirely about dance, but when it does occur the style is much more diverse, ranging from hip hop to that famous “Footloose” country. There were things missed from the original; particularly the precision of Bacon’s solo dance scene, but this remake honors the impact of the original while standing on its own.
Now where do you buy a pair of red cowboy boots?!
We Have Your Daughter: The Unsolved Murder of Jonbenet Ramsey Twenty Years Later
Book
New information from We Have Your Daughter has been revealed. Here is some of it. The Family As a...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Bad Boys for Life (2020) in Movies
Jan 28, 2020
It's says a lot about this third entry into the Bad Boys franchise, when there's been a 17 year gap between movies, and it still manages to be this good!
The Bad Boys films are known for being over the top, sweary, violent, funny, and action packed, and thankfully, this tried and tested formula sticks again.
It's silliness is hugely toned down from the overly gratuitous Bad Boys II, (it's still pretty silly mind), and we're presented with a host of characters that actually ground the franchise a little, and it's all the better for it.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence are once again hugely likable as detectives Mike Lowrey and Marcus Burnett, the chemistry between the two is still hilariously beautiful and bro-tastic after all these years.
BBFL also introduces a group of new characters, a law enforcement response team known as AMMO, who are also all pretty likable. I feel that the writers are perhaps testing the waters for a potential spin off.
The movies bad guys are drug-queen Isabel Aretas and her son Armando (Kate del Castillo and Jacob Scipio respectively) who both do a pretty good job at playing imposing and dangerous villains.
We also get some back story regarding Mike Lowrey that has never been touched on before - a possible avenue for a prequel maybe?
The action set pieces are exciting and well choreographed (best motorbike chase since John Wick 3) and directors Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - taking over from Michael Bay - do a solid job of delivering a well shot action packed adventure, with just enough nods to the original duology's style.
The only criticisms I have really stem from pacing. The movie feels very staggered for much of the first half and takes a while to really kick into gear, but once it does, it's hugely entertaining.
Also, the comedy is laid on pretty thick and fast from the get go, and there were quite a few moments that didn't land, (predictably, there was plenty of too-old-for-this-shit jokes) but by the same merit, there were plenty that did.
Bad Boys For Life is overall a fun time that is pretty hard to not enjoy, and it actually might just be the best of the series, if not, then it's certainly on par with the first.
The narrative makes a good effort to set up potential directions for the franchise going forward (I counted at least three obvious set ups) but based on the strength of this entry, it something that I would actually like to see, and considering I went to the cinema content in the apparent knowledge that this would be the last one, that can only be a good thing.
The Bad Boys films are known for being over the top, sweary, violent, funny, and action packed, and thankfully, this tried and tested formula sticks again.
It's silliness is hugely toned down from the overly gratuitous Bad Boys II, (it's still pretty silly mind), and we're presented with a host of characters that actually ground the franchise a little, and it's all the better for it.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence are once again hugely likable as detectives Mike Lowrey and Marcus Burnett, the chemistry between the two is still hilariously beautiful and bro-tastic after all these years.
BBFL also introduces a group of new characters, a law enforcement response team known as AMMO, who are also all pretty likable. I feel that the writers are perhaps testing the waters for a potential spin off.
The movies bad guys are drug-queen Isabel Aretas and her son Armando (Kate del Castillo and Jacob Scipio respectively) who both do a pretty good job at playing imposing and dangerous villains.
We also get some back story regarding Mike Lowrey that has never been touched on before - a possible avenue for a prequel maybe?
The action set pieces are exciting and well choreographed (best motorbike chase since John Wick 3) and directors Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - taking over from Michael Bay - do a solid job of delivering a well shot action packed adventure, with just enough nods to the original duology's style.
The only criticisms I have really stem from pacing. The movie feels very staggered for much of the first half and takes a while to really kick into gear, but once it does, it's hugely entertaining.
Also, the comedy is laid on pretty thick and fast from the get go, and there were quite a few moments that didn't land, (predictably, there was plenty of too-old-for-this-shit jokes) but by the same merit, there were plenty that did.
Bad Boys For Life is overall a fun time that is pretty hard to not enjoy, and it actually might just be the best of the series, if not, then it's certainly on par with the first.
The narrative makes a good effort to set up potential directions for the franchise going forward (I counted at least three obvious set ups) but based on the strength of this entry, it something that I would actually like to see, and considering I went to the cinema content in the apparent knowledge that this would be the last one, that can only be a good thing.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas is the third movie in the Harold and Kumar series. This movie takes place six years after the events of Escape from Guantanamo Bay. Harold Lee (John Cho) and Kumar Patel (Kal Penn) have fallen out of touch since Harold got married, got a job on Wall Street and moved to the suburbs. Kumar is still smoking tons of weed. Harold on the other hand has stopped smoking weed and is desperately trying to find a way to impress his father in-law, Mr. Perez, played by Danny Trejo. Mr. Perez is obsessed with Christmas. Every year his family uses a Christmas tree that he has grown. This year he brought his home grown tree to Harold’s house for Christmas. In an attempt to win Mr. Perez over, Harold encourages Mr. Perez to take the family to midnight mass while Harold decorates the tree while they are gone.
Kumar is still living in the same apartment that he shared with Harold. He has let the place go a bit while he has been living on his own. His ex-girlfriend shows up to tell him she is pregnant, but since Kumar is high he doesn’t act very mature about it. Later, as Kumar is getting ready to go to a party with his new friend, he finds a mysterious package at his door addressed to Harold. Kumar decides to take it by Harold’s house on his way to the party. When he gets there Harold and Kumar catch up a little bit over some egg nog. Harold opens the package and discovers it is a giant joint, which Kumar proceeds to light it up. Harold gets upset and throws the joint out of the window. It then magically comes back inside and burns down the tree. Of course this freaks Harold out and a desperate search for a new tree begins
This is the beginning of a hysterical journey . This roller coaster ride is filled with drugs, sex, gangsters and even more drugs. Of course Neil Patrick Harris comes back to be his crude self. This movie has a lot of good Christmas moments, but it is only for a mature audience. Fans of the first two Harold and Kumar movies will love the third installment. A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas is a non stop laugh fest. The 3D in this movie was surprisingly good. Movie goers will be impressed by the two different kinds of snow and the weed smoke going out over the audience. A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas is bound to become a Christmas classic that you will want to watch every year.
Kumar is still living in the same apartment that he shared with Harold. He has let the place go a bit while he has been living on his own. His ex-girlfriend shows up to tell him she is pregnant, but since Kumar is high he doesn’t act very mature about it. Later, as Kumar is getting ready to go to a party with his new friend, he finds a mysterious package at his door addressed to Harold. Kumar decides to take it by Harold’s house on his way to the party. When he gets there Harold and Kumar catch up a little bit over some egg nog. Harold opens the package and discovers it is a giant joint, which Kumar proceeds to light it up. Harold gets upset and throws the joint out of the window. It then magically comes back inside and burns down the tree. Of course this freaks Harold out and a desperate search for a new tree begins
This is the beginning of a hysterical journey . This roller coaster ride is filled with drugs, sex, gangsters and even more drugs. Of course Neil Patrick Harris comes back to be his crude self. This movie has a lot of good Christmas moments, but it is only for a mature audience. Fans of the first two Harold and Kumar movies will love the third installment. A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas is a non stop laugh fest. The 3D in this movie was surprisingly good. Movie goers will be impressed by the two different kinds of snow and the weed smoke going out over the audience. A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas is bound to become a Christmas classic that you will want to watch every year.