Search
Search results
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Bumblebee (2018) in Movies
Jan 23, 2019 (Updated Jan 23, 2019)
Chock-full of tropes (1 more)
Pretty lazy in most aspects
Bit of a Buzzkill
When this movie dropped late last year, I never paid any attention to it. Everything in the Transformers series has been awful since the first movie and although I knew that Michael Bay wasn't directing this one, I was still more than happy to skip it. However, after it opened to rave reviews, it peaked my interest a bit. I was hearing all sorts of good things, with this movie even being compared to the likes of ET and The Goonies. Well last night we went to the cinema planning to see Glass, but had missed the previous showing and didn't want to wait around for hours until the next one so we decided to check out Bumblebee to see if it could live up to the hype surrounding it.
TL;DR - It didn't...
I think that I did go into this movie with fairly lofty expectations, but that was due to what I had heard from other people through word-of-mouth. In fact, I don't think I heard one bad review for this thing, so I really was expecting something great. Unfortunately, what you get is a mediocre Hollywood shlock-fest with some pretty impressive CGI, but a painfully formulaic story with a lazy script and actors phoning in their performances.
Let's start with the main positive of the movie; the CGI. The animators really did do an incredible job here and there are some truly awesome action sequences that were really impressive to witness, (it's just unfortunate that we had already seen most of these sequences prior to seeing the movie in the trailers.) The robots also felt much more grimy, weighty and realistic in this film as opposed to the more slick and polished feel that they all had in Bay's Transformers movies, which helped to make it more convincing that the robots were actually present in the room with the actors rather than being added in later in post production.
The other bright spot in the movie was John Cena. Sure, he has played the stereotypical army jarhead plenty of times before, but he is still charismatic and engaging whenever he is onscreen. His career is definitely benefitting from taking roles like this where he is able to be taken less seriously rather than trying to be a super serious action star in forgettable movies like The Marine.
Unfortunately that is about it for the positives, everything else is extremely lazy and generic. The direction is serviceable, the cinematography is nothing special and the score goes through the motions it has to in order to meet the tone of each scene. The script is full of extremely cheesy lines which is delivered half heartedly by the cast who it feels like are pretty much sleepwalking through this thing for the most part. Some characters are fairly irritating such as Memo and Ron, but nothing anywhere near as egregious as Mudflap and Skids from the previous Transformers movies.
And that last statement pretty much sums up my opinion on this movie. Sure, it isn't anywhere near as annoying, obnoxious, or cringe-inducing as the movies that Michael Bay previously gave us in the main Transformers series, but it is still really cheesy and lazy and isn't anything special at all.
I think that this movie serves as a lesson for managing your expectations when going to see a film. Due to the fact that the previous Transformers movies are SO bad and so poorly regarded, most people went into this one with little to no expectation that it would be any good. When it actually turned out to be surprisingly half decent, people were so shocked that they began telling everyone else how fantastic this thing was, when it actually isn't fantastic in any way, it's just less garbage than what we were getting before with these movies. Then, because of all of these brilliant reviews, I have went in expecting something substantial and meaningful and came away sorely disappointed because it turned out to be unremarkable and mediocre.
Overall, I probably would have got more out of this movie if I was told beforehand to just switch off my brain and expect a cheesy popcorn flick. Instead I went in expecting this generation's E.T because of the overblown reviews and was let down pretty hard. It's not the worst film of last year and it is better than anything else in the Transformers series since the first movie, but it's still not anything special. There are a few highs throughout the movie, but in general it's pretty unremarkable and I don't seeing it standing the test of time in the same way that the movies that it's being compared to have done.
TL;DR - It didn't...
I think that I did go into this movie with fairly lofty expectations, but that was due to what I had heard from other people through word-of-mouth. In fact, I don't think I heard one bad review for this thing, so I really was expecting something great. Unfortunately, what you get is a mediocre Hollywood shlock-fest with some pretty impressive CGI, but a painfully formulaic story with a lazy script and actors phoning in their performances.
Let's start with the main positive of the movie; the CGI. The animators really did do an incredible job here and there are some truly awesome action sequences that were really impressive to witness, (it's just unfortunate that we had already seen most of these sequences prior to seeing the movie in the trailers.) The robots also felt much more grimy, weighty and realistic in this film as opposed to the more slick and polished feel that they all had in Bay's Transformers movies, which helped to make it more convincing that the robots were actually present in the room with the actors rather than being added in later in post production.
The other bright spot in the movie was John Cena. Sure, he has played the stereotypical army jarhead plenty of times before, but he is still charismatic and engaging whenever he is onscreen. His career is definitely benefitting from taking roles like this where he is able to be taken less seriously rather than trying to be a super serious action star in forgettable movies like The Marine.
Unfortunately that is about it for the positives, everything else is extremely lazy and generic. The direction is serviceable, the cinematography is nothing special and the score goes through the motions it has to in order to meet the tone of each scene. The script is full of extremely cheesy lines which is delivered half heartedly by the cast who it feels like are pretty much sleepwalking through this thing for the most part. Some characters are fairly irritating such as Memo and Ron, but nothing anywhere near as egregious as Mudflap and Skids from the previous Transformers movies.
And that last statement pretty much sums up my opinion on this movie. Sure, it isn't anywhere near as annoying, obnoxious, or cringe-inducing as the movies that Michael Bay previously gave us in the main Transformers series, but it is still really cheesy and lazy and isn't anything special at all.
I think that this movie serves as a lesson for managing your expectations when going to see a film. Due to the fact that the previous Transformers movies are SO bad and so poorly regarded, most people went into this one with little to no expectation that it would be any good. When it actually turned out to be surprisingly half decent, people were so shocked that they began telling everyone else how fantastic this thing was, when it actually isn't fantastic in any way, it's just less garbage than what we were getting before with these movies. Then, because of all of these brilliant reviews, I have went in expecting something substantial and meaningful and came away sorely disappointed because it turned out to be unremarkable and mediocre.
Overall, I probably would have got more out of this movie if I was told beforehand to just switch off my brain and expect a cheesy popcorn flick. Instead I went in expecting this generation's E.T because of the overblown reviews and was let down pretty hard. It's not the worst film of last year and it is better than anything else in the Transformers series since the first movie, but it's still not anything special. There are a few highs throughout the movie, but in general it's pretty unremarkable and I don't seeing it standing the test of time in the same way that the movies that it's being compared to have done.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Interstellar (2014) in Movies
Aug 9, 2018
Another top notch cinematic experience by the best director of our time
2014's INTERSTELLAR is one of Christopher Nolan's most ambitious works - and that is saying alot. It also is one of his best. Nolan - and his brother, the screenwriter of this film, Jonathan Nolan - wanted to make a "real" science fiction film, with the emphasis on the science, so they enlisted the help of noted theoretical physicist, Dr. Kip Thorne to ensure that they were not violating any established physical laws and that all speculations would spring from science and not fantasy.
And, for the most part, they succeed.
Following the adventures of "everyman" Cooper (if you call a farmer who is also a top notch astronaut, pilot and engineer an everyman), Interstellar tells of an Earth of the not-too-distant future that is running out of food and mankind must find a new planet to inhabit or else face extinction. Talked into leaving his family and heading into space, Cooper must face the challenges of his mission while fighting the emotions of leaving his family behind on a dying world.
As Cooper, Matthew McConaughey (at the height of his "McConnaissance") is perfectly cast as this "everyman". He brings the right balance of charisma, heroism, emotional maturity, intelligence and a "down to earth" behavior that has us rooting for him from the start. His acting is at the highest level and is matched, beat by beat by Jessica Chastain and (surprisingly to me at the time) Anne Hathaway as a fellow astronaut/scientist.
The special effects, worlds, circumstances, narrow escapes and deflating defeats are all handled in typical top-notch Nolan fashion, but it is the emotional stakes - specifically between McConaughey and Chastain (as his grown up daughter) are what keeps this film "grounded" and rises it above the standard sci-fi fair.
Nolan regular Michael Caine, the always great John Lithgow, Wes Bentley, Ellen Burstyn, a "before he was famous" Timothee Chalamet, another "before he was famous" David Oyelowo, Casey Affleck and a "surprise apperance" by a very famous "A" lister (who I will not name, so as not to ruin it) are all equally as good and give the proceedings the gravitas it needs.
Special notice needs to be made of the performance of Bill Irwin as the robot TARS (all space movies need a robot, right?). He performs the puppetry of the robot (Nolan wished to do everything as "practical" as possible) and adds large doses of humanity - and humor - to this non-human.
Another bit of special notice needs to be given to frequent Nolan collaborator - the brilliant Composer Hans Zimmer. He was tasked by Nolan to create a "unique" score - one that does not rely heavily on crescendoing strings and horns - and he succeeds tremendously with a hauntingly, melodic and driving score that heightens - but never overpowers - the scenes playing on the screen.
The decision as to whether or not you like this film will hinge on your "believability" of the final chapter - one where I "went with the flow" and was all right with, but (I'm sure) others will struggle with.
All in all, another top notch film by the best director of our day. If you have never seen INTERSTELLAR - or if you haven't seen it in awhile - I suggest you check it out, you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And, for the most part, they succeed.
Following the adventures of "everyman" Cooper (if you call a farmer who is also a top notch astronaut, pilot and engineer an everyman), Interstellar tells of an Earth of the not-too-distant future that is running out of food and mankind must find a new planet to inhabit or else face extinction. Talked into leaving his family and heading into space, Cooper must face the challenges of his mission while fighting the emotions of leaving his family behind on a dying world.
As Cooper, Matthew McConaughey (at the height of his "McConnaissance") is perfectly cast as this "everyman". He brings the right balance of charisma, heroism, emotional maturity, intelligence and a "down to earth" behavior that has us rooting for him from the start. His acting is at the highest level and is matched, beat by beat by Jessica Chastain and (surprisingly to me at the time) Anne Hathaway as a fellow astronaut/scientist.
The special effects, worlds, circumstances, narrow escapes and deflating defeats are all handled in typical top-notch Nolan fashion, but it is the emotional stakes - specifically between McConaughey and Chastain (as his grown up daughter) are what keeps this film "grounded" and rises it above the standard sci-fi fair.
Nolan regular Michael Caine, the always great John Lithgow, Wes Bentley, Ellen Burstyn, a "before he was famous" Timothee Chalamet, another "before he was famous" David Oyelowo, Casey Affleck and a "surprise apperance" by a very famous "A" lister (who I will not name, so as not to ruin it) are all equally as good and give the proceedings the gravitas it needs.
Special notice needs to be made of the performance of Bill Irwin as the robot TARS (all space movies need a robot, right?). He performs the puppetry of the robot (Nolan wished to do everything as "practical" as possible) and adds large doses of humanity - and humor - to this non-human.
Another bit of special notice needs to be given to frequent Nolan collaborator - the brilliant Composer Hans Zimmer. He was tasked by Nolan to create a "unique" score - one that does not rely heavily on crescendoing strings and horns - and he succeeds tremendously with a hauntingly, melodic and driving score that heightens - but never overpowers - the scenes playing on the screen.
The decision as to whether or not you like this film will hinge on your "believability" of the final chapter - one where I "went with the flow" and was all right with, but (I'm sure) others will struggle with.
All in all, another top notch film by the best director of our day. If you have never seen INTERSTELLAR - or if you haven't seen it in awhile - I suggest you check it out, you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Hunter Killer (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
The Hunt for Red October. Crimson Tide. Das Boot. These are the some of the greatest submarine movies ever made. Hunter Killer is not on that list.
That’s not to say that this movie isn’t entertaining. Gerard Butler appears alongside a surprisingly well stocked cast including Academy award winner Gary Oldman, Emmy winner Michael Nyqvist, Common and Linda Cardellini to create a gripping experience that is high action and suspense throughout the entire film. But where it excels in action it falls short in story and character development.
The action begins right off the bat; and within 5 minutes of the opening credits two submarines are destroyed and the world is on the brink of World War 3. Commander Joe Glass (Butler), despite never having captained a submarine before, is field promoted into command of the USS Arkansas, considered a Hunter Killer submarine, and sent to investigate the missing subs. During the course of his investigation, he discovers that not all is what it seems. Meanwhile, Rear Admiral John Fisk (Common) and NSA Agent Jayne Norquist (Cardellini) are at the Pentagon with some issues of their own. Using a Navy Seal recon team, they’ve discovered that a Russian military coup is in progress and the only way to prevent a war is to rescue the captive Russian president. In the end, all three teams need to work together in order to steer the two countries away from being driven into a nuclear confrontation by a rogue Russian defense minister
To its credit, this movie is what it is. Pure, driven action with few breaks and absolutely no subplots or side stories. Despite there being three main teams within the film (the submarine, the recon team and the Pentagon team) all three are focused on the same objective and there is very little deviation from their respective missions. There’s no accompanying love story or unshown historical conflict between two characters. There’s not even much in terms of character development beyond the typical “old crew learns to trust new and unproven leader”. This is as close to a pure action movie as you’re going to get. Every single line, scene and character is used to further an explosion in some way or another.
This is the first big project for director Donovan Marsh who, prior to this, hasn’t had anything close to this quality of cast or this kind of budget. Hunter Killer has actually been tossed around the studios for a number of years with other notable directors including Tony Scott (Crimson Tide) and Antoine Fuqua (Training Day) previously attached to the script. While it would have been exciting to see what either of those two could have done with this film, Marsh does manage to keep things alive by maintaining that constant stream of action and suspense. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to be able to elevate the picture above that basic level. Despite an all-star cast who performed excellently, the movie remains essentially one-dimensional.
If you’re looking for a tense (Crimson Tide), intelligent (Hunt for Red October) submarine movie that looks a little more like a political thriller and a little less like an advertisement for the Navy, then this movie is not for you. However, if you’re in need of a bit more action and a lot less subtext, then Hunter Killer makes for a great night out full of explosions, amusing jokes and better acting than the dialogue really deserved.
That’s not to say that this movie isn’t entertaining. Gerard Butler appears alongside a surprisingly well stocked cast including Academy award winner Gary Oldman, Emmy winner Michael Nyqvist, Common and Linda Cardellini to create a gripping experience that is high action and suspense throughout the entire film. But where it excels in action it falls short in story and character development.
The action begins right off the bat; and within 5 minutes of the opening credits two submarines are destroyed and the world is on the brink of World War 3. Commander Joe Glass (Butler), despite never having captained a submarine before, is field promoted into command of the USS Arkansas, considered a Hunter Killer submarine, and sent to investigate the missing subs. During the course of his investigation, he discovers that not all is what it seems. Meanwhile, Rear Admiral John Fisk (Common) and NSA Agent Jayne Norquist (Cardellini) are at the Pentagon with some issues of their own. Using a Navy Seal recon team, they’ve discovered that a Russian military coup is in progress and the only way to prevent a war is to rescue the captive Russian president. In the end, all three teams need to work together in order to steer the two countries away from being driven into a nuclear confrontation by a rogue Russian defense minister
To its credit, this movie is what it is. Pure, driven action with few breaks and absolutely no subplots or side stories. Despite there being three main teams within the film (the submarine, the recon team and the Pentagon team) all three are focused on the same objective and there is very little deviation from their respective missions. There’s no accompanying love story or unshown historical conflict between two characters. There’s not even much in terms of character development beyond the typical “old crew learns to trust new and unproven leader”. This is as close to a pure action movie as you’re going to get. Every single line, scene and character is used to further an explosion in some way or another.
This is the first big project for director Donovan Marsh who, prior to this, hasn’t had anything close to this quality of cast or this kind of budget. Hunter Killer has actually been tossed around the studios for a number of years with other notable directors including Tony Scott (Crimson Tide) and Antoine Fuqua (Training Day) previously attached to the script. While it would have been exciting to see what either of those two could have done with this film, Marsh does manage to keep things alive by maintaining that constant stream of action and suspense. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to be able to elevate the picture above that basic level. Despite an all-star cast who performed excellently, the movie remains essentially one-dimensional.
If you’re looking for a tense (Crimson Tide), intelligent (Hunt for Red October) submarine movie that looks a little more like a political thriller and a little less like an advertisement for the Navy, then this movie is not for you. However, if you’re in need of a bit more action and a lot less subtext, then Hunter Killer makes for a great night out full of explosions, amusing jokes and better acting than the dialogue really deserved.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Pitch Perfect (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
I have to admit, I am a sucker for movies with singing and dancing. And when there’s competition involved, even better! When I saw the trailer for Pitch Perfect, my first thought was it looked like “Bring It On” but for a capella groups. My second thought was, “Where do I line up?”
Sure, such movies are usually trite and predictable. But who cares? There’s singing and dancing! I don’t care that I’m expected to buy 27 year old Anna Kendrick as a rebellious, aspiring DJ named Beca, starting her freshman year at Barden College. She and Bella just graduated from high school in the Twilight series, so, sure, why not? Bribed by her dad with a promise to help her move to L.A. if she gave college a chance for one year, Becca considers what Barden has to offer. Unfortunately for her, the college’s “D.J. Club” is more about Semitic sign language than mixing beats.
Enter The Bellas, the college’s recently disgraced female a capella group lead by Aubrey (Anna Camp) and Chloe (Brittany Snow). Because of the uptight Aubrey’s shocking performance at a recent competition, they need to rebuild a group that can sing in saccharine-sweet, vanilla harmony. The pickings are slim (mostly) and what comes together is a motley crew of questionable talent. There’s Fat Amy played hilariously by Rebel Wilson, who can mermaid dance like no other. (Mainly because who else would?) There’s sexy Stacie (Alexis Knapp) who may be more comfortable with a stripper pole than singing soprano, and butch Cynthia who can’t keep her eyes of Stacie. Also in the group is Lilly (Hanna Mae Lee) who is borderline mute. So it’s no wonder Chloe aggressively recruits Beca whom she ambushes in the shower after overhearing Beca singing David Guetta’s “Titanium”.
The Bellas arch rivals are the Treble Makers and of course, Beca’s love interest in the movie is Treble Maker, Jesse (Skylar Astin) who somehow gets cuter with every scene. But he’s got to work pretty hard to impress Beca who’s more interested in her headphones than listening to Jesse wax on about the “Breakfast Club” which he believes has the best movie ending ever. Personally, I was a little disconcerted by the fact that college-age kids spoke of “Breakfast Club” with a reverance usually reserved for classics like Casablanca. Even my guest leaned over and said, “But that’s so before their time.” Then I realized, to kids who weren’t even alive when Breakfast Club was made, it would be a classic.
But Jesse’s pursuit of her isn’t Beca’s only problem. The songs Aubrey is dead set on the Bellas perfecting are yawn-worthy at best, which was grating on the music mixologist. The Bellas simply can’t win against the Treble Makers with tired arrangements of Ace of Base, Bangles and Gloria Estefan songs. But Aubrey is resistant to Beca’s attempts to bring the Bellas into the current decade. Therein lies the movie’s requisite conflicts.
Pitch Perfect in a word is fun. Simply fun. There were plenty of laughs, mainly thanks to Rebel Wilson’s scene-stealing lines and some outrageous repartee between competition commentators played by Elizabeth Banks and John Michael Higgins. The highlights, of course, were the singing performances. All of the actors have great pipes and the harmonies will please any choir geek who attends. But lest you think it’s only a teen flick, in an audience of mixed generations, the loudest laughter was from the older audience.
Sure, such movies are usually trite and predictable. But who cares? There’s singing and dancing! I don’t care that I’m expected to buy 27 year old Anna Kendrick as a rebellious, aspiring DJ named Beca, starting her freshman year at Barden College. She and Bella just graduated from high school in the Twilight series, so, sure, why not? Bribed by her dad with a promise to help her move to L.A. if she gave college a chance for one year, Becca considers what Barden has to offer. Unfortunately for her, the college’s “D.J. Club” is more about Semitic sign language than mixing beats.
Enter The Bellas, the college’s recently disgraced female a capella group lead by Aubrey (Anna Camp) and Chloe (Brittany Snow). Because of the uptight Aubrey’s shocking performance at a recent competition, they need to rebuild a group that can sing in saccharine-sweet, vanilla harmony. The pickings are slim (mostly) and what comes together is a motley crew of questionable talent. There’s Fat Amy played hilariously by Rebel Wilson, who can mermaid dance like no other. (Mainly because who else would?) There’s sexy Stacie (Alexis Knapp) who may be more comfortable with a stripper pole than singing soprano, and butch Cynthia who can’t keep her eyes of Stacie. Also in the group is Lilly (Hanna Mae Lee) who is borderline mute. So it’s no wonder Chloe aggressively recruits Beca whom she ambushes in the shower after overhearing Beca singing David Guetta’s “Titanium”.
The Bellas arch rivals are the Treble Makers and of course, Beca’s love interest in the movie is Treble Maker, Jesse (Skylar Astin) who somehow gets cuter with every scene. But he’s got to work pretty hard to impress Beca who’s more interested in her headphones than listening to Jesse wax on about the “Breakfast Club” which he believes has the best movie ending ever. Personally, I was a little disconcerted by the fact that college-age kids spoke of “Breakfast Club” with a reverance usually reserved for classics like Casablanca. Even my guest leaned over and said, “But that’s so before their time.” Then I realized, to kids who weren’t even alive when Breakfast Club was made, it would be a classic.
But Jesse’s pursuit of her isn’t Beca’s only problem. The songs Aubrey is dead set on the Bellas perfecting are yawn-worthy at best, which was grating on the music mixologist. The Bellas simply can’t win against the Treble Makers with tired arrangements of Ace of Base, Bangles and Gloria Estefan songs. But Aubrey is resistant to Beca’s attempts to bring the Bellas into the current decade. Therein lies the movie’s requisite conflicts.
Pitch Perfect in a word is fun. Simply fun. There were plenty of laughs, mainly thanks to Rebel Wilson’s scene-stealing lines and some outrageous repartee between competition commentators played by Elizabeth Banks and John Michael Higgins. The highlights, of course, were the singing performances. All of the actors have great pipes and the harmonies will please any choir geek who attends. But lest you think it’s only a teen flick, in an audience of mixed generations, the loudest laughter was from the older audience.
Success Principles by Jack Canfield- Audiobook Meditations A Business and Life Learning Program from Hero Universe
Book and Lifestyle
4.0
Rate It
App
BONUS - FREE ebook with download! NEW! Groundbreaking Audio Meditation App uses text to speech...
Clarity: Clear Mind, Better Performance, Bigger Results
Book
LEARN TO CLEAR YOUR MIND AND THINK LIKE A WINNER We all have so much going on. A million different...
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Toy Story (1995) in Movies
Jan 1, 2021
A masterpiece
Film #9 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Toy Story
When Toy Story was first released in 1995, it was groundbreaking. The first ever fully computer animated film and the first released by Disney Pixar, this was also one of the first films I saw at the cinema as an 8 year old child. Admittedly at that age I was concentrating more on the colourful animated toys rather than appreciating the sheer wizardry on offer, but from repeated watches over the decades, I’ve come to fully recognise the sheer genius of this film.
Toy Story centres around the idea that toys are alive, a concept that most children would love to be true. It follows Woody, a cowboy voiced by Tom Hanks, who’s cushy existence as the top dog of Andy’s toys is disrupted by a new space ranger doll, Buzz Lightyear, voiced by Tim Allen. As Buzz soon becomes Andy’s favourite toy, Woody’s jealousy drives him to desperate measures that wind up with the pair of them becoming ‘lost toys’ and captives of evil neighbour Sid. And together with Buzz and Woody are a whole host of colourful and wacky toy characters, including Mr Potato Head (Don Rickles), Slinky Dog (Jim Varney), Etch-a Sketch and a bucketful of toy soldiers to name but a few of the childhood throwbacks on offer here.
Watching this back 25 years later, it’s hard to believe this film was released in the mid-90s. Whilst you can tell that more recent Disney Pixar releases have improved massively on the animation since Toy Story, the standard of the animation in this is hugely impressive. There are some studios that can’t master this level of detailed animation even now as we move into 2021. The feature and intricacies on show here is impressive, especially with the toy characters - you need to look no further than the scales on Rex (voiced memorably by Wallace Michael Shawn) as a shining example of this.
It isn’t just the animation that that makes Toy Story so brilliant though, it’s the entire package. It’s a heartwarming and often hilarious buddy story of sorts, with some strangely adult messages hidden in the childlike story (Buzz’s disillusionment at being a toy rather than a real space ranger is particularly poignant). As a child this made me believe my toys were alive, and as an adult I’m still hesitant about donating or throwing away old cuddly toys. It’s also full of what we’ve all come to know and love about Disney Pixar: a film suitable for kids but full of grown up innuendos and adult jokes that makes it appropriate for all ages. Alongside this it has a fantastic voice cast in household names Tom Hanks and Tim Allen, and of course brought us the first of many characters voiced by the unforgettable John Ratzenberger. And what further rounds this off is the catchy and touching original songs by Randy Newman. I doubt there are many people who haven’t heard “You’ve Got a Friend in Me”, a song that evokes such a warm and fuzzy feeling inside and is fully deserving of the ‘Best Original Song’ Oscar nomination.
Toy Story is undoubtedly a masterpiece in animation. Whilst it may not have aged incredibly well when comparing it with more recent releases, this is the film that first introduced us to the world of Disney Pixar and paved the way for all of those that have followed.
When Toy Story was first released in 1995, it was groundbreaking. The first ever fully computer animated film and the first released by Disney Pixar, this was also one of the first films I saw at the cinema as an 8 year old child. Admittedly at that age I was concentrating more on the colourful animated toys rather than appreciating the sheer wizardry on offer, but from repeated watches over the decades, I’ve come to fully recognise the sheer genius of this film.
Toy Story centres around the idea that toys are alive, a concept that most children would love to be true. It follows Woody, a cowboy voiced by Tom Hanks, who’s cushy existence as the top dog of Andy’s toys is disrupted by a new space ranger doll, Buzz Lightyear, voiced by Tim Allen. As Buzz soon becomes Andy’s favourite toy, Woody’s jealousy drives him to desperate measures that wind up with the pair of them becoming ‘lost toys’ and captives of evil neighbour Sid. And together with Buzz and Woody are a whole host of colourful and wacky toy characters, including Mr Potato Head (Don Rickles), Slinky Dog (Jim Varney), Etch-a Sketch and a bucketful of toy soldiers to name but a few of the childhood throwbacks on offer here.
Watching this back 25 years later, it’s hard to believe this film was released in the mid-90s. Whilst you can tell that more recent Disney Pixar releases have improved massively on the animation since Toy Story, the standard of the animation in this is hugely impressive. There are some studios that can’t master this level of detailed animation even now as we move into 2021. The feature and intricacies on show here is impressive, especially with the toy characters - you need to look no further than the scales on Rex (voiced memorably by Wallace Michael Shawn) as a shining example of this.
It isn’t just the animation that that makes Toy Story so brilliant though, it’s the entire package. It’s a heartwarming and often hilarious buddy story of sorts, with some strangely adult messages hidden in the childlike story (Buzz’s disillusionment at being a toy rather than a real space ranger is particularly poignant). As a child this made me believe my toys were alive, and as an adult I’m still hesitant about donating or throwing away old cuddly toys. It’s also full of what we’ve all come to know and love about Disney Pixar: a film suitable for kids but full of grown up innuendos and adult jokes that makes it appropriate for all ages. Alongside this it has a fantastic voice cast in household names Tom Hanks and Tim Allen, and of course brought us the first of many characters voiced by the unforgettable John Ratzenberger. And what further rounds this off is the catchy and touching original songs by Randy Newman. I doubt there are many people who haven’t heard “You’ve Got a Friend in Me”, a song that evokes such a warm and fuzzy feeling inside and is fully deserving of the ‘Best Original Song’ Oscar nomination.
Toy Story is undoubtedly a masterpiece in animation. Whilst it may not have aged incredibly well when comparing it with more recent releases, this is the film that first introduced us to the world of Disney Pixar and paved the way for all of those that have followed.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) in Movies
Mar 15, 2021
A classic
Film #16 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Monty Python’s Life of Brian
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fast & Furious 9 (2021) in Movies
Jul 24, 2021
Enjoyable...enough
If you have any interest in checking out F9:THE FAST SAGA, then you have seen at least 1 (if not more) of the other 9 films in this series - and you pretty much know what to expect.
And this film delivers on that expectation - no more, no less.
Director Justin Lin - a veteran of these films - knows what needs to happen in this series. So we get fast cars, macho men, kick-ass women, super villains and over-the-top stunts and situations. All brought to us with a wink and a shrug. Unapologetic about the absurdities that we are viewing (not to spoil, but I don’t think magnets really work the way they work in this film) and “upping the ante” at every turn.
This film largely delivers…if not spectacularly. The action sequences (which is really why we watch these films) are “good enough”. Nothing really new here, but I caught myself cackling at the events on the screen from time to time.
The “family” is back together and Vin Diesel & Michelle Rodriguez are the pseudo Mom and Dad of this ragtag group of heroes that include the smart one (Game Of Thrones’ Nathalie Emanuel) and the wise guys (Chris “Ludicrous” Bridges and Tyrese Gibson) - who know exactly what type of film they are making and what their roles in this film are as well as the “emotional center”, Jordana Brewster. All of these deliver their wooden lines with gritty resolve while clenching their jaws during their close-ups during the action scenes.
There also is a boatload of cameos from veterans of previous Fast and Furious films from the likes of Kurt Russell, Helen Mirren, Lucas Black, Shea Wigham and Charlize Theron as well as brief appearances by “newcomers” like Michael Rooker and Cardi B. They all join in on the fun at the appropriate level and look like they are having a good time.
The biggest disappointment for me was John Cena as the main villain in this piece. He just wasn’t “villainous” enough and came off pretty generic and “meh” - never a good thing for a bad guy in these types of films.
Oh…and there is a “surprise return” by a presumably thought dead character, that is no surprise at all, since his face is shown prominently in the advertisements for this film. I won’t spoil it for you here, but he does bring some needed energy to this film. Which leads me to speculate that Gal Gadot will probably show up in the next film (her character was killed off many Fast and Furious films ago when she started becoming a SuperStar).
Ultimately, what is missing from F9 is some “fun energy”. Something that…oh…a good villain…or someone like…Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson would bring. But, alas, “The Rock” and Vin Diesel did not get along in their previous outings together, so we will need to limp along with what we have.
Which is what the 10th film in this Universe ultimately does - limp along just good enough to be enjoyable, but not more than that, which makes F9 neither Fast nor Furious.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And this film delivers on that expectation - no more, no less.
Director Justin Lin - a veteran of these films - knows what needs to happen in this series. So we get fast cars, macho men, kick-ass women, super villains and over-the-top stunts and situations. All brought to us with a wink and a shrug. Unapologetic about the absurdities that we are viewing (not to spoil, but I don’t think magnets really work the way they work in this film) and “upping the ante” at every turn.
This film largely delivers…if not spectacularly. The action sequences (which is really why we watch these films) are “good enough”. Nothing really new here, but I caught myself cackling at the events on the screen from time to time.
The “family” is back together and Vin Diesel & Michelle Rodriguez are the pseudo Mom and Dad of this ragtag group of heroes that include the smart one (Game Of Thrones’ Nathalie Emanuel) and the wise guys (Chris “Ludicrous” Bridges and Tyrese Gibson) - who know exactly what type of film they are making and what their roles in this film are as well as the “emotional center”, Jordana Brewster. All of these deliver their wooden lines with gritty resolve while clenching their jaws during their close-ups during the action scenes.
There also is a boatload of cameos from veterans of previous Fast and Furious films from the likes of Kurt Russell, Helen Mirren, Lucas Black, Shea Wigham and Charlize Theron as well as brief appearances by “newcomers” like Michael Rooker and Cardi B. They all join in on the fun at the appropriate level and look like they are having a good time.
The biggest disappointment for me was John Cena as the main villain in this piece. He just wasn’t “villainous” enough and came off pretty generic and “meh” - never a good thing for a bad guy in these types of films.
Oh…and there is a “surprise return” by a presumably thought dead character, that is no surprise at all, since his face is shown prominently in the advertisements for this film. I won’t spoil it for you here, but he does bring some needed energy to this film. Which leads me to speculate that Gal Gadot will probably show up in the next film (her character was killed off many Fast and Furious films ago when she started becoming a SuperStar).
Ultimately, what is missing from F9 is some “fun energy”. Something that…oh…a good villain…or someone like…Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson would bring. But, alas, “The Rock” and Vin Diesel did not get along in their previous outings together, so we will need to limp along with what we have.
Which is what the 10th film in this Universe ultimately does - limp along just good enough to be enjoyable, but not more than that, which makes F9 neither Fast nor Furious.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Jan 2, 2021
Nolan's PhD Thesis on time
And…on the first day of 2021…the BankofMarquis viewed the best film of 2020.
Christopher Nolan’s TENET is dense, beautifully shot, confusing, wonderfully acted, well staged, mind bending…and brilliant.
Starring John David Washington (Denzel’s kid - more on him later), TENET is Christopher Nolan’s “Spy Movie”. Much like what he did with the Murder Mystery genre (MEMENTO), the Heist Genre (INCEPTION), the Sci-Fi flick (INTERSTELLAR) and the war picture (DUNKIRK), Nolan takes the Spy film and turns it upside by playing with the one thing we all take for granted - time.
While all of these previous films were Nolan’s “warm up” to this film, TENET is Nolan’s PhD Thesis on playing with time - and the audience’s expectations of how time works. Not only does Nolan play with moving people and action forward and backwards through time, he also plays scenes where you don’t realize that the two folks talking are actually speaking at 2 different places in time.
It is a mind-bender to be sure - and I cannot imagine what the filmmakers, stunt personnel and actors went through in making it - but there is one thing I can guarantee you - you will be confused for (at least) the first part of the film while you retrain your mind to forget all preconceived notions on how time works.
But, if you are able to get your mind around this, Director Nolan has crafted a strong, well-acted, beautiful, exciting and action packed film that, in the end, is very satisfying.
Let’s start with the acting - top to bottom the performances are stellar. John David Washington (BLACK KkKLANSMAN) is “The Protagonist” (that is how he is billed, we never learn his name) and he is a charming and charismatic screen presence to experience this film with. Washington is a former professional football player and he uses this physicality throughout the film. But he is not a “lumbering brute”. He is intelligent and thoughtful as he learns things and adapts his plans as the audience learns them and helps lead us through the often complex plot and concepts throughout.
Elizabeth Debicki builds on her strong work in 2019’s WIDOWS (if you haven’t seen this film, check it out). Her character is much, much more than a “Femme Fatale” and goes mano-a-mano with the men in this film and more than holds her own. Nolan favorite Michael Caine (ALFIE) shows up as does Himesh Patel (INCEPTION), Dimple Kapadia (a major Bollywood star) and Aaron Taylor-Johnson (KICKASS) - all 3 of them bring their “A” game to this film and supports the story very very well.
Kenneth Branagh (TV’s WALLANDER) shows that he still has his fastball - when he is interested - as the film’s main villain. He has some very intense scenes where he just acts the pants off the others in the room (this is a compliment). Sir Kenneth has had a long, storied career (including many, many Shakespearean roles) and he plays the villain as a Shakespeare villain - and is very successful doing so. I’m glad he didn’t waste his “villain turn” on a Marvel or James Bond flick - he saved it for the right film.
Special notice should be made to the work of Robert Pattinson (TWILIGHT) - he has spent his “post-Twilight” years reinventing himself as a performer, mostly working in small, actor-led independent films, and this performance bears the fruits of those efforts. He is charming and mysterious as The Protagonist’s partner and proves that he can, indeed, act.
Like most Nolan films, the Cinematography is mesmerizing and beautiful to behld. Hats off to frequent Nolan Cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema who was able to create a mood and feeling of evil riding just under the surface of beauty - as well as to be able to distinguish those that are going forward in time versus those that are going backwards all while framing shots that are pictures of artistic beauty.
Nolan did not work with frequent musical collaborator Hans Zimmer on this film. He stated he felt that this film needed a “new, more modern” sound and turned to Ludwig Goransson (the Disney+ series THE MANDALORIAN) and he was smart to do so. The music/sound of this film is another character and helps drive the story forward in so many ways.
But make no mistake about it, this film is Nolan’s baby - and it is very “Nolan-y”. The action scenes are smartly put together, the plot and concepts are strong - but very dense - and the performances are strong. All trademarks of my favorite Director working today.
This film is not for everyone. The complexities of the plot are going to be too much for some folks, but if you just “roll with the flow” when your mind can’t quite catch up to the concepts, you will be rewarded with a very rich - very original - film experience. One that, I am sure, will become deeper and richer on the many, many re watches this film deserves.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Christopher Nolan’s TENET is dense, beautifully shot, confusing, wonderfully acted, well staged, mind bending…and brilliant.
Starring John David Washington (Denzel’s kid - more on him later), TENET is Christopher Nolan’s “Spy Movie”. Much like what he did with the Murder Mystery genre (MEMENTO), the Heist Genre (INCEPTION), the Sci-Fi flick (INTERSTELLAR) and the war picture (DUNKIRK), Nolan takes the Spy film and turns it upside by playing with the one thing we all take for granted - time.
While all of these previous films were Nolan’s “warm up” to this film, TENET is Nolan’s PhD Thesis on playing with time - and the audience’s expectations of how time works. Not only does Nolan play with moving people and action forward and backwards through time, he also plays scenes where you don’t realize that the two folks talking are actually speaking at 2 different places in time.
It is a mind-bender to be sure - and I cannot imagine what the filmmakers, stunt personnel and actors went through in making it - but there is one thing I can guarantee you - you will be confused for (at least) the first part of the film while you retrain your mind to forget all preconceived notions on how time works.
But, if you are able to get your mind around this, Director Nolan has crafted a strong, well-acted, beautiful, exciting and action packed film that, in the end, is very satisfying.
Let’s start with the acting - top to bottom the performances are stellar. John David Washington (BLACK KkKLANSMAN) is “The Protagonist” (that is how he is billed, we never learn his name) and he is a charming and charismatic screen presence to experience this film with. Washington is a former professional football player and he uses this physicality throughout the film. But he is not a “lumbering brute”. He is intelligent and thoughtful as he learns things and adapts his plans as the audience learns them and helps lead us through the often complex plot and concepts throughout.
Elizabeth Debicki builds on her strong work in 2019’s WIDOWS (if you haven’t seen this film, check it out). Her character is much, much more than a “Femme Fatale” and goes mano-a-mano with the men in this film and more than holds her own. Nolan favorite Michael Caine (ALFIE) shows up as does Himesh Patel (INCEPTION), Dimple Kapadia (a major Bollywood star) and Aaron Taylor-Johnson (KICKASS) - all 3 of them bring their “A” game to this film and supports the story very very well.
Kenneth Branagh (TV’s WALLANDER) shows that he still has his fastball - when he is interested - as the film’s main villain. He has some very intense scenes where he just acts the pants off the others in the room (this is a compliment). Sir Kenneth has had a long, storied career (including many, many Shakespearean roles) and he plays the villain as a Shakespeare villain - and is very successful doing so. I’m glad he didn’t waste his “villain turn” on a Marvel or James Bond flick - he saved it for the right film.
Special notice should be made to the work of Robert Pattinson (TWILIGHT) - he has spent his “post-Twilight” years reinventing himself as a performer, mostly working in small, actor-led independent films, and this performance bears the fruits of those efforts. He is charming and mysterious as The Protagonist’s partner and proves that he can, indeed, act.
Like most Nolan films, the Cinematography is mesmerizing and beautiful to behld. Hats off to frequent Nolan Cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema who was able to create a mood and feeling of evil riding just under the surface of beauty - as well as to be able to distinguish those that are going forward in time versus those that are going backwards all while framing shots that are pictures of artistic beauty.
Nolan did not work with frequent musical collaborator Hans Zimmer on this film. He stated he felt that this film needed a “new, more modern” sound and turned to Ludwig Goransson (the Disney+ series THE MANDALORIAN) and he was smart to do so. The music/sound of this film is another character and helps drive the story forward in so many ways.
But make no mistake about it, this film is Nolan’s baby - and it is very “Nolan-y”. The action scenes are smartly put together, the plot and concepts are strong - but very dense - and the performances are strong. All trademarks of my favorite Director working today.
This film is not for everyone. The complexities of the plot are going to be too much for some folks, but if you just “roll with the flow” when your mind can’t quite catch up to the concepts, you will be rewarded with a very rich - very original - film experience. One that, I am sure, will become deeper and richer on the many, many re watches this film deserves.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)