Search
Search results
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Marvel Masterworks: The Uncanny X-Men, Vol. 4 in Books
Nov 30, 2020
This was a hella good tine, re-reading issues I have not read since they first came out in the 70s! As I immersed myself, it was actually thrilling me to remember how good the team of [Chris] Claremont, [John] Byrne and [Terry] Austin were together. Each subsequent showed the art team developing it's own style, becoming more comfortable with the characters, each set of pencils and inks that much tighter!
One thing I definitely noticed, and did not think about altogether until my wife and I started rewatching FIREFLY, was how Wolverine/Logan was like the Jayne Cobb of the X-Men. Serious similarities! Even down to how both characters would have barbs toward their respective leaders (Jayne/Mal; Wolverine/Cry-clops), but when it came down to it, both were pretty good at fighting/backing up the team.
One other observation.. I did not realize how "politically incorrect" some of the early characters were. For example, a member of Alpha Force, "the Canadian X-Men, was Michael Twoyoungmen (codename: Shaman). That is probably the WORST Native American name EVER! I am surprised they have not tried to retcon his real name! Then again, now that I think about it, I can't recall the last time any of the Alpha Flight team members were mentioned in last 10 years, other than Northstar! I wonder if that had anything to do with it.
Overall. it's good run of X-Men stories. Yeah, many times the dialogue will seem corny AF, but the overall story is what really matters, and at the end, that will really be what matters! Check it out, or miss it, but I think you will be sorry if you overlook it...
One thing I definitely noticed, and did not think about altogether until my wife and I started rewatching FIREFLY, was how Wolverine/Logan was like the Jayne Cobb of the X-Men. Serious similarities! Even down to how both characters would have barbs toward their respective leaders (Jayne/Mal; Wolverine/Cry-clops), but when it came down to it, both were pretty good at fighting/backing up the team.
One other observation.. I did not realize how "politically incorrect" some of the early characters were. For example, a member of Alpha Force, "the Canadian X-Men, was Michael Twoyoungmen (codename: Shaman). That is probably the WORST Native American name EVER! I am surprised they have not tried to retcon his real name! Then again, now that I think about it, I can't recall the last time any of the Alpha Flight team members were mentioned in last 10 years, other than Northstar! I wonder if that had anything to do with it.
Overall. it's good run of X-Men stories. Yeah, many times the dialogue will seem corny AF, but the overall story is what really matters, and at the end, that will really be what matters! Check it out, or miss it, but I think you will be sorry if you overlook it...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Hateful Eight (2015) in Movies
Aug 30, 2019 (Updated Sep 11, 2019)
A modern masterpiece
Honestly, there is nothing I dislike about the 8th film from Quentin Tarantino. Absolutely nothing.
From the minute The Hateful Eight starts it's meaty runtime, we're treated to some stunning long distance shots. The setting is gorgeous, and every shot in the opening moments has been shot with care.
It's not long until the cast start getting introduced, specifically Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson), John Ruth (Kurt Russell), Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh), and Chris Mannix (Walton Goggins), as they all make their way to the town of Red Rock for various reasons.
All four of them are fantastic, as they masterfully work Tarantino's wonderful script. As usual, the dialogue throughout The Hateful Eight is thoroughly engaging, and didn't lose my attention for one second.
On the way there, they stop at an inn to shelter from the violent blizzard - Minnie's Haberdashery - where the rest of the film takes place. It's here we meet Bob (Demián Bichir), Oswald Mobray (Tom Roth), Joe Gabe (Michael Madsen), and General Sandy Smithers (Bruce Dern), rounding out our eight strong cast of hateful characters.
What follows is a dialogue heavy, intense ride as these characters begin to find themselves at odds with each other, revealing hidden secrets along the way, in the aftermath of American Civil War.
It's an intriguing set up that I can't say anymore about without spoiling anything.
It's certainly a film that benefits from knowing nothing about it before going in.
As I said, this is an amazing looking movie, with an extremely solid cast, and a tight and often funny script. The music score is beautiful just to add a lovely finishing touch.
I can't praise this masterpiece enough - Tarantino at his best.
From the minute The Hateful Eight starts it's meaty runtime, we're treated to some stunning long distance shots. The setting is gorgeous, and every shot in the opening moments has been shot with care.
It's not long until the cast start getting introduced, specifically Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson), John Ruth (Kurt Russell), Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh), and Chris Mannix (Walton Goggins), as they all make their way to the town of Red Rock for various reasons.
All four of them are fantastic, as they masterfully work Tarantino's wonderful script. As usual, the dialogue throughout The Hateful Eight is thoroughly engaging, and didn't lose my attention for one second.
On the way there, they stop at an inn to shelter from the violent blizzard - Minnie's Haberdashery - where the rest of the film takes place. It's here we meet Bob (Demián Bichir), Oswald Mobray (Tom Roth), Joe Gabe (Michael Madsen), and General Sandy Smithers (Bruce Dern), rounding out our eight strong cast of hateful characters.
What follows is a dialogue heavy, intense ride as these characters begin to find themselves at odds with each other, revealing hidden secrets along the way, in the aftermath of American Civil War.
It's an intriguing set up that I can't say anymore about without spoiling anything.
It's certainly a film that benefits from knowing nothing about it before going in.
As I said, this is an amazing looking movie, with an extremely solid cast, and a tight and often funny script. The music score is beautiful just to add a lovely finishing touch.
I can't praise this masterpiece enough - Tarantino at his best.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Pig (2021) in Movies
Nov 30, 2021
Nicolas Cage's placement within the zeitgeist is almost legendary at this point. His various unhinged performances over the decades have ensured that he's the go-to-guy for any movie with a whacky premise that needs a lead who will commit to the part, no matter how ludicrous. Pig is a film that has fallen a little foul of this. It's a film that had been mistakenly billed to me as "John Wick but with Nicolas Cage and a pig", a film that's very synopsis lends itself to the absurdity that surrounds Cage and his career.
The finished project however is an emotional and heartfelt triumph. For starters, the whole movie is shot beautifully with plenty of stunning cinematography on display. It verges into arthouse territory fairly regularly, but works hand in hand with the way the narrative chugs along, quite wonderfully.
The slower pace of proceedings is filled with great dialogue and great turns from the likes of Adam Arkin and the ever-reliable Alex Wolff, but make no mistake, Pig belongs to Cage 100%. His performance here is nothing short of fantastic. His character is layered, and aspects of him are slowly revealed as the story unfolds, and Cage delivers it all pretty flawlessly. No joke, probably his career highlight.
The tone is a rollercoaster, from optimism amongst sadness to flat out despair. The climactic scene in particular is an absolutly beautiful and emotional shit show, that lands perfectly thanks to its stellar cast.
Pig is a movie that I didn't expect to get me as much as it did. It's an incredibly competent, subtle, and well realised debut full-length feature from Michael Sarnoski, that I imagine will be criminally overlooked when awards season rolls around. Give Nicolas Cage an Oscar dammit!
The finished project however is an emotional and heartfelt triumph. For starters, the whole movie is shot beautifully with plenty of stunning cinematography on display. It verges into arthouse territory fairly regularly, but works hand in hand with the way the narrative chugs along, quite wonderfully.
The slower pace of proceedings is filled with great dialogue and great turns from the likes of Adam Arkin and the ever-reliable Alex Wolff, but make no mistake, Pig belongs to Cage 100%. His performance here is nothing short of fantastic. His character is layered, and aspects of him are slowly revealed as the story unfolds, and Cage delivers it all pretty flawlessly. No joke, probably his career highlight.
The tone is a rollercoaster, from optimism amongst sadness to flat out despair. The climactic scene in particular is an absolutly beautiful and emotional shit show, that lands perfectly thanks to its stellar cast.
Pig is a movie that I didn't expect to get me as much as it did. It's an incredibly competent, subtle, and well realised debut full-length feature from Michael Sarnoski, that I imagine will be criminally overlooked when awards season rolls around. Give Nicolas Cage an Oscar dammit!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Pitch Perfect 3 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Aca-bysmal.
Mr Plot and Miss Tale were teenage sweethearts. They met at Storyville High School and inseparable, but were viciously cursed by a jealous school nurse, bitter from a recent split. Notwithstanding this setback, they realised that they were soul-mates, got engaged and were married in the following summer. Everyone wished them well, and spoke of the time when the sound of little Plots would ring out around their new house. Unfortunately, however hard they tried, no little Plot arrived. The ancient curse of the school nurse rang in their ears. They paid to see the most expensive doctors on Harley Street, but noone could help them. It turned out that not only was Mrs Plot infertile, but so was Mr Plot. It was hopeless, and because of an unfortunate conviction for marujiana possession in Mr Plot’s teenage years they couldn’t even adapt, sorry, adopt a little Plot from someone else. So they lived together with sadness and bitterness building up inside them. Would the curse ever be lifted? Would they work through their differences to find new purpose in life? Or would they part acromoniously with Mrs Plot joining a convent to sing mournful songs of grief and missed opportunities in the Swiss Alps? TO… BE…CONTINUED.
There. You were there, weren’t you? Living it. You want to know what happens next? Sure you do. You see, even I can come up with a story…. and I’m not a “professional Hollywood scriptwriter”.
Why then, I ask you. Why oh why oh why oh why oh why do the scriptwriters of Pitch Perfect 3 – Kay Cannon (the original PP screenwriter) and Mike White (“The Emoji Movie”) – think that this dreadfully lazy set of loosely connected scenes represent a viable basis for a movie? Is the view from the guys who green-lit this thing that the crowd that loved “Pitch Perfect” and the pretty dreadful sequel “Pitch Perfect 2” will pay their box office money regardless? Let’s advertise the hell out of it and cash in our chips before word of mouth gets out!?
In this ‘adventure’ the Bellas go on a US Forces overseas tour (though this is not really explained until they suddenly appear in Spain – what? how?). The really REALLY annoying commentators John (John Michael Higgins) and Gail (Elizabeth Banks, “Love and Mercy“) tag along, filming some lame half-arsed documentary about them until even the scriptwriters get fed up of that tedious plot-line and it quietly withers on the vine.
Fat Amy (is this still an acceptable nickname in 2017?) also runs into her nefarious father again after many years (John Lithgow, “Interstellar“, “Daddy’s Home 2“). Lithgow – sporting a wonderful Australian accent – is about the best thing in the film. The “plot” (sorry, I can barely bring myself to use that word) revolves around Daddy trying to get something of Amy’s that he needs, for reasons – given the yacht he sails – that makes no sense whatsoever. Will he succeed? Will the Bellas get selected to headline with DJ Khaled (who is apparently a thing, but I’ve never heard him on BBC Radio 2)? Does anyone really care?
As my wife pointed out, it’s a bit unfortunate that the only Bellas who are not stick-thin size zeroes are the obese and annoyingly loud one, the black lesbian one and two that nobody knows why they are there. The message to the target female teen audience is clear: if you want to be “in” you’d better diet… hard. Nice.
Looking for all the world like sticks of candy-cane. The size 0 Bellas.
What can I say that’s vaguely nice about this monstrosity?
Some of the acapella song and dance numbers are fun enough, particularly “Toxic” that opens the film;
The closing number by Anna Kendrick (“Table 19“) is quite appealing;
There are also about 5 funny lines that made me smile: not laugh… smile;
It’s also a relief that John and Gail, unlike in “Pitch Perfect 2“, only come out with one xenophobic/racist comment in the film (and that’s about the French, so that hardly counts 🙂 ).
And I’m out…
There will be no doubt die-hard teenage fans who will love this one too. But my wife was a great fan of the first film (as indeed was I); she tolerated the second one; but even she declared this to be “Aca-Awful”. It’s not as toxically dreadful as “Dirty Grandpa“… what could be? But, seriously, life is too short for this.
There. You were there, weren’t you? Living it. You want to know what happens next? Sure you do. You see, even I can come up with a story…. and I’m not a “professional Hollywood scriptwriter”.
Why then, I ask you. Why oh why oh why oh why oh why do the scriptwriters of Pitch Perfect 3 – Kay Cannon (the original PP screenwriter) and Mike White (“The Emoji Movie”) – think that this dreadfully lazy set of loosely connected scenes represent a viable basis for a movie? Is the view from the guys who green-lit this thing that the crowd that loved “Pitch Perfect” and the pretty dreadful sequel “Pitch Perfect 2” will pay their box office money regardless? Let’s advertise the hell out of it and cash in our chips before word of mouth gets out!?
In this ‘adventure’ the Bellas go on a US Forces overseas tour (though this is not really explained until they suddenly appear in Spain – what? how?). The really REALLY annoying commentators John (John Michael Higgins) and Gail (Elizabeth Banks, “Love and Mercy“) tag along, filming some lame half-arsed documentary about them until even the scriptwriters get fed up of that tedious plot-line and it quietly withers on the vine.
Fat Amy (is this still an acceptable nickname in 2017?) also runs into her nefarious father again after many years (John Lithgow, “Interstellar“, “Daddy’s Home 2“). Lithgow – sporting a wonderful Australian accent – is about the best thing in the film. The “plot” (sorry, I can barely bring myself to use that word) revolves around Daddy trying to get something of Amy’s that he needs, for reasons – given the yacht he sails – that makes no sense whatsoever. Will he succeed? Will the Bellas get selected to headline with DJ Khaled (who is apparently a thing, but I’ve never heard him on BBC Radio 2)? Does anyone really care?
As my wife pointed out, it’s a bit unfortunate that the only Bellas who are not stick-thin size zeroes are the obese and annoyingly loud one, the black lesbian one and two that nobody knows why they are there. The message to the target female teen audience is clear: if you want to be “in” you’d better diet… hard. Nice.
Looking for all the world like sticks of candy-cane. The size 0 Bellas.
What can I say that’s vaguely nice about this monstrosity?
Some of the acapella song and dance numbers are fun enough, particularly “Toxic” that opens the film;
The closing number by Anna Kendrick (“Table 19“) is quite appealing;
There are also about 5 funny lines that made me smile: not laugh… smile;
It’s also a relief that John and Gail, unlike in “Pitch Perfect 2“, only come out with one xenophobic/racist comment in the film (and that’s about the French, so that hardly counts 🙂 ).
And I’m out…
There will be no doubt die-hard teenage fans who will love this one too. But my wife was a great fan of the first film (as indeed was I); she tolerated the second one; but even she declared this to be “Aca-Awful”. It’s not as toxically dreadful as “Dirty Grandpa“… what could be? But, seriously, life is too short for this.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Halloween II (2009) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Michael Myers has returned, again! But this time it’s personal. Halloween II is the brainchild of Rob Zombie who directed the remake of the 1978 John Carpenter original.
However, in this, the first sequel of the rebooted slasher series, Zombie has been able to splash his creative wisdom all over the celluloid with somewhat successful results. Unfortunately, in some parts, the phrase somewhat successful seems even more appropriate.
By now, we all know that having Sheri Moon in a Rob Zombie film is a given, but her role here is perhaps slightly too implausible for even the most hardened fans to appreciate, playing what seems like a schizophrenic Michael’s dead mother. Unfortunately, the idea, whilst being excellent at the pre-production stages of the movie, is badly executed on screen and what we’re left with, is a mess of a storyline that doesn’t ever know which way it is going; supernatural thriller one-minute and slasher flick the next.
Regrettably, Zombie has made some horrific choices concerning Michael’s character. Of course we have to give him credit for taking on a Halloween sequel without any prior experience. The inexperience shows in Michael, who has been turned into a Jason Voorhees rip off; grunting as he kills and not using the typical kitchen knife as the primary weapon. Here, Zombie also decides to remove Michael’s iconic mask, which should in theory become an iconic cinema moment; unfortunately it does not and is forgotten in a mass of blood and gore.
Negativity aside, the story is pretty much the same as last time around, though Zombie has focused in on Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor Compton) and the way her character changes from the events of Halloween night. As with giving the characters a back-story in the 2007 Halloween, this storyline change really does work and gives the film something which isn’t usually necessary for the horror genre; depth.
The acting is surprisingly superb; Compton is much better this time around and really brings a whole new grungy side to her character and most of the other returning characters are given much more room to grown and develop, probably due to the film’s long running time. On the other hand, Malcolm McDowell’s portrayal of the iconic Sam Loomis has been shoddily remastered into a greedy, fame-obsessed man whose objectives are simply to make as much money as possible. This doesn’t suit the role and leaves the usually excellent McDowell wanting.
Overall, Halloween II is a decent stab at recreating the old franchise; Zombie has made it work on so many levels and it certainly moves the game on. Unfortunately, he has tried to pack too many elements into the film and the pay off for that is a messy looking cinema encounter. Enjoyable as a film, yes, but the jury is still out on whether this deserves a spot on the Halloween collector’s shelf.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/19/halloween-ii-2009/
However, in this, the first sequel of the rebooted slasher series, Zombie has been able to splash his creative wisdom all over the celluloid with somewhat successful results. Unfortunately, in some parts, the phrase somewhat successful seems even more appropriate.
By now, we all know that having Sheri Moon in a Rob Zombie film is a given, but her role here is perhaps slightly too implausible for even the most hardened fans to appreciate, playing what seems like a schizophrenic Michael’s dead mother. Unfortunately, the idea, whilst being excellent at the pre-production stages of the movie, is badly executed on screen and what we’re left with, is a mess of a storyline that doesn’t ever know which way it is going; supernatural thriller one-minute and slasher flick the next.
Regrettably, Zombie has made some horrific choices concerning Michael’s character. Of course we have to give him credit for taking on a Halloween sequel without any prior experience. The inexperience shows in Michael, who has been turned into a Jason Voorhees rip off; grunting as he kills and not using the typical kitchen knife as the primary weapon. Here, Zombie also decides to remove Michael’s iconic mask, which should in theory become an iconic cinema moment; unfortunately it does not and is forgotten in a mass of blood and gore.
Negativity aside, the story is pretty much the same as last time around, though Zombie has focused in on Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor Compton) and the way her character changes from the events of Halloween night. As with giving the characters a back-story in the 2007 Halloween, this storyline change really does work and gives the film something which isn’t usually necessary for the horror genre; depth.
The acting is surprisingly superb; Compton is much better this time around and really brings a whole new grungy side to her character and most of the other returning characters are given much more room to grown and develop, probably due to the film’s long running time. On the other hand, Malcolm McDowell’s portrayal of the iconic Sam Loomis has been shoddily remastered into a greedy, fame-obsessed man whose objectives are simply to make as much money as possible. This doesn’t suit the role and leaves the usually excellent McDowell wanting.
Overall, Halloween II is a decent stab at recreating the old franchise; Zombie has made it work on so many levels and it certainly moves the game on. Unfortunately, he has tried to pack too many elements into the film and the pay off for that is a messy looking cinema encounter. Enjoyable as a film, yes, but the jury is still out on whether this deserves a spot on the Halloween collector’s shelf.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/19/halloween-ii-2009/
Watchman (19 KP) rated Bumblebee (2018) in Movies
Jan 5, 2019 (Updated Jan 9, 2019)
Great soundtrack (2 more)
Central performance
Exciting action
Worthy of a positive buzz!
With Michael Bay handing over the directing reins after 5 movies, this franchise looked to be heading to the scrap yard. Convoluted and overlong, the franchise had become bloated and boring.
Step in everyones favourite Autobot, Travis Knight behind the camera (re: the brill Kubo and the two strings), a timeshift to the 80s, and some genuine heart, and there's suddenly 'more than meets the eye' to Transformers again.
With Spielberg on producing duties, there's an ET, ShortCircuit, feel about a young girl (the ever excellent Hailee Steinfeld) trying to cope with the aftermath of the death of her dad, and finding a way with our Bombus from out of space.
After a thrilling action set up involving B-127 (our robot hero) being sent to Earth to form a base for the Autobots, and with 2 Decepticons in hot pursuit, a particually nasty fight ensues (resulting in bumblebees lost voicebox) leaving him battered and bruised, and we settle into what is essentially a heartfelt story of a mourning girl on her birthday and her newly discovered robot. Whilst this could have become cloying, it's handled with a real love of the material, and placing it in the 80s, gives it a great throwback feel (we even have the mean girls at school, a 'Higher Love' song montage, and some fantastic coastal vistas)
The support cast is ok, whilst John Cena flexes his comedic muscle as a soldier on the hunt of our hero.
The action is realised with real excitement, there are plenty of 'I remember those' moments, and the soundtrack wins through. But the real winner is the bond between Charlie and Bumblebee, which is more emotive than a rebel teen and a junkyard VW has any right to be.
Enjoyable and highly recommended. Roll on Bumblebee. You deserve the buzz.
Step in everyones favourite Autobot, Travis Knight behind the camera (re: the brill Kubo and the two strings), a timeshift to the 80s, and some genuine heart, and there's suddenly 'more than meets the eye' to Transformers again.
With Spielberg on producing duties, there's an ET, ShortCircuit, feel about a young girl (the ever excellent Hailee Steinfeld) trying to cope with the aftermath of the death of her dad, and finding a way with our Bombus from out of space.
After a thrilling action set up involving B-127 (our robot hero) being sent to Earth to form a base for the Autobots, and with 2 Decepticons in hot pursuit, a particually nasty fight ensues (resulting in bumblebees lost voicebox) leaving him battered and bruised, and we settle into what is essentially a heartfelt story of a mourning girl on her birthday and her newly discovered robot. Whilst this could have become cloying, it's handled with a real love of the material, and placing it in the 80s, gives it a great throwback feel (we even have the mean girls at school, a 'Higher Love' song montage, and some fantastic coastal vistas)
The support cast is ok, whilst John Cena flexes his comedic muscle as a soldier on the hunt of our hero.
The action is realised with real excitement, there are plenty of 'I remember those' moments, and the soundtrack wins through. But the real winner is the bond between Charlie and Bumblebee, which is more emotive than a rebel teen and a junkyard VW has any right to be.
Enjoyable and highly recommended. Roll on Bumblebee. You deserve the buzz.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 40 Days and 40 Nights (2002) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 40 Days and 40 Nights starts as we meet Matt (Hartnett) who has been struggling with his break up from Nicole (Shaw), this has led Matt to a string of one night stands that lead to him having visions of a black hole. Matt’s brother John (Tree) is in training to become a priest where Matt learns about lent and vows to give up all sexual activity for 40 days and 40 nights.
When his roommate Ryan (Costanzo) decides to spread the news about the vow a betting pool opens up and to make Matt’s life more difficult when he finally meets the perfect woman Erica (Sossamon). Matt has to learn to balance his vow while starting a new relationship where sex is out of the question.
40 Days and 40 Nights is a film I did enjoy watching even if I can see big flaws in the story, this mostly comes from the idea that it is written that every guy is obsessed with sex and couldn’t possible go 40 days without having it. The problems comes where everyone is against Matt rather than having even just one person supporting him through his self-improvement idea. I do however feel the story works for what it is trying to be even if it comes off unbelievable throughout.
Actor Review
Josh Hartnett: Matt Sullivan is a struggling man who can’t get over his ex-girlfriend Nicole. Running through a string of one night stands he wakes from these with a vision of the world coming to an end. Coming up with the idea to give up sexual activity for lent his life becomes a game for people around the world who has bet on when it will end and the perfect woman come into his life his whole life becomes difficult. Josh shows with this performance he can handle comedy.
Shannyn Sossamon: Erica has been struggling to find the right guy and her job doesn’t help. She meets Matt and see him as a different guy to the normal ones she meets but doesn’t fully understand the vow. Shannyn is good in this role being a strong leading lady.
Paulo Costanzo: Ryan is Matt’s roommate who is always looking to go out and meet girls for sex. He keeps watch over Matt after telling everyone about the vow. Paulo is solid as this supporting friend even if this generic.
Adam Tree: John Sullivan is the priest in training brother of Matt’s who doesn’t believe he can achieve his vow because he knows how difficult it is to go through. Adam is solid but in the end is just another supporting character.
Support Cast: 40 Days and 40 Nights has a supporting cast which includes plenty of different characters that are trying to make Matt break his vow with not a single person actually supporting him.
Director Review: Michael Lehmann – Michael gives us a fun comedy even if it is very one sided with the reactions and mind set people are meant to be in.
Comedy: 40 Days and 40 Nights has moments of comedy which mostly surround people trying to make Matt break the vow.
Romance: 40 Days and 40 Nights does try to tackle relationships by trying to make it more about how sex isn’t the most important part of the relationship.
Settings: 40 Days and 40 Nights keeps the settings around San Francisco which is always a great visual location for a film.
Suggestion: 40 Days and 40 Nights is one to try it does have good moments of good comedy but it also has a story which seems to be very much sex is all people think about. (Try It)
Best Part: Hartnett works for comedy.
Worst Part: Not everyone is sex obsessed.
Romantic Moment: No contact date.
Believability: The way things go I would say no.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $17 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 36 Minutes
Tagline: It’s Easy to Say But Harder To Do!
Overall: Simple comedy that does work well for what it is trying to achieve.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/07/25/40-days-and-40-nights-2002/
When his roommate Ryan (Costanzo) decides to spread the news about the vow a betting pool opens up and to make Matt’s life more difficult when he finally meets the perfect woman Erica (Sossamon). Matt has to learn to balance his vow while starting a new relationship where sex is out of the question.
40 Days and 40 Nights is a film I did enjoy watching even if I can see big flaws in the story, this mostly comes from the idea that it is written that every guy is obsessed with sex and couldn’t possible go 40 days without having it. The problems comes where everyone is against Matt rather than having even just one person supporting him through his self-improvement idea. I do however feel the story works for what it is trying to be even if it comes off unbelievable throughout.
Actor Review
Josh Hartnett: Matt Sullivan is a struggling man who can’t get over his ex-girlfriend Nicole. Running through a string of one night stands he wakes from these with a vision of the world coming to an end. Coming up with the idea to give up sexual activity for lent his life becomes a game for people around the world who has bet on when it will end and the perfect woman come into his life his whole life becomes difficult. Josh shows with this performance he can handle comedy.
Shannyn Sossamon: Erica has been struggling to find the right guy and her job doesn’t help. She meets Matt and see him as a different guy to the normal ones she meets but doesn’t fully understand the vow. Shannyn is good in this role being a strong leading lady.
Paulo Costanzo: Ryan is Matt’s roommate who is always looking to go out and meet girls for sex. He keeps watch over Matt after telling everyone about the vow. Paulo is solid as this supporting friend even if this generic.
Adam Tree: John Sullivan is the priest in training brother of Matt’s who doesn’t believe he can achieve his vow because he knows how difficult it is to go through. Adam is solid but in the end is just another supporting character.
Support Cast: 40 Days and 40 Nights has a supporting cast which includes plenty of different characters that are trying to make Matt break his vow with not a single person actually supporting him.
Director Review: Michael Lehmann – Michael gives us a fun comedy even if it is very one sided with the reactions and mind set people are meant to be in.
Comedy: 40 Days and 40 Nights has moments of comedy which mostly surround people trying to make Matt break the vow.
Romance: 40 Days and 40 Nights does try to tackle relationships by trying to make it more about how sex isn’t the most important part of the relationship.
Settings: 40 Days and 40 Nights keeps the settings around San Francisco which is always a great visual location for a film.
Suggestion: 40 Days and 40 Nights is one to try it does have good moments of good comedy but it also has a story which seems to be very much sex is all people think about. (Try It)
Best Part: Hartnett works for comedy.
Worst Part: Not everyone is sex obsessed.
Romantic Moment: No contact date.
Believability: The way things go I would say no.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $17 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 36 Minutes
Tagline: It’s Easy to Say But Harder To Do!
Overall: Simple comedy that does work well for what it is trying to achieve.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/07/25/40-days-and-40-nights-2002/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Roland Emmerich does big budget disaster flicks as well as Dairylea does cheese. However, some of his most recent attempts to dominate the box office have been panned by viewers and critics alike, who say that he has become too reliant on special effects.
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Amsterdam (2022) in Movies
Nov 21, 2022
Weak First Half Gives Way To Strong Second Half
There are certain Directors working today that gain such a reputation that most Major Movie Stars clamor to be in their films - no matter how big (or small) their part is. Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson and Christopher Nolan all come to mind. And, for some reason, David O. Russell is in that camp as well.
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bookapotamus (289 KP) rated The History of Jane Doe in Books
May 29, 2018
I was really intrigued by the description of this book and happy when I won the chance to read and review it. The History of Jane Doe is an ode to first loves, and a journey through mental illness. It's fun, it's sad, it's heartbreaking while also being heartwarming.
Ray is a high-schooler history-buff in love with Jane. She enters his life and him and his best friend Simon are forever changed. But she hides some deep dark secrets that torment her and Ray has a hard time seeing into her head, as is usually the case when loving someone who is depressed, and he struggles to find his way through her dark past so that they can have a future. This is a history of her life, written by Ray, flipping between the past and present of one devastating day when everything changes.
Michael Belanger writes that he's experienced some painful episodes in his life, and it's evident in how eloquently he decribes feelings of sadness and darkness. I can imagine this book will make quite a few people very sad, as most everyone knows someone who suffers from depression, or anxiety, or other forms of mental illness. But I also think it will probably help just as many. I applaud him for his candor and insights into a rarely talked-about issue.
If you love 13 Reasons Why, or anything by John Green, you will love this story. The witty banter between Ray and Jane, Simon and Mary is refreshing and fun, and it's an interesting look into mental illness, how things in life can trigger it, and change a person, and and exploration of how it affects all those around you, and how even though you may think you are ending your suffering, you are ultimately just passing it on to those who loved you.
What I took away most from this is that even if you feel like you are drowning in darkness and can't see past the shadows, you never know what a light you'll be to someone else.
Ray is a high-schooler history-buff in love with Jane. She enters his life and him and his best friend Simon are forever changed. But she hides some deep dark secrets that torment her and Ray has a hard time seeing into her head, as is usually the case when loving someone who is depressed, and he struggles to find his way through her dark past so that they can have a future. This is a history of her life, written by Ray, flipping between the past and present of one devastating day when everything changes.
Michael Belanger writes that he's experienced some painful episodes in his life, and it's evident in how eloquently he decribes feelings of sadness and darkness. I can imagine this book will make quite a few people very sad, as most everyone knows someone who suffers from depression, or anxiety, or other forms of mental illness. But I also think it will probably help just as many. I applaud him for his candor and insights into a rarely talked-about issue.
If you love 13 Reasons Why, or anything by John Green, you will love this story. The witty banter between Ray and Jane, Simon and Mary is refreshing and fun, and it's an interesting look into mental illness, how things in life can trigger it, and change a person, and and exploration of how it affects all those around you, and how even though you may think you are ending your suffering, you are ultimately just passing it on to those who loved you.
What I took away most from this is that even if you feel like you are drowning in darkness and can't see past the shadows, you never know what a light you'll be to someone else.