Search
Search results
Russ Troutt (291 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Jul 13, 2019
Laurel & Hardy were one of the world's greatest comedy duos to ever step, or stumble, rumble, and dance rather, in front of audiences. I'll be honest, I've never really watched a lot of their work, I was always more of an Abbott and Costello guy myself, but you don't have to know or love their work to love this movie. Stan & Ollie gives a beautiful look into the real lives of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy at the end of their career. Their friendship and career, often like the hats on their heads, had its ups and downs, but they had a true chemistry and bond that could not be broken; whether their wives liked it or not. Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly each give one of their best performances to date. And a huge tip of the hat to the special effects, makeup, and costuming department of this film. What are you waiting for? Don't make me give you a swift kick to the butt to dance away and add this to your watch list.
Nick Beaty (70 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Jan 12, 2020 (Updated Jan 13, 2020)
A must see for Laurel & Hardy fans...
This movie is a funny, moving and heartfelt biopic of the great Stan Laurel & Oliver Hardy.
Director Jon S. Baird and writer Jeff Pope clearly have a great love for Laurel & Hardy and this shines through in Stan & Ollie. You can definitely see this film has been made with love and respect for the legendary comedy duo, which makes it a must see for Laurel & Hardy fans.
Steve Coogan & John C. Reilly are absolutely faultless with their performances. I have read a few reviews that don't really give Steve Coogan the credit he deserves for this role. For me he proves he is so much more than his Alan Partridge character that a lot of people can't seem to see past. Like the real thing it takes near on perfect comedy timing from both men to perform the routines and they do the original performances a huge justice.
To wrap things up whether you are a Laurel & Hardy fan or not this is still a very well made movie, with two exceptional performances from the lead actors. This should definitely be one to add to your watch list.
Director Jon S. Baird and writer Jeff Pope clearly have a great love for Laurel & Hardy and this shines through in Stan & Ollie. You can definitely see this film has been made with love and respect for the legendary comedy duo, which makes it a must see for Laurel & Hardy fans.
Steve Coogan & John C. Reilly are absolutely faultless with their performances. I have read a few reviews that don't really give Steve Coogan the credit he deserves for this role. For me he proves he is so much more than his Alan Partridge character that a lot of people can't seem to see past. Like the real thing it takes near on perfect comedy timing from both men to perform the routines and they do the original performances a huge justice.
To wrap things up whether you are a Laurel & Hardy fan or not this is still a very well made movie, with two exceptional performances from the lead actors. This should definitely be one to add to your watch list.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Arrow in TV
May 13, 2018
Closer to the comics than people think (5 more)
Great cast
Intriguing characters
Brilliant character development
Great drama
Great references to the comics
Some characters become annoying (1 more)
Not all seasons are consistent with quality
You Have (not) failed this series!
First of all I should tell you that Green Arrow is my all time favourite comic character so this review might have some bias but I'll keep it to a minimum because I am not blinded by this shows faults of which it's had quite a few.
When I first saw the trailer for Arrow I was hooked. Finally, a show about Green Arrow, one of the less popular heroes these days and one of the many heroes that makes the people who only watch comic book films, say "Who the hell is that?".
Series one had me hooked with great drama, and incredible action that made the week long wait for each episode painful. The drama was intense as we watch Oliver Queen trying to juggle his two lives as both Oliver Queen and Arrow (currently called the Vigilante or The Hood during season 1), as he tries to keep his night time activities as a vigilante a secret.
The faults of this series reside in some of the dialogue and characters who I won't name because it's not really down to one particular character as others do the same though some get more blame than others. The point is, some of the drama in the show is unnecessary and sometimes it's all over the place going from "I love you" to "never talk to me again" within seconds for very stupid reasons. If you can get past that though, you'll see a lot more of Green Arrow in the show than you realise.
One of the main things I love about this show is seeing Oliver Queen take on real life issues as well as comic book villains. Issues such as his sister taking drugs which, due to her childhood nickname being 'Speedy', is a reference to Green Lantern/Green Arrow #85 and #86 where Green Arrow finds out that Roy Harper is a drug addict. By making the series version about his sister however, makes the situation more personal which means it messes with Olivers head when he's out hunting the drug suppliers.
The villains have all been great in the series, even though not all have been praised. Malcom Merlyn as the first villain was a good choice because he's one of the few original Green Arrow Villains from comics and John Barrowman was a brilliant choice of casting. Deathstroke then took it up a notch and really made the series great, and his season is possibly still one of the best seasons (season 2). Ras Al Ghul was a very intense series and although everyone moaned that Arrow had become too much like Batman, but Arrow made it their own and made a brilliantly intense series with some great twists that at the time I was like "please don't end it like this...." Or... "Where do they go from here?" And Everytime I thought they might have made a mistake with a certain plot point, they proved me wrong.
Damien Darkh was probably one of the lesser great villains. The casting was perfect, because Damien Darkh was so menacing and so brilliantly evil with a human side to him at certain points, but I don't think personally, they should have brought magic into Arrow, because it added too many scenes where you thought "why would you even try this?" Or "why did he not do this and this moment". But unlike many I actually enjoyed Damien Darkh as a villain because the characters and intense story were brilliantly chosen and executed.
The last two seasons (5 & 6) have been really intense and incredibly action packed as Green Arrow and Team Arrow try to take on what feels like the world.
The downfalls of the series include some of the drama being not entirely necessary. We understand as an audience that tensions build and everyone has a thousand and one problems that they have to deal with, but everyone seems to unleash them all at once. I understand wanting to build the feeling that everything is falling apart, but it happens soooo much, and it's hard to sympathise with certain scenarios because of it.
Another slight issue is the love interests. If you know Green Arrow, then you know he's a bit of a ladies man and that he can often be caught flirting and more with many women, in the show, we see this done well but at the end of the day it aaaallllwaayyyss comes back to Olicity. Oliver and Felicity's love story has had so many ups and downs and they've fallen in and out of love so many times and whilst I love Felicity as a character and a member of the team, the love rollercoaster she is on with Oliver reaaalllyyy annoys me at times, but I try to look past it and everything's seems to be okay.
Overall though this is one of my favourite shows and I prefer it to The Flash though The Flash has had some better seasons than Arrow has. I can't wait to see what else the show brings to the screen as it has already brought many obscure characters such as Cupid, Vigilante, Prometheus, Bronze Tiger and more!
When I first saw the trailer for Arrow I was hooked. Finally, a show about Green Arrow, one of the less popular heroes these days and one of the many heroes that makes the people who only watch comic book films, say "Who the hell is that?".
Series one had me hooked with great drama, and incredible action that made the week long wait for each episode painful. The drama was intense as we watch Oliver Queen trying to juggle his two lives as both Oliver Queen and Arrow (currently called the Vigilante or The Hood during season 1), as he tries to keep his night time activities as a vigilante a secret.
The faults of this series reside in some of the dialogue and characters who I won't name because it's not really down to one particular character as others do the same though some get more blame than others. The point is, some of the drama in the show is unnecessary and sometimes it's all over the place going from "I love you" to "never talk to me again" within seconds for very stupid reasons. If you can get past that though, you'll see a lot more of Green Arrow in the show than you realise.
One of the main things I love about this show is seeing Oliver Queen take on real life issues as well as comic book villains. Issues such as his sister taking drugs which, due to her childhood nickname being 'Speedy', is a reference to Green Lantern/Green Arrow #85 and #86 where Green Arrow finds out that Roy Harper is a drug addict. By making the series version about his sister however, makes the situation more personal which means it messes with Olivers head when he's out hunting the drug suppliers.
The villains have all been great in the series, even though not all have been praised. Malcom Merlyn as the first villain was a good choice because he's one of the few original Green Arrow Villains from comics and John Barrowman was a brilliant choice of casting. Deathstroke then took it up a notch and really made the series great, and his season is possibly still one of the best seasons (season 2). Ras Al Ghul was a very intense series and although everyone moaned that Arrow had become too much like Batman, but Arrow made it their own and made a brilliantly intense series with some great twists that at the time I was like "please don't end it like this...." Or... "Where do they go from here?" And Everytime I thought they might have made a mistake with a certain plot point, they proved me wrong.
Damien Darkh was probably one of the lesser great villains. The casting was perfect, because Damien Darkh was so menacing and so brilliantly evil with a human side to him at certain points, but I don't think personally, they should have brought magic into Arrow, because it added too many scenes where you thought "why would you even try this?" Or "why did he not do this and this moment". But unlike many I actually enjoyed Damien Darkh as a villain because the characters and intense story were brilliantly chosen and executed.
The last two seasons (5 & 6) have been really intense and incredibly action packed as Green Arrow and Team Arrow try to take on what feels like the world.
The downfalls of the series include some of the drama being not entirely necessary. We understand as an audience that tensions build and everyone has a thousand and one problems that they have to deal with, but everyone seems to unleash them all at once. I understand wanting to build the feeling that everything is falling apart, but it happens soooo much, and it's hard to sympathise with certain scenarios because of it.
Another slight issue is the love interests. If you know Green Arrow, then you know he's a bit of a ladies man and that he can often be caught flirting and more with many women, in the show, we see this done well but at the end of the day it aaaallllwaayyyss comes back to Olicity. Oliver and Felicity's love story has had so many ups and downs and they've fallen in and out of love so many times and whilst I love Felicity as a character and a member of the team, the love rollercoaster she is on with Oliver reaaalllyyy annoys me at times, but I try to look past it and everything's seems to be okay.
Overall though this is one of my favourite shows and I prefer it to The Flash though The Flash has had some better seasons than Arrow has. I can't wait to see what else the show brings to the screen as it has already brought many obscure characters such as Cupid, Vigilante, Prometheus, Bronze Tiger and more!
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
May 30, 2018
As a disaster movie it doesn't get much better than this.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Roland Emmerich has done it again. He seems to get a kick out of bringing out humanities worst fears and putting them on screen in all its glory. After destroying a large part of the world in Independence Day: ID4, and trashing New York with Godzilla, he decides to go the rest of the way and change the face of the earth forever and in the process kill off most of humanity. What is the enemy this time? Aliens? Nope done that. Monsters? Nope also done that. Bad weather? Once again done that. What is left? I know lets have the sun spit out solar flares that heat up the earth's core and destabilize the planet! Whatever his problem with humanity is, it translates well on to film. This is an epic disaster movie. No part of the world is safe and there is no magic quick fix here.
The film itself is simple, massive destruction minimal plot. But in this case it really works. With amazing effects and a great cast that includes John Cusack, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Danny Glover and the story is played out well and the acting is good. It is not too over the top except the stand out performance from the great Woody Harrelson. He is your go to guy when you are looking for crazy, and once again he pulls off the crazy guy effortlessly.
I really enjoyed this film and I think it has been given an unfairly hard time by critics and movie goers alike. I don't understand what people expected from this film. It is a disaster film not The Shawshank Redemption! I expected disaster and destruction and it exceeded my expectations. I didn't expect award winning performances by the actors (many of who are award nominees and winners), and I didn't expect a plot more complicated than oh s**t, we are going to die what can we do? Many viewers and critics must have forgotten the other films by Roland Emmerich when viewing this or they were comparing it to other films that were released at the same time. However I judge a film on its own merit and not comparing it to films that are in a different category. As a disaster movie it doesn't get much better than this.
The film itself is simple, massive destruction minimal plot. But in this case it really works. With amazing effects and a great cast that includes John Cusack, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Danny Glover and the story is played out well and the acting is good. It is not too over the top except the stand out performance from the great Woody Harrelson. He is your go to guy when you are looking for crazy, and once again he pulls off the crazy guy effortlessly.
I really enjoyed this film and I think it has been given an unfairly hard time by critics and movie goers alike. I don't understand what people expected from this film. It is a disaster film not The Shawshank Redemption! I expected disaster and destruction and it exceeded my expectations. I didn't expect award winning performances by the actors (many of who are award nominees and winners), and I didn't expect a plot more complicated than oh s**t, we are going to die what can we do? Many viewers and critics must have forgotten the other films by Roland Emmerich when viewing this or they were comparing it to other films that were released at the same time. However I judge a film on its own merit and not comparing it to films that are in a different category. As a disaster movie it doesn't get much better than this.
pheebs (3 KP) rated Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda in Books
Nov 23, 2017
The plot is progressive and thoroughly entertaining. (1 more)
The main character is a big fan of musical theatre, stars in Oliver (a play that I love)
Hands down the best biscuit is an oreo
Synopsis:Simon Spier is sixteen and trying to work out who he is – and what hes looking for. But when one of his emails to the very distracting blue falls into the wrong hands, things get all kinds of complicated. Because for Simon, falling for Blue is a big deal.
‘The love child of John Green and Rainbow Rowell’ – Teen Vogue
“The best kind of love story.”—Alex Sanchez, Lambda Award-winning author of Rainbow Boys and Boyfriends with Girlfriends
This book is a whirlwind of emotions, as soon as I finished scouring its pages I felt as if I had to read the book all over again, I did then abruptly lent it to a friend who found it just as amazing as I did. It’s a heartfelt story which really seems to capture the essence of being a teen in modern-day society, dealing with our problems, our worries, our trials and tribulations.
The main character is Simon, a boy who is finding life hard, with an overly happy family who like to be very involved and love to talk openly about their feelings, something that Simon is finding increasingly hard more specifically with his sexual preferences. The protagonist of the story is an unlikely fellow who creates dilemmas in Simon’s mind as he wishes to save his previous ‘Blue’. Simon is surrounded by bountiful characters that link smoothly into to his life an thoughts in a normal manner. We learn about his family through his fond memories and thoughts as well as the conversations they exchange in the book, the same can be said for his closest friends. He has three friends that stand out as more prominent characters, the book also focuses on how his relations with them change and how it affects them.
The book is written in a subjective narrative, it tells us only the information that Simon knows so that we know no more or less than him, equating to us having a possibly bias view towards certain characters, thus once again making it more realistic. It deals with problems that teens struggling with their sexuality in day-to-day life face both in the real world and the cyber one. It reveals to us just how hard it is to control information that gets leaked out onto the internet, how fast it can spread and change your life in the ‘real’ world. Your life can be drastically altered by a few words and a persons malicious intentions and this book helps prove just how down heartening it can be as well as focusing on the light at the other end of the tunnel.
All of the characters play great roles in Simon’s life, he lives in a very open family so he feels as if he is keeping something terrible from them especially with of hand comments that his fathers sometimes makes. We read about different things in his life that he loves such as drama, as he attends school play rehearsals often.he deals with the struggles of maintaining friendships under pressure.
I would recommend this book to anyone no matter their age, race, gender or sexual preference. It’s a romantic coming of age comedy that warms me to my toes making me wanting to keep reading over and over again (as I have done many a time). If you liked ‘Will Grayson, Will Grayson’ by John Green and David Levithan then you will most definitely enjoy this book.
‘The love child of John Green and Rainbow Rowell’ – Teen Vogue
“The best kind of love story.”—Alex Sanchez, Lambda Award-winning author of Rainbow Boys and Boyfriends with Girlfriends
This book is a whirlwind of emotions, as soon as I finished scouring its pages I felt as if I had to read the book all over again, I did then abruptly lent it to a friend who found it just as amazing as I did. It’s a heartfelt story which really seems to capture the essence of being a teen in modern-day society, dealing with our problems, our worries, our trials and tribulations.
The main character is Simon, a boy who is finding life hard, with an overly happy family who like to be very involved and love to talk openly about their feelings, something that Simon is finding increasingly hard more specifically with his sexual preferences. The protagonist of the story is an unlikely fellow who creates dilemmas in Simon’s mind as he wishes to save his previous ‘Blue’. Simon is surrounded by bountiful characters that link smoothly into to his life an thoughts in a normal manner. We learn about his family through his fond memories and thoughts as well as the conversations they exchange in the book, the same can be said for his closest friends. He has three friends that stand out as more prominent characters, the book also focuses on how his relations with them change and how it affects them.
The book is written in a subjective narrative, it tells us only the information that Simon knows so that we know no more or less than him, equating to us having a possibly bias view towards certain characters, thus once again making it more realistic. It deals with problems that teens struggling with their sexuality in day-to-day life face both in the real world and the cyber one. It reveals to us just how hard it is to control information that gets leaked out onto the internet, how fast it can spread and change your life in the ‘real’ world. Your life can be drastically altered by a few words and a persons malicious intentions and this book helps prove just how down heartening it can be as well as focusing on the light at the other end of the tunnel.
All of the characters play great roles in Simon’s life, he lives in a very open family so he feels as if he is keeping something terrible from them especially with of hand comments that his fathers sometimes makes. We read about different things in his life that he loves such as drama, as he attends school play rehearsals often.he deals with the struggles of maintaining friendships under pressure.
I would recommend this book to anyone no matter their age, race, gender or sexual preference. It’s a romantic coming of age comedy that warms me to my toes making me wanting to keep reading over and over again (as I have done many a time). If you liked ‘Will Grayson, Will Grayson’ by John Green and David Levithan then you will most definitely enjoy this book.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
When the laughter has to end.
The problem with any comedy double act is that if illness or death get in the way (think Dustin Gee and Les Dennis; or Morecambe and Wise) the wheels can come off for the other partner. “Stan and Ollie” tells the story of the comic duo starting in 1937 when they reached their peak of global popularity, albeit when Laurel was hardly on speaking terms with their long-term producer Hal Roach (Danny Huston).
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Wonder Park (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
First off, this is going to be awash with spoilers because I was absolutely amazed by the reaction I had to it. It's not unheard of for movies to turn out differently to how the trailer portrays them but in this case it felt like a rather low blow. I think there should have been some clues to what lay ahead without having to read reviews.
Second thing to get out of the way... the park is called Wonderland... why is the movie called Wonder Park? Pick one and stick to it!
June and her mum create their very own amusement park, it has amazing rides and its animal mascots love to amuse the crowds as they see the wonders that Wonderland has in store. The pair happily create together until June's mum is too sick to carry on. She needs treatment, which means that June and her father need to hold the fort while she's away. Playing with Wonderland isn't the same without her mother and in that moment she decides to pack everything away. Where fun once stood are now bare walls and a serious June who is hellbent on making sure her father doesn't stumble into anything bad.
What I had expected from the trailers was something comedic, the park was surely run down because June had grown up and make believe wasn't cool anymore... What I was served was something with a much more emotional twist of the knife. As soon as June's mother started looking unwell I knew it would be nothing like I'd expected.
We're never privy to what June's mum has, but the whole illness is a much more "glamorous" version of how real life goes. Ultimately we see her leave for treatment and then she comes back "better". No returning home between treatments, no visiting her at the hospital. In this, illness is obviously treated with magic, and while the film shows the more real aspects of the emotions it glosses over the rest.
Let's go to the cast of characters for a bit, and here comes a massive gripe... The UK version and the US version have a different cast. For whatever reason it's only the US cast that got an IMDb listing so I went off for a Google. Here's a quick comparison:
Peanut - Norbert Leo Butz
Greta - Milas Kunis
Steve - John Oliver
Gus & Cooper - UK version: Joe Sugg & Casper Lee, US version: Kenan Thompson & Ken Jeong
Boomer - UK version: Tom Baker, US version: Ken Hudson Campbell
I am at a loss. This film is absolutely not set in the UK, so why would you sub in a different cast when you have so much talent on the original roster? Suggs and Lee were weak and lacked any kind of dramatic quality. Kenan & Ken... I can hear them in my head now, they would have been wonderful together. I love Tom Baker, but he wasn't right either. It was a rather flat performance that needed a little more pep to boost the slightly bland character. My other query would be why John Oliver was cast as Steve for both versions. After seeing the "backing up" bit in the trailer I had hoped for something better in the expanded scene but no, it really was delivered that badly and the rest of his performance was no different. Having him up against Milas Kunis just added to the disaster, while Greta wasn't a great character Kunis did at least give us a good show.
Back to the story. June is sent off to math camp but on the way she has a panic about what might happen to him while he's on his own. There's actually quite a fun little montage here and that convinces her to get off the bus with the help of her friend so she can return home. Scheme executed she dashes off into the forest to make her way home... ba-da-bing ba-da-boom... magic tree portal.
We find that Wonderland is in tatters because it's cuddly little army of toys are dismantling everything that's fun and sacrificing it to the big black swirling vortex in the sky, a vortex that appeared just after the creative voice stopped whispering design ideas into Peanut's ear for the park... that's right... the swirling doom is June's depression, worry and anxiety caused by her mother going away because of her illness... well, shiiiiiiiiiiiiit.
Of course this movie land though, we know everything is going to get better. Our animal friends go from liking June to hating her when she admits the changes were her fault. She then has to redeem herself and everyone lives happily ever after.
I may be paraphrasing a whole section of the film there but that's the basic gist.
There's quite an odd balance in the film, it feels like we hardly get to see much of the park itself, and certainly not a lot in its full glory. The storyline is quite family heavy which for obvious reasons is a little on the serious side. We chop and change between events so quickly that we don't really get to know any of the characters at all, and it's difficult to see how they thought that was sensible in such a short space of time.
The animation is fine, nothing to write home about, but it just seemed to be a little bland on the scale of things. This is really not to say it's bad, we're just lucky to have so much great stuff around at the moment with a standard that is so high.
Wonder Park seems like it's trying to hit a Disney/Pixar level. The message is a surprisingly emotional one and I was surprised how much it affected me, I honestly don't know how I managed to contain my sobbing and on more than one occasion I had tears streaming down my face... there was nothing I could do about it, and I wasn't the only one.
Sadly overall this is a pretty mediocre film but it was so close to being something wonderful. I enjoyed it but there was a lot that could have made it so much better.
What you should do
All of the kids at the screening enjoyed it, for the adults it may well go either way. It definitely deserves a watch at some point.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have my own magic marker that requires nothing but imagination, I would be unstoppable.
Second thing to get out of the way... the park is called Wonderland... why is the movie called Wonder Park? Pick one and stick to it!
June and her mum create their very own amusement park, it has amazing rides and its animal mascots love to amuse the crowds as they see the wonders that Wonderland has in store. The pair happily create together until June's mum is too sick to carry on. She needs treatment, which means that June and her father need to hold the fort while she's away. Playing with Wonderland isn't the same without her mother and in that moment she decides to pack everything away. Where fun once stood are now bare walls and a serious June who is hellbent on making sure her father doesn't stumble into anything bad.
What I had expected from the trailers was something comedic, the park was surely run down because June had grown up and make believe wasn't cool anymore... What I was served was something with a much more emotional twist of the knife. As soon as June's mother started looking unwell I knew it would be nothing like I'd expected.
We're never privy to what June's mum has, but the whole illness is a much more "glamorous" version of how real life goes. Ultimately we see her leave for treatment and then she comes back "better". No returning home between treatments, no visiting her at the hospital. In this, illness is obviously treated with magic, and while the film shows the more real aspects of the emotions it glosses over the rest.
Let's go to the cast of characters for a bit, and here comes a massive gripe... The UK version and the US version have a different cast. For whatever reason it's only the US cast that got an IMDb listing so I went off for a Google. Here's a quick comparison:
Peanut - Norbert Leo Butz
Greta - Milas Kunis
Steve - John Oliver
Gus & Cooper - UK version: Joe Sugg & Casper Lee, US version: Kenan Thompson & Ken Jeong
Boomer - UK version: Tom Baker, US version: Ken Hudson Campbell
I am at a loss. This film is absolutely not set in the UK, so why would you sub in a different cast when you have so much talent on the original roster? Suggs and Lee were weak and lacked any kind of dramatic quality. Kenan & Ken... I can hear them in my head now, they would have been wonderful together. I love Tom Baker, but he wasn't right either. It was a rather flat performance that needed a little more pep to boost the slightly bland character. My other query would be why John Oliver was cast as Steve for both versions. After seeing the "backing up" bit in the trailer I had hoped for something better in the expanded scene but no, it really was delivered that badly and the rest of his performance was no different. Having him up against Milas Kunis just added to the disaster, while Greta wasn't a great character Kunis did at least give us a good show.
Back to the story. June is sent off to math camp but on the way she has a panic about what might happen to him while he's on his own. There's actually quite a fun little montage here and that convinces her to get off the bus with the help of her friend so she can return home. Scheme executed she dashes off into the forest to make her way home... ba-da-bing ba-da-boom... magic tree portal.
We find that Wonderland is in tatters because it's cuddly little army of toys are dismantling everything that's fun and sacrificing it to the big black swirling vortex in the sky, a vortex that appeared just after the creative voice stopped whispering design ideas into Peanut's ear for the park... that's right... the swirling doom is June's depression, worry and anxiety caused by her mother going away because of her illness... well, shiiiiiiiiiiiiit.
Of course this movie land though, we know everything is going to get better. Our animal friends go from liking June to hating her when she admits the changes were her fault. She then has to redeem herself and everyone lives happily ever after.
I may be paraphrasing a whole section of the film there but that's the basic gist.
There's quite an odd balance in the film, it feels like we hardly get to see much of the park itself, and certainly not a lot in its full glory. The storyline is quite family heavy which for obvious reasons is a little on the serious side. We chop and change between events so quickly that we don't really get to know any of the characters at all, and it's difficult to see how they thought that was sensible in such a short space of time.
The animation is fine, nothing to write home about, but it just seemed to be a little bland on the scale of things. This is really not to say it's bad, we're just lucky to have so much great stuff around at the moment with a standard that is so high.
Wonder Park seems like it's trying to hit a Disney/Pixar level. The message is a surprisingly emotional one and I was surprised how much it affected me, I honestly don't know how I managed to contain my sobbing and on more than one occasion I had tears streaming down my face... there was nothing I could do about it, and I wasn't the only one.
Sadly overall this is a pretty mediocre film but it was so close to being something wonderful. I enjoyed it but there was a lot that could have made it so much better.
What you should do
All of the kids at the screening enjoyed it, for the adults it may well go either way. It definitely deserves a watch at some point.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have my own magic marker that requires nothing but imagination, I would be unstoppable.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated House of M in Books
Nov 30, 2020
*** <i>Read the entire story while listening to Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross' score to GONE GIRL. Not saying it would be for everyone, but it definitely worked for my re-reading.</i>
I have mentioned this in my graphic novel reviews of late, that I have been doing a fair amount of re-reads since making the transition to digital. It's such a delight to be able to read the comics again without fear of ruining the pages if I am eating or drinking! And best of all? The graphic novels (and books) read take up zero space, helping me to continue to maintain a minimalist lifestyle.
Okay, on to the review..
I originally read the HOUSE OF M about a year or so after it was published in trade paperback. At that time, I recall liking it well enough, thinking that Bendis did a good job. It was not good enough, at that time, to leave a lasting impression on me, unlike other Marvel events before it. With the move to digital, and with a price I could not refuse, I felt it was time to revisit the series and see how it would fare with my not-as-cluttered mental state.
First, let me just <b>"WOW!"</b>. No, seriously! For a re-read, it felt decidely fresh and much more engaging that it was for me first time out. The story was quite good, helping fulfill my Daily Minimum Requuirement of Angst Bendis wrote everyone in character, and he made it was easy to empathize with the characters, as they dealt with effects of the world presented in HOUSE OF M.
One thing that really made HOUSE OF M stand out, besides the story, was the art. Oliver Coipel's pencils were perfecting, offering clear expressions, helping to capture the mood(s) needed throughout! Coipel's was given some solid inkers to finish it: Tim Townsend, Rick Magyar, Scott Hanna, and John Dell. And let us not forget to mention the final icing on the cake: that super awesome coloring from Frank D'Armata. Seriously, a big hand goes out to all of this top notch collaborative effort!
I won't try to tell anyone how to read this, or anything for that matter. However, I will say that for my re-reading, I would stop every so often and reflect, to imagine what it must have been like for Wanda (Scarlet Witch) to have to live going forward after being told your children were just fabrications! And then, even further, to learn what she did at the end of HOUSE OF M! Seriously, regardless of whether you love or hate Bendis, this was heavy stuff to swallow! Sadly, it seems to been retconned by Marvel!
If you are tired of the current events "daisy chaining" that Marvel feels compelled to continue churning out, you could do a whole lot worse than HOUSE OF M. Bendis puts forward some interesting ideas, and seeing them play out is a hell of a good read! It is probably one of his best Marvel contributions, next to his DAREDEVIL! I urge you to give it a shot! You, like me, may need a second reading, but I think you will enjoy it!
Now, I am off to read the post-HOUSE OF M stuff, as well as AVENGERS: DISASSEMBLED, which leads into HOUSE OF M, and which I did not read when HOUSE OF M first came out.
I have mentioned this in my graphic novel reviews of late, that I have been doing a fair amount of re-reads since making the transition to digital. It's such a delight to be able to read the comics again without fear of ruining the pages if I am eating or drinking! And best of all? The graphic novels (and books) read take up zero space, helping me to continue to maintain a minimalist lifestyle.
Okay, on to the review..
I originally read the HOUSE OF M about a year or so after it was published in trade paperback. At that time, I recall liking it well enough, thinking that Bendis did a good job. It was not good enough, at that time, to leave a lasting impression on me, unlike other Marvel events before it. With the move to digital, and with a price I could not refuse, I felt it was time to revisit the series and see how it would fare with my not-as-cluttered mental state.
First, let me just <b>"WOW!"</b>. No, seriously! For a re-read, it felt decidely fresh and much more engaging that it was for me first time out. The story was quite good, helping fulfill my Daily Minimum Requuirement of Angst Bendis wrote everyone in character, and he made it was easy to empathize with the characters, as they dealt with effects of the world presented in HOUSE OF M.
One thing that really made HOUSE OF M stand out, besides the story, was the art. Oliver Coipel's pencils were perfecting, offering clear expressions, helping to capture the mood(s) needed throughout! Coipel's was given some solid inkers to finish it: Tim Townsend, Rick Magyar, Scott Hanna, and John Dell. And let us not forget to mention the final icing on the cake: that super awesome coloring from Frank D'Armata. Seriously, a big hand goes out to all of this top notch collaborative effort!
I won't try to tell anyone how to read this, or anything for that matter. However, I will say that for my re-reading, I would stop every so often and reflect, to imagine what it must have been like for Wanda (Scarlet Witch) to have to live going forward after being told your children were just fabrications! And then, even further, to learn what she did at the end of HOUSE OF M! Seriously, regardless of whether you love or hate Bendis, this was heavy stuff to swallow! Sadly, it seems to been retconned by Marvel!
If you are tired of the current events "daisy chaining" that Marvel feels compelled to continue churning out, you could do a whole lot worse than HOUSE OF M. Bendis puts forward some interesting ideas, and seeing them play out is a hell of a good read! It is probably one of his best Marvel contributions, next to his DAREDEVIL! I urge you to give it a shot! You, like me, may need a second reading, but I think you will enjoy it!
Now, I am off to read the post-HOUSE OF M stuff, as well as AVENGERS: DISASSEMBLED, which leads into HOUSE OF M, and which I did not read when HOUSE OF M first came out.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A stunning portrait of friendship and comedy
To this day, Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are still regarded as one of the greatest comedy duos. Their acts used slapstick comedy, cartoon violence and song to delight audiences. From 1927 all the way up to 1955, they performed these acts together both on screen and on stage.
Something that really made me smile about Stan & Ollie was the fact that both Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly’s careers are rooted in comedy. Coogan is known for playing Alan Partridge and Reilly is known for numerous roles in American comedy films. What better way to pay homage to such an iconic comedy act. Both lead actors took to their roles superbly, and I loved both equally. It was a joy to follow them as they took us on tour, recreating iconic routines that made it impossible to look away from the screen.
I was captivated throughout, genuinely finding myself laughing out loud at these comedy routines that have aged like a fine wine. Even now, they’re absolutely hilarious. Coogan and Reilly worked perfectly together, embodying all that we know and love about Laurel and Hardy whilst revealing intimate secrets that took place from behind the stage curtain. Although their careers were comedic, some of their life experiences certainly weren’t.
The duos wives also make an appearance, and are equally as delightful to watch. Lucille Hardy (Shirley Henderson) and Ida Kitaeva Laurel (Nina Arianda) are a double act themselves, with very different beliefs and personalities. I loved the dynamic between the two women and found myself laughing out loud at them too. Despite their differences, they are both overbearing wives who think they know what’s best for their respective husbands, often with some very emotional results. I really can’t fault the casting at all, it was just magical to watch.
Aesthetically, I adored Stan & Ollie and what a treat it was to see Newcastle back in the day! The set and costume design is just gorgeous as the two embark on a rather exhausting tour of the UK, and we get a glimpse of so many cities and the different audiences that attend each night. We see the duos struggles and successes, each scene delivering a different emotional tug. Our heart sinks as we see the empty seats, and rises again as they start to draw in more and more crowds. The camera speaks louder than words a lot of the time, knowing exactly what to show the audience in order to mirror what the characters are feeling.
It is impossible to document every waking moment of Laurel and Hardy’s lives, but this biopic still manages to show us a lot in a relatively short space of time. With a runtime of 1 hour and 37 minutes, it would have been easy for it to fall flat and leave audiences wishing they’d seen more. But in my opinion, that didn’t happen. Whilst we were dropped into the story with their careers in full swing, it didn’t feel like we’d missed out on anything. The film requires a little knowledge about the duo before watching, but you don’t need a history lesson in order to enjoy it to the full.
For me, this was the epitome of a great biopic. Coogan and Reilly looked the part, they acted the part, and they made their audience laugh both on-screen and in the cinema. I laughed, I cried, and I had a brilliant time that I can see myself wanting to revisit in the near future. The epilogue was so emotionally charged that I had to stay in my seat and wipe away tears for a few minutes, and that says everything about what a perfect film this was. I’m delighted that it is my first five star review of 2019!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/01/25/a-stunning-portrait-of-friendship-and-comedy-my-review-of-stan-ollie/
Something that really made me smile about Stan & Ollie was the fact that both Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly’s careers are rooted in comedy. Coogan is known for playing Alan Partridge and Reilly is known for numerous roles in American comedy films. What better way to pay homage to such an iconic comedy act. Both lead actors took to their roles superbly, and I loved both equally. It was a joy to follow them as they took us on tour, recreating iconic routines that made it impossible to look away from the screen.
I was captivated throughout, genuinely finding myself laughing out loud at these comedy routines that have aged like a fine wine. Even now, they’re absolutely hilarious. Coogan and Reilly worked perfectly together, embodying all that we know and love about Laurel and Hardy whilst revealing intimate secrets that took place from behind the stage curtain. Although their careers were comedic, some of their life experiences certainly weren’t.
The duos wives also make an appearance, and are equally as delightful to watch. Lucille Hardy (Shirley Henderson) and Ida Kitaeva Laurel (Nina Arianda) are a double act themselves, with very different beliefs and personalities. I loved the dynamic between the two women and found myself laughing out loud at them too. Despite their differences, they are both overbearing wives who think they know what’s best for their respective husbands, often with some very emotional results. I really can’t fault the casting at all, it was just magical to watch.
Aesthetically, I adored Stan & Ollie and what a treat it was to see Newcastle back in the day! The set and costume design is just gorgeous as the two embark on a rather exhausting tour of the UK, and we get a glimpse of so many cities and the different audiences that attend each night. We see the duos struggles and successes, each scene delivering a different emotional tug. Our heart sinks as we see the empty seats, and rises again as they start to draw in more and more crowds. The camera speaks louder than words a lot of the time, knowing exactly what to show the audience in order to mirror what the characters are feeling.
It is impossible to document every waking moment of Laurel and Hardy’s lives, but this biopic still manages to show us a lot in a relatively short space of time. With a runtime of 1 hour and 37 minutes, it would have been easy for it to fall flat and leave audiences wishing they’d seen more. But in my opinion, that didn’t happen. Whilst we were dropped into the story with their careers in full swing, it didn’t feel like we’d missed out on anything. The film requires a little knowledge about the duo before watching, but you don’t need a history lesson in order to enjoy it to the full.
For me, this was the epitome of a great biopic. Coogan and Reilly looked the part, they acted the part, and they made their audience laugh both on-screen and in the cinema. I laughed, I cried, and I had a brilliant time that I can see myself wanting to revisit in the near future. The epilogue was so emotionally charged that I had to stay in my seat and wipe away tears for a few minutes, and that says everything about what a perfect film this was. I’m delighted that it is my first five star review of 2019!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/01/25/a-stunning-portrait-of-friendship-and-comedy-my-review-of-stan-ollie/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Disaster films and Hollywood have enjoyed a long and successful partnership over the years as box office gold has been found in fictional disasters. Irwin Allen had a string of hits such as “The Towering Inferno” and “The Poseidon Adventure” which in turn lead to the films such as “Dante’s Peak”, “Volcano”, “Deep Impact”, and “Armageddon” who kept the tried and true formula of relatable, regular people forced to cope with extraordinary situations where they must battle against all odds to survive.
In the new film “2012” director Roland Emmerich follows up his other end-of-the world epics “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow”, with a story about the total devastation of the earth and all life upon it due to an increase of neutrinos from the sun heating the earth’s core causing the displacement of the Earth’s crust.
Keeping to the established formula of the disaster films, 2012 centers around a struggling writer named Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), who learns of the pending catastrophic events while camping at Yellowstone National Park with his children. The presence of forbidden areas and swarms of soldiers and scientists leads Jackson to believe that the local conspiracy radio host Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), might be right in his predictions that we are all on borrowed time, and that the increase in earthquakes and fissures along the fault lines are a very bad omen.
Unbeknownst to Jackson, and the majority of the world’s population, U.S. President Wilson (Danny Glover), and his fellow heads of state, are preparing for the coming tragedy. Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt) and a team of geologists lead by Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetal Ojiofore) are trying to determine exactly how much time they have to save what they can of humanity. Unaware that the fate of mankind is being decided by the politicians and those with money, Jackson and his children soon find themselves rushing to stay alive, with his ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet), and her boyfriend in tow. Jackson learns of a plan to save select members of the population and pins their very survival on being able to arrive at what they hope is their salvation before time runs out.
Spectacular effects follow as Los Angeles and other cities are swallowed up by massive sinkholes and buried under collapsing bridges and buildings in some of the most amazing sequences of mayhem and destruction ever captured on film. The movie does an amazing job of showing the absolute calamity and chaos and does a passable job with the relationships between the characters. There are some nice supporting performances from Thandie Newton and George Segal. It is just a shame they were not given a bit more to work with. The cookie cutter scenarios that many characters faced seem to have been lifted from the book of disaster film plots.
I did not go into the film expecting realism, as I fully expect the world will go on as normal on December 22, 2012. However, I did have to note some of the absurd developments that strained any semblance of credibility the film may have had. One such scene had the characters being flooded and trapped for an extended period of time by water. Since their locale was near Mt Everest, I had to assume that it was not warm spring water they were submerged in, and had to wonder if hypothermia just went the way of most of the human populace.
Then again, we were dealing with a heated core that was essentially melting the earth’s crust. So maybe the water was warm.
As with all disaster movies, I do have to remember the audience is asked to suspend all disbelief, at least for 160 minutes. While the film does take some vast leaps of logic, there is enough good action, special effects, and strained levity to make this a good distraction, as long as you are willing to check your brain at the door and just enjoy the ride.
In the new film “2012” director Roland Emmerich follows up his other end-of-the world epics “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow”, with a story about the total devastation of the earth and all life upon it due to an increase of neutrinos from the sun heating the earth’s core causing the displacement of the Earth’s crust.
Keeping to the established formula of the disaster films, 2012 centers around a struggling writer named Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), who learns of the pending catastrophic events while camping at Yellowstone National Park with his children. The presence of forbidden areas and swarms of soldiers and scientists leads Jackson to believe that the local conspiracy radio host Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), might be right in his predictions that we are all on borrowed time, and that the increase in earthquakes and fissures along the fault lines are a very bad omen.
Unbeknownst to Jackson, and the majority of the world’s population, U.S. President Wilson (Danny Glover), and his fellow heads of state, are preparing for the coming tragedy. Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt) and a team of geologists lead by Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetal Ojiofore) are trying to determine exactly how much time they have to save what they can of humanity. Unaware that the fate of mankind is being decided by the politicians and those with money, Jackson and his children soon find themselves rushing to stay alive, with his ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet), and her boyfriend in tow. Jackson learns of a plan to save select members of the population and pins their very survival on being able to arrive at what they hope is their salvation before time runs out.
Spectacular effects follow as Los Angeles and other cities are swallowed up by massive sinkholes and buried under collapsing bridges and buildings in some of the most amazing sequences of mayhem and destruction ever captured on film. The movie does an amazing job of showing the absolute calamity and chaos and does a passable job with the relationships between the characters. There are some nice supporting performances from Thandie Newton and George Segal. It is just a shame they were not given a bit more to work with. The cookie cutter scenarios that many characters faced seem to have been lifted from the book of disaster film plots.
I did not go into the film expecting realism, as I fully expect the world will go on as normal on December 22, 2012. However, I did have to note some of the absurd developments that strained any semblance of credibility the film may have had. One such scene had the characters being flooded and trapped for an extended period of time by water. Since their locale was near Mt Everest, I had to assume that it was not warm spring water they were submerged in, and had to wonder if hypothermia just went the way of most of the human populace.
Then again, we were dealing with a heated core that was essentially melting the earth’s crust. So maybe the water was warm.
As with all disaster movies, I do have to remember the audience is asked to suspend all disbelief, at least for 160 minutes. While the film does take some vast leaps of logic, there is enough good action, special effects, and strained levity to make this a good distraction, as long as you are willing to check your brain at the door and just enjoy the ride.