Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Savages (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Over the past 15 years, Oliver Stone’s films have been kind of hit or miss to me. It’s as if Stone is still trying to make the same controversial films he became popular for in the 80’s and early 90’s. Only, as an audience, we have become keen to his filmmaking style and therefore his more recent work suffers from the apathy of a “show me something new” culture. Still, despite his failures, Stone does not makes apologies for his work while he continues in his quest to make films about controversial subjects. This time around Stone strives to take us into the violent world of the Mexican drug cartels though a film adaptation of the novel Savages by Don Winslow.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Due to circumstances we have all lived with now for about 8 months, that scarce need a word more said about them, this has remained only the second film I have seen at a cinema in 2020, following an early January viewing of The Rise of Skywalker. And it will probably be the last film I head out to see on the big screen for a while. This, naturally, breaks my heart. It does, however, place Christopher Nolan’s complex thriller into a very peculiar and memorable place in the collective psyche of film lovers.
For many it will have been the film that brought them out of lockdown number one into a world of slight hope that normality was returning. As it co-incided with my daughter’s birthday it became part of a treat day out that although socially distanced was my first attempt to do all the things I hadn’t done for a while; eat out in a restaurant, have a pint in a bar, and then see a movie. The experience, whilst still enjoyable and memorable, was tainted by how surreal and empty the world felt – the meal was in an half empty and cold Hard Rock Cafe, with no music and a smell of disinfectant; the pint was in a pop up outside bar that only took orders via a phone app in advance; and the movie was attended by six people, of which we were two, separated by not two metres but at least ten!
I have been in some screenings that were dead quiet before, but not for a film so anticipated and more or less mainstream. It was odd. Hats off to the staff of Everyman, Glasgow, however, who were exemplary in their courtesy, welcoming and safety precautions. It wasn’t their fault it was empty, and I applaud them for keeping the ball rolling at that time around the start of September. At least the sofas were comfy, the place was warm and the smell was still of popcorn and not domestos.
I had been looking forward to the film immensely. The hype and build-up to it had come with a lot of baggage, with rumours of production delays and script issues going back a few years. It was shrouded in mystery, with even the trailer being delayed until the very last moment and critics not getting to see it until a day before release, such was the fear of spoilers leaking out. My first concern, being so excited by the prospect of another time bending classic to join Memento, Interstellar and Inception in the ranks of “OK, what just happened” masterpieces, was that the sound during the trailers was very very low – if they kept it that low during the actual film I would demand my money back… I needn’t have worried…
Never in my life have I felt as if my eardrums were about to burst whilst watching a film! Literally, at times, Hans Zimmer’s powerful and emotive score was vibrating my testicles! Add to that the fact that a lot of the dialogue seemed mumbled and drowned out by it, and it made the first 45 minutes very difficult to enjoy. Was this horrendous sound mix a mistake? Or very much part of the plan to overwhelm the senses and confuse the brain? Was it part of the puzzle or a massive technical oversight? As almost everyone seems to have the same complaint about it, the jury is still out on that one…
And so, it took a little while for me to atune to the tone, regardless of how hard you had to focus to take in anything of what was going on. There was a point where I became certain I wasn’t going to like it – I braced myself for disappointment. And then… at a certain moment in a certain scene the penny dropped and so did my jaw, as the full realisation of where this was going, and how unique and mind blowing that concept was, finally kicked in. From that moment on it just got better and better, as the technical achievement required, let alone intelligence, to pull this off surpassed all previous levels of anything I can ever remember.
The “Wow” moments just kept on coming as the action, tension and intrigue kept rising to fever pitch. In the end, so profoundly bewildering were the potential possibilities of the plot and premise that I gave up trying to meet it intellectually and just allowed it to wash over me emotionally, knowing that repeat viewings would allow me to engage with it in that way later.
John David Washington as “the protagonist” is suitably neutral and unshowy in the role; threatening to be compared to Bond or Bourne, but never quite being either, as this world, despite it’s surface glamour and underground seediness feels much closer to DiCaprio’s suit wearing mind spy in Inception than either of those. For anyone who didn’t yet catch his terrific turn in BlacKkKlansman this may be their first encounter with him, and you’d have to say he has a very solid, dependable quality, without ever being starry or attention seeking. Watchable, for sure, but never chewing the scenery at the cost of the story – and surely that is why Nolan chose him.
Beside Washington is another excellent performance by the increasingly impressive Robert Pattinson. His role as the enigmatic Neil here grows on you minute to minute during the film, and afterwards you wonder if he wasn’t the best thing about the entire production… there is a subtlety of meaning in all his scenes that is only revealed late on, and demands a further watch or two to get every nuance from. He gives the impression he is entirely in control of the full meaning of the film and his own performance, so much so he strikes me as the pivot that would tip you either way on whether you liked the film or not.
And I have to admit not liking it is a valid option. You couldn’t possibly watch it whilst tired or in a bad mood, it is just too full on, bordering on oppressive at times. There are also a few supporting roles that I’m not 100% certain of, most notably Kenneth Brannagh as the seeming villain of the piece, Sator. His accent is a distraction, and it feels like a character you’ve seen him play before – fine in most ways, but nothing special – and I found myself wishing they had cast someone else in that role. Likewise with the less exposed Elizabeth Debicki – adequate, but not transcendent, as her character might have been with a more charismatic actress.
My overall impression was definitely affected by how much my daughter enjoyed it – she loves having a mystery to solve, especially if it involves time or some other sci-fi concept. The pleasure of it was chatting it over excitedly afterwards, to see if either of us had truly understood the full story, in the same way I remember doing with others about all Nolan’s concept pieces over the years. If you come to it being less than bothered about having to unlock a puzzle box then it may very well piss you off, to the extent you either just give up or sit back and enjoy the ride. However, I would assert confidently that it is worth the effort and will reward multiple viewings over time. Especially as more clues to its meaning are discussed and revealed.
One thing that can be said with certainty is that there is no other film like this that has ever been made. It feels different and beyond comparison in many crucial ways. The ambition of Nolan has to be applauded. I only wish he would go back and sort out that sound design before I get around to seeing it again.
For many it will have been the film that brought them out of lockdown number one into a world of slight hope that normality was returning. As it co-incided with my daughter’s birthday it became part of a treat day out that although socially distanced was my first attempt to do all the things I hadn’t done for a while; eat out in a restaurant, have a pint in a bar, and then see a movie. The experience, whilst still enjoyable and memorable, was tainted by how surreal and empty the world felt – the meal was in an half empty and cold Hard Rock Cafe, with no music and a smell of disinfectant; the pint was in a pop up outside bar that only took orders via a phone app in advance; and the movie was attended by six people, of which we were two, separated by not two metres but at least ten!
I have been in some screenings that were dead quiet before, but not for a film so anticipated and more or less mainstream. It was odd. Hats off to the staff of Everyman, Glasgow, however, who were exemplary in their courtesy, welcoming and safety precautions. It wasn’t their fault it was empty, and I applaud them for keeping the ball rolling at that time around the start of September. At least the sofas were comfy, the place was warm and the smell was still of popcorn and not domestos.
I had been looking forward to the film immensely. The hype and build-up to it had come with a lot of baggage, with rumours of production delays and script issues going back a few years. It was shrouded in mystery, with even the trailer being delayed until the very last moment and critics not getting to see it until a day before release, such was the fear of spoilers leaking out. My first concern, being so excited by the prospect of another time bending classic to join Memento, Interstellar and Inception in the ranks of “OK, what just happened” masterpieces, was that the sound during the trailers was very very low – if they kept it that low during the actual film I would demand my money back… I needn’t have worried…
Never in my life have I felt as if my eardrums were about to burst whilst watching a film! Literally, at times, Hans Zimmer’s powerful and emotive score was vibrating my testicles! Add to that the fact that a lot of the dialogue seemed mumbled and drowned out by it, and it made the first 45 minutes very difficult to enjoy. Was this horrendous sound mix a mistake? Or very much part of the plan to overwhelm the senses and confuse the brain? Was it part of the puzzle or a massive technical oversight? As almost everyone seems to have the same complaint about it, the jury is still out on that one…
And so, it took a little while for me to atune to the tone, regardless of how hard you had to focus to take in anything of what was going on. There was a point where I became certain I wasn’t going to like it – I braced myself for disappointment. And then… at a certain moment in a certain scene the penny dropped and so did my jaw, as the full realisation of where this was going, and how unique and mind blowing that concept was, finally kicked in. From that moment on it just got better and better, as the technical achievement required, let alone intelligence, to pull this off surpassed all previous levels of anything I can ever remember.
The “Wow” moments just kept on coming as the action, tension and intrigue kept rising to fever pitch. In the end, so profoundly bewildering were the potential possibilities of the plot and premise that I gave up trying to meet it intellectually and just allowed it to wash over me emotionally, knowing that repeat viewings would allow me to engage with it in that way later.
John David Washington as “the protagonist” is suitably neutral and unshowy in the role; threatening to be compared to Bond or Bourne, but never quite being either, as this world, despite it’s surface glamour and underground seediness feels much closer to DiCaprio’s suit wearing mind spy in Inception than either of those. For anyone who didn’t yet catch his terrific turn in BlacKkKlansman this may be their first encounter with him, and you’d have to say he has a very solid, dependable quality, without ever being starry or attention seeking. Watchable, for sure, but never chewing the scenery at the cost of the story – and surely that is why Nolan chose him.
Beside Washington is another excellent performance by the increasingly impressive Robert Pattinson. His role as the enigmatic Neil here grows on you minute to minute during the film, and afterwards you wonder if he wasn’t the best thing about the entire production… there is a subtlety of meaning in all his scenes that is only revealed late on, and demands a further watch or two to get every nuance from. He gives the impression he is entirely in control of the full meaning of the film and his own performance, so much so he strikes me as the pivot that would tip you either way on whether you liked the film or not.
And I have to admit not liking it is a valid option. You couldn’t possibly watch it whilst tired or in a bad mood, it is just too full on, bordering on oppressive at times. There are also a few supporting roles that I’m not 100% certain of, most notably Kenneth Brannagh as the seeming villain of the piece, Sator. His accent is a distraction, and it feels like a character you’ve seen him play before – fine in most ways, but nothing special – and I found myself wishing they had cast someone else in that role. Likewise with the less exposed Elizabeth Debicki – adequate, but not transcendent, as her character might have been with a more charismatic actress.
My overall impression was definitely affected by how much my daughter enjoyed it – she loves having a mystery to solve, especially if it involves time or some other sci-fi concept. The pleasure of it was chatting it over excitedly afterwards, to see if either of us had truly understood the full story, in the same way I remember doing with others about all Nolan’s concept pieces over the years. If you come to it being less than bothered about having to unlock a puzzle box then it may very well piss you off, to the extent you either just give up or sit back and enjoy the ride. However, I would assert confidently that it is worth the effort and will reward multiple viewings over time. Especially as more clues to its meaning are discussed and revealed.
One thing that can be said with certainty is that there is no other film like this that has ever been made. It feels different and beyond comparison in many crucial ways. The ambition of Nolan has to be applauded. I only wish he would go back and sort out that sound design before I get around to seeing it again.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Good Boys (2019) in Movies
Aug 16, 2019
Every generation has a coming of age classic that they can point to and say that it resonated with them. Whether it be classic John Hughes movies such as Pretty in Pink or The Breakfast Club, there is always something that defines the youth of that generation. Whether it be the situations that the main characters find themselves in, or even something as simple as the music and fashion, there is usually something that will strike a familiar chord with the audience. Even when I go back and rewatch the classics, it reminds me of a simpler time, when my life struggles involved asking a girl to a dance or attempting to fit in to any number of awkward first-time moments that each of us at one time or another go through. Good Boys is such a movie, about the awkwardness and naivety of youth, even if the kids had a bigger potty mouth than I did as a child.
Max (Jacob Tremblay), Thor (Brady Noon), and Lucas (Keith L. Williams) are a group of 12-year old boys known to their family and friends as the Bean Bag boys. Why do they refer to themselves as the Bean Bag Boys you ask? Why because they sit on Bean Bag chairs of course. Entering 6th grade they are trying to stand out but tend to do so in all the worst ways. Thor loves to sing but is bullied to not sign up for the school musical because it’s not a cool thing to be. Lucas is dealing with his parent’s new divorce and has a propensity to always tell the truth (even when the truth potentially causes more damage than a lie). Then there is Max, a young man whose hormones are beginning to take over his brain and can only think of the love of his life (and future wife of course) Brixlee.
Max being to shy to even look at Brixlee when she is looking his way is finally given a golden opportunity when he is invited by popular kid Soren (Izaac Wang) to a kissing party. The idea of being able to not only speak to Brixlee but be able to kiss her causes a rush of emotions that gravitate from excitement to terror. Max, believing that the way to his true-loves heart is by being a kissing expert recruits his fellow Bean Bag Boys on a quest to learn to kiss.
His quest will take him from spying on his “nymphomaniac” neighbor, to a treacherous highway crossing to get to the mall. They will have to brave frat houses, and potentially risky run-ins with pedophiles and the police, all to learn how to be a better kisser. Of course, there is plenty of laughs and situations that only naïve children could get themselves into, all of which had me and the entirety of the audience laughing the entire way through
Good Boys is a movie that relies on the audience connection with the main characters to succeed. Without that, you are left with a movie full of foul language and crude humor which have lately become a dime a dozen. Thankfully the casting of Good Boys far exceeds any expectations I had going into the theater. Comedies of these type lean heavily on the actors to carry the story through the hi-jinx that are around every corner and the actors were more than up to the challenge. Jacob Tremblay portrays perfectly the fear that every young boy (or girl) goes through when they imagine their first kiss. Keith L. Williams shows the heart break that a young kid goes through when deal with personal tragedy (in this case his parents’ divorce) and yet still remains true-to-himself anyway. Brady Noon excels at his desire to be cool, and still struggle with how coolness affects what he truly loves and wants to ultimately do. All three as a group convincingly take us on a journey that may seem outlandish, yet ultimately feel believable as well.
Good Boys also has a strong supporting cast, that add further dimension to the film. The two “old” girls Lily (Midori Francis) and Hannah (Molly Gordon) are fantastic in their portrayal of two women who simply want their drugs to get high. They will go to almost any lengths to get them back from the boys who stole them and yet end up becoming a bigger part to the film as a whole. Even the well meaning yet clueless parents of Lucas (Lil Rel Howery and Retta) add to the laughs as a couple trying their best to protect their son even as their own lives are driven apart.
Good Boys may come across in previews as a crude comedy with loads of foul language and sexual situations. While at first glance that may be what it is, as you pull back the layers you soon begin to realize that it’s a story, not about the words that are said, but the innocence of youth and what it means to grow apart as friends. The laughs are non-stop and the language excusable because of the innocence of those on the screen who are spouting them. As parents maybe you’d be looking to wash their mouths out with soap, but as the audience you can’t help but think how innocent they truly are. Good Boys is a movie that will resonate with many in the audience, who likely went through some of these very same dilemmas in their own coming of age stories. Maybe not through paintball fights at a frat house, or crossing a busy freeway, but we each have our own unique stories that helped to mold us into who we are today. It’s funny how watching a film like this can make you reminisce on your own experiences, even if it isn’t on the big screen for all to see.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/14/good-boys/
Max (Jacob Tremblay), Thor (Brady Noon), and Lucas (Keith L. Williams) are a group of 12-year old boys known to their family and friends as the Bean Bag boys. Why do they refer to themselves as the Bean Bag Boys you ask? Why because they sit on Bean Bag chairs of course. Entering 6th grade they are trying to stand out but tend to do so in all the worst ways. Thor loves to sing but is bullied to not sign up for the school musical because it’s not a cool thing to be. Lucas is dealing with his parent’s new divorce and has a propensity to always tell the truth (even when the truth potentially causes more damage than a lie). Then there is Max, a young man whose hormones are beginning to take over his brain and can only think of the love of his life (and future wife of course) Brixlee.
Max being to shy to even look at Brixlee when she is looking his way is finally given a golden opportunity when he is invited by popular kid Soren (Izaac Wang) to a kissing party. The idea of being able to not only speak to Brixlee but be able to kiss her causes a rush of emotions that gravitate from excitement to terror. Max, believing that the way to his true-loves heart is by being a kissing expert recruits his fellow Bean Bag Boys on a quest to learn to kiss.
His quest will take him from spying on his “nymphomaniac” neighbor, to a treacherous highway crossing to get to the mall. They will have to brave frat houses, and potentially risky run-ins with pedophiles and the police, all to learn how to be a better kisser. Of course, there is plenty of laughs and situations that only naïve children could get themselves into, all of which had me and the entirety of the audience laughing the entire way through
Good Boys is a movie that relies on the audience connection with the main characters to succeed. Without that, you are left with a movie full of foul language and crude humor which have lately become a dime a dozen. Thankfully the casting of Good Boys far exceeds any expectations I had going into the theater. Comedies of these type lean heavily on the actors to carry the story through the hi-jinx that are around every corner and the actors were more than up to the challenge. Jacob Tremblay portrays perfectly the fear that every young boy (or girl) goes through when they imagine their first kiss. Keith L. Williams shows the heart break that a young kid goes through when deal with personal tragedy (in this case his parents’ divorce) and yet still remains true-to-himself anyway. Brady Noon excels at his desire to be cool, and still struggle with how coolness affects what he truly loves and wants to ultimately do. All three as a group convincingly take us on a journey that may seem outlandish, yet ultimately feel believable as well.
Good Boys also has a strong supporting cast, that add further dimension to the film. The two “old” girls Lily (Midori Francis) and Hannah (Molly Gordon) are fantastic in their portrayal of two women who simply want their drugs to get high. They will go to almost any lengths to get them back from the boys who stole them and yet end up becoming a bigger part to the film as a whole. Even the well meaning yet clueless parents of Lucas (Lil Rel Howery and Retta) add to the laughs as a couple trying their best to protect their son even as their own lives are driven apart.
Good Boys may come across in previews as a crude comedy with loads of foul language and sexual situations. While at first glance that may be what it is, as you pull back the layers you soon begin to realize that it’s a story, not about the words that are said, but the innocence of youth and what it means to grow apart as friends. The laughs are non-stop and the language excusable because of the innocence of those on the screen who are spouting them. As parents maybe you’d be looking to wash their mouths out with soap, but as the audience you can’t help but think how innocent they truly are. Good Boys is a movie that will resonate with many in the audience, who likely went through some of these very same dilemmas in their own coming of age stories. Maybe not through paintball fights at a frat house, or crossing a busy freeway, but we each have our own unique stories that helped to mold us into who we are today. It’s funny how watching a film like this can make you reminisce on your own experiences, even if it isn’t on the big screen for all to see.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/14/good-boys/
Hadley (567 KP) rated Stranger Things: Darkness on the Edge of Town in Books
Jul 17, 2019
Jim Hopper (1 more)
Serial killers and cults, oh my!
Too much attention to detail (1 more)
Using the same body language for every character
In 1977, New York City was a disaster; men were trying to return to a normal life after Vietnam ended, gangs were on every street corner, and a serial killer, by the name 'Son of Sam,' was on the loose. But for Detective Jim Hopper, New York was housing another serial killer just for him- - - a killer who is killing Vietnam war veterans, and leaving behind a psychic calling card, known as the Zener cards.
Adam Christopher is the chosen author to tell Stranger Things' fans about the most important homicide case that Jim Hopper ever worked on in the novel 'Darkness on the Edge of Town.' Fans may recall from season 2, when Eleven found a secret hatch in Hopper's cabin, it revealed boxes under the floor - one which was labeled 'New York.' This is that story.
The entire book is Hopper telling Eleven about his greatest homicide story from New York City. Readers get to meet new characters from Hopper's past, but the most memorable may be his partner in the Homicide Unit, Rosario Delgado (1977 was a time where Homicide Units didn't allow female detectives, and Delgado is one of the first of few that is allowed into the unit). Delgado, who is Cuban, but was raised in Queens, New York, has all the right attitude that wins over her partner, Hopper. The reader will realize that they are two-peas-in-a-pod.
Quickly, the story gets into the first case the two have together: the Zener card serial killer; here, we learn that there were two previous victims, both murdered the same way: stabbed five times with the wounds joining together to form a five-pointed star. Throughout the book, the story goes back and forth between 1977 and the present, where Eleven asks questions about the story, and also, Hopper questioning himself as to whether he should continue to tell Eleven the story.
But soon, we meet a very important man named Leroy Washington - a gang member who wants protection in exchange for the information that he holds- this leads Hopper to our villain: a cult leader who goes by the name Saint John. This villain believes that Satan is going to rise and destroy New York City.
Backtracking a little before, Hopper and Delgado are taken off the case of the Zener card murders, introducing readers to Special Agent Gallup. Gallup states that the third victim, Jacob Hoeler, was also a Special Agent, so the case is turned over to Federal Agents. "What you don't know, Detective, is that Jacob Hoeler is one of ours- - - Special Agent Jacob Hoeler. He was working on assignment, and the fact that he was killed in the course of his duties is of primary concern to my department. Therefore, we need to be sure that a most thorough investigation is carried out. In order to ensure that happens, we will be taking the case in-house. " Hopper, along with Delgado, refuse to let the case go, and secretly continue to work on it. But, as they dig deeper into the evidence and crime scenes, the two realize the murder case is a part of something much bigger - - - a cult that is armed with vehicles and weapons, ready to take over New York City for their leader, Saint John.
Readers get to see the story from both Hopper's and Delgado's point of view, which readers may question how Hopper knows Delgado's side of the story, but quickly to react, Eleven asks this very question for us: " 'Fair point,' said Hopper. 'But we - - - I mean, Delgado and me- - - we pieced it all together afterward. We had to interview everyone we could, and we put it all into a big official report. Actually, it took way longer to write that thing up than we spent on the investigation itself. We were even flown down to D.C. to present it to a bunch of anonymous suits in some federal building. They grilled us pretty well, too, although I ever found out who they all were. ' He grinned. ' Kinda sums the whole thing up, really.' " Even so, without Delgado's point of view, the story wouldn't have turned out as well as it did.
Hopper's obsession with cracking this case lands him in the center of it- - - he is recruited, not by choice, to the task force that is trying to top Saint John's big plan to destroy New York City. Leroy Washington, the informant from before, is Hopper's wing man for the mission, because Washington turns out to be a recruiting officer for the cult. Hopper is to pretend that he is a new recruit, and that he is an ex-cop, who just happened to 'murder' two people the night before. Hopper infiltrating the cult is one of the most exciting parts of the book, but the sequence of these scenes are much too short, leaving this reader disappointed.
Unfortunately, by this time, Delgado has become somewhat of a secondary character. She still works the case, being in the-know of Hopper going undercover, but we see little else of Delgado's character being developed. This is a missed opportunity indeed.
Although I enjoyed Christopher bringing Hopper's backstory to light, the writer is so detail oriented in his writing, that it bogged down much of the flow in the story. The reader is told things in almost every scene that come to nothing, and just seem to waste the reader's time. You may also find that the author uses the same words or physical actions to describe emotions for every single character (such as neck rolling to show stress), which gets old very quickly.
With that said, and only a few inconsistencies here and there, the book was very good. The story takes off pretty quickly and doesn't seem to slow down. The scenery descriptions put the reader right there with our favorite Hawkins Police Chief, Jim Hopper, but the best part about this book is that you don't have to be a Stranger Things' fan to enjoy it; anyone who enjoys Crime Fiction would love this story. Highly recommend!
Adam Christopher is the chosen author to tell Stranger Things' fans about the most important homicide case that Jim Hopper ever worked on in the novel 'Darkness on the Edge of Town.' Fans may recall from season 2, when Eleven found a secret hatch in Hopper's cabin, it revealed boxes under the floor - one which was labeled 'New York.' This is that story.
The entire book is Hopper telling Eleven about his greatest homicide story from New York City. Readers get to meet new characters from Hopper's past, but the most memorable may be his partner in the Homicide Unit, Rosario Delgado (1977 was a time where Homicide Units didn't allow female detectives, and Delgado is one of the first of few that is allowed into the unit). Delgado, who is Cuban, but was raised in Queens, New York, has all the right attitude that wins over her partner, Hopper. The reader will realize that they are two-peas-in-a-pod.
Quickly, the story gets into the first case the two have together: the Zener card serial killer; here, we learn that there were two previous victims, both murdered the same way: stabbed five times with the wounds joining together to form a five-pointed star. Throughout the book, the story goes back and forth between 1977 and the present, where Eleven asks questions about the story, and also, Hopper questioning himself as to whether he should continue to tell Eleven the story.
But soon, we meet a very important man named Leroy Washington - a gang member who wants protection in exchange for the information that he holds- this leads Hopper to our villain: a cult leader who goes by the name Saint John. This villain believes that Satan is going to rise and destroy New York City.
Backtracking a little before, Hopper and Delgado are taken off the case of the Zener card murders, introducing readers to Special Agent Gallup. Gallup states that the third victim, Jacob Hoeler, was also a Special Agent, so the case is turned over to Federal Agents. "What you don't know, Detective, is that Jacob Hoeler is one of ours- - - Special Agent Jacob Hoeler. He was working on assignment, and the fact that he was killed in the course of his duties is of primary concern to my department. Therefore, we need to be sure that a most thorough investigation is carried out. In order to ensure that happens, we will be taking the case in-house. " Hopper, along with Delgado, refuse to let the case go, and secretly continue to work on it. But, as they dig deeper into the evidence and crime scenes, the two realize the murder case is a part of something much bigger - - - a cult that is armed with vehicles and weapons, ready to take over New York City for their leader, Saint John.
Readers get to see the story from both Hopper's and Delgado's point of view, which readers may question how Hopper knows Delgado's side of the story, but quickly to react, Eleven asks this very question for us: " 'Fair point,' said Hopper. 'But we - - - I mean, Delgado and me- - - we pieced it all together afterward. We had to interview everyone we could, and we put it all into a big official report. Actually, it took way longer to write that thing up than we spent on the investigation itself. We were even flown down to D.C. to present it to a bunch of anonymous suits in some federal building. They grilled us pretty well, too, although I ever found out who they all were. ' He grinned. ' Kinda sums the whole thing up, really.' " Even so, without Delgado's point of view, the story wouldn't have turned out as well as it did.
Hopper's obsession with cracking this case lands him in the center of it- - - he is recruited, not by choice, to the task force that is trying to top Saint John's big plan to destroy New York City. Leroy Washington, the informant from before, is Hopper's wing man for the mission, because Washington turns out to be a recruiting officer for the cult. Hopper is to pretend that he is a new recruit, and that he is an ex-cop, who just happened to 'murder' two people the night before. Hopper infiltrating the cult is one of the most exciting parts of the book, but the sequence of these scenes are much too short, leaving this reader disappointed.
Unfortunately, by this time, Delgado has become somewhat of a secondary character. She still works the case, being in the-know of Hopper going undercover, but we see little else of Delgado's character being developed. This is a missed opportunity indeed.
Although I enjoyed Christopher bringing Hopper's backstory to light, the writer is so detail oriented in his writing, that it bogged down much of the flow in the story. The reader is told things in almost every scene that come to nothing, and just seem to waste the reader's time. You may also find that the author uses the same words or physical actions to describe emotions for every single character (such as neck rolling to show stress), which gets old very quickly.
With that said, and only a few inconsistencies here and there, the book was very good. The story takes off pretty quickly and doesn't seem to slow down. The scenery descriptions put the reader right there with our favorite Hawkins Police Chief, Jim Hopper, but the best part about this book is that you don't have to be a Stranger Things' fan to enjoy it; anyone who enjoys Crime Fiction would love this story. Highly recommend!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Does it live up to the hype?
When it came to choosing a director for Star Wars: the Force Awakens, there really was only one choice: J.J Abrams. He had the difficult task of bringing the beloved Star Trek series back onto the big screen after numerous misfiring movies and did so with two near-perfect films.
With Episode VII of the sci-fi soap opera proving to be the most-hyped movie of the last decade, Abrams had a lot riding on this film. But does it live up to it all?
Following on from the events of Return of the Jedi, Episode VII follows the story of the First Order – born from the remains of the Empire destroyed at the end of the original trilogy. Taking them on is the Resistance, aka the good guys. That’s as much as I will say about the story, as anymore would be venturing dangerously close to spoiler territory.
A whole host of new characters join the old blood fans have been dying to see for years and the exceptional writing here means they blend seamlessly together without the need to delve into sickly nostalgia. That’s not to say there isn’t any nostalgia of course, but it’s tastefully referenced.
Of the newcomers, Daisy Ridley’s scavenger Rey and John Boyega’s disillusioned Stormtrooper Finn make the most impact and are commanding in each of their many action sequences; their acting prowess is impeccable considering their lack of experience in big blockbusters.
Elsewhere, the much-marketed ball droid BB-8 ends up becoming one of the most memorable characters to grace the series and is up there with R2-D2 and C-3P0 and will no doubt become a fan favourite as the new trilogy progresses.
It’s wonderful to see J.J Abrams grounding Star Wars with its roots. Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford certainly look different to how we remember them, but their characters still remain the feisty figures that we know and love, though a little more of Leia would be welcome throughout The Force Awakens.
Over on the dark side, Adam Driver’s Kylo Ren is a menacing presence. His many tantrums are a joy to watch and you can feel the evil radiating from him. He’s most definitely deserving of a place in the Star Wars Villain Hall of Fame and makes more of an impact than any of the bad guys in the prequel trilogy.
The special effects are absolutely sublime. Beautiful sets and stunning planets are brilliantly juxtaposed with intergalactic dogfights featuring some of the series’ much-loved ships and yes the Millennium Falcon looks as good as ever. The action sequences are filmed with such confidence that every single frame looks 100% convincing.
It’s impossible to know where Abrams has chosen to use CGI and when he has opted for good old practical effects. This is how film-making should be and The Force Awakens is all the better for it.
Unfortunately, the story is somewhat lacking. A near carbon-copy of what we saw in A New Hope means it’s easy to see where the film is going from the off and while this doesn’t detract from the overall viewing experience, it would have been nice to have something a little more original to really sink your teeth into.
Nevertheless, this is a film with a fantastic sense of humour. Abrams and writing partners Lawrence Kasdan and Michael Arndt have managed to inject some genuinely funny moments – most of them involving BB-8 – into the film’s 135 minute running time.
Overall, J.J Abrams need not worry. Star Wars: the Force Awakens has topped off a year that has included some incredible films and this is one to add to the list. With some of the best special effects ever put to the big screen and a cast of intriguing and memorable characters, Episode VII is the film that fans of the series deserve and there’s a lot for newcomers to enjoy too.
Does it live up to the hype? Not quite, but it’s a memorable movie nonetheless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/12/20/does-it-live-up-to-the-hype-star-wars-the-force-awakens-review/
With Episode VII of the sci-fi soap opera proving to be the most-hyped movie of the last decade, Abrams had a lot riding on this film. But does it live up to it all?
Following on from the events of Return of the Jedi, Episode VII follows the story of the First Order – born from the remains of the Empire destroyed at the end of the original trilogy. Taking them on is the Resistance, aka the good guys. That’s as much as I will say about the story, as anymore would be venturing dangerously close to spoiler territory.
A whole host of new characters join the old blood fans have been dying to see for years and the exceptional writing here means they blend seamlessly together without the need to delve into sickly nostalgia. That’s not to say there isn’t any nostalgia of course, but it’s tastefully referenced.
Of the newcomers, Daisy Ridley’s scavenger Rey and John Boyega’s disillusioned Stormtrooper Finn make the most impact and are commanding in each of their many action sequences; their acting prowess is impeccable considering their lack of experience in big blockbusters.
Elsewhere, the much-marketed ball droid BB-8 ends up becoming one of the most memorable characters to grace the series and is up there with R2-D2 and C-3P0 and will no doubt become a fan favourite as the new trilogy progresses.
It’s wonderful to see J.J Abrams grounding Star Wars with its roots. Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford certainly look different to how we remember them, but their characters still remain the feisty figures that we know and love, though a little more of Leia would be welcome throughout The Force Awakens.
Over on the dark side, Adam Driver’s Kylo Ren is a menacing presence. His many tantrums are a joy to watch and you can feel the evil radiating from him. He’s most definitely deserving of a place in the Star Wars Villain Hall of Fame and makes more of an impact than any of the bad guys in the prequel trilogy.
The special effects are absolutely sublime. Beautiful sets and stunning planets are brilliantly juxtaposed with intergalactic dogfights featuring some of the series’ much-loved ships and yes the Millennium Falcon looks as good as ever. The action sequences are filmed with such confidence that every single frame looks 100% convincing.
It’s impossible to know where Abrams has chosen to use CGI and when he has opted for good old practical effects. This is how film-making should be and The Force Awakens is all the better for it.
Unfortunately, the story is somewhat lacking. A near carbon-copy of what we saw in A New Hope means it’s easy to see where the film is going from the off and while this doesn’t detract from the overall viewing experience, it would have been nice to have something a little more original to really sink your teeth into.
Nevertheless, this is a film with a fantastic sense of humour. Abrams and writing partners Lawrence Kasdan and Michael Arndt have managed to inject some genuinely funny moments – most of them involving BB-8 – into the film’s 135 minute running time.
Overall, J.J Abrams need not worry. Star Wars: the Force Awakens has topped off a year that has included some incredible films and this is one to add to the list. With some of the best special effects ever put to the big screen and a cast of intriguing and memorable characters, Episode VII is the film that fans of the series deserve and there’s a lot for newcomers to enjoy too.
Does it live up to the hype? Not quite, but it’s a memorable movie nonetheless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/12/20/does-it-live-up-to-the-hype-star-wars-the-force-awakens-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Like a particularly lethargic sloth
Cinema has a long lasting love of people having their homes invaded by unwanted intruders, and not just because that’s how most directors view anyone who tries to tell them their opinion on filmmaking. It’s because there’s a lot of different directions one can take with the drama and excitement of home invasion. The horror of Wait Until Dark, the brutality of Straw Dogs, the silliness of Home Alone, the potential is quite large. And now throwing in its own interpretation of this theme is The Lady in the Van, based on the somewhat true story of Alan Bennett’s relationship with a transient woman who parked her van on his driveway. So, how does he and the audience respond?
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Book of Blood (2008) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
"The dead have highways. Highways that lead to intersections and intersections that spill into our world. And if you find yourself at one of those intersections, you should stop and you should listen because the dead have stories to tell."
Mary Florescu, writer, teacher, and overall expert of the paranormal, is still looking for the distinct evidence of supernatural occurences. A house catches her eye that has been on the market since the daughter of the couple living there before had been murdered. It's said the original homeowner was thrown against the wall by an invisible force so hard that shards of his broken bones pierced his lungs and he choked to death on his own blood. During each incident, the message, "Don't mock us," was found written in blood on the closet doors. Mary decides to move into the house to find proof of the supernatural, bringing an audio/video technician, Reg Fuller, to help document anything they find. A new student, Simon McNeal, transfers into Mary's class. He seems to have a special gift related to the paranormal and is brought into the house to help work with Mary and Reg on the project. Strange occurences seem to begin immediately and only get more violent as they occur. But as things progress, the relationship between Mary and Simon turns physical and suspicious evidence is found in Simon's bag that point to him being a fake. Is the house actually "haunted," or is Simon playing everyone for a fool?
I'm a fairly big fan of Clive Barker's work. I've loved the books and stories (Books of Blood Vol. 1-3, Mister B. Gone, The Hellbound Heart) of his that I've read and several of his films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train) are some of the best the horror genre has to offer. Midnight Meat Train was probably the best horror film to come out of last year, so my expectations were high when I heard about this film and saw the trailer. This was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year even though it seemed to get the short end of the stick with its release much like what happened with Midnight Meat Train. I can tell you that Book of Blood is a good watch, but it may not be what you're expecting.
Book of Blood has its bloody moments, but it's not an all out gorefest. It's actually more of a supernatural thriller. The director, John Harrison, described the film as being more along the lines of films like The Others and The Orphanage. It relies more on mood and atmosphere rather than blood and guts splattering all over your face, which isn't a bad thing at all if done correctly. Book of Blood almost pulls that aspect of the film flawlessly. I say, "almost," because certain lines of dialogue ("I promise we will listen and I will tell your stories to the world.") and a few of the things that happened in the final act of the film (steel briefcase...it'll make sense when you see it) seem a bit cheesy, but may sit better with me on repeat viewings.
The film actually reminded me of Hellraiser quite a bit throughout the film. Other than Doug Bradley's brief cameo (if you blink, you'll probably miss him), the opening scene of when Reg and Mary go into the room where everything happened just reminds me of Frank staying in the attic in Hellraiser. Hellraiser is one of my favorite horror films, so the brief nod to the film (whether intentional or not) was very welcome to me.
My main concern with Book of Blood was how they were going to turn a short story that was originally just an introduction to the actual Books of Blood by Clive Barker into a full length film. The concern wound up being for nothing as Book of Blood met nearly all of my expectations and was extremely faithful to the original material while bringing in elements from another one of his stories called, "On Jerusalem Street." The story fleshes out nicely and the acting is good, for the most part. I think the perfectionist in me kept me from rating this any higher, but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a worthy addition to any avid horror movie enthusiast's collection.
Mary Florescu, writer, teacher, and overall expert of the paranormal, is still looking for the distinct evidence of supernatural occurences. A house catches her eye that has been on the market since the daughter of the couple living there before had been murdered. It's said the original homeowner was thrown against the wall by an invisible force so hard that shards of his broken bones pierced his lungs and he choked to death on his own blood. During each incident, the message, "Don't mock us," was found written in blood on the closet doors. Mary decides to move into the house to find proof of the supernatural, bringing an audio/video technician, Reg Fuller, to help document anything they find. A new student, Simon McNeal, transfers into Mary's class. He seems to have a special gift related to the paranormal and is brought into the house to help work with Mary and Reg on the project. Strange occurences seem to begin immediately and only get more violent as they occur. But as things progress, the relationship between Mary and Simon turns physical and suspicious evidence is found in Simon's bag that point to him being a fake. Is the house actually "haunted," or is Simon playing everyone for a fool?
I'm a fairly big fan of Clive Barker's work. I've loved the books and stories (Books of Blood Vol. 1-3, Mister B. Gone, The Hellbound Heart) of his that I've read and several of his films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train) are some of the best the horror genre has to offer. Midnight Meat Train was probably the best horror film to come out of last year, so my expectations were high when I heard about this film and saw the trailer. This was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year even though it seemed to get the short end of the stick with its release much like what happened with Midnight Meat Train. I can tell you that Book of Blood is a good watch, but it may not be what you're expecting.
Book of Blood has its bloody moments, but it's not an all out gorefest. It's actually more of a supernatural thriller. The director, John Harrison, described the film as being more along the lines of films like The Others and The Orphanage. It relies more on mood and atmosphere rather than blood and guts splattering all over your face, which isn't a bad thing at all if done correctly. Book of Blood almost pulls that aspect of the film flawlessly. I say, "almost," because certain lines of dialogue ("I promise we will listen and I will tell your stories to the world.") and a few of the things that happened in the final act of the film (steel briefcase...it'll make sense when you see it) seem a bit cheesy, but may sit better with me on repeat viewings.
The film actually reminded me of Hellraiser quite a bit throughout the film. Other than Doug Bradley's brief cameo (if you blink, you'll probably miss him), the opening scene of when Reg and Mary go into the room where everything happened just reminds me of Frank staying in the attic in Hellraiser. Hellraiser is one of my favorite horror films, so the brief nod to the film (whether intentional or not) was very welcome to me.
My main concern with Book of Blood was how they were going to turn a short story that was originally just an introduction to the actual Books of Blood by Clive Barker into a full length film. The concern wound up being for nothing as Book of Blood met nearly all of my expectations and was extremely faithful to the original material while bringing in elements from another one of his stories called, "On Jerusalem Street." The story fleshes out nicely and the acting is good, for the most part. I think the perfectionist in me kept me from rating this any higher, but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a worthy addition to any avid horror movie enthusiast's collection.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Mar 5, 2020
More CGI animals in another adaptation of a franchise that has been around since the 1920s. I do so love Eddie Murphy's comedy portrayal, am I ready for a period appropriate version?
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The best movie of the summer has arrived, and it’s Star Trek Into Darkness!
There are so many cool things about J.J. Abrams second adventure in the beloved universe created all those years ago by Gene Roddenberry. But the best way to experience this movie is cold, devoid of any internet spoilers, if such a thing is possible in this day and age. That being said, here’s what I got for you.
The movie begins with Captain James Tiberius Kirk (Chris Pine) getting in to trouble with Starfleet for violating the Prime Directive. The Prime Directive is the United Federation of Plants number one rule against alerting primitive cultures to things that they are not nearly ready to grasp (i.e. space travel). But Kirk manages to avoid his punishment because Starfleet has a bigger problem on its hands: a rogue agent, named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) is attacking Federation facilities on Earth.
Admiral Markus (Peter Weller) gives Jim Kirk orders to kill Harrison, who has managed to escape Earth and hide on Kronos, the Klingon homeworld. So Kirk, along with his trusty crew including the ever-logical Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto), James “Bones” McCoy (Karl Urban) and Uhura (Zoe Saldana), warp to the Neutral Zone that separates Federation space from the Klingon Empire. Only they discover that this mission – including the identity of the fugitive Harrison – is not what it seems.
That’s all I am giving you for plot details. Go see the movie!
And when you do, watch for the cleverness of the screenwriters. There are many classic Trek littered throughout the film including characters, place names and alien species that a Trekkie, excuse me… Trekker, will be hooting and hollering at. But this movie isn’t solely for the die hard Trekkers. There is enough action and excitement to keep even the most hard to please moviegoer entertained.
Abrams got a lot of flack for his 2009 reboot of the franchise, and most likely he will get it again for this film. But this time around, Abrams does stay closer to the virtues of the original universe including the bond of the Enterprise crew and the close friendships among Kirk, Spock and Bones. Abrams manages to draw nice moments of tension and comedy alike from the entire crew.
Our main characters do shine through though. Pine brings just the right amount of swagger to Kirk, Quinto gives both the humor and emotional intensity within Spock’s struggle to balance logic and emotion. But both of these actors have to work overtime to even be on the same level as Cumberbatch, who brings muscle and old-school, butt kicking style to the villain’s role.
The other thing that I really enjoyed, again without giving too much of the plot away, is the films willingness to acknowledge that we have strayed from the original story of Kirk and crew, and how the plot can draw on that to help strengthen the story. Once you see it, you will know what I am talking about.
I saw the movie in 3D, though I am of the impression that 3D is getting a little overrated these days. I am just not blown out of the water by the 3D effects that we are seeing in movies. The one thing that I was truly grateful for is that they didn’t throw it in your face, too much. There were moments where they had things fly at you, but for the most part it wasn’t the emphasis which allowed it to play out nicely.
What are you doing still reading? Get out there and see this movie. If you don’t, you will be sorry you hadn’t as everyone and their mom will be talking about this movie come Monday. I, myself, will be seeing it for a second time this Friday hoping to spot things I missed this first time around. The movie made people laugh, cry, and hang on to the edge of your seat. As a Star Wars fan, I loved this movie. And really can’t wait to see what Abrams does with the next installment (as well as Episode 7).
There are so many cool things about J.J. Abrams second adventure in the beloved universe created all those years ago by Gene Roddenberry. But the best way to experience this movie is cold, devoid of any internet spoilers, if such a thing is possible in this day and age. That being said, here’s what I got for you.
The movie begins with Captain James Tiberius Kirk (Chris Pine) getting in to trouble with Starfleet for violating the Prime Directive. The Prime Directive is the United Federation of Plants number one rule against alerting primitive cultures to things that they are not nearly ready to grasp (i.e. space travel). But Kirk manages to avoid his punishment because Starfleet has a bigger problem on its hands: a rogue agent, named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) is attacking Federation facilities on Earth.
Admiral Markus (Peter Weller) gives Jim Kirk orders to kill Harrison, who has managed to escape Earth and hide on Kronos, the Klingon homeworld. So Kirk, along with his trusty crew including the ever-logical Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto), James “Bones” McCoy (Karl Urban) and Uhura (Zoe Saldana), warp to the Neutral Zone that separates Federation space from the Klingon Empire. Only they discover that this mission – including the identity of the fugitive Harrison – is not what it seems.
That’s all I am giving you for plot details. Go see the movie!
And when you do, watch for the cleverness of the screenwriters. There are many classic Trek littered throughout the film including characters, place names and alien species that a Trekkie, excuse me… Trekker, will be hooting and hollering at. But this movie isn’t solely for the die hard Trekkers. There is enough action and excitement to keep even the most hard to please moviegoer entertained.
Abrams got a lot of flack for his 2009 reboot of the franchise, and most likely he will get it again for this film. But this time around, Abrams does stay closer to the virtues of the original universe including the bond of the Enterprise crew and the close friendships among Kirk, Spock and Bones. Abrams manages to draw nice moments of tension and comedy alike from the entire crew.
Our main characters do shine through though. Pine brings just the right amount of swagger to Kirk, Quinto gives both the humor and emotional intensity within Spock’s struggle to balance logic and emotion. But both of these actors have to work overtime to even be on the same level as Cumberbatch, who brings muscle and old-school, butt kicking style to the villain’s role.
The other thing that I really enjoyed, again without giving too much of the plot away, is the films willingness to acknowledge that we have strayed from the original story of Kirk and crew, and how the plot can draw on that to help strengthen the story. Once you see it, you will know what I am talking about.
I saw the movie in 3D, though I am of the impression that 3D is getting a little overrated these days. I am just not blown out of the water by the 3D effects that we are seeing in movies. The one thing that I was truly grateful for is that they didn’t throw it in your face, too much. There were moments where they had things fly at you, but for the most part it wasn’t the emphasis which allowed it to play out nicely.
What are you doing still reading? Get out there and see this movie. If you don’t, you will be sorry you hadn’t as everyone and their mom will be talking about this movie come Monday. I, myself, will be seeing it for a second time this Friday hoping to spot things I missed this first time around. The movie made people laugh, cry, and hang on to the edge of your seat. As a Star Wars fan, I loved this movie. And really can’t wait to see what Abrams does with the next installment (as well as Episode 7).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jungle Cruise (2021) in Movies
Aug 2, 2021
Star power from Johnson and Blunt (1 more)
Direction, cinematography, special effects and score all top notch
An Amazon-based blockbuster that delivers!
Dating from 1955, Jungle Cruise was one of the key attractions at Disneyland when it first opened. Full of corny spiel from the lovable boat captains, the experience is nicely evoked in the new Disney movie: a true summer blockbuster that delights.
Positives:
- Cut the movie open and it reads "summer blockbuster pleaser" through the middle. This is largely down to the charisma of its two stars, Blunt and Johnson, who prove why they are both such bankable commodities. It's clearly based on the "will they/won't they" simmering sexual chemistry between two polar-opposites, as featured in movies such as "Romancing the Stone" and "The African Queen". (Since the theme park ride was heavily influenced by the latter, this is no surprise). But there's also a heavy dose of tongue-in-cheek ridiculousness as featured in other great B-movie homages such as "The Mummy" and (most notably) "Raiders of the Lost Ark". (A few scenes directly mimic the Indiana Jones movies.)
- The supporting cast also have fun with their roles. Jack Whitehouse, doing almost a like-for-like copy of John Hannah's character in "The Mummy", could have been extremely annoying. But although he's the comic relief in the piece, he steers it just the right side of farcical, avoiding Jar-Jar Binks territory. ("When in Rome" he declares, swallowing a flagon of fermented spit. "God - I wish I was in Rome"!) Jesse Plemons, one of my favourite actors, who proved his comic chops in "Game Night", here delivers one of the most over-the-top Nazis since Ronald Lacey's Toht in "Raiders". Rounding things off is Paul Giamatti with a bizarrely comic performance as Nilo, a competing riverboat owner.
- Special effects, cinematography (Flavio Martínez Labiano, of "The Shallows") and James Newton-Howard's score all add to the lush blockbuster feel of the movie. And director Jaume Collet-Serra (who did the clever shark B-movie "The Shallows") keeps the movie clipping along at a fine rate, with only a few sections of character-building dialogue to get the kids fidgety.
Negatives:
- I mean, it's popcorn nonsense of course. The Amazonian 'McGuffin' is a tree that only comes to life under very specific conditions. And isn't it amazing that watery machinery (developed by who?) still works after at least 400 years, when my dishwasher gives up after ten? (But it's done with verve and style, so who cares?)
- Although the screenplay is actually very slick for a movie of this type, it feels like a script by committee at times. A single writer might have been tempted to duck the Hollywood ending and leave things on a more thoughtful, albeit downbeat, note.
Summary Thoughts on "Jungle Cruise": This was a pleasant surprise for me. A fun and light-hearted movie that ticks all the boxes as a summer blockbuster. It nicely evokes the cheesiness of the theme park ride operator (past alumni have included Robin Williams and Kevin Costner), especially with Johnson's opening scenes. But then rounds it out as a spectacular and appealing tongue-in-cheek adventure.
And, by the way, in case you fancy sitting through the interminable end titles to watch a post-credits scene.... there isn't one.
(#takenonefortheteam).
Parental Guidance: One question might be whether, with a "12A" certificate, this summer blockbuster is one that your kids might enjoy or be freaked out by. A comparison with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is perhaps useful here. There are quite a number of "jolts" involving snakes and bees but probably not as bad as the ones you get in an uncut version of "Raiders" (think the spiked Satipo; the mummies/snakes when escaping the 'Well of Souls'; and the melting Nazi bad-guys). So if you have kids that lapped up that stuff then I don't think they would have any issues with this one.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
Positives:
- Cut the movie open and it reads "summer blockbuster pleaser" through the middle. This is largely down to the charisma of its two stars, Blunt and Johnson, who prove why they are both such bankable commodities. It's clearly based on the "will they/won't they" simmering sexual chemistry between two polar-opposites, as featured in movies such as "Romancing the Stone" and "The African Queen". (Since the theme park ride was heavily influenced by the latter, this is no surprise). But there's also a heavy dose of tongue-in-cheek ridiculousness as featured in other great B-movie homages such as "The Mummy" and (most notably) "Raiders of the Lost Ark". (A few scenes directly mimic the Indiana Jones movies.)
- The supporting cast also have fun with their roles. Jack Whitehouse, doing almost a like-for-like copy of John Hannah's character in "The Mummy", could have been extremely annoying. But although he's the comic relief in the piece, he steers it just the right side of farcical, avoiding Jar-Jar Binks territory. ("When in Rome" he declares, swallowing a flagon of fermented spit. "God - I wish I was in Rome"!) Jesse Plemons, one of my favourite actors, who proved his comic chops in "Game Night", here delivers one of the most over-the-top Nazis since Ronald Lacey's Toht in "Raiders". Rounding things off is Paul Giamatti with a bizarrely comic performance as Nilo, a competing riverboat owner.
- Special effects, cinematography (Flavio Martínez Labiano, of "The Shallows") and James Newton-Howard's score all add to the lush blockbuster feel of the movie. And director Jaume Collet-Serra (who did the clever shark B-movie "The Shallows") keeps the movie clipping along at a fine rate, with only a few sections of character-building dialogue to get the kids fidgety.
Negatives:
- I mean, it's popcorn nonsense of course. The Amazonian 'McGuffin' is a tree that only comes to life under very specific conditions. And isn't it amazing that watery machinery (developed by who?) still works after at least 400 years, when my dishwasher gives up after ten? (But it's done with verve and style, so who cares?)
- Although the screenplay is actually very slick for a movie of this type, it feels like a script by committee at times. A single writer might have been tempted to duck the Hollywood ending and leave things on a more thoughtful, albeit downbeat, note.
Summary Thoughts on "Jungle Cruise": This was a pleasant surprise for me. A fun and light-hearted movie that ticks all the boxes as a summer blockbuster. It nicely evokes the cheesiness of the theme park ride operator (past alumni have included Robin Williams and Kevin Costner), especially with Johnson's opening scenes. But then rounds it out as a spectacular and appealing tongue-in-cheek adventure.
And, by the way, in case you fancy sitting through the interminable end titles to watch a post-credits scene.... there isn't one.
(#takenonefortheteam).
Parental Guidance: One question might be whether, with a "12A" certificate, this summer blockbuster is one that your kids might enjoy or be freaked out by. A comparison with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is perhaps useful here. There are quite a number of "jolts" involving snakes and bees but probably not as bad as the ones you get in an uncut version of "Raiders" (think the spiked Satipo; the mummies/snakes when escaping the 'Well of Souls'; and the melting Nazi bad-guys). So if you have kids that lapped up that stuff then I don't think they would have any issues with this one.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
