Search
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Portal Power
Games and Entertainment
App
Help the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles travel through portals and fight evil in this action-packed...
vouchercloud: vouchers offers
Lifestyle and Shopping
7.4
Rate It
App
Get the best savings and offers for your favourite restaurants, high-street stores, supermarkets and...
Audio Books by Audiobooks
Book and Entertainment
App
Wish you could read more but don’t have the time? You’ll love audiobooks! Audiobooks.com is the...
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated My Trip to Adele in Books
Oct 5, 2020
My Trip To Adele is a book unlike any other. We are introduced to three different life stories, all of them connected to Adele in a wonderful way, and every one of them will teach us many lessons, bring tears or laughs on our faces and remind us who we are and why we exist in this world. This is a book of how a singer or a song can connect so many people and touch so many hearts in a way no one else could. A book about keeping traditions and breaking them, a book about love, bravery and most of all - HOPE.
Let’s meet Elias. A Moroccan man that has lived in Rome long enough to believe he is Italian, with a Moroccan dust left in his soul. Through Elias, we will find out about how many years ago, he paid a prostitute for her services and fell in love. His love for Malika is undescribable. While other men would pay hundreds to only have her body, he would pay thousands more to have her soul, even for just one night. He would never touch her body, but they would spend hours and hours talking about meaningful and meaningless things, about what it is like outside this city, outside this country, what can the world offer…
Malika has so many wishes and hopes, she sells her body so one day she would be able to leave this town, leave her family, and explore the world. Get married and have children, and be successful, and learn the English language. When life parts them from each other for eight years, Elias goes back to the same old city to look for her, and Malika has already left town. Sharing one special singer, there is only one place where he can find her - an Adele concert in Rome.
In Las Vegas, we have Yaser and Mariam, a married couple that lost its sparkle many years ago. Both are surgeons and spend a lot of time at work. And when they come home to the kids - everything is a routine. Yaser pretends to enjoy his TV Show evenings and the Prayers that Mariam wants to attend. He pretends to believe in God just to please his wife. They are not a happy family inside the house, but Mariam makes it sound perfect on the outside - they have the perfect social media photos, and they go to the most expensive places on a holiday, what could be so bad? He feels trapped inside a routine and wants to escape, but he also believes in saving his marriage, and following his marriage counselor, they are trying to revive their happiest memories, and that is when they decide to go to an Adele concert in Rome.
On the other side of the world we will meet Nadia and her son Waleed. Nadia is a strong woman that has been coping with her now ex-husband’s betrayals. She raised her son oh her own, and the love she feels for him is indescribable. Only a mother knows how much she adores her son. When her son gets hurt on her ex husband’s third wedding - Nadia decides that she would fight for her and her son, she will no longer be trapped, and she will finally enjoy a lovely holiday with her son - going to Adele’s concert in Rome.
This book is written in an amazing, fast pace, and you will never notice how you have scrolled through the pages and hours have passed. There were times where the character's description was basic, and sometimes Adele’s presence would be too exposed, but all the characters are different in their own way, and every story has its purpose and its lesson.
Let’s meet Elias. A Moroccan man that has lived in Rome long enough to believe he is Italian, with a Moroccan dust left in his soul. Through Elias, we will find out about how many years ago, he paid a prostitute for her services and fell in love. His love for Malika is undescribable. While other men would pay hundreds to only have her body, he would pay thousands more to have her soul, even for just one night. He would never touch her body, but they would spend hours and hours talking about meaningful and meaningless things, about what it is like outside this city, outside this country, what can the world offer…
Malika has so many wishes and hopes, she sells her body so one day she would be able to leave this town, leave her family, and explore the world. Get married and have children, and be successful, and learn the English language. When life parts them from each other for eight years, Elias goes back to the same old city to look for her, and Malika has already left town. Sharing one special singer, there is only one place where he can find her - an Adele concert in Rome.
In Las Vegas, we have Yaser and Mariam, a married couple that lost its sparkle many years ago. Both are surgeons and spend a lot of time at work. And when they come home to the kids - everything is a routine. Yaser pretends to enjoy his TV Show evenings and the Prayers that Mariam wants to attend. He pretends to believe in God just to please his wife. They are not a happy family inside the house, but Mariam makes it sound perfect on the outside - they have the perfect social media photos, and they go to the most expensive places on a holiday, what could be so bad? He feels trapped inside a routine and wants to escape, but he also believes in saving his marriage, and following his marriage counselor, they are trying to revive their happiest memories, and that is when they decide to go to an Adele concert in Rome.
On the other side of the world we will meet Nadia and her son Waleed. Nadia is a strong woman that has been coping with her now ex-husband’s betrayals. She raised her son oh her own, and the love she feels for him is indescribable. Only a mother knows how much she adores her son. When her son gets hurt on her ex husband’s third wedding - Nadia decides that she would fight for her and her son, she will no longer be trapped, and she will finally enjoy a lovely holiday with her son - going to Adele’s concert in Rome.
This book is written in an amazing, fast pace, and you will never notice how you have scrolled through the pages and hours have passed. There were times where the character's description was basic, and sometimes Adele’s presence would be too exposed, but all the characters are different in their own way, and every story has its purpose and its lesson.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Babyteeth (2019) in Movies
Aug 25, 2020
I've had more fun at the orthodontist's
Now, before I start, I know I'm likely to be at odds with a lot of viewers on this one. Having had a glance at the IMDB ratings, I can see a lot of arthouse love for this Australian movie. But this really was not for me.
Eliza Scanlen plays Australian schoolgirl Milla, displaying typically rebellious symptoms of adolescence but hampered by a crippling medical issue. She meets a 23-year old drug addict, Moses (Toby Wallace), and the pair feel an immediate pull towards each other, much to the horror of her parents Henry (Ben Mendelsohn) and Anna (Essie Davis). The kids are dysfunctional (for different reasons); the parents are not much better. Adding to the drama is a strange violin teacher (Eugene Gilfedder) and a pregnant (MILF-to-be) next door neighbour (Emily Barclay). We follow the life and love of Milla as she struggles with her circumstances... and the last of her Babyteeth.
I can draw parallels here to the movie "Animals" from last year. Indeed to the Oscar-winner "Moonlight" from four year's ago. I could readily perceive it to be intelligent and artfully produced. But I'm afraid I felt zero empathy or pull from any of the characters. Given that, and the slow burn of writer Rita Kalnejais's screenplay, I found myself constantly looking at my watch for the last half-hour of the movie.
The movie's not without its merits though. Babyteeth has picked up a number of nominations, and as many wins, on the international film-festival circuit, mostly for the direction of Shannon Murphy. This is a first-time feature for TV-director Murphy (she directed two episodes from this year's series of "Killing Eve" for example). Awards have also gone to Toby Wallace for his portrayal of the slightly unhinged and unpredictable Moses. But for me, it was Eliza Scanlen's performance as Milla that appealed to me most and kept my attention. Other-worldly and slightly ethereal, she pulls off the role well. Scanlen was of course Beth March in the recent superb version of "Little Woman". (She's a young lady with great potential, but she needs to be careful not to get typecast as sickly waifs!)
Babyteeth was for me a curate's egg in the photography department. Cinematography was by Andrew Commis, and I found it both breathtaking and frustrating in almost equal measure. There's a scene towards the end of the movie with Milla's face half-lit in the moonlight that was reminiscent to me of the star-child in "2001: A Space Odyssey". Simply gorgeous. And scenes in a nightclub are both strangely and effectively shot. But - and art-house movies seem to mandate this approach - the movie is shot on handheld cameras. This makes a lot of the shots drift in and out of focus. Moreover - and most frustratingly for me - it makes the multitude of scene titles, employed in the telling, float ever-so-slightly against the backgrounds, with a generally nauseating effect.
I'll no doubt feel a right Charlie if Babyteeth gets into the Oscars nominations short-list. But for me, it just wasn't engaging enough to be entertaining. It's billed as a "Comedy Drama". While there were a few good comic lines, it rarely made me do more than smile. And as for the drama, I'm afraid tears were far from being spilled. It's in no way a "bad film": it just personally wasn't for me.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movie on https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/25/babyteeth-you-might-have-more-fun-at-the-orthodontists/.)
Eliza Scanlen plays Australian schoolgirl Milla, displaying typically rebellious symptoms of adolescence but hampered by a crippling medical issue. She meets a 23-year old drug addict, Moses (Toby Wallace), and the pair feel an immediate pull towards each other, much to the horror of her parents Henry (Ben Mendelsohn) and Anna (Essie Davis). The kids are dysfunctional (for different reasons); the parents are not much better. Adding to the drama is a strange violin teacher (Eugene Gilfedder) and a pregnant (MILF-to-be) next door neighbour (Emily Barclay). We follow the life and love of Milla as she struggles with her circumstances... and the last of her Babyteeth.
I can draw parallels here to the movie "Animals" from last year. Indeed to the Oscar-winner "Moonlight" from four year's ago. I could readily perceive it to be intelligent and artfully produced. But I'm afraid I felt zero empathy or pull from any of the characters. Given that, and the slow burn of writer Rita Kalnejais's screenplay, I found myself constantly looking at my watch for the last half-hour of the movie.
The movie's not without its merits though. Babyteeth has picked up a number of nominations, and as many wins, on the international film-festival circuit, mostly for the direction of Shannon Murphy. This is a first-time feature for TV-director Murphy (she directed two episodes from this year's series of "Killing Eve" for example). Awards have also gone to Toby Wallace for his portrayal of the slightly unhinged and unpredictable Moses. But for me, it was Eliza Scanlen's performance as Milla that appealed to me most and kept my attention. Other-worldly and slightly ethereal, she pulls off the role well. Scanlen was of course Beth March in the recent superb version of "Little Woman". (She's a young lady with great potential, but she needs to be careful not to get typecast as sickly waifs!)
Babyteeth was for me a curate's egg in the photography department. Cinematography was by Andrew Commis, and I found it both breathtaking and frustrating in almost equal measure. There's a scene towards the end of the movie with Milla's face half-lit in the moonlight that was reminiscent to me of the star-child in "2001: A Space Odyssey". Simply gorgeous. And scenes in a nightclub are both strangely and effectively shot. But - and art-house movies seem to mandate this approach - the movie is shot on handheld cameras. This makes a lot of the shots drift in and out of focus. Moreover - and most frustratingly for me - it makes the multitude of scene titles, employed in the telling, float ever-so-slightly against the backgrounds, with a generally nauseating effect.
I'll no doubt feel a right Charlie if Babyteeth gets into the Oscars nominations short-list. But for me, it just wasn't engaging enough to be entertaining. It's billed as a "Comedy Drama". While there were a few good comic lines, it rarely made me do more than smile. And as for the drama, I'm afraid tears were far from being spilled. It's in no way a "bad film": it just personally wasn't for me.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movie on https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/25/babyteeth-you-might-have-more-fun-at-the-orthodontists/.)
GoldieBlox: Adventures in Coding - The Rocket Cupcake Co.
Education and Entertainment
App
** Pay once and play forever! No in-app purchases! Never-ending puzzles! ** Attention, future...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The World's End (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
This summer’s movie lineup has been crammed full of sophisticated robots, vampires and even a recently passed billionaire genius. And then you have The World’s End (“TWE”), which might simply be the best and most creative of the bunch. Having a much smaller budget than these bigger movies, and being set in England, Edgar Wright shows that it’s not all about money and tropics in this hilarious romp.
I cannot honestly think of a better way to wrap up the Cornetto Trilogy then the story told in TWE. For those that don’t know there’s a joke behind the Cornetto name, in that a report brought up that a Cornetto ice cream wrapper was featured in each of the first two movies. Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz make up the first two movies, and TWE rounds out what eventually became the Cornetto Trilogy. Ice cream Easter egg aside, all the films in the trilogy share the same cast and crew. They star Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, written by Pegg and Wright, and directed by Wright. The films are chock full of inside jokes that go back as far as this incredible groups humble beginnings with the TV show Spaced. Beyond these connections, though, each films stands on its own as a unique story.
While Shaun of the Dead was the group’s take on zombie films, and Hot Fuzz visited the buddy cop genre, TWE is a comedic riff on films like Invasion of the Body Snatchers. If you have somehow made it this far without having the full plot spoiled for you, do try and keep it that way. The key things you need to know is that there are robots, creepy “YOLO” kids, and the story centers on Gary King, a man who never quite grew up.
Gary (Pegg) is a disaster of an adult male. He’s wild, rambunctious, trying to constantly relive his youth, and irresponsible to boot. This demeanor has not done any good for him as an adult on the far side of 40, but he’s delusional and is not aware that he has not succeeded in life. This actually adds to his charm.
Gary gets a bug up his you know what, and wants to relive one of his last greatest days of his youth. A day when he and his four best friends decided to celebrate finishing school by tackling the town-famous golden mile. Newton Haven has 12 pubs spread along a mile path that Gary manages to convince his friends Steven (Paddy Considine), Oliver (Martin Freeman), Peter (Eddie Marsan) and former best friend Andrew (Frost) to attempt again just like they did all those years ago. The pub crawl concludes at the film’s namesake: The World’s End.
As the evening goes on, and the beers start going down, the five begin to discover that something is off. Between rounds and pubs, the group starts to discuss whether or not the town has changed, or they have. This leads to a fight with the creepy “YOLO” kids that is reminiscent of Chinese Kung Fu movies the likes of Jackie Chan would be found in. As the mates progress from pub to pub, more and more of the mystery of Newton Haven begins to unravel.
The film starts in a deceiving way and hides its true nature underneath a veil of middle-aged men trying to reconcile their present with their past. Gary very much represents the past as he still dresses the way he did when he was 18, still drives the same car, complete with the same cassette tape of music given to him more than 20 years ago by Steven. Gary is a loser, but thinks he is the hero of every story, which causes a love/hate relationship with the group of friends. Then it all changes! Wright and company manage to do a complete 180 and combine a very believable mid-life crisis film with a robot invasion. And it works!
Pegg absolutely nails the role of Gary, from his movements to his banter with the others in the film. There is an air of desperation hidden under his free spirit persona. But surprisingly, it is Frost that steals the movie this time around. Andrew is the most well-rounded character he has portrayed, even through his transformation from a stiff professional into the atomic elbow dropping fighter he needs to become.
As I mentioned earlier, the fight scenes are very reminiscent Chinese Kung Fu movies. The choreography is amazing and the actors have no problem keeping up with the action and bringing the air of humor that the Kung Fu films bring as well. It is impressive watching Frost, a small man by no means, nimbly dispatch several foes. Meanwhile, Pegg is constantly thwarted by enemies as he unsuccessfully attempt to enjoy a pint. For a film billed as comedy, the few fight scenes are among the best of the summer.
As good and Pegg and Frost are though, it all comes back to the man behind the camera… Wright. He has a style that is distinctive and unique. He has shown his range over the years with shows like Spaced and films like Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. And his attention to detail is bar-none. Nothing is included in a shot if it doesn’t have some sort of meaning. Wright is a master film maker in his own right.
TWE is steeped in originality and creativity, which is sorely lacking in many films that are released these days. Wright is a master of deconstructing a genre film to honor it and make fun of it at the same time. Pegg and Frost have an uncanny knack for translating Wright’s visions to the silver screen. The World’s End is another example of their shining chemistry, and also one of the best films of the summer.
I cannot honestly think of a better way to wrap up the Cornetto Trilogy then the story told in TWE. For those that don’t know there’s a joke behind the Cornetto name, in that a report brought up that a Cornetto ice cream wrapper was featured in each of the first two movies. Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz make up the first two movies, and TWE rounds out what eventually became the Cornetto Trilogy. Ice cream Easter egg aside, all the films in the trilogy share the same cast and crew. They star Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, written by Pegg and Wright, and directed by Wright. The films are chock full of inside jokes that go back as far as this incredible groups humble beginnings with the TV show Spaced. Beyond these connections, though, each films stands on its own as a unique story.
While Shaun of the Dead was the group’s take on zombie films, and Hot Fuzz visited the buddy cop genre, TWE is a comedic riff on films like Invasion of the Body Snatchers. If you have somehow made it this far without having the full plot spoiled for you, do try and keep it that way. The key things you need to know is that there are robots, creepy “YOLO” kids, and the story centers on Gary King, a man who never quite grew up.
Gary (Pegg) is a disaster of an adult male. He’s wild, rambunctious, trying to constantly relive his youth, and irresponsible to boot. This demeanor has not done any good for him as an adult on the far side of 40, but he’s delusional and is not aware that he has not succeeded in life. This actually adds to his charm.
Gary gets a bug up his you know what, and wants to relive one of his last greatest days of his youth. A day when he and his four best friends decided to celebrate finishing school by tackling the town-famous golden mile. Newton Haven has 12 pubs spread along a mile path that Gary manages to convince his friends Steven (Paddy Considine), Oliver (Martin Freeman), Peter (Eddie Marsan) and former best friend Andrew (Frost) to attempt again just like they did all those years ago. The pub crawl concludes at the film’s namesake: The World’s End.
As the evening goes on, and the beers start going down, the five begin to discover that something is off. Between rounds and pubs, the group starts to discuss whether or not the town has changed, or they have. This leads to a fight with the creepy “YOLO” kids that is reminiscent of Chinese Kung Fu movies the likes of Jackie Chan would be found in. As the mates progress from pub to pub, more and more of the mystery of Newton Haven begins to unravel.
The film starts in a deceiving way and hides its true nature underneath a veil of middle-aged men trying to reconcile their present with their past. Gary very much represents the past as he still dresses the way he did when he was 18, still drives the same car, complete with the same cassette tape of music given to him more than 20 years ago by Steven. Gary is a loser, but thinks he is the hero of every story, which causes a love/hate relationship with the group of friends. Then it all changes! Wright and company manage to do a complete 180 and combine a very believable mid-life crisis film with a robot invasion. And it works!
Pegg absolutely nails the role of Gary, from his movements to his banter with the others in the film. There is an air of desperation hidden under his free spirit persona. But surprisingly, it is Frost that steals the movie this time around. Andrew is the most well-rounded character he has portrayed, even through his transformation from a stiff professional into the atomic elbow dropping fighter he needs to become.
As I mentioned earlier, the fight scenes are very reminiscent Chinese Kung Fu movies. The choreography is amazing and the actors have no problem keeping up with the action and bringing the air of humor that the Kung Fu films bring as well. It is impressive watching Frost, a small man by no means, nimbly dispatch several foes. Meanwhile, Pegg is constantly thwarted by enemies as he unsuccessfully attempt to enjoy a pint. For a film billed as comedy, the few fight scenes are among the best of the summer.
As good and Pegg and Frost are though, it all comes back to the man behind the camera… Wright. He has a style that is distinctive and unique. He has shown his range over the years with shows like Spaced and films like Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. And his attention to detail is bar-none. Nothing is included in a shot if it doesn’t have some sort of meaning. Wright is a master film maker in his own right.
TWE is steeped in originality and creativity, which is sorely lacking in many films that are released these days. Wright is a master of deconstructing a genre film to honor it and make fun of it at the same time. Pegg and Frost have an uncanny knack for translating Wright’s visions to the silver screen. The World’s End is another example of their shining chemistry, and also one of the best films of the summer.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Soul (2020) in Movies
Dec 30, 2020
Soul is Pixar at its most cerebral
In the last few days I've seen Pixar's latest animation - "Soul" - described by various reviewers as a cross between "Inside Out", "Coco", "La La Land" and "Whiplash". I'll add to that some older movies with more obvious parallels with the story: 1946's "A Matter of Life and Death" with David Niven; 1941's "Here Comes Mr Jordan" with Robert Montgomery and its 1978 remake - a personal favourite of mine - "Heaven Can Wait" with Warren Beatty. For these all tell the story of someone plucked from the world a tad too early.
In "Soul", Joe (Jamie Foxx) is a talented jazz pianist always dreaming of getting to be a big time session musician. He is stuck though in a worthwhile but unappreciated job as a high school music teacher. But his luck is - temporarily - about to change when an old successful student (nice touch) recommends him to provide backing to the fearsome jazz star Dorothea Williams (Angela Bassett).
Just as things seem to going his way, an open manhole cover has other ideas, and Joe falls to his 'death'. Feeling his soul has exited the world too early, and just before he gets his big shot, Joe's spirit struggles to return to the world with the help of reluctant soul/recruit "22" (Tina Fey).
Pete Docter seems to have done it again with "Soul". The man behind Pixar's hugely successful "Up" and "Inside Out" has the magic touch with these animated classics. He's had more than his share of Oscar success. (Although having gone straight to streaming on Disney+, does it qualify for the Oscars this year? Or have they relaxed the rules?) Assuming it is eligible, you'd be a brave man to bet against "Soul" winning Best Animated Feature this year.
For there are some sequences of this movie that are breathtakingly effective. The fall of Joe from the "stairway to the great beyond" to the pre-life domain (as shown in the trailer) is a masterpiece of graphic design. (And do I detect in there a tribute to the "stargate" in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?) What makes these sequences distinctive is not the afterlife soul's or the "great before" souls, who resemble blue variants of Casper. It's the 'counsellors' of the realms. They are surreally drawn Picasso-style in 2D and - although easy to draw for preschooler's with a crayon - might be a bit of a stretch for them to relate to.
But will the kids get it? I know that my 6-year old grandson enjoyed watching it. But ultimately, this is principally a Pixar film squarely targeted at adults to enjoy. Indeed, the themes of death and afterlife might be disturbing for younger children (as in "Coco"). They will certainly struggle to understand the land of lost souls, where those obsessed with their work or hobbies (metal detecting! LOL!) are almost beyond reach. And surely the message of 'enjoying the everyday here and now' rather than getting too wrapped up in career or life goals will only be relatable to adults.
"Soul" is brim-full with Pixar quirkiness. As per normal, the movie has a lot of detail that will need multiple watches. And I can confirm that the pause button helps! For example, "22" has been an earth-apprentice for so many millennia that he has had just about every mentor who's ever passed through. His 'den' is wallpapered with "Hello, My Name is ...." badges, and a pause at that point reveals mentors as varied as Gandhi, Aretha Franklin, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking! And in the end titles, the usual list of babies born during production are "Recent You Seminar graduates"!
The movie also features two of the most distinctive voices from UK television. Graham Norton plays Moonwind: a sign-spinning hippy and lost-soul-sea piratical captain (I've honestly not been taking drugs). And Richard Ayoade, a UK TV regular but familiar to US audiences from his role in "The IT Crowd", plays Counsellor Jerry (well, one of them!). Alice Braga, as another Counsellor Jerry and most recently seen as the doctor in "The New Mutants", is another familiar voice
For once, Michael Giacchino doesn't get the scoring gig. Instead, this went to the "Nine Inch Nails" partnership of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. (The soundtrack for "Mank" was their most recent work). The music is perhaps not as immediately accessible as some of the previous Pixar scores. But I think will be a 'grower'.
I have a "but" in my review. I sobbed like a young child during parts of "Up". And similarly, I was a mess as 'Bing Bong' faded away in "Inside Out". And yet here, my tear ducts remained stubbornly unchallenged. Perhaps this is a personal thing, and others were a soggy mess after this movie. But, for me, it simply didn't connect with me at the same raw emotional level that Docter's other work (and indeed other Pixar movies) have done. So, for that reason (only), I'm going to hold off my highest rating.
It's highly recommended since, notwithstanding this, it's a magnificent effort. (At the 11th hour, it made my "Number 7" slot in my Top 10 of 2020). It's also worth noting that it's mildly groundbreaking in being the first Pixar movie with a black leading character.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the full review in One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/30/soul-is-pixar-at-its-most-cerebral/).
In "Soul", Joe (Jamie Foxx) is a talented jazz pianist always dreaming of getting to be a big time session musician. He is stuck though in a worthwhile but unappreciated job as a high school music teacher. But his luck is - temporarily - about to change when an old successful student (nice touch) recommends him to provide backing to the fearsome jazz star Dorothea Williams (Angela Bassett).
Just as things seem to going his way, an open manhole cover has other ideas, and Joe falls to his 'death'. Feeling his soul has exited the world too early, and just before he gets his big shot, Joe's spirit struggles to return to the world with the help of reluctant soul/recruit "22" (Tina Fey).
Pete Docter seems to have done it again with "Soul". The man behind Pixar's hugely successful "Up" and "Inside Out" has the magic touch with these animated classics. He's had more than his share of Oscar success. (Although having gone straight to streaming on Disney+, does it qualify for the Oscars this year? Or have they relaxed the rules?) Assuming it is eligible, you'd be a brave man to bet against "Soul" winning Best Animated Feature this year.
For there are some sequences of this movie that are breathtakingly effective. The fall of Joe from the "stairway to the great beyond" to the pre-life domain (as shown in the trailer) is a masterpiece of graphic design. (And do I detect in there a tribute to the "stargate" in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?) What makes these sequences distinctive is not the afterlife soul's or the "great before" souls, who resemble blue variants of Casper. It's the 'counsellors' of the realms. They are surreally drawn Picasso-style in 2D and - although easy to draw for preschooler's with a crayon - might be a bit of a stretch for them to relate to.
But will the kids get it? I know that my 6-year old grandson enjoyed watching it. But ultimately, this is principally a Pixar film squarely targeted at adults to enjoy. Indeed, the themes of death and afterlife might be disturbing for younger children (as in "Coco"). They will certainly struggle to understand the land of lost souls, where those obsessed with their work or hobbies (metal detecting! LOL!) are almost beyond reach. And surely the message of 'enjoying the everyday here and now' rather than getting too wrapped up in career or life goals will only be relatable to adults.
"Soul" is brim-full with Pixar quirkiness. As per normal, the movie has a lot of detail that will need multiple watches. And I can confirm that the pause button helps! For example, "22" has been an earth-apprentice for so many millennia that he has had just about every mentor who's ever passed through. His 'den' is wallpapered with "Hello, My Name is ...." badges, and a pause at that point reveals mentors as varied as Gandhi, Aretha Franklin, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking! And in the end titles, the usual list of babies born during production are "Recent You Seminar graduates"!
The movie also features two of the most distinctive voices from UK television. Graham Norton plays Moonwind: a sign-spinning hippy and lost-soul-sea piratical captain (I've honestly not been taking drugs). And Richard Ayoade, a UK TV regular but familiar to US audiences from his role in "The IT Crowd", plays Counsellor Jerry (well, one of them!). Alice Braga, as another Counsellor Jerry and most recently seen as the doctor in "The New Mutants", is another familiar voice
For once, Michael Giacchino doesn't get the scoring gig. Instead, this went to the "Nine Inch Nails" partnership of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. (The soundtrack for "Mank" was their most recent work). The music is perhaps not as immediately accessible as some of the previous Pixar scores. But I think will be a 'grower'.
I have a "but" in my review. I sobbed like a young child during parts of "Up". And similarly, I was a mess as 'Bing Bong' faded away in "Inside Out". And yet here, my tear ducts remained stubbornly unchallenged. Perhaps this is a personal thing, and others were a soggy mess after this movie. But, for me, it simply didn't connect with me at the same raw emotional level that Docter's other work (and indeed other Pixar movies) have done. So, for that reason (only), I'm going to hold off my highest rating.
It's highly recommended since, notwithstanding this, it's a magnificent effort. (At the 11th hour, it made my "Number 7" slot in my Top 10 of 2020). It's also worth noting that it's mildly groundbreaking in being the first Pixar movie with a black leading character.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the full review in One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/30/soul-is-pixar-at-its-most-cerebral/).
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Us (2019) in Movies
Apr 10, 2019 (Updated Apr 10, 2019)
Fantastic performances all round (2 more)
Brilliant direction
Lighting is on point
Just You & I
Contains spoilers, click to show
I saw Us last night and I really enjoyed it. It's the latest movie by comedian turned horror auteur Jordan Peele and after how much I loved Get Out, I was very much looking forward to seeing this. I think that if Us had came before Get Out, I probably would have enjoyed it more, as for every element that I enjoyed in Us, I couldn't help but keep thinking that it had already been done better in Get Out.
Okay, from this point on I am going to dive into spoilers, so please make sure that you have seen the movie before you continue reading.
The main reason that I am having to go into spoilers pretty soon into my review is because the shit hits the fan in this film fairly early on. In Get Out the first 3 quarters of the movie was build up before things eventually got nuts in the last 30 minutes, whereas in Us we are only just at the end of the first act when crazy shit starts to go down. I get why Peele did this from a filmmaker's perspective; in Get Out, we didn't really know what we were in for and he had the benefit of keeping us in the dark for as long as he wanted to, whereas in Us we all went in expecting bizarre things to take place, so rather than messing about for too long building tension, Peele lets things get weird fairly early in the film. Whether you prefer the slower burn of Get Out like I did, or the faster pace in Us will be down to personal preference.
The worst thing about Us is that it is following Get Out. Even when something really cool happens, it was done better in Get Out. Take the score for example; it is pretty great in Us, but was superior in Get Out. The same goes for the editing, the script, the cinematography and a whole load of other technical elements. One thing that did stand out was the fantastic use of lighting. It was perfect in every scene throughout the film and conveyed the feelings that Peele was subjecting the audience to flawlessly.
The performances were also great. The whole cast did a fantastic job, (including the kids,) but the stand outs for me were Lupita Nyong'o and Elisabeth Moss. They were pretty good as the normal versions of their characters, but they really shone when they got to play the psychotic doppelgangers, for way more reasons than just how scary they were.
Another thing that I liked was that for the most part, the film doesn't treat you like you are dumb, with one exception. The film opens on a shot of an old CRT TV showing various adverts. One of these is an advert for Santa Cruz tourism and another tells us that the year is 1986. In the very next shot we are shown a title card reading, "Santa Cruz, 1986." This isn't an outrageous inclusion, just one that causes an eyeroll for anyone actually paying attention to what they are seeing onscreen.
Another thing that didn't quite work for me was the use of comedy. Where Get Out used comedy to cut away from the intensity and give the audience a breather, Us intertwined it more with the carnage, which made it come off as fairly messy in parts. Don't get me wrong, any comedic lines were well written and well delivered, I just feel that they could have been implemented a bit better.
Overall, Us is another great horror/thriller from Jordan Peele. I know that I compared it to Get Out all the way through this review, but even when watching it, it is extremely hard not to make comparisons. That does not mean that this is a bad movie by any stretch though and I am very much looking forward to seeing Peele's upcoming Twilight Zone series as well as any other projects he is working on.
Okay, from this point on I am going to dive into spoilers, so please make sure that you have seen the movie before you continue reading.
The main reason that I am having to go into spoilers pretty soon into my review is because the shit hits the fan in this film fairly early on. In Get Out the first 3 quarters of the movie was build up before things eventually got nuts in the last 30 minutes, whereas in Us we are only just at the end of the first act when crazy shit starts to go down. I get why Peele did this from a filmmaker's perspective; in Get Out, we didn't really know what we were in for and he had the benefit of keeping us in the dark for as long as he wanted to, whereas in Us we all went in expecting bizarre things to take place, so rather than messing about for too long building tension, Peele lets things get weird fairly early in the film. Whether you prefer the slower burn of Get Out like I did, or the faster pace in Us will be down to personal preference.
The worst thing about Us is that it is following Get Out. Even when something really cool happens, it was done better in Get Out. Take the score for example; it is pretty great in Us, but was superior in Get Out. The same goes for the editing, the script, the cinematography and a whole load of other technical elements. One thing that did stand out was the fantastic use of lighting. It was perfect in every scene throughout the film and conveyed the feelings that Peele was subjecting the audience to flawlessly.
The performances were also great. The whole cast did a fantastic job, (including the kids,) but the stand outs for me were Lupita Nyong'o and Elisabeth Moss. They were pretty good as the normal versions of their characters, but they really shone when they got to play the psychotic doppelgangers, for way more reasons than just how scary they were.
Another thing that I liked was that for the most part, the film doesn't treat you like you are dumb, with one exception. The film opens on a shot of an old CRT TV showing various adverts. One of these is an advert for Santa Cruz tourism and another tells us that the year is 1986. In the very next shot we are shown a title card reading, "Santa Cruz, 1986." This isn't an outrageous inclusion, just one that causes an eyeroll for anyone actually paying attention to what they are seeing onscreen.
Another thing that didn't quite work for me was the use of comedy. Where Get Out used comedy to cut away from the intensity and give the audience a breather, Us intertwined it more with the carnage, which made it come off as fairly messy in parts. Don't get me wrong, any comedic lines were well written and well delivered, I just feel that they could have been implemented a bit better.
Overall, Us is another great horror/thriller from Jordan Peele. I know that I compared it to Get Out all the way through this review, but even when watching it, it is extremely hard not to make comparisons. That does not mean that this is a bad movie by any stretch though and I am very much looking forward to seeing Peele's upcoming Twilight Zone series as well as any other projects he is working on.