Search
Search results
Steven Sklansky (231 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Nov 25, 2017
Beauty and the Plot Holes
I know I shouldn't be looking to much in to animated movies turned in to live action, but this movie really had some obvious plot holes. I will get to a few of those in a bit. First I would like to say this was not a bad movie. I actually enjoyed it more then I thought I would have. The CGI was really good and the music/songs were done really well and really funny.
This movie played really closely to the animated movie. The beginning of the movie was one of the thing I felt was really off. I did not like the party being the back drop to him being a stuck up snob. I would have preferred him just turning the old lady away at the door and then getting cursed. I also thought all of the people turned into household objects were servants in the castle and not just party guests. Then at the end of the movie you have the household objects mingling with towns folks. I know they had to do it with how the beginning of the movie was set up, but it was really weird.
As I stated earlier I really like the CGI, I thought it fit in really well with the live actors. The Beast looked amazing, it had a very life like look to it. All of the household objects looked fantastic as well. They way they moved in the scenes, it did not feel computerized at all.
Now I know most of you have probably seen the animated movie and hopefully most of you have seen this movie. But one thing I like doing when I am watching a remake or know the story really well, I like to find the plot holes that are really funny and I will mention a few here. First is I like the fact they are in France and only say a few french words. I know its supposed to be a kids movie and most of them don't want to read subtitles, but at least give them all an accent. The only one with an accent was the candle holder. Second I would like to point out during the whole movie to and from the castle there were wolves that were ready to attack onsite. But when Belle headed back to the village to save her dad the Beast was not concerned at all about the wolves getting her. Last I would like to say that with how dangerous everything in the woods were Belle's dad left the horse behind at the castle even though he new about the wolves and how far away it was. Also there was the fact that if Belle was going to be there forever, why does she even need the horse.
Well this was a fun movie and think everyone should see it, maybe with a kid in the room so it is not weird. Until next time, enjoy the show.
This movie played really closely to the animated movie. The beginning of the movie was one of the thing I felt was really off. I did not like the party being the back drop to him being a stuck up snob. I would have preferred him just turning the old lady away at the door and then getting cursed. I also thought all of the people turned into household objects were servants in the castle and not just party guests. Then at the end of the movie you have the household objects mingling with towns folks. I know they had to do it with how the beginning of the movie was set up, but it was really weird.
As I stated earlier I really like the CGI, I thought it fit in really well with the live actors. The Beast looked amazing, it had a very life like look to it. All of the household objects looked fantastic as well. They way they moved in the scenes, it did not feel computerized at all.
Now I know most of you have probably seen the animated movie and hopefully most of you have seen this movie. But one thing I like doing when I am watching a remake or know the story really well, I like to find the plot holes that are really funny and I will mention a few here. First is I like the fact they are in France and only say a few french words. I know its supposed to be a kids movie and most of them don't want to read subtitles, but at least give them all an accent. The only one with an accent was the candle holder. Second I would like to point out during the whole movie to and from the castle there were wolves that were ready to attack onsite. But when Belle headed back to the village to save her dad the Beast was not concerned at all about the wolves getting her. Last I would like to say that with how dangerous everything in the woods were Belle's dad left the horse behind at the castle even though he new about the wolves and how far away it was. Also there was the fact that if Belle was going to be there forever, why does she even need the horse.
Well this was a fun movie and think everyone should see it, maybe with a kid in the room so it is not weird. Until next time, enjoy the show.
JT (287 KP) rated District 9 (2009) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
When you’ve seen one alien film you’ve probably seen them all. That is until District 9 came along, and a chance to put a new spin on the arrival of extra extraterrestrial beings from another world.
Director Neill Blomkamp who also co-wrote the script lands the aliens in a scenario that they might not have ever expected to be in, as refugees living in poverty amongst the human race who just want to see them pack up ship and leave.
Its clever and well shot, keeping it away from America and setting it in the dusty backdrop of Johannesburg was a stroke of genius. The use of the faux-documentary style kept things interesting and original, and for that Blomkamp must be commended.
The depths of the story arises thus, an extraterrestrial race forced to live in slum-like conditions on Earth suddenly finds a kindred spirit in a government agent who is exposed to their biotechnology. Agent Wikus Van De Merwe superbly played by new comer to the big league, Sharlto Copley, is a by the books, loving wife sort of guy.
Excited by the prospect of their arrival he thrives on and becomes overly excited in seeing how ‘the prawns’ live their life scavenging for food and seemingly resulting to crime in a bid to survive. But when he’s exposed to a chemical that has disastrous results he must befriend the alien race in an attempt to get his life back. His transformation from government bureaucrat to a lone freedom fighter with a selfish streak (you’ll find out what I mean without giving the plot away here) is perfect.
The overall outlook of the film is not what you would call beautiful, but there is something weirdly picturesque about it. The massive ship that has been hanging overhead for the last two decades is spectacular, not to mention some explosive action sequences which have a fantastic injection of shaky cam to give it a real sense of reality.
It’s certainly gory, so the more squeamish might find some scenes hard to watch. There is plenty of exploding bodies at the hands of an alien weaponry as well as a machine gun firing, missile toting exoskeleton that would make both Robo Cop and Iron Man green with envy! There is an aura of black comedy about it with a few surprising laugh out loud moments from time to time which adds a nice touch.
The aliens for the most part have it tough, while we don’t ever find out the reason for their invasion the realism of them being beaten, exploited and abused by a somewhat corrupt higher power certainly puts into perspective a more sinister and much closer to home reality.
When District 9 really gets going its plain to see that this is an exceptional piece of film making and a must see!
Director Neill Blomkamp who also co-wrote the script lands the aliens in a scenario that they might not have ever expected to be in, as refugees living in poverty amongst the human race who just want to see them pack up ship and leave.
Its clever and well shot, keeping it away from America and setting it in the dusty backdrop of Johannesburg was a stroke of genius. The use of the faux-documentary style kept things interesting and original, and for that Blomkamp must be commended.
The depths of the story arises thus, an extraterrestrial race forced to live in slum-like conditions on Earth suddenly finds a kindred spirit in a government agent who is exposed to their biotechnology. Agent Wikus Van De Merwe superbly played by new comer to the big league, Sharlto Copley, is a by the books, loving wife sort of guy.
Excited by the prospect of their arrival he thrives on and becomes overly excited in seeing how ‘the prawns’ live their life scavenging for food and seemingly resulting to crime in a bid to survive. But when he’s exposed to a chemical that has disastrous results he must befriend the alien race in an attempt to get his life back. His transformation from government bureaucrat to a lone freedom fighter with a selfish streak (you’ll find out what I mean without giving the plot away here) is perfect.
The overall outlook of the film is not what you would call beautiful, but there is something weirdly picturesque about it. The massive ship that has been hanging overhead for the last two decades is spectacular, not to mention some explosive action sequences which have a fantastic injection of shaky cam to give it a real sense of reality.
It’s certainly gory, so the more squeamish might find some scenes hard to watch. There is plenty of exploding bodies at the hands of an alien weaponry as well as a machine gun firing, missile toting exoskeleton that would make both Robo Cop and Iron Man green with envy! There is an aura of black comedy about it with a few surprising laugh out loud moments from time to time which adds a nice touch.
The aliens for the most part have it tough, while we don’t ever find out the reason for their invasion the realism of them being beaten, exploited and abused by a somewhat corrupt higher power certainly puts into perspective a more sinister and much closer to home reality.
When District 9 really gets going its plain to see that this is an exceptional piece of film making and a must see!
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) created a post
Jul 11, 2021
Vizmato - Video Editor and Movie Maker On-The-Go!
Photo & Video
App
How ‘bout spicing up your daily video making and video editing experience! Record your next video...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Jungle Book (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A New Classic
There’s an old saying; “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, and that was the kind of reaction many people had towards Disney’s live-action remake of The Jungle Book.
Helmed by Iron Man director, Jon Favreau, it certainly garnered a mixed response come its first trailer release late last year. But what is the finished product like? And are we looking at a new classic?
Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book is one of the most recognisable tales ever, despite its wafer thin plot, and the 1967 Disney animation is faithful to the first, and unfortunately also the latter.
We join this film in the midst of the action, as our young hero Mowgli (played by an unbelievably good Neel Sethi) learns how to run with his family – an adoptive pack of wolves. As the story progresses, Mowgli meets a whole host of friendly, and not so friendly, jungle animals as he strives to find just who he is.
This is a much darker interpretation of the classic story than we have been used to. There are scenes here that are genuinely terrifying, helped in part by the breath-taking CGI used to render the animals, with one infamous tiger in particular being the stuff of nightmares.
Speaking of which, an all-star cast that includes Ben Kingsley, Bill Murray, Scarlett Johansson, Idris Elba, Christopher Walken and Lupita Nyong’o lend their voices to fan favourites like Bagheera, Baloo, Kaa, Shere Khan, King Louie and Raksha. The vocal performances from each are sublime with Murray being a particular highlight with his comedic persona fitting perfectly with Baloo.
The jungle is brought to the screen in such detail that each frame is brimming with creatures, plants and life. In 3D, it is one of the most magnificent settings ever put to film as vibrant colours make the eyes dance with excitement. It lives and breathes right before your very eyes.
Then there’s the soundtrack. It’s true that the majority of the animation’s songs failed to make the cut, but looking back, it was only Bare Necessities that made any sort of impact and thankfully this survives, receiving a thundering orchestral backing track in the process. Christopher Walken’s gangster-like singing gives I Wanna Be Like You a whole new edge.
Nevertheless, it does, at times feel like Jon Favreau is going through the motions with the rest of the story – setting Mowgli up for one big set piece after another, though a few nice additions keep the plot flowing right up until the harrowing and beautifully filmed finale.
Overall, Disney has another classic on their hands. The Jungle Book is one of the most spectacular and breath-taking films ever put to the big screen. From a magnificent score to exceptional voice acting, it’s practically perfect in every way.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/16/a-new-classic-the-jungle-book-review/
Helmed by Iron Man director, Jon Favreau, it certainly garnered a mixed response come its first trailer release late last year. But what is the finished product like? And are we looking at a new classic?
Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book is one of the most recognisable tales ever, despite its wafer thin plot, and the 1967 Disney animation is faithful to the first, and unfortunately also the latter.
We join this film in the midst of the action, as our young hero Mowgli (played by an unbelievably good Neel Sethi) learns how to run with his family – an adoptive pack of wolves. As the story progresses, Mowgli meets a whole host of friendly, and not so friendly, jungle animals as he strives to find just who he is.
This is a much darker interpretation of the classic story than we have been used to. There are scenes here that are genuinely terrifying, helped in part by the breath-taking CGI used to render the animals, with one infamous tiger in particular being the stuff of nightmares.
Speaking of which, an all-star cast that includes Ben Kingsley, Bill Murray, Scarlett Johansson, Idris Elba, Christopher Walken and Lupita Nyong’o lend their voices to fan favourites like Bagheera, Baloo, Kaa, Shere Khan, King Louie and Raksha. The vocal performances from each are sublime with Murray being a particular highlight with his comedic persona fitting perfectly with Baloo.
The jungle is brought to the screen in such detail that each frame is brimming with creatures, plants and life. In 3D, it is one of the most magnificent settings ever put to film as vibrant colours make the eyes dance with excitement. It lives and breathes right before your very eyes.
Then there’s the soundtrack. It’s true that the majority of the animation’s songs failed to make the cut, but looking back, it was only Bare Necessities that made any sort of impact and thankfully this survives, receiving a thundering orchestral backing track in the process. Christopher Walken’s gangster-like singing gives I Wanna Be Like You a whole new edge.
Nevertheless, it does, at times feel like Jon Favreau is going through the motions with the rest of the story – setting Mowgli up for one big set piece after another, though a few nice additions keep the plot flowing right up until the harrowing and beautifully filmed finale.
Overall, Disney has another classic on their hands. The Jungle Book is one of the most spectacular and breath-taking films ever put to the big screen. From a magnificent score to exceptional voice acting, it’s practically perfect in every way.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/16/a-new-classic-the-jungle-book-review/
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Paranormalcy (Paranormalcy #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Original Review posted on <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2012/12/review-paranormalcy-by-kiersten-white.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>.
I'll be honest here: I just adore Evie's personality. And her habit of "bleep" when swearing which she picked up from her watery friend, Lish (such a sad ending for her. Dx *tears up again*). I'll probably face it. I kinda got the bleep habit as well after reading it, LOL. Not that I swear much myself. I kinda use it for fun sometimes when it's appropriate (Read: Really Fun Word to Use When Right).
Did it make a lasting impression? Well...
In the majority of cases, yep, it certainly did. In the meaning of "Will-I-read-it-again-and-again-so-I-can-visit-again" type of thing, it would be an eh... I guess we'll have to see. There's this great perk about the Paranormal genre, but I thought in Paranormalcy's case, it wasn't a lot as I expected it, but overall, it was pretty good.
The title is really catchy and makes you think a bit on what it really means. Though I don't really see how it's related in a way to the story. Maybe it'll come to me later. I hope. (That's right. I still haven't figured it out, XD) Same for the cover in a way. Although... I guess I can. The story is related to Evie after all. I'm assuming the girl on the cover is Evie. No guarantees of being right. I'm just guessing. (And guessing is never wrong. Is it? O_O)
How about the others then? I can't really detect the villains though. There seems to be a few, of which I shall not name for the sake of spoilers. Plus, they're not that scary. I was thinking some creep that would try and steal your soul to live like the villain from Silver Phoenix (read it BEFORE Bookwyrming Thoughts was born, so no review anywhere.) And I despise Reth. Can't you see Evie wants no business with you whatsoever? Dx I guess faeries aren't always smart as mentioned probably in the book already.
But oy, what makes me give it an epic rating of 4.25? Okay, not a 4.25 then. A 4. Not dealing with graphics again... even though I enjoy doing it at times. :) What really makes me give it a high rating and not a "in-the-middle-due-to-a-bit-of-lack-of-action-because-I'm-also-drawn-to-action-and-adventure-books-mixed-in-with-other-genres" type of rating is White's writing style. I just love it. It's light-hearted, kind of care-free, humorous, and cute mixed with awesome-ness and totally fun voice.
Will I read the next book? Yep. Just please keep up the awesomous style. I just adore it (Read: LOVEEE it!). :3
I'll be honest here: I just adore Evie's personality. And her habit of "bleep" when swearing which she picked up from her watery friend, Lish (such a sad ending for her. Dx *tears up again*). I'll probably face it. I kinda got the bleep habit as well after reading it, LOL. Not that I swear much myself. I kinda use it for fun sometimes when it's appropriate (Read: Really Fun Word to Use When Right).
Did it make a lasting impression? Well...
In the majority of cases, yep, it certainly did. In the meaning of "Will-I-read-it-again-and-again-so-I-can-visit-again" type of thing, it would be an eh... I guess we'll have to see. There's this great perk about the Paranormal genre, but I thought in Paranormalcy's case, it wasn't a lot as I expected it, but overall, it was pretty good.
The title is really catchy and makes you think a bit on what it really means. Though I don't really see how it's related in a way to the story. Maybe it'll come to me later. I hope. (That's right. I still haven't figured it out, XD) Same for the cover in a way. Although... I guess I can. The story is related to Evie after all. I'm assuming the girl on the cover is Evie. No guarantees of being right. I'm just guessing. (And guessing is never wrong. Is it? O_O)
How about the others then? I can't really detect the villains though. There seems to be a few, of which I shall not name for the sake of spoilers. Plus, they're not that scary. I was thinking some creep that would try and steal your soul to live like the villain from Silver Phoenix (read it BEFORE Bookwyrming Thoughts was born, so no review anywhere.) And I despise Reth. Can't you see Evie wants no business with you whatsoever? Dx I guess faeries aren't always smart as mentioned probably in the book already.
But oy, what makes me give it an epic rating of 4.25? Okay, not a 4.25 then. A 4. Not dealing with graphics again... even though I enjoy doing it at times. :) What really makes me give it a high rating and not a "in-the-middle-due-to-a-bit-of-lack-of-action-because-I'm-also-drawn-to-action-and-adventure-books-mixed-in-with-other-genres" type of rating is White's writing style. I just love it. It's light-hearted, kind of care-free, humorous, and cute mixed with awesome-ness and totally fun voice.
Will I read the next book? Yep. Just please keep up the awesomous style. I just adore it (Read: LOVEEE it!). :3
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Crank 2: High Voltage (2009) in Movies
Apr 12, 2020
A Very Poor Man's Hardcore Henry
Chev Chelios (Jason Statham) is back (because apparently falling out of a helicopter thousands of feet in the air can’t kill him) facing off against a gang of thugs that want to harvest his “special” heart for their leader. Artificial heart attached, Chev has to keep recharging himself or slow down and, ultimately, die. Can’t make this shit up…
Acting: 2
Beginning: 4
Characters: 3
You might find it a challenge to find a more disinteresting group of characters wrapped in one movie. I’m not exaggerating when I say I hated just about everyone in Crank 2: High Voltage. Every character is overdone and represents one big waste of space. And the man of the hour, Chev Chelios? Yep, hate him too. He’s crass (and not in the cool Logan kind of way), racist (and not in the cool Clint Eastwood kind of way), and only cares about himself. Thirty minutes in, I was wishing he would run out of options and his heart would just stop, putting me out of my misery once and for all.
I wish he was the worst, but yes it gets worse. The other characters are a combination of racist stereotypes, antagonists that would be better off with a couple of lines rather than pages of them, and fodder for gunfire. The combination was painful to say the least.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 7
The action is far out there and I definitely give them a C for effort. I know farfetched is the name of the game when it comes to this movie, but so is Hardcore Henry by comparison and I loved those action scenes. Perfect example: A gunfight breaks out at a mansion. A gardener continues to hedge the bushes while bullets are flying all around him before he finally gets shot. Come on, man! Too lazy for words.
Entertainment Value: 5
Memorability: 7
For better or worse, there are definitely moments of this movie I will never forget. Like the sex scene on the horse racetrack. During a live horse race. Or the head in the jar. Or the random porn star protest. Or or or…I never said they were great memorable moments, but they are in there.
Pace: 7
Plot: 4
The story doesn’t even begin to make sense. I’m only giving it a four because the whole story revolves around Chev beating people the hell up so the story really shouldn’t matter that much. Still, if you’re looking for something coherent, please save your time and go watch something else.
Resolution: 4
Overall: 52
On my quest to watch 366 movies in a year, yes, I have seen worse movies than Crank 2: High Voltage. But not many. It’s bad. Real bad. Please save your time and avoid this movie at all costs.
Acting: 2
Beginning: 4
Characters: 3
You might find it a challenge to find a more disinteresting group of characters wrapped in one movie. I’m not exaggerating when I say I hated just about everyone in Crank 2: High Voltage. Every character is overdone and represents one big waste of space. And the man of the hour, Chev Chelios? Yep, hate him too. He’s crass (and not in the cool Logan kind of way), racist (and not in the cool Clint Eastwood kind of way), and only cares about himself. Thirty minutes in, I was wishing he would run out of options and his heart would just stop, putting me out of my misery once and for all.
I wish he was the worst, but yes it gets worse. The other characters are a combination of racist stereotypes, antagonists that would be better off with a couple of lines rather than pages of them, and fodder for gunfire. The combination was painful to say the least.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 7
The action is far out there and I definitely give them a C for effort. I know farfetched is the name of the game when it comes to this movie, but so is Hardcore Henry by comparison and I loved those action scenes. Perfect example: A gunfight breaks out at a mansion. A gardener continues to hedge the bushes while bullets are flying all around him before he finally gets shot. Come on, man! Too lazy for words.
Entertainment Value: 5
Memorability: 7
For better or worse, there are definitely moments of this movie I will never forget. Like the sex scene on the horse racetrack. During a live horse race. Or the head in the jar. Or the random porn star protest. Or or or…I never said they were great memorable moments, but they are in there.
Pace: 7
Plot: 4
The story doesn’t even begin to make sense. I’m only giving it a four because the whole story revolves around Chev beating people the hell up so the story really shouldn’t matter that much. Still, if you’re looking for something coherent, please save your time and go watch something else.
Resolution: 4
Overall: 52
On my quest to watch 366 movies in a year, yes, I have seen worse movies than Crank 2: High Voltage. But not many. It’s bad. Real bad. Please save your time and avoid this movie at all costs.
Cheetah Simulator
Games and Education
App
Enter into the wild savanna and live the life of a Cheetah! Explore a vast grassy plain filled with...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jun 27, 2020
Clever and Inventive
Ever since he burst onto the film scene with back-to-back interesting British Mob movies LOCK, STOCK & TWO SMOKING BARRELS and SNATCH, Director Guy Ritchie has had a "hit and miss" track record (including the Madonna-starring, Razzie-Award "winner" SWEPT AWAY). Fortunately, for us, we seem to be in a Guy Ritchie "peak" a this moment.
Following up to his surprise strong Directing turn in the live action ALADDIN remake (if you haven't seen this film, the BankofMarquis strongly recommends you do), Ritchie returns to his "British Gangster" roots with the violent, funny and original THE GENTLEMEN.
Starring Matthew McConaughey as a U.S. born and bred, Cambridge educated hustler who becomes king of the British Marijuana scene who is looking to get out of the business, THE GENTLEMEN tells the tale of the...ahem...gentlemen that are pursuing (both legitimately and illegitimately) his empire.
The way that this film is constructed, the most essential casting of this film is that of the central character of Michael Pearson. He is billed as an enigmatic, charismatic, violent and brilliant legend of the British drug trade, so Ritchie needed someone with all these qualities to inhabit that role. Fortunately, with McConaughey, Ritchie finds his man (I'm sure the backstory of this character needed to be tweaked a bit upon this casting to explain why an American is the king of British Weed). McConaughey is at his laconic best in this role, bringing star quality - and star power - that holds the center of this film together well.
He is joined by a strong cast that understands the type of film they are in and are game to join in on the (violent) fun. Michelle Dockery (DOWNTON ABBEY), Henry Golding (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) , Jeremy Strong (THE BIG SHORT) and the always watchable Eddie Marsan (THE WORLD'S END, amongst others) all are strong in the limited moments that their characters are allowed to shine, but with McConaughey and 3 other actors I will speak to in a moment, they are relegated mostly to the background.
This is because Hugh Grant (4 WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL), Colin Farrell (PHONE BOOTH) and (surpisingly) Charlie Hunnam IPACIFIC RIM) almost steal the film from McConaughey, Each one of these characters could have easily been the centerpiece of their own film and I would be happy if Ritchie would spin one of these characters off.
Credit, of course, for all of this has to go to Ritchie who wrote and directed this film I was pleasantly surprised by the cleverness and inventiveness in storytelling and style as well as the restraint that Ritchie shows in the violence. He uses it (somewhat) sparingly and well, so the violence punctuates the action.
All-in-all a fun (though violent) time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Following up to his surprise strong Directing turn in the live action ALADDIN remake (if you haven't seen this film, the BankofMarquis strongly recommends you do), Ritchie returns to his "British Gangster" roots with the violent, funny and original THE GENTLEMEN.
Starring Matthew McConaughey as a U.S. born and bred, Cambridge educated hustler who becomes king of the British Marijuana scene who is looking to get out of the business, THE GENTLEMEN tells the tale of the...ahem...gentlemen that are pursuing (both legitimately and illegitimately) his empire.
The way that this film is constructed, the most essential casting of this film is that of the central character of Michael Pearson. He is billed as an enigmatic, charismatic, violent and brilliant legend of the British drug trade, so Ritchie needed someone with all these qualities to inhabit that role. Fortunately, with McConaughey, Ritchie finds his man (I'm sure the backstory of this character needed to be tweaked a bit upon this casting to explain why an American is the king of British Weed). McConaughey is at his laconic best in this role, bringing star quality - and star power - that holds the center of this film together well.
He is joined by a strong cast that understands the type of film they are in and are game to join in on the (violent) fun. Michelle Dockery (DOWNTON ABBEY), Henry Golding (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) , Jeremy Strong (THE BIG SHORT) and the always watchable Eddie Marsan (THE WORLD'S END, amongst others) all are strong in the limited moments that their characters are allowed to shine, but with McConaughey and 3 other actors I will speak to in a moment, they are relegated mostly to the background.
This is because Hugh Grant (4 WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL), Colin Farrell (PHONE BOOTH) and (surpisingly) Charlie Hunnam IPACIFIC RIM) almost steal the film from McConaughey, Each one of these characters could have easily been the centerpiece of their own film and I would be happy if Ritchie would spin one of these characters off.
Credit, of course, for all of this has to go to Ritchie who wrote and directed this film I was pleasantly surprised by the cleverness and inventiveness in storytelling and style as well as the restraint that Ritchie shows in the violence. He uses it (somewhat) sparingly and well, so the violence punctuates the action.
All-in-all a fun (though violent) time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The LEGO Ninjango Movie (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
The newest Lego movie, ‘The Lego Ninjago Movie’ is being released by Warner Brothers and stars Jackie Chan as Master Wu; Dave Franco as Lloyd Garmadon; Michael Pena as Kai;Fred Armisen asCole; Abbi Jacobsen as Nya; Kumail Nanjiani as Jay; Zach Woods as Zane; Olivia Munn as Koko (Lloyds mother); and Justin Theroux as Garmadon.
The film is rated PG and is about 90 minutes.
The story follows the main character Lloyd and his troubled (almost nonexistent) relationship with his father, Garmadon. We begin the movie believing Lloyd has no friends, but quickly discover he DOES have a small handful of friends, and that he, as well as his friends Kai, Cole, Nya and Zane are all leading a secret life as Ninjas. The rest of the kids at school all dislike Lloyd because his father Garmadon is forever attacking the city and destroying everything.
As we see Garmadon repeatedly try to conquer Ninjago city, we see that the Ninjas, along with their “Mech”, and the help of Master Wu, keep beating him back.
Frustrated that his father won’t acknowledge his pain at being abandoned, Lloyd defies Master Wu and attacks Garmadon with ‘the ultimate weapon’.
The Ultimate Weapon ends up doing more harm than good and destroys a large portion of Ninjago city, leaving Garnadon in control of Ninjago city. Master Wu instructs Lloyd and his fellow Ninjas to find their inner strength and ‘the missing piece’ in order to defeat Garmadon.
The Ninjagos then start off on a journey to find what Master Wu has instructed. During one important scene, we discover that Gamadon is Master Wu’s brother!
Apparently, this movie is a spin off of a popular kids TV series, but I was unaware of that. My son does have some Lego Ninjago books and Lego sets, so I knew they existed, but not to what extent.
I was not a fan of the breaks in the middle of the movie to ‘non animated’ pieces, they seemed cheesy to me, and ‘comic-book-ish’. I found them annoying. I did like the tie in at the beginning and end however, of the live action sequences. I felt it tied the story together.
I thought the Ninjago Lego movie was pretty decent, I liked it somewhat better than the Lego Batman Movie. I did find the hot / cold attitude of the Garmadon character a bit hard to follow, but the existence of that same attitude did give that character some of the best lines of the movie.
The PG rating was fair and at no point did I feel uncomfortable having my 9 year old there to see it, and he loved the movie. He said his favorite part was “the action packed fight scene between the brothers in the woods.”
The 9 year old gives the movie 4 out of 5 stars, and
The film is rated PG and is about 90 minutes.
The story follows the main character Lloyd and his troubled (almost nonexistent) relationship with his father, Garmadon. We begin the movie believing Lloyd has no friends, but quickly discover he DOES have a small handful of friends, and that he, as well as his friends Kai, Cole, Nya and Zane are all leading a secret life as Ninjas. The rest of the kids at school all dislike Lloyd because his father Garmadon is forever attacking the city and destroying everything.
As we see Garmadon repeatedly try to conquer Ninjago city, we see that the Ninjas, along with their “Mech”, and the help of Master Wu, keep beating him back.
Frustrated that his father won’t acknowledge his pain at being abandoned, Lloyd defies Master Wu and attacks Garmadon with ‘the ultimate weapon’.
The Ultimate Weapon ends up doing more harm than good and destroys a large portion of Ninjago city, leaving Garnadon in control of Ninjago city. Master Wu instructs Lloyd and his fellow Ninjas to find their inner strength and ‘the missing piece’ in order to defeat Garmadon.
The Ninjagos then start off on a journey to find what Master Wu has instructed. During one important scene, we discover that Gamadon is Master Wu’s brother!
Apparently, this movie is a spin off of a popular kids TV series, but I was unaware of that. My son does have some Lego Ninjago books and Lego sets, so I knew they existed, but not to what extent.
I was not a fan of the breaks in the middle of the movie to ‘non animated’ pieces, they seemed cheesy to me, and ‘comic-book-ish’. I found them annoying. I did like the tie in at the beginning and end however, of the live action sequences. I felt it tied the story together.
I thought the Ninjago Lego movie was pretty decent, I liked it somewhat better than the Lego Batman Movie. I did find the hot / cold attitude of the Garmadon character a bit hard to follow, but the existence of that same attitude did give that character some of the best lines of the movie.
The PG rating was fair and at no point did I feel uncomfortable having my 9 year old there to see it, and he loved the movie. He said his favorite part was “the action packed fight scene between the brothers in the woods.”
The 9 year old gives the movie 4 out of 5 stars, and