Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The In-Laws (2003) in Movies
Apr 28, 2021
The Unlikely Duo
The In-Laws- is a funny entertaing film. Both Micheal Douglas and Albert Brooks are really good in it.
The plot: Dr. Jerry Peyser's (Albert Brooks) daughter, Melissa (Lindsay Sloane), is about to marry Mark Tobias (Ryan Reynolds). Things are going swimmingly until Jerry stumbles across some secret information: Mark's father, Steve (Michael Douglas), is a CIA operative. Fearing that Jerry will compromise his current assignment if he starts blabbing to authorities, Steve dragoons Jerry into assisting with an intercontinental mission that involves a dangerous criminal, Jean-Pierre Thibodoux (David Suchet).
Its a good film.
The plot: Dr. Jerry Peyser's (Albert Brooks) daughter, Melissa (Lindsay Sloane), is about to marry Mark Tobias (Ryan Reynolds). Things are going swimmingly until Jerry stumbles across some secret information: Mark's father, Steve (Michael Douglas), is a CIA operative. Fearing that Jerry will compromise his current assignment if he starts blabbing to authorities, Steve dragoons Jerry into assisting with an intercontinental mission that involves a dangerous criminal, Jean-Pierre Thibodoux (David Suchet).
Its a good film.
Lee KM Pallatina (951 KP) rated Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
You have to be a real man to wear tights!
Cary Elwes stars a robin hood in this comical retelling of the legendary hero who after returning to England after fighting in the crusades and then being captured, enslaved only to escape from prison in Jerusalem and seim home to England (what a guy ;) ) to find that the evil Prince John (Richard Lewis) has confiscated his family estate and is following the script and ruining Nottingham. Robin enlists his family's loyal blind servant Blinkin (Mark Blankfield), Will Scarlett O'Hara (Matthew Porretta) and Little John (Eric Allan Kramer) to help rebel. Robin also hopes to woo the beautiful Maid Marian (Amy Yasbeck), but her chastity belt may prove a challenge (and her keeper)
Great jokes, Mel Brooks, hilarious performances, subtle nods and a robin hood who can speak with an England accent.
A classic spoof on the legend who had it coming.
Great jokes, Mel Brooks, hilarious performances, subtle nods and a robin hood who can speak with an England accent.
A classic spoof on the legend who had it coming.
tapestry100 (306 KP) rated Star Wars: Han Solo in Books
Aug 2, 2017
I believe this volume takes place shortly after Episode IV: A New Hope.
After deciding to take a break from the Rebellion and go back to being a smuggler, Han Solo is abruptly pulled back into the Rebellion by Leia with a proposal he finds hard to turn down: a chance to race the Dragon Void run, a prestigious racing competition. Of course, Leia has ulterior motives for needing Han, but all he sees is a chance at the prestige of winning this race. The race itself made me feel a little like this was a galactic version of the Hunger Games, as the race's organizers set up specific obstacles for the racers to avoid (not that this is a race to the death, but I just got the impression of that idea). There was also a little more science fiction than I'm used to with Star Wars, with the inclusion of wormholes and other dimensions, but it worked really well here. Marjorie Liu really had a grasp of the characters and handled them quite well; I had no problem hearing Han's and Leia's voices in my head. Mark Brooks' art is fantastic here and I'm hoping that Marvel utilizes him more frequently on the Star Wars titles. Overall, this is a solid addition to the Marvel portion of the Star Wars universe.
After deciding to take a break from the Rebellion and go back to being a smuggler, Han Solo is abruptly pulled back into the Rebellion by Leia with a proposal he finds hard to turn down: a chance to race the Dragon Void run, a prestigious racing competition. Of course, Leia has ulterior motives for needing Han, but all he sees is a chance at the prestige of winning this race. The race itself made me feel a little like this was a galactic version of the Hunger Games, as the race's organizers set up specific obstacles for the racers to avoid (not that this is a race to the death, but I just got the impression of that idea). There was also a little more science fiction than I'm used to with Star Wars, with the inclusion of wormholes and other dimensions, but it worked really well here. Marjorie Liu really had a grasp of the characters and handled them quite well; I had no problem hearing Han's and Leia's voices in my head. Mark Brooks' art is fantastic here and I'm hoping that Marvel utilizes him more frequently on the Star Wars titles. Overall, this is a solid addition to the Marvel portion of the Star Wars universe.
David Baldacci recommended Spying on the South: An Odyssey Across the American Divide in Books (curated)
Janeeny (200 KP) rated Ever Alice in Books
May 9, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Unfortunately I was quite disappointed with this book. Mostly because it had potential, but just fell really short of the mark.
Alice is now 15 years old and after years of telling people about her adventures in Wonderland her parents are starting to question her sanity and take her to see a specialised doctor at an Asylum in Switzerland. Sadly things are not quite what they seem at the asylum, but just when things appear to be at their worst for Alice a familiar white rabbit helps her escape the asylum and she finds herself back in Wonderland. What follows is actually quite an intricate tale of suspicion and treachery, reality and fantasy. I’m just not sure it works as an ‘Alice in wonderland’ tale.
I was impressed at first as the author really did seem to capture the essence of the silliness of wonderland, with some scenes that wouldn’t be out of place in a Monty Python sketch or a Mel Brooks movie, but after a while it began to feel like the author was trying a bit too hard and it started to become a slightly repetitive and tedious.
The Character development didn’t really work for me either, especially The Queen of Hearts. For me she was a bit two-dimensional, and although the author tries to give her a bit of a back story it just doesn’t adhere to the character.
Some aspects of the language also grated on me. For instance, when parents are being referred to as Mum and Papa, it doesn’t sit well with me. It’s either going to be mum and dad or mama and papa. I know that is probably just a personal peeve of mine, but every time I came across that phrasing it just halted the story for me. Oh and don’t get me started on the Pop culture references! An actress named Marilyn Montague, who sounds very similar to another well know Marilyn, and a boyband called ‘Mice to men’. They may have been put in for humour, but they just didn’t seem to flow with the story.
As I said, in essence it was a good story, if a little predictable at the end, I just feel that using it as a ‘re-imagining’ of Alice left it with some expectations that it just couldn’t live up to.
Alice is now 15 years old and after years of telling people about her adventures in Wonderland her parents are starting to question her sanity and take her to see a specialised doctor at an Asylum in Switzerland. Sadly things are not quite what they seem at the asylum, but just when things appear to be at their worst for Alice a familiar white rabbit helps her escape the asylum and she finds herself back in Wonderland. What follows is actually quite an intricate tale of suspicion and treachery, reality and fantasy. I’m just not sure it works as an ‘Alice in wonderland’ tale.
I was impressed at first as the author really did seem to capture the essence of the silliness of wonderland, with some scenes that wouldn’t be out of place in a Monty Python sketch or a Mel Brooks movie, but after a while it began to feel like the author was trying a bit too hard and it started to become a slightly repetitive and tedious.
The Character development didn’t really work for me either, especially The Queen of Hearts. For me she was a bit two-dimensional, and although the author tries to give her a bit of a back story it just doesn’t adhere to the character.
Some aspects of the language also grated on me. For instance, when parents are being referred to as Mum and Papa, it doesn’t sit well with me. It’s either going to be mum and dad or mama and papa. I know that is probably just a personal peeve of mine, but every time I came across that phrasing it just halted the story for me. Oh and don’t get me started on the Pop culture references! An actress named Marilyn Montague, who sounds very similar to another well know Marilyn, and a boyband called ‘Mice to men’. They may have been put in for humour, but they just didn’t seem to flow with the story.
As I said, in essence it was a good story, if a little predictable at the end, I just feel that using it as a ‘re-imagining’ of Alice left it with some expectations that it just couldn’t live up to.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Game Night (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021 (Updated Sep 29, 2021)
Miss Scarlett at the Airport with the Jet Engine.
“Game Night” is an American comedy film starring Jason Bateman (“Horrible Bosses”, “Central Intelligence“) as Max and Rachel McAdams (“Spotlight“, “Doctor Strange“) as Annie: two hyper-competitive professionals who invite other couples around to their house for a weekly night of charades and board games. The regulars are long-term couple Kevin and Michelle (Lamorne Morris and Kylie Bunbury) and complete buffoon Ryan (Billy Magnussen, “The Big Short“) and his revolving door of generally vacant girlfriends. Estranged from the group, after his divorce, is the creepy police officer Gary (Jesse Plemons, “The Post“, “American Made“) who lives next door.
Auditions for the next Spiderman movie were not going well.
But Max is not content (affecting the mobility of his fishes!) as he has a severe inferiority complex about his enormously successful and cocky older brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler, “Manchester by the Sea“) who beats him at EVERYTHING. When Brooks barges into their game night things get heated and after he organises the next game night as “something different” things take a sharp left into The Twilight Zone.
Bateman, McAdams and Chandler, with game night about to go in an odd direction.
As befits the quality of most modern American comedy films, its all complete nonsense of course. But actually, this is quite good nonsense. The script by Mark Perez (his first movie script in 12 years!) while following a fairly predictable path early in the film is littered with some good one-liners and funny scenes (a bullet-removal is a high-spot) and includes a memorable twist in the final real that I didn’t see coming.
Ryan and Sarah (Billy Magnussen and Sharon Horgan) about to get egged on. (There is a certain lack of logic in the action that follows).
Much of this is powered by the chemistry between Bateman and McAdams. McAdams in particular should do more comedy, as she is very adept at it. Playing the one bright spark in a parade of vacuousness, English comedienne Sharon Horgan also adds a butt to Magnussen’s one-tone joke very effectively. The surprising comedy player though is Jesse Plemons who I thought was just uncomfortably hilarious.
Jesse Plemons and his very white hairy friend.
It is normally unusual to find special effects in a film like this, but here the team (headed up by Dean Tyrrell) should be congratulated for some very subtle but effective effects. Most of the long shots in the film of the neighbourhood/streets etc. are of models which only fade to live action as you zoom in. In the opening drone-fly-over of Max and Annie driving home I thought all the housing looked model-like but as we zoomed into them arriving home I thought I must have imagined in. Only in the subsequent scenes did I realise I was right after all! But it’s so very subtle. I suspect many of the audience were similarly fooled (and many who’ve seen the film and are reading this will be still going “what??”)! There’s a kind of explanation for the randomness of these effects during the (very entertaining) end-titles.
Bullet removal with squeaky toy gag… very funny.
It’s unusual for me to laugh at a comedy so much, but this one I really did. Every comedy film is allowed a little latitude to get the odd strand wrong, and this one is no exception (I didn’t think the spat between Kevin and Michelle really worked)… so it’s not perfect, but novice directors John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein (who’s only previous film project was 2015’s clearly missable “Vacation”) have pulled off a really entertaining watch here.
Auditions for the next Spiderman movie were not going well.
But Max is not content (affecting the mobility of his fishes!) as he has a severe inferiority complex about his enormously successful and cocky older brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler, “Manchester by the Sea“) who beats him at EVERYTHING. When Brooks barges into their game night things get heated and after he organises the next game night as “something different” things take a sharp left into The Twilight Zone.
Bateman, McAdams and Chandler, with game night about to go in an odd direction.
As befits the quality of most modern American comedy films, its all complete nonsense of course. But actually, this is quite good nonsense. The script by Mark Perez (his first movie script in 12 years!) while following a fairly predictable path early in the film is littered with some good one-liners and funny scenes (a bullet-removal is a high-spot) and includes a memorable twist in the final real that I didn’t see coming.
Ryan and Sarah (Billy Magnussen and Sharon Horgan) about to get egged on. (There is a certain lack of logic in the action that follows).
Much of this is powered by the chemistry between Bateman and McAdams. McAdams in particular should do more comedy, as she is very adept at it. Playing the one bright spark in a parade of vacuousness, English comedienne Sharon Horgan also adds a butt to Magnussen’s one-tone joke very effectively. The surprising comedy player though is Jesse Plemons who I thought was just uncomfortably hilarious.
Jesse Plemons and his very white hairy friend.
It is normally unusual to find special effects in a film like this, but here the team (headed up by Dean Tyrrell) should be congratulated for some very subtle but effective effects. Most of the long shots in the film of the neighbourhood/streets etc. are of models which only fade to live action as you zoom in. In the opening drone-fly-over of Max and Annie driving home I thought all the housing looked model-like but as we zoomed into them arriving home I thought I must have imagined in. Only in the subsequent scenes did I realise I was right after all! But it’s so very subtle. I suspect many of the audience were similarly fooled (and many who’ve seen the film and are reading this will be still going “what??”)! There’s a kind of explanation for the randomness of these effects during the (very entertaining) end-titles.
Bullet removal with squeaky toy gag… very funny.
It’s unusual for me to laugh at a comedy so much, but this one I really did. Every comedy film is allowed a little latitude to get the odd strand wrong, and this one is no exception (I didn’t think the spat between Kevin and Michelle really worked)… so it’s not perfect, but novice directors John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein (who’s only previous film project was 2015’s clearly missable “Vacation”) have pulled off a really entertaining watch here.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated New X-Men: Childhood's End, Volume 1 in Books
Nov 30, 2020
In an era where Marvel tries to oversaturate the comics market with event after event, and renumbering, along with the line between heroes and villains blurred so much it is draining (and not just my account!).
..which brings my attention backwards, to 2006's NEW X-MEN: CHILDHOOD'S END.
I skipped out when the series first launched as NEW X-MEN: ACADEMY X. It seemed generic and the stories I flipped through did nothing to grab my attention. It wasn't until the rebranding of the series as NEW X-MEN: CHILDHOOD'S END, with Craig Kyle and Christopher Yost taking over the writing as well providng a new revolving artist lineup.
While this first volume was a bit hard to follow, what with the jumping back forth with flashbacks and time rollbacks, but the second reading made more sense. I don't know that I would have written it out that way, but then again, it wasn't my book.
One of the things that really clicked for me was having Kyle and Yost on board. As the creators of Laura Kinney (X-23), I thought her introduction to the team would be handled well. Let's just say I was left feeling quite good, enough so that I will be reading the remaining volumes in the series.
The way she is written is as a lost girl. Logan wants her on the team, as it will help her to integrate, learn more about non-violent interaction. She is resistant at first mention, but then she comes around. However, despite her joining the New X-Men class, it is not an easy ride as she is withdrawn, though we do see the first sparks of interest on her part in Hellion. Unfortunately, her fellow classmates don't make it that easy for her to want to interaction, opting to go the route that most new students are treated in RL. So yeah, makes sense.
The only thing I didn't really like was Laura was referred to as either X-23 or Laura X, instead of Laura Kinney. I am not sure why that was, but as much I found it disappointing, it did not detract the story any. More often that not, when it came up in a panel, I would just read as "Laura" (minus the "X") or Laura Kinney. Easy fix, eh?
The art chores of the first volume went to Mark Brooks. I usually like his art, but sometimes (like in X-FORCE) he would give Laura a bust line not befitting a character like that. Here, though, everything was perfect, aiding in setting the darker "M-Day" and post-"M-Day" mood. I quite liked it, suited the content 100%.
Last thing I want to add is this: WOW! EMMA FROST IS A MEGA SALTY BITCH! Her treatment of Laura was totally uncalled for and way off base. Heck, she used to be the White Queen, yet she is now an X-Men. Everyone deserves a chance, even a former assassin (well, in fairness, it was how she was raised/trained, she really knew nothing else).
So, and including bitchy Emma, I give X-MEN: CHILDHOOD'S END VOL ! 5 out 5 SNIKTs! Not bad! Now, onto Volume Two...
..which brings my attention backwards, to 2006's NEW X-MEN: CHILDHOOD'S END.
I skipped out when the series first launched as NEW X-MEN: ACADEMY X. It seemed generic and the stories I flipped through did nothing to grab my attention. It wasn't until the rebranding of the series as NEW X-MEN: CHILDHOOD'S END, with Craig Kyle and Christopher Yost taking over the writing as well providng a new revolving artist lineup.
While this first volume was a bit hard to follow, what with the jumping back forth with flashbacks and time rollbacks, but the second reading made more sense. I don't know that I would have written it out that way, but then again, it wasn't my book.
One of the things that really clicked for me was having Kyle and Yost on board. As the creators of Laura Kinney (X-23), I thought her introduction to the team would be handled well. Let's just say I was left feeling quite good, enough so that I will be reading the remaining volumes in the series.
The way she is written is as a lost girl. Logan wants her on the team, as it will help her to integrate, learn more about non-violent interaction. She is resistant at first mention, but then she comes around. However, despite her joining the New X-Men class, it is not an easy ride as she is withdrawn, though we do see the first sparks of interest on her part in Hellion. Unfortunately, her fellow classmates don't make it that easy for her to want to interaction, opting to go the route that most new students are treated in RL. So yeah, makes sense.
The only thing I didn't really like was Laura was referred to as either X-23 or Laura X, instead of Laura Kinney. I am not sure why that was, but as much I found it disappointing, it did not detract the story any. More often that not, when it came up in a panel, I would just read as "Laura" (minus the "X") or Laura Kinney. Easy fix, eh?
The art chores of the first volume went to Mark Brooks. I usually like his art, but sometimes (like in X-FORCE) he would give Laura a bust line not befitting a character like that. Here, though, everything was perfect, aiding in setting the darker "M-Day" and post-"M-Day" mood. I quite liked it, suited the content 100%.
Last thing I want to add is this: WOW! EMMA FROST IS A MEGA SALTY BITCH! Her treatment of Laura was totally uncalled for and way off base. Heck, she used to be the White Queen, yet she is now an X-Men. Everyone deserves a chance, even a former assassin (well, in fairness, it was how she was raised/trained, she really knew nothing else).
So, and including bitchy Emma, I give X-MEN: CHILDHOOD'S END VOL ! 5 out 5 SNIKTs! Not bad! Now, onto Volume Two...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Another favourite from the awards season that came with some strong acclaim from amongst friends and trusted reviewers, WWII satire Jojo Rabbit, from the likeable and unique mind of Taika Waititi, was always high on my list as a must see movie.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.