Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Ted (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Full disclosure: I am a huge Family Guy fan. I’ve been watching since day one, and even own every volume and special edition DVD released. Okay, now that we have that out of the way.
Ted is the multi-talented Seth MacFarlane’s directorial debut for a feature films. It follows the story of John Bennett (Mark Wahlberg), who as a kid never really had any friends. For Christmas he received a talking teddy bear, which he decided to name Ted. One day he makes a wish that will forever change his life, a wish that Ted could really talk to him and be best friends. That wish came true.
Ted became a world-wide sensation. He was not a figment of John’s imagination, but rather a real-life talking teddy bear. Ted (who is voiced by MacFarlane) becomes the overnight celebrity that we have seen so many times, and eventually becomes old news when fame becomes fleeting.
Flash forward 28 years to present day, John is now 35, but still acts very much the child.
He is in a dead end job, and would rather blow the important things off in his life to hang with his best friend Ted.
This includes is Lori (Mila Kunis), his girlfriend of four years. I think we see where this going, typical relationship problems and the movie then becomes about trying to win Lori back with the help of Ted.
While the story line is a little predictable, it never felt that way while watching it. There is a lot of subtle humor, and there is a lot of in your face rude, crude humor. There were also a lot of cameos. Some will only be obvious to Family Guy fans or fans of the eighties, while others will be right in your face.
One thing that grinds my gears is when some movies these day show the funniest moments in the trailer, and the rest of the movie is… eh.
One thing is for sure: it keeps you laughing almost the whole way through. There were even some lines that I missed because of how loud the laughter in the theater was (which means a repeat trip, I think).
There were a lot of one-liners, though, that I will probably end up using on a regular basis.
I kind of always get nervous about bringing someone to a movie I want to see, afraid that they won’t like my choice. My guest came in with very low expectations of the film, but she ended up laughing the entire time, and even got really caught up in the tense moments.
With all of the drug and sex references, and crude humor, this movie is definitely not meant for a younger audience, or probably even the really easily offended. Keep that in mind and if you still want to watch, you will not be disappointed.
Ted is the multi-talented Seth MacFarlane’s directorial debut for a feature films. It follows the story of John Bennett (Mark Wahlberg), who as a kid never really had any friends. For Christmas he received a talking teddy bear, which he decided to name Ted. One day he makes a wish that will forever change his life, a wish that Ted could really talk to him and be best friends. That wish came true.
Ted became a world-wide sensation. He was not a figment of John’s imagination, but rather a real-life talking teddy bear. Ted (who is voiced by MacFarlane) becomes the overnight celebrity that we have seen so many times, and eventually becomes old news when fame becomes fleeting.
Flash forward 28 years to present day, John is now 35, but still acts very much the child.
He is in a dead end job, and would rather blow the important things off in his life to hang with his best friend Ted.
This includes is Lori (Mila Kunis), his girlfriend of four years. I think we see where this going, typical relationship problems and the movie then becomes about trying to win Lori back with the help of Ted.
While the story line is a little predictable, it never felt that way while watching it. There is a lot of subtle humor, and there is a lot of in your face rude, crude humor. There were also a lot of cameos. Some will only be obvious to Family Guy fans or fans of the eighties, while others will be right in your face.
One thing that grinds my gears is when some movies these day show the funniest moments in the trailer, and the rest of the movie is… eh.
One thing is for sure: it keeps you laughing almost the whole way through. There were even some lines that I missed because of how loud the laughter in the theater was (which means a repeat trip, I think).
There were a lot of one-liners, though, that I will probably end up using on a regular basis.
I kind of always get nervous about bringing someone to a movie I want to see, afraid that they won’t like my choice. My guest came in with very low expectations of the film, but she ended up laughing the entire time, and even got really caught up in the tense moments.
With all of the drug and sex references, and crude humor, this movie is definitely not meant for a younger audience, or probably even the really easily offended. Keep that in mind and if you still want to watch, you will not be disappointed.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated All the Money in the World (2017) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018
Bland with the exception of Christopher Plummer
By now, almost everyone knows about the last minute switch of Christopher Plummer in place of current-pariah Kevin Spacey as pivotal Billionaire J. Paul Getty in Ridley Scott's ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD, so when I checked out Plummer's Oscar nominated turn, I couldn't but help see if I could tell when Scott put in a new scene and where he just "augmented" his scenes with Plummer. And then, a funny thing happened...
I stopped looking at this for I was captivated by Plummer's performance.
A 3 time Oscar nominee (he is the oldest person to win an Academy Award - at the age of 82 - for his Supporting Role in BEGINNERS in 2010), the 88 year old Plummer shows that he can still command a movie for anytime he is on screen this film crackles and becomes interesting.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the rest of the film.
Telling the story of the kidnapping of Getty's grandson, and the "richest man in the world's" refusal to pay the ransom, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD stars Charlie Plummer (no relation) as John Paul Getty III (the kidnapped grandson), Mark Wahlberg as "fixer" Fletcher Chase, who was told by Getty to get his grandson back for "the lowest possible cost", Romain Duris as one of the kidnappers and the great Michelle Williams as the mother of the kidnapped boy - and the daughter-in-law of Getty, Gail Harris. Each one of these performances are good, but not great. Doing what needs to be done in what they are given to do but nothing more.
I think the problem with this film is one of focus. It spends about 50% of the time with William's character - and this is fine, but then it jumps to the kidnapped son, to "the fixer", to "the kidnapper", to the grandson and back to the mother, so no real through-line, continuity or strong character development can occur, with the exception of Christopher Plummer's J. Paul Getty. To be fair to Williams, C. Plummer has the showier role and she is just asked to be the center of this tale, the world in which all else revolves and that, ultimately, makes her character somewhat bland.
I place the blame for this on Screenwriter David Scarpa (based on the book by John Pearson) and Director Scott. I think their reach exceeded their grasp on this one. If they could have focused more on one of the characters - instead of spreading things out - perhaps this film would have become more interesting and less bland. It stays on one note - despite jumping to different people in vastly different situations - throughout it's 2 hour and 15 minute time frame.
All in all, a missed opportunity. It is a decent film that had the potential to be VERY good. The only one who was VERY good was Christopher Plummer - and certainly his performance is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
I stopped looking at this for I was captivated by Plummer's performance.
A 3 time Oscar nominee (he is the oldest person to win an Academy Award - at the age of 82 - for his Supporting Role in BEGINNERS in 2010), the 88 year old Plummer shows that he can still command a movie for anytime he is on screen this film crackles and becomes interesting.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the rest of the film.
Telling the story of the kidnapping of Getty's grandson, and the "richest man in the world's" refusal to pay the ransom, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD stars Charlie Plummer (no relation) as John Paul Getty III (the kidnapped grandson), Mark Wahlberg as "fixer" Fletcher Chase, who was told by Getty to get his grandson back for "the lowest possible cost", Romain Duris as one of the kidnappers and the great Michelle Williams as the mother of the kidnapped boy - and the daughter-in-law of Getty, Gail Harris. Each one of these performances are good, but not great. Doing what needs to be done in what they are given to do but nothing more.
I think the problem with this film is one of focus. It spends about 50% of the time with William's character - and this is fine, but then it jumps to the kidnapped son, to "the fixer", to "the kidnapper", to the grandson and back to the mother, so no real through-line, continuity or strong character development can occur, with the exception of Christopher Plummer's J. Paul Getty. To be fair to Williams, C. Plummer has the showier role and she is just asked to be the center of this tale, the world in which all else revolves and that, ultimately, makes her character somewhat bland.
I place the blame for this on Screenwriter David Scarpa (based on the book by John Pearson) and Director Scott. I think their reach exceeded their grasp on this one. If they could have focused more on one of the characters - instead of spreading things out - perhaps this film would have become more interesting and less bland. It stays on one note - despite jumping to different people in vastly different situations - throughout it's 2 hour and 15 minute time frame.
All in all, a missed opportunity. It is a decent film that had the potential to be VERY good. The only one who was VERY good was Christopher Plummer - and certainly his performance is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Stuber (2019) in Movies
Jul 18, 2019
Lack of chemistry between the leads
"Chemistry" is a tricky thing in a film and one that "either you got it or you don't" - it's an elusive element that can sink or raise a film. Case in point 2 films I have seen this week.
I rewatched the 1998 Crime/Romance flick OUT OF SIGHT - starring George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez. I remembered this Steven Soderbergh directed film as "terrific" and was excited to show it to my bride. What I realized when watching it is that this is a middle-of-the-road film that is elevated by the tremendous (sexual) chemistry between Lopez and Clooney. It oozes off the screen and is palatable to the viewer.
On the other end of the scale is the recent Action/Comedy STUBER with comedian Kuamil Nanjiani (THE BIG SICK) and former pro wrestler Dave Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films). This is a middle-of-the-road film that is hurt (tremendously) by the LACK of chemistry between the two leads.
Nanjiani stars as Stu, a sad-sack Uber driver who does not stand up for himself while Bautista is a "nothing gets in my way" take charge cop who (because of recent eye surgery) cannot drive and hires an Uber driver, Stu (who gets called STUBER, hence the name of the film), to chase down clues to a criminal he's been on the hunt for - shenanigans ensue.
Individually, some of the scenes/scenarios of this film are fine/funny and Nanjiani is terrific as Stu and adds some clever comedic elements to a script that is "good enough" by Tripper Clancy.
And then there's Bautista.
He seems lost in this film, underplaying the things that make him good, his over-exuberance and over physicality (if that is a term) of someone of his size. Is this Bautista's fault or did Director Michael Dowse (GOON) purposely tone him down? It doesn't really matter for it doesn't really work.
And this is the beginning of the problem with the chemistry between the two leads - Nanjiani manic energy is not matched by Bautista - he seems to be an "energy sucker" and takes quite a bit of life out of this film. But...Director Dowse is also a problem, for he brings this lack of energy to quite a few of the big action scenes, underplaying, not overplaying what should have been over played.
There are some good things in this - besides the script and Nanjiani, Natalie Morales and Betty Gilpin are good and we do have a "Mira Sorvino sighting", which is welcome...but that's about it. Oh...except for an extended cameo by Karen Gillan (Nebula in the GUARDIANS films) she brings some energy. I would have loved to see her paired with Nanjiani in this.
If you're looking for a good "buddy cop" film with good chemistry between the leads, might I suggest THE OTHER GUYS (Will Ferrell/Mark Wahlberg), RUNNING SCARED (Billy Crystal/Gregory Hines) or the greatest example of strong chemistry - 48 HOURS (Nick Nolte/Eddie Murphy). Stuber would be the example of just the opposite.
6 stars out of 10 (for Nanjiani, Gillan and Sorvino - and a script and circumstances that could have worked had the chemistry between the leads been better)
Letter Grade: B- and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I rewatched the 1998 Crime/Romance flick OUT OF SIGHT - starring George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez. I remembered this Steven Soderbergh directed film as "terrific" and was excited to show it to my bride. What I realized when watching it is that this is a middle-of-the-road film that is elevated by the tremendous (sexual) chemistry between Lopez and Clooney. It oozes off the screen and is palatable to the viewer.
On the other end of the scale is the recent Action/Comedy STUBER with comedian Kuamil Nanjiani (THE BIG SICK) and former pro wrestler Dave Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films). This is a middle-of-the-road film that is hurt (tremendously) by the LACK of chemistry between the two leads.
Nanjiani stars as Stu, a sad-sack Uber driver who does not stand up for himself while Bautista is a "nothing gets in my way" take charge cop who (because of recent eye surgery) cannot drive and hires an Uber driver, Stu (who gets called STUBER, hence the name of the film), to chase down clues to a criminal he's been on the hunt for - shenanigans ensue.
Individually, some of the scenes/scenarios of this film are fine/funny and Nanjiani is terrific as Stu and adds some clever comedic elements to a script that is "good enough" by Tripper Clancy.
And then there's Bautista.
He seems lost in this film, underplaying the things that make him good, his over-exuberance and over physicality (if that is a term) of someone of his size. Is this Bautista's fault or did Director Michael Dowse (GOON) purposely tone him down? It doesn't really matter for it doesn't really work.
And this is the beginning of the problem with the chemistry between the two leads - Nanjiani manic energy is not matched by Bautista - he seems to be an "energy sucker" and takes quite a bit of life out of this film. But...Director Dowse is also a problem, for he brings this lack of energy to quite a few of the big action scenes, underplaying, not overplaying what should have been over played.
There are some good things in this - besides the script and Nanjiani, Natalie Morales and Betty Gilpin are good and we do have a "Mira Sorvino sighting", which is welcome...but that's about it. Oh...except for an extended cameo by Karen Gillan (Nebula in the GUARDIANS films) she brings some energy. I would have loved to see her paired with Nanjiani in this.
If you're looking for a good "buddy cop" film with good chemistry between the leads, might I suggest THE OTHER GUYS (Will Ferrell/Mark Wahlberg), RUNNING SCARED (Billy Crystal/Gregory Hines) or the greatest example of strong chemistry - 48 HOURS (Nick Nolte/Eddie Murphy). Stuber would be the example of just the opposite.
6 stars out of 10 (for Nanjiani, Gillan and Sorvino - and a script and circumstances that could have worked had the chemistry between the leads been better)
Letter Grade: B- and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mile 22 (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
With a run time of 1 hour 34 minutes, and such a fast flowing story line, you certainly don't feel like you're bored at any point during Mile 22. There were plenty of times where I was confused, and a couple where I was amused, but never bored.
Overall the story is a good one and I felt like the twists and turns come in just the right places. But there's no denying that this could have been a 4/5 star film for me had there been some differences.
The opening titles set about cataloging Silva's (Mark Wahlberg) personal history so that we know what sort of person he is and how he's ended up at the head of this team. While it actually worked well I'm unsure of why it was needed at all. Most of the traits that were being shown are ones that frequently pop up in movies in the stereotypical spec ops/military characters, they needed no explanation. Similarly, the back story for Alice seemed surplus to requirements and shoe-horned in so she could have something for Silva to get angry about. Although later in the film she uses the back story to manipulate a baddie when she's cornered and that was quite amusing so I'm willing to let it slide.
By far the best thing about this movie is Iko Uwais. At all times he's consistent to character and his fight scenes were incredible. So it's a little sad that they were marred by some terrible editing. Many of the scenes would flow nicely and you were just becoming engrossed in them when they would cut abruptly to another angle. The only thing it seemed to achieve was speeding up the action, which was already fast and going along very nicely on it's own in the first place. The cuts were chaotic and difficult to watch and ruined what could have been the redeeming feature of this film.
During the film you see Silva talking about the events at some kind of briefing. Although short, they felt like ramblings and didn't make much sense. Placing one "present day" scene at either end of the main events would have achieved a much better job and covered up what felt like a script that had gone awry.
The ending felt like a bit of a cop out to me. Not answering the main question that we were all looking for left me with a deeply unsatisfying feeling and some annoyance at what felt like an obvious attempt to set up for a sequel.
I was surprised to see that this was an 18 certificate. After sitting through the whole thing I feel like it could have quite happily sat at the 15 level. All it would have needed was the removal of a lot of unnecessary language and to have some of the more graphic scenes shot from a different angle/cut better to not show so much of the brutality. That being said though, I didn't find the violence particularly bad compared to other things I've seen.
As an after thought having just rewatched the trailer again before putting it into this post... it's a shame that there weren't some of the computer erasure effects from the trailer in the film. There were certainly opportunities and with the level of technology that they're using it seems to be down played at almost all points.
What should you do?
Watch it for Iko Uwais. His action sequences were so good that they hold up the rest of the film.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I could really do with the Hand of God when I'm out and about driving.
Overall the story is a good one and I felt like the twists and turns come in just the right places. But there's no denying that this could have been a 4/5 star film for me had there been some differences.
The opening titles set about cataloging Silva's (Mark Wahlberg) personal history so that we know what sort of person he is and how he's ended up at the head of this team. While it actually worked well I'm unsure of why it was needed at all. Most of the traits that were being shown are ones that frequently pop up in movies in the stereotypical spec ops/military characters, they needed no explanation. Similarly, the back story for Alice seemed surplus to requirements and shoe-horned in so she could have something for Silva to get angry about. Although later in the film she uses the back story to manipulate a baddie when she's cornered and that was quite amusing so I'm willing to let it slide.
By far the best thing about this movie is Iko Uwais. At all times he's consistent to character and his fight scenes were incredible. So it's a little sad that they were marred by some terrible editing. Many of the scenes would flow nicely and you were just becoming engrossed in them when they would cut abruptly to another angle. The only thing it seemed to achieve was speeding up the action, which was already fast and going along very nicely on it's own in the first place. The cuts were chaotic and difficult to watch and ruined what could have been the redeeming feature of this film.
During the film you see Silva talking about the events at some kind of briefing. Although short, they felt like ramblings and didn't make much sense. Placing one "present day" scene at either end of the main events would have achieved a much better job and covered up what felt like a script that had gone awry.
The ending felt like a bit of a cop out to me. Not answering the main question that we were all looking for left me with a deeply unsatisfying feeling and some annoyance at what felt like an obvious attempt to set up for a sequel.
I was surprised to see that this was an 18 certificate. After sitting through the whole thing I feel like it could have quite happily sat at the 15 level. All it would have needed was the removal of a lot of unnecessary language and to have some of the more graphic scenes shot from a different angle/cut better to not show so much of the brutality. That being said though, I didn't find the violence particularly bad compared to other things I've seen.
As an after thought having just rewatched the trailer again before putting it into this post... it's a shame that there weren't some of the computer erasure effects from the trailer in the film. There were certainly opportunities and with the level of technology that they're using it seems to be down played at almost all points.
What should you do?
Watch it for Iko Uwais. His action sequences were so good that they hold up the rest of the film.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I could really do with the Hand of God when I'm out and about driving.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Equalizer 2 (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A “Good Guy” meting out justice in a bad way.
There’s something really satisfying about seeing our ‘hero’ Robert McCall giving bad ‘uns a bloody nose (and far worse) as immediate punishment for a crime committed. My parent’s pre-war generation would wax lyrical about the days when police officers or teachers could give a kid a “good box around the ears” as a lesson for a minor infringement. (“Ah, the good old days…. That’ll learn ‘im”!). But equally there’s also the queasy feeling here that this is a vigilante being judge, jury and executioner. Thank GOODNESS then that it’s Denzel Washington and he’s OBVIOUSLY a good guy that will never get it wrong!
Washington returns here as the righter of wrongs, now working as a Lyft driver in Boston (clearly Uber either lost the bidding war or they were not considered to be as cool a brand anymore). Through his job he crosses paths with various troubled souls and is often able to help: sometimes with just an encouraging word; sometimes with more physical activity! By way of validating his good guy credentials, he also takes under his wing Miles (Ashton Sanders) – a local black kid at risk of being dragged into the Boston gang scene.
But this is all window-dressing for the main plot, involving bad guys (for reasons that escaped me) tidying up a lot of CIA loose ends in Brussels in a very brutal way. In charge of the investigation is Robert’s ex-boss Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) and to help out further Robert has to ‘reappear’ to his ex-partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal). As in the first film, events lead to an explosive western-style showdown.
Directed again by Antoine Fuqua, the film oozes style from the impressive opening shots of a Turkish train, where the cinematography by Bourne-regular Oliver Wood is exceptional. The action scenes are well-executed, and includes a superb science experiment that will puzzle any viewer who thinks “hang on a minute – flour doesn’t burn”!
Reading again my review of the original film, I went off on a rant about extreme screen violence in sub-18 certificate films. There is certainly – as the British film censors (the BBFC) describe it – “strong violence” in this film, with some pretty brutal murder scenes. If anything though I thought the violence was a little less gratuitous this time around, which I welcome.
Denzel is the greatest asset of this film though. He acts up a hurricane (literally), and without his calm and powerful presence at the heart of the film, this would just be A.N.Other generic thriller. It’s also great that this time around the excellent Melissa Leo gets more screen time, as does her husband played by Bill “Independence Day” Pullman. (Is it just me that gets Mr Pullman confused with the late Mr Paxton? I spent all of this film thinking “Oh how sad” though all his scenes before I realised I was grieving for the wrong guy!). In terms of mistaken identity, this film has another in that a key villain Resnik looks far too much like Mark Wahlberg, but is actually Canadian actor Jonathan Scarfe.
Where the film stumbled for me was in having too many parallel “good deed” sub-plots. One in particular – you’ll know the one – feels completely superfluous, beggars belief and could have been excised completely for the DVD deleted scenes.
Do you need to have seen the first film? No, not really. There is exposition about McCall’s back-story, but if this was covered in the first film then I had completely forgotten it. It certainly didn’t detract from this as a stand-alone film.
A cut-above the norm, Washington’s solid performance makes this an entertaining night out at the flicks.
Washington returns here as the righter of wrongs, now working as a Lyft driver in Boston (clearly Uber either lost the bidding war or they were not considered to be as cool a brand anymore). Through his job he crosses paths with various troubled souls and is often able to help: sometimes with just an encouraging word; sometimes with more physical activity! By way of validating his good guy credentials, he also takes under his wing Miles (Ashton Sanders) – a local black kid at risk of being dragged into the Boston gang scene.
But this is all window-dressing for the main plot, involving bad guys (for reasons that escaped me) tidying up a lot of CIA loose ends in Brussels in a very brutal way. In charge of the investigation is Robert’s ex-boss Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) and to help out further Robert has to ‘reappear’ to his ex-partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal). As in the first film, events lead to an explosive western-style showdown.
Directed again by Antoine Fuqua, the film oozes style from the impressive opening shots of a Turkish train, where the cinematography by Bourne-regular Oliver Wood is exceptional. The action scenes are well-executed, and includes a superb science experiment that will puzzle any viewer who thinks “hang on a minute – flour doesn’t burn”!
Reading again my review of the original film, I went off on a rant about extreme screen violence in sub-18 certificate films. There is certainly – as the British film censors (the BBFC) describe it – “strong violence” in this film, with some pretty brutal murder scenes. If anything though I thought the violence was a little less gratuitous this time around, which I welcome.
Denzel is the greatest asset of this film though. He acts up a hurricane (literally), and without his calm and powerful presence at the heart of the film, this would just be A.N.Other generic thriller. It’s also great that this time around the excellent Melissa Leo gets more screen time, as does her husband played by Bill “Independence Day” Pullman. (Is it just me that gets Mr Pullman confused with the late Mr Paxton? I spent all of this film thinking “Oh how sad” though all his scenes before I realised I was grieving for the wrong guy!). In terms of mistaken identity, this film has another in that a key villain Resnik looks far too much like Mark Wahlberg, but is actually Canadian actor Jonathan Scarfe.
Where the film stumbled for me was in having too many parallel “good deed” sub-plots. One in particular – you’ll know the one – feels completely superfluous, beggars belief and could have been excised completely for the DVD deleted scenes.
Do you need to have seen the first film? No, not really. There is exposition about McCall’s back-story, but if this was covered in the first film then I had completely forgotten it. It certainly didn’t detract from this as a stand-alone film.
A cut-above the norm, Washington’s solid performance makes this an entertaining night out at the flicks.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Terrible film making at it's best
Michael Bay’s Transformers series has received a huge amount of criticism since the first film was released back in 2007, some of it fair, and some of it not. Now, 7 years on and three films later, Bay returns to the helm of one of the biggest movie franchises of all time with Transformers: Age of Extinction, but can it silence his critics?
The answer here is no, but not because Extinction is poor, it’s simply because there seems to be a chip on the shoulders of reviewers who expect Oscar quality film-making, when all the target audience for these films really want is to see Optimus Prime kick some Decepticon ass.
Extinction is a whole new start for the series with new characters and a five year jump to allow people to put Dark of the Moon at the back of their minds.
Mark Wahlberg heads an entirely new cast as Cade, an inventor who has run out of luck after a string of failed concepts which haven’t taken off. Thankfully he comes across an old truck that promises to change his fortunes – I bet you can guess just who that might be.
Much of the criticism of the previous films was directed squarely at Bay’s choice of female leads, from Megan Fox’s pout to Rosie Huntington-Whitely’s laughable acting performance, it’s safe to say the series hasn’t been the pinnacle of the fairer sex’s characterisations. Mercifully, the introduction of Nicola Peltz as Cade’s daughter Tessa goes some way to dissolve that problem.
Yes, she’s not going to be troubling the Academy Awards any time soon, but she is a damn sight better than those that preceded her, though the poor script stops her from being anything but a whining teen.
A brilliant Stanley Tucci and an ingenious bit of casting in Kelsey Grammer complete the film’s human characters and the two act as the main antagonists.
Of the robot kind, Michael Bay has gone into overdrive, introducing characters left, right and centre and leaving no stone unturned. John Goodman and Ken Watanabe are both excellent as Hound and Drift – two new Autobots joining the resistance. Of course all the Transformers are outshone by the wonderful Peter Cullen who again returns to the series as Optimus, his voice work is absolutely superb, though with his previous experience, you wouldn’t expect any less.
Extinction’s premise is simple, there is a bounty on the heads of Optimus Prime and the rest of the Autobots, with the humans wanting to get there planet back after the events in Dark of the Moon.
The story is fun if a little incomprehensible at times; it occasionally feels like each plot point is merely there to act as a bridge until the next big set piece, though this never affects your enjoyment of the film itself.
Thankfully the special effects are absolutely stunning and some of the best seen on the big screen. The Transformers are beautifully rendered in seamless CGI and the CGI environments all look great as well.
Bay has also done well to make the battles look more realistic this time around. Previously, it was difficult to know who was fightingTransformers-Age-of-Extinction-Poster-Optimus-and-Grimlock-Crop who, with close ups of mashed metal stopping the audience from seeing exactly what was happening. Here things are much better, but still not perfect.
Unfortunately it isn’t all good news. The heavily marketed Dinobots are only in the film for about 20 minutes towards the finale which is a real shame, as it makes you feel a little cheated. Also, the running time is a real headache; this is the biggest Transformers film yet at just over three hours long and it feels it with numerous plot fillers that can occasionally detract from the rest of the film.
Overall, Bay has probably created the best Transformers film yet with some cracking special effects and dare I say it; decent acting. However, it is far too long with unnecessary sub-plots, especially at the start, which detract from what is pure entertainment.
The Transformers movies aren’t going to win any awards, and Michael Bay knows that, but they are a fine example of terrible film-making at its very best.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/07/06/terrible-film-making-at-its-best-transformers-4-review/
The answer here is no, but not because Extinction is poor, it’s simply because there seems to be a chip on the shoulders of reviewers who expect Oscar quality film-making, when all the target audience for these films really want is to see Optimus Prime kick some Decepticon ass.
Extinction is a whole new start for the series with new characters and a five year jump to allow people to put Dark of the Moon at the back of their minds.
Mark Wahlberg heads an entirely new cast as Cade, an inventor who has run out of luck after a string of failed concepts which haven’t taken off. Thankfully he comes across an old truck that promises to change his fortunes – I bet you can guess just who that might be.
Much of the criticism of the previous films was directed squarely at Bay’s choice of female leads, from Megan Fox’s pout to Rosie Huntington-Whitely’s laughable acting performance, it’s safe to say the series hasn’t been the pinnacle of the fairer sex’s characterisations. Mercifully, the introduction of Nicola Peltz as Cade’s daughter Tessa goes some way to dissolve that problem.
Yes, she’s not going to be troubling the Academy Awards any time soon, but she is a damn sight better than those that preceded her, though the poor script stops her from being anything but a whining teen.
A brilliant Stanley Tucci and an ingenious bit of casting in Kelsey Grammer complete the film’s human characters and the two act as the main antagonists.
Of the robot kind, Michael Bay has gone into overdrive, introducing characters left, right and centre and leaving no stone unturned. John Goodman and Ken Watanabe are both excellent as Hound and Drift – two new Autobots joining the resistance. Of course all the Transformers are outshone by the wonderful Peter Cullen who again returns to the series as Optimus, his voice work is absolutely superb, though with his previous experience, you wouldn’t expect any less.
Extinction’s premise is simple, there is a bounty on the heads of Optimus Prime and the rest of the Autobots, with the humans wanting to get there planet back after the events in Dark of the Moon.
The story is fun if a little incomprehensible at times; it occasionally feels like each plot point is merely there to act as a bridge until the next big set piece, though this never affects your enjoyment of the film itself.
Thankfully the special effects are absolutely stunning and some of the best seen on the big screen. The Transformers are beautifully rendered in seamless CGI and the CGI environments all look great as well.
Bay has also done well to make the battles look more realistic this time around. Previously, it was difficult to know who was fightingTransformers-Age-of-Extinction-Poster-Optimus-and-Grimlock-Crop who, with close ups of mashed metal stopping the audience from seeing exactly what was happening. Here things are much better, but still not perfect.
Unfortunately it isn’t all good news. The heavily marketed Dinobots are only in the film for about 20 minutes towards the finale which is a real shame, as it makes you feel a little cheated. Also, the running time is a real headache; this is the biggest Transformers film yet at just over three hours long and it feels it with numerous plot fillers that can occasionally detract from the rest of the film.
Overall, Bay has probably created the best Transformers film yet with some cracking special effects and dare I say it; decent acting. However, it is far too long with unnecessary sub-plots, especially at the start, which detract from what is pure entertainment.
The Transformers movies aren’t going to win any awards, and Michael Bay knows that, but they are a fine example of terrible film-making at its very best.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/07/06/terrible-film-making-at-its-best-transformers-4-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Director Michael Bay and the shape shifting Transfomers are back in a new cinematic adventure, “Transformers: Age of Extinction” which continues Bay’s fondness for over the top pyrotechnics, action, and chases.
It has been five years since the Autobots and Decepticons waged war in Chicago and in the aftermath, the U.S. government has ended working with the Autobots and has begun hunting down their enemies that are still in hiding.
Under the leadership of C.I.A. agent Harold Attinger (Kelsey Grammer), a covert group known as Cemetery Wind has been hunting down and killing all Transformers regardless of their allegiance as Attinger believes that it is time to keep humanity safe from the threat the pose.
At the same time in a small Texas town, an inventor named Cade Yeager (Mark Wahlberg), is trying to keep his home and deal with mounting debt and foreclosure while trying to get his daughter Tessa (Nicola Peltz), into college.
Convinced that one of his inventions will work and will allow them out of their financial mess, Cade purchases a derelict semi-truck convinced that the parts alone will get them an infusion of cash.
During his work on the truck, Cade uncovers that it appears to be a damaged Transfomer, which is confirmed when Optimus Prime transformers from the wreck.
His friend and daughter are convinced Cade should call the authorities and collect the sizeable reward for his find, but Cade decides to repair Prime who said he was injured in an ambush.
Soon after, Cemetery Wind arrives and threatens the life of Tessa and Cade which forces Prime into action. Soon, the humans along with Tessa’s secret boyfriend Shane (Jack Reynor) are racing for their lives from the deadly pursuit who is working secretly with a deadly Transformer.
As if this was not enough chaos, remember this is a Michael Bay film, a wealthy industrialist named Joshua Joyce (Stanley Tucci), has figured out the secret of the Transformers and working with Attinger in secret, plans to build and army of his own to usher in a new area of technology for humanity and of course lining his and Attinger’s pockets even further with their discovery.
The need to obtain more of the building components is key, and soon the action shifts to a new locale with the fate of a major city and humanity hanging in the balance.
Bay has crafted a film that is technically brilliant as it is an amazing visual spectacle, but yet is as cold and soulless as the very toys that inspired the series.
The film plays like a gigantic pyrotechnic and CGI demo reel as you can see countless examples of Bay orchestrating his fireworks to end in a grand finale.
It was almost comical how many explosions and car chases there were at the expense of the story. I think my wife summed it up best when she said that if the script was 50 pages long, at best 3 pages were devoted to dialogue.
I think it must have read something like this… explosion, explosion, gunfire, gunfire, car chase, explosion, Tessa!!, Dad!!! Vroom, vroom, explosion, car chase, bad line, repeat.
I do not see a film of this type expecting great acting or lines but some of them were so bad and out of place you could almost hear the cast of Mystery Science Theater chomping at the bit to get their hands on this one.
The film also blatantly sells out to appease Chinese audiences as we have a good segment of the film set in mainland China and Hong Kong which we get scenes of Chinese leaders being strong, decisive, and caring for the people, and other events in such a blatant Kowtow to ensure the film gets played in the all-important Chinese marketplace.
In the end the film does have plenty of visual entertainment but it drags out to the point where even the action and technical brilliance of the film and the 3D effects grows old. The biggest issues is that they have a strong and appealing cast, yet they are literally just along for the ride and are not given much to do.
The film is the first in a planned new trilogy so it is a safe bet, Bay and company will be back in a few years.
http://sknr.net/2014/06/27/transformers-age-of-extinction/
It has been five years since the Autobots and Decepticons waged war in Chicago and in the aftermath, the U.S. government has ended working with the Autobots and has begun hunting down their enemies that are still in hiding.
Under the leadership of C.I.A. agent Harold Attinger (Kelsey Grammer), a covert group known as Cemetery Wind has been hunting down and killing all Transformers regardless of their allegiance as Attinger believes that it is time to keep humanity safe from the threat the pose.
At the same time in a small Texas town, an inventor named Cade Yeager (Mark Wahlberg), is trying to keep his home and deal with mounting debt and foreclosure while trying to get his daughter Tessa (Nicola Peltz), into college.
Convinced that one of his inventions will work and will allow them out of their financial mess, Cade purchases a derelict semi-truck convinced that the parts alone will get them an infusion of cash.
During his work on the truck, Cade uncovers that it appears to be a damaged Transfomer, which is confirmed when Optimus Prime transformers from the wreck.
His friend and daughter are convinced Cade should call the authorities and collect the sizeable reward for his find, but Cade decides to repair Prime who said he was injured in an ambush.
Soon after, Cemetery Wind arrives and threatens the life of Tessa and Cade which forces Prime into action. Soon, the humans along with Tessa’s secret boyfriend Shane (Jack Reynor) are racing for their lives from the deadly pursuit who is working secretly with a deadly Transformer.
As if this was not enough chaos, remember this is a Michael Bay film, a wealthy industrialist named Joshua Joyce (Stanley Tucci), has figured out the secret of the Transformers and working with Attinger in secret, plans to build and army of his own to usher in a new area of technology for humanity and of course lining his and Attinger’s pockets even further with their discovery.
The need to obtain more of the building components is key, and soon the action shifts to a new locale with the fate of a major city and humanity hanging in the balance.
Bay has crafted a film that is technically brilliant as it is an amazing visual spectacle, but yet is as cold and soulless as the very toys that inspired the series.
The film plays like a gigantic pyrotechnic and CGI demo reel as you can see countless examples of Bay orchestrating his fireworks to end in a grand finale.
It was almost comical how many explosions and car chases there were at the expense of the story. I think my wife summed it up best when she said that if the script was 50 pages long, at best 3 pages were devoted to dialogue.
I think it must have read something like this… explosion, explosion, gunfire, gunfire, car chase, explosion, Tessa!!, Dad!!! Vroom, vroom, explosion, car chase, bad line, repeat.
I do not see a film of this type expecting great acting or lines but some of them were so bad and out of place you could almost hear the cast of Mystery Science Theater chomping at the bit to get their hands on this one.
The film also blatantly sells out to appease Chinese audiences as we have a good segment of the film set in mainland China and Hong Kong which we get scenes of Chinese leaders being strong, decisive, and caring for the people, and other events in such a blatant Kowtow to ensure the film gets played in the all-important Chinese marketplace.
In the end the film does have plenty of visual entertainment but it drags out to the point where even the action and technical brilliance of the film and the 3D effects grows old. The biggest issues is that they have a strong and appealing cast, yet they are literally just along for the ride and are not given much to do.
The film is the first in a planned new trilogy so it is a safe bet, Bay and company will be back in a few years.
http://sknr.net/2014/06/27/transformers-age-of-extinction/
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Feb 17, 2019 (Updated Feb 17, 2019)
I want it all. I want it all. I want it all. And I want it now
Contains spoilers, click to show
“I want it all. I want it all. I want it all. And I want it now.”
“I Want It All,” Queen, The Miracle, 1989
I am hating having to write this review though I feel compelled to do so. I bought this movie knowing I would like it. I didn’t have much money left in my checking account, but I thought, yes, this would be worth what little I had left to spend. I gifted it to my kiddo for Valentine’s Day knowing she would surely love it, too.
I didn’t love it. I didn’t even really like it.
I haven’t made a mistake this bad since the much-renowned Lost in Translation. Why the ire? Because Bohemian Rhapsody taught me some things, but not enough. Not what I wanted to know. I wanted to learn more than what a rudimentary Google search would have taught me about the band. Instead, I obtained only basic information about the band’s success. I think to really do the band justice you would need a series. Maybe that is my problem. The film had too much general information crammed into it, and I needed MORE, PEOPLE.
I should have liked this film because it revolved around Queen’s music. The best thing about this film is the soundtrack. I think contemplating some of Queen’s lyrics throughout would have really enhanced the film, though. They talked about the poetry but didn’t examine it. And I was disappointed.
Malek’s Mercury just didn’t do it for me though I admire his dedication to the craft. I do think he did an excellent job, but there was something missing that I can’t put my finger on. It felt very much like pretending. And I can’t even adequately explain why. I did love the costuming though. Especially the hair. The transformation of Mercury from boy to man was impressive. It made me want to grow a mustache.
The supporting characters were stereotypical. The supporting cast members might have been cardboard cutouts for all of the attachment I felt to them. The film also didn’t undertake the concept of what it meant to be LGBT in that era. Therefore, it didn’t fully explore the ramifications of the risks that Mercury was taking both professionally and personally. Conflicts just didn’t resonate with the high drama I felt they should have especially considering the in-your-face elements of Mercury’s personality. The passion just wasn’t there. And a real miracle would have been adequately examining the collaboration between the musicians.
I also felt the film was generally stilted by the writing, which seemed comprised of the most overused clichés in the English language.
Bohemian Rhapsody didn’t delve into the AIDS crisis deep enough to evoke much of an emotional response in me. I appreciate that Freddie Mercury didn’t want his life to be a “cautionary tale.” I get that. But the tragedy of his death seemed really downplayed to me for some reason. I wasn’t expecting the emotional response you would get from a film like Philadelphia. But something close would have been nice. Maybe I’ve seen too many films that focus on tragedy and expected to be weeping by the end of the film. Or the beginning of the film, or at any point during the film. But I was left feeling hollow.
The crowd scene from Live Aid and the Live Aid performance rightfully stole what remained of this show. The looks on the faces of the crowd. The expanse of the crowd. The scene reflected what it must have felt like to be a performer or a fan in such a large venue. Malek was awesome in this scene and deserves his due. It might be what earns him the Oscar.
I hate to say it, but I liked Mark Wahlberg and Rock Star (2001) better than I liked this movie. I just felt they could have done a better job with it. It didn’t live up to the hype.
And now I’ve touched upon the real issue. I could never get enough of this band, or of Mercury, and DAMNIT. The experience they provided fans around the world was just gone too soon.
And I just don’t feel the movie did the band or Mercury’s life justice.
I spent my Saturday listening to music in my car, wondering what a septuagenarian Mercury would have thought of today’s saturated music market. I imagine he would have been like my late father, fascinated by both the popular and the underground.
Ok, NOW I’m crying.
But touch my tears, with your lips
Touch my world, with your fingertips.
And we can have forever
And we can love forever
Forever is our today…
Queen, “Who Wants to Live Forever,” It’s Kind of Magic, 1986
“I Want It All,” Queen, The Miracle, 1989
I am hating having to write this review though I feel compelled to do so. I bought this movie knowing I would like it. I didn’t have much money left in my checking account, but I thought, yes, this would be worth what little I had left to spend. I gifted it to my kiddo for Valentine’s Day knowing she would surely love it, too.
I didn’t love it. I didn’t even really like it.
I haven’t made a mistake this bad since the much-renowned Lost in Translation. Why the ire? Because Bohemian Rhapsody taught me some things, but not enough. Not what I wanted to know. I wanted to learn more than what a rudimentary Google search would have taught me about the band. Instead, I obtained only basic information about the band’s success. I think to really do the band justice you would need a series. Maybe that is my problem. The film had too much general information crammed into it, and I needed MORE, PEOPLE.
I should have liked this film because it revolved around Queen’s music. The best thing about this film is the soundtrack. I think contemplating some of Queen’s lyrics throughout would have really enhanced the film, though. They talked about the poetry but didn’t examine it. And I was disappointed.
Malek’s Mercury just didn’t do it for me though I admire his dedication to the craft. I do think he did an excellent job, but there was something missing that I can’t put my finger on. It felt very much like pretending. And I can’t even adequately explain why. I did love the costuming though. Especially the hair. The transformation of Mercury from boy to man was impressive. It made me want to grow a mustache.
The supporting characters were stereotypical. The supporting cast members might have been cardboard cutouts for all of the attachment I felt to them. The film also didn’t undertake the concept of what it meant to be LGBT in that era. Therefore, it didn’t fully explore the ramifications of the risks that Mercury was taking both professionally and personally. Conflicts just didn’t resonate with the high drama I felt they should have especially considering the in-your-face elements of Mercury’s personality. The passion just wasn’t there. And a real miracle would have been adequately examining the collaboration between the musicians.
I also felt the film was generally stilted by the writing, which seemed comprised of the most overused clichés in the English language.
Bohemian Rhapsody didn’t delve into the AIDS crisis deep enough to evoke much of an emotional response in me. I appreciate that Freddie Mercury didn’t want his life to be a “cautionary tale.” I get that. But the tragedy of his death seemed really downplayed to me for some reason. I wasn’t expecting the emotional response you would get from a film like Philadelphia. But something close would have been nice. Maybe I’ve seen too many films that focus on tragedy and expected to be weeping by the end of the film. Or the beginning of the film, or at any point during the film. But I was left feeling hollow.
The crowd scene from Live Aid and the Live Aid performance rightfully stole what remained of this show. The looks on the faces of the crowd. The expanse of the crowd. The scene reflected what it must have felt like to be a performer or a fan in such a large venue. Malek was awesome in this scene and deserves his due. It might be what earns him the Oscar.
I hate to say it, but I liked Mark Wahlberg and Rock Star (2001) better than I liked this movie. I just felt they could have done a better job with it. It didn’t live up to the hype.
And now I’ve touched upon the real issue. I could never get enough of this band, or of Mercury, and DAMNIT. The experience they provided fans around the world was just gone too soon.
And I just don’t feel the movie did the band or Mercury’s life justice.
I spent my Saturday listening to music in my car, wondering what a septuagenarian Mercury would have thought of today’s saturated music market. I imagine he would have been like my late father, fascinated by both the popular and the underground.
Ok, NOW I’m crying.
But touch my tears, with your lips
Touch my world, with your fingertips.
And we can have forever
And we can love forever
Forever is our today…
Queen, “Who Wants to Live Forever,” It’s Kind of Magic, 1986