Search
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Michael Bay had a lot to prove with the third instalment of his big bot franchise. The scathing reviews of Revenge of the Fallen from nearly every critic who went to see it proved that even giant robots aren’t safe from the picky eyes of the global audience. Now, I may get lambasted for this but I preferred number 2 to number 1, so let’s see if number 3 can impress.
Here, Bay returns to helm the latest addition: Dark of the Moon, it’s a good film nonetheless but it’s sci-fi themes, more so than in either of the previous offerings fail to provide enough impact to make it the best in the series.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon picks up three years after the last film and a lot has changed. Sam Witwicky again played by the fantastic Shia LeBeouf is now living in Washington, envious of his new girlfriend Carly Spencer and her fabulous lifestyle. Carly, played by newcomer Rosie Huntington-Whitely is about as wooden as a character can get; Whitely’s performance is very laboured and her on screen scenes suffer as a result; she’s a disappointment in a film that doesn’t really require it’s characters to do much; so that shows how bad she actually is.
Megan Fox is actually missed this time around, but it’s not too much of a problem because Rosie’s character is given exactly the same clothes, the same pout and practically the same lines.
Michael Bay has also lined up the legendary John Malkovich as Sam’s troubled new boss, his screen time is worth a watch but he feels wasted considering his lines amount to about 10 minutes of screen time. Patrick Dempsey also stars as good guy gone back; Dylan Gould.
The special effects coupled with the fantastic 3D make Transformers 3 a spectacle to watch, the bots are seamlessly integrated into the picture alongside their human counterparts and deliver once again, these films really are the pinnacle now for special effects.
Bay has managed to fashion a half coherent story out of the toy franchise which many critics were sceptical of, but it works really well. The film focuses on the space race of the 60’s and the reasons why the US wanted to beat everyone to the moon. In short, the Decepticons are looking for something that crash-landed on the moon; if they find it, then Cybertron will be reborn, using Earth as a template; oh no!
The last hour is just carnage, carnage, carnage as the entire city of Chicago is plunged into a post-apocalyptic world where the Decepticons rule and the Autobots are, alongside humans as slaves. Here, Bay really showcases his prowess for stunning cinematography and first class special effects, one scene in particular, involving a glass skyscraper is particularly awe-inspiring.
Speaking of the robots themselves, all the favourites return with their fantastic voice acting. Peter Cullen delivers Optimus Prime in his usual, gruff manner and a welcome addition is Star Trek’s Leonard Nimoy as veteran Autobot leader Sentinel Prime. Hugo Weaving also returns as a rough looking Megatron.
The problem that blights Transformers 3 is that there’s too much going on. I found myself lost in parts of the story because the film is constantly rushing to get to the next plot line. It’s frustrating that a film franchise criticised for its lack of story is penalised for having too much of one this time around, but this is the case here. As such, some of the best characters don’t get screen time. Josh Duhamel is only in the film for 5 minutes at a time, whilst Sam’s parents only get brief appearances which is a tragic shame as they are, all in all, the best human characters in the franchise.
Overall, Transformers has become one of my favourite film franchises of all time; it delivers on its promise and doesn’t pretend it’s going to be something else. Yes, they’re far too long (this one is just short of 3 hours), they’re exceptionally loud and mind-numbingly obnoxious but that’s what you should want from an action film. Transformers 3 delivers, and it delivers it like a smack in the face; but it falls down in a couple of areas where the others didn’t.
Michael Bay is a very talented film director who gives the best out of everything, but in response to his critics from the last movie, he has developed too much of the story and as such, it feels disjointed and ultimately a little disappointing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/07/07/transformers-dark-of-the-moon-2011/
Here, Bay returns to helm the latest addition: Dark of the Moon, it’s a good film nonetheless but it’s sci-fi themes, more so than in either of the previous offerings fail to provide enough impact to make it the best in the series.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon picks up three years after the last film and a lot has changed. Sam Witwicky again played by the fantastic Shia LeBeouf is now living in Washington, envious of his new girlfriend Carly Spencer and her fabulous lifestyle. Carly, played by newcomer Rosie Huntington-Whitely is about as wooden as a character can get; Whitely’s performance is very laboured and her on screen scenes suffer as a result; she’s a disappointment in a film that doesn’t really require it’s characters to do much; so that shows how bad she actually is.
Megan Fox is actually missed this time around, but it’s not too much of a problem because Rosie’s character is given exactly the same clothes, the same pout and practically the same lines.
Michael Bay has also lined up the legendary John Malkovich as Sam’s troubled new boss, his screen time is worth a watch but he feels wasted considering his lines amount to about 10 minutes of screen time. Patrick Dempsey also stars as good guy gone back; Dylan Gould.
The special effects coupled with the fantastic 3D make Transformers 3 a spectacle to watch, the bots are seamlessly integrated into the picture alongside their human counterparts and deliver once again, these films really are the pinnacle now for special effects.
Bay has managed to fashion a half coherent story out of the toy franchise which many critics were sceptical of, but it works really well. The film focuses on the space race of the 60’s and the reasons why the US wanted to beat everyone to the moon. In short, the Decepticons are looking for something that crash-landed on the moon; if they find it, then Cybertron will be reborn, using Earth as a template; oh no!
The last hour is just carnage, carnage, carnage as the entire city of Chicago is plunged into a post-apocalyptic world where the Decepticons rule and the Autobots are, alongside humans as slaves. Here, Bay really showcases his prowess for stunning cinematography and first class special effects, one scene in particular, involving a glass skyscraper is particularly awe-inspiring.
Speaking of the robots themselves, all the favourites return with their fantastic voice acting. Peter Cullen delivers Optimus Prime in his usual, gruff manner and a welcome addition is Star Trek’s Leonard Nimoy as veteran Autobot leader Sentinel Prime. Hugo Weaving also returns as a rough looking Megatron.
The problem that blights Transformers 3 is that there’s too much going on. I found myself lost in parts of the story because the film is constantly rushing to get to the next plot line. It’s frustrating that a film franchise criticised for its lack of story is penalised for having too much of one this time around, but this is the case here. As such, some of the best characters don’t get screen time. Josh Duhamel is only in the film for 5 minutes at a time, whilst Sam’s parents only get brief appearances which is a tragic shame as they are, all in all, the best human characters in the franchise.
Overall, Transformers has become one of my favourite film franchises of all time; it delivers on its promise and doesn’t pretend it’s going to be something else. Yes, they’re far too long (this one is just short of 3 hours), they’re exceptionally loud and mind-numbingly obnoxious but that’s what you should want from an action film. Transformers 3 delivers, and it delivers it like a smack in the face; but it falls down in a couple of areas where the others didn’t.
Michael Bay is a very talented film director who gives the best out of everything, but in response to his critics from the last movie, he has developed too much of the story and as such, it feels disjointed and ultimately a little disappointing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/07/07/transformers-dark-of-the-moon-2011/
And Justice For Some: An Expose of the Lawyers and Judges Who Let Dangerous Criminals Go
Book
FULLY REVISED EDITION CONTAINING NEVER-BEFORE PUBLISHED FACTS ABOUT THE JONBENET RAMSEY CASE, and...
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Wall Street (1987) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
When looking to review a film like this, there are two distinct points of view to take in to a account:
The first being the contemporary context. That being that this was made in 1987, at the height of the Wall Street boom and that, at the time, this must have been a revelation for so many people, who still had either faith or ignorance about the financial institutions which had metamorphosed into the corrupt capitalist cancer which we all know today.
The later half of the 80’s was to herald the fall of the Gordon Gecco’s and this film, whilst reflecting its time, was also ushering in an era of doom for Wall Street, as well as the continuing propagation of this corruption which would lead to the 2008 crash which are still reeling from today.
So given that like so many films which have essentially whistle blown in there own time, Psycho (1960) also springs to mind, the impact is lessened by thirty years of dilution, in which case it would be unfair to judge the film harshly on the fact that it does not really tell us anything new today.
But when it comes to judging how well the film was made, that is surly timeless.
And considering that Oliver Stone put this together, I was disappointed. The characters where not only dislikable, which I am sure was intentional, they were also poorly written. People just come and go throughout and with the exceptions of Michael Douglas’ Gorden Gecco, Charlie Sheen’s Bud Fox and his real life father, Martin Sheen as Bud’s blue collar dad, the rest of the cast seemed to be wasted.
The plot was all over the place, inconstant and littered with goofs and continuity errors right from the get-go. In fact, it only took a few minutes before I was aghast that a film which begins in 1985 made a reference to Gecco’s ruthlessness by stating that he made money out of the Challenger disaster, which did not occur until January 1986!
Charlie Sheen’s character is difficult to sympathise with, not only because he is trying to be the villain, yet of course he finds his soul by the end, but that he is so utterly naive that it is beyond belief!
It is never clear how much money is being made, who has what or what the real gains or losses are by the end, to the point that whist it is implied that Sheen will be jailed for his insider trading, the film ends before he enters the court and Gecco, who has been recorded by Sheen confessing to his involvement, is never resolved at all!
By the end I was really annoyed by how shallow and lackadaisical the script was, seemingly only really interested in showing the power hungry greed of Wall Street traders at this time.
“Greed is good”.
Well, Mr Stone, so is some exposition.
The first being the contemporary context. That being that this was made in 1987, at the height of the Wall Street boom and that, at the time, this must have been a revelation for so many people, who still had either faith or ignorance about the financial institutions which had metamorphosed into the corrupt capitalist cancer which we all know today.
The later half of the 80’s was to herald the fall of the Gordon Gecco’s and this film, whilst reflecting its time, was also ushering in an era of doom for Wall Street, as well as the continuing propagation of this corruption which would lead to the 2008 crash which are still reeling from today.
So given that like so many films which have essentially whistle blown in there own time, Psycho (1960) also springs to mind, the impact is lessened by thirty years of dilution, in which case it would be unfair to judge the film harshly on the fact that it does not really tell us anything new today.
But when it comes to judging how well the film was made, that is surly timeless.
And considering that Oliver Stone put this together, I was disappointed. The characters where not only dislikable, which I am sure was intentional, they were also poorly written. People just come and go throughout and with the exceptions of Michael Douglas’ Gorden Gecco, Charlie Sheen’s Bud Fox and his real life father, Martin Sheen as Bud’s blue collar dad, the rest of the cast seemed to be wasted.
The plot was all over the place, inconstant and littered with goofs and continuity errors right from the get-go. In fact, it only took a few minutes before I was aghast that a film which begins in 1985 made a reference to Gecco’s ruthlessness by stating that he made money out of the Challenger disaster, which did not occur until January 1986!
Charlie Sheen’s character is difficult to sympathise with, not only because he is trying to be the villain, yet of course he finds his soul by the end, but that he is so utterly naive that it is beyond belief!
It is never clear how much money is being made, who has what or what the real gains or losses are by the end, to the point that whist it is implied that Sheen will be jailed for his insider trading, the film ends before he enters the court and Gecco, who has been recorded by Sheen confessing to his involvement, is never resolved at all!
By the end I was really annoyed by how shallow and lackadaisical the script was, seemingly only really interested in showing the power hungry greed of Wall Street traders at this time.
“Greed is good”.
Well, Mr Stone, so is some exposition.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Fantastic Four (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
An absolute snooze
Here comes yet another superhero film. Ending Marvel’s year that has included the charming Big Hero 6, the overstuffed Avengers: Age of Ultron and the surprisingly excellent Ant-Man, the Fox produced Fantastic Four reboot has a tough job trying to get audiences to forget the horror that came before it.
It’s been a tough ride for the quartet of heroes, but does director Josh Trank’s modern day reimagining of Marvel’s first team do enough to change perceptions?
Not by a long shot. Despite some excellent special effects, this yawnfest of a film that was plagued by rumours of constant behind-the-scenes tension and last-minute editing doesn’t have an ounce of originality in its short 100 minute running time.
Miles Teller (Insurgent), Kate Mara (Transcendence), Michael B. Jordan (Chronicle) and Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot) take on the roles of Reed Richards, Sue Storm, Johnny Storm and Ben Grimm respectively and are fine, if lacking in any real chemistry.
Fantastic Four is above all, an origins story as the four young adults try to crack interdimensional travel. Naturally, things don’t go quite to plan and they, alongside fellow colleague Victor Von Doom end up with an unusual set of powers – with Doom becoming the main antagonist.
Unfortunately, the plot, devised by no less than three writers is a complete bore. There is hardly anything of interest throughout the entire film as Trank pushes his cast from one underwhelming set piece to another.
When things do get tense, it’s only for a five minute scene involving Doom breaking out of a research facility. This is when we get to see what Fantastic Four could’ve been, a dark and brooding film with a disturbing villain at its core.
However, it seems this has been pushed back to make way for an unusually flat sense of humour and an uninteresting origins story. Marvel films live and die on their comedic elements and unfortunately Fantastic Four is as poor as they come.
Nevertheless, the film’s special effects are on the whole, very good. The other dimension looks fantastic and The Thing in particular is rendered using excellent motion capture animation.
An underwhelming climax wraps up a bitterly disappointing outing for the four heroes. Most superhero films end with a spectacular showdown of good versus evil but Fantastic Four has none of this. The ending is clichéd, short and has no real payoff.
Overall, expectations were already low for this reboot and despite director Josh Trank’s obvious talent for direction, this talent is nowhere to be found in Fantastic Four.
A cast that doesn’t gel together, a poor soundtrack and a lack of tonal balance ensures it will rest alongside X-Men Origins: Wolverine as proof that Marvel Studios needs the rights to all of its heroes returning to it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/09/an-absolute-snooze-fantastic-four-review/
It’s been a tough ride for the quartet of heroes, but does director Josh Trank’s modern day reimagining of Marvel’s first team do enough to change perceptions?
Not by a long shot. Despite some excellent special effects, this yawnfest of a film that was plagued by rumours of constant behind-the-scenes tension and last-minute editing doesn’t have an ounce of originality in its short 100 minute running time.
Miles Teller (Insurgent), Kate Mara (Transcendence), Michael B. Jordan (Chronicle) and Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot) take on the roles of Reed Richards, Sue Storm, Johnny Storm and Ben Grimm respectively and are fine, if lacking in any real chemistry.
Fantastic Four is above all, an origins story as the four young adults try to crack interdimensional travel. Naturally, things don’t go quite to plan and they, alongside fellow colleague Victor Von Doom end up with an unusual set of powers – with Doom becoming the main antagonist.
Unfortunately, the plot, devised by no less than three writers is a complete bore. There is hardly anything of interest throughout the entire film as Trank pushes his cast from one underwhelming set piece to another.
When things do get tense, it’s only for a five minute scene involving Doom breaking out of a research facility. This is when we get to see what Fantastic Four could’ve been, a dark and brooding film with a disturbing villain at its core.
However, it seems this has been pushed back to make way for an unusually flat sense of humour and an uninteresting origins story. Marvel films live and die on their comedic elements and unfortunately Fantastic Four is as poor as they come.
Nevertheless, the film’s special effects are on the whole, very good. The other dimension looks fantastic and The Thing in particular is rendered using excellent motion capture animation.
An underwhelming climax wraps up a bitterly disappointing outing for the four heroes. Most superhero films end with a spectacular showdown of good versus evil but Fantastic Four has none of this. The ending is clichéd, short and has no real payoff.
Overall, expectations were already low for this reboot and despite director Josh Trank’s obvious talent for direction, this talent is nowhere to be found in Fantastic Four.
A cast that doesn’t gel together, a poor soundtrack and a lack of tonal balance ensures it will rest alongside X-Men Origins: Wolverine as proof that Marvel Studios needs the rights to all of its heroes returning to it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/09/an-absolute-snooze-fantastic-four-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Full disclosure, I grew up a huge X-Men fan. As a kid it was one of the few comics that I would try read as often as I could. I would borrow my friends books, convince my mom to buy me an issue every chance I got and like so many growing up in the early 90s, never miss a Saturday morning episode of the fantastic X-Men cartoon.
As such, I have been waiting for the films to capture the X-Men team dynamic while creating interesting fleshed out characters for the mass audiences to appreciate. I felt the franchise was headed in that direction with the last two films, X-Men: First class and X-Men: Days of Futures Past. Unfortunately, X-Men: Apocalypse takes a bit of a stumble in this department when it tries to introduce several fan favorite characters to this X-Men Universe. However it sacrifices solid character development in order to introduce them all in this one story. That’s not to say that this decision makes a bad film, it’s just that the characters are somewhat hollow and we never really connect with any of them. Not even the older characters who we already know. In the 2016 landscape of superhero/comic movies, when you have too many hollow characters the film often feels like we are just going through the motions of fan service, rather than telling a good story though film. This shallow character development makes me wish that instead of making more X-Men movies, Fox would team up with Netflix and produce an episodic series that can really dig down into the story of these characters and the missions they go on to help all of humanity…sigh…one can hope.
As for the rest of this film, it is safe to say that it is a fun popcorn adventure just in time for the summer blockbuster season. The first act suffers from a bit of pacing issues, but once the film starts to pick up steam, it becomes a full action packed adventure filled with all the mutant powers you would expect from an X-Men film. We receive excellent performances we have come to expect from James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence and the rest of the standard cast. As far as the new characters added to this film, Sophie Turner (Game of Thrones) is the stand out as Jean Gery. She delivers one of the few nuanced performances of the whole film and I look forward to her continuing to build on the roll in future X-Men films.
X-Men: Apocalypse is more of what you would expect from the X-Men series. Not terrible but not all that great either. Fans will be exited and enjoy this entry to the series while casual viewers will enjoy the blockbuster elements.
As such, I have been waiting for the films to capture the X-Men team dynamic while creating interesting fleshed out characters for the mass audiences to appreciate. I felt the franchise was headed in that direction with the last two films, X-Men: First class and X-Men: Days of Futures Past. Unfortunately, X-Men: Apocalypse takes a bit of a stumble in this department when it tries to introduce several fan favorite characters to this X-Men Universe. However it sacrifices solid character development in order to introduce them all in this one story. That’s not to say that this decision makes a bad film, it’s just that the characters are somewhat hollow and we never really connect with any of them. Not even the older characters who we already know. In the 2016 landscape of superhero/comic movies, when you have too many hollow characters the film often feels like we are just going through the motions of fan service, rather than telling a good story though film. This shallow character development makes me wish that instead of making more X-Men movies, Fox would team up with Netflix and produce an episodic series that can really dig down into the story of these characters and the missions they go on to help all of humanity…sigh…one can hope.
As for the rest of this film, it is safe to say that it is a fun popcorn adventure just in time for the summer blockbuster season. The first act suffers from a bit of pacing issues, but once the film starts to pick up steam, it becomes a full action packed adventure filled with all the mutant powers you would expect from an X-Men film. We receive excellent performances we have come to expect from James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence and the rest of the standard cast. As far as the new characters added to this film, Sophie Turner (Game of Thrones) is the stand out as Jean Gery. She delivers one of the few nuanced performances of the whole film and I look forward to her continuing to build on the roll in future X-Men films.
X-Men: Apocalypse is more of what you would expect from the X-Men series. Not terrible but not all that great either. Fans will be exited and enjoy this entry to the series while casual viewers will enjoy the blockbuster elements.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
This Phoenix Failed To Rise From It's Ashes
Dark Phoenix is a superhero movie based on the Marvel Comics X-Men and the Dark Phoenix Saga story arc. It was produced by 20th Century Fox and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The movie was written and directed by Simon Kinberg. It stars James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult, and Sophie Turner.
In 1975, Professor Charles Xavier takes 8 year-old Jean Grey to his School for Gifted Youngsters, when she inadvertently kills her parents causing a car crash with her telekinesis. In 1992, the space shuttle Endeavor is critically damaged by a solar flare and the X-Men respond to save the astronauts. While rescuing the astronauts, Jean becomes stranded as the shuttle is struck by the energy. To save the X-Men's aircraft from destruction, she absorbs all of it into her body and as a result, her psychic powers are greatly amplified when she survives. Jean spirals out of control, wrestling with her personal demons and this increasingly unstable power that begins tearing her X-Men family apart.
This movie makes me so upset as a long time Marvel fan. If you never heard of the X-Men or watched any of the movies, you could probably say this movie was good. And honestly it was "okay" when I saw it in theaters, I guess with all the bad reviews coming out I thought, wow, it could have been worse. But no, after sitting down and discussing it with my brother and him bringing up some points as well as others that I brought up to him. As well as seeing some reviews, where critics brought up A Lot of other points as well, and this movie was actually pretty bad. Now the special effects were pretty good for the most part, and the acting was good but it was really weird because I felt that so many characters were acting out of character. Or that their motivations didn't match their actions compared to how their characters should actually be. Once again the Dark Phoenix story gets butchered and doesn't come close to the greatness of the cartoon episodes let alone the comics. Stupidest part (and I'm trying really hard to not put spoilers) was from the trailer where Cyclops says the kids are calling you Phoenix. Because after that, they couldn't say that her powers were the Phoenix because it would be like some kind of weird coincidence. The villains were very boring and dull and cliche motivations, Sophie Turner's acting wasn't bad but she just didn't pull off a believable Jean Grey. And the music was good but really out of place in times. Don't even get me started on how they totally didn't take into account how the X-Men and others powers are supposed to work. I give this movie a 5/10. It's just average.
In 1975, Professor Charles Xavier takes 8 year-old Jean Grey to his School for Gifted Youngsters, when she inadvertently kills her parents causing a car crash with her telekinesis. In 1992, the space shuttle Endeavor is critically damaged by a solar flare and the X-Men respond to save the astronauts. While rescuing the astronauts, Jean becomes stranded as the shuttle is struck by the energy. To save the X-Men's aircraft from destruction, she absorbs all of it into her body and as a result, her psychic powers are greatly amplified when she survives. Jean spirals out of control, wrestling with her personal demons and this increasingly unstable power that begins tearing her X-Men family apart.
This movie makes me so upset as a long time Marvel fan. If you never heard of the X-Men or watched any of the movies, you could probably say this movie was good. And honestly it was "okay" when I saw it in theaters, I guess with all the bad reviews coming out I thought, wow, it could have been worse. But no, after sitting down and discussing it with my brother and him bringing up some points as well as others that I brought up to him. As well as seeing some reviews, where critics brought up A Lot of other points as well, and this movie was actually pretty bad. Now the special effects were pretty good for the most part, and the acting was good but it was really weird because I felt that so many characters were acting out of character. Or that their motivations didn't match their actions compared to how their characters should actually be. Once again the Dark Phoenix story gets butchered and doesn't come close to the greatness of the cartoon episodes let alone the comics. Stupidest part (and I'm trying really hard to not put spoilers) was from the trailer where Cyclops says the kids are calling you Phoenix. Because after that, they couldn't say that her powers were the Phoenix because it would be like some kind of weird coincidence. The villains were very boring and dull and cliche motivations, Sophie Turner's acting wasn't bad but she just didn't pull off a believable Jean Grey. And the music was good but really out of place in times. Don't even get me started on how they totally didn't take into account how the X-Men and others powers are supposed to work. I give this movie a 5/10. It's just average.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lost City (2022) in Movies
Jun 4, 2022
Charming...with Charismatic Leads
Like most folks, I barely gave THE LOST CITY any notice when it came and went in movie theaters earlier in 2022. This Sandra Bullock/Channing Tatum vehicle looked derivative from earlier films (most notably 1984’s ROMANCING THE STONE with Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner) and it blew in and out of theaters with hardly a notice. But…sitting on an airplane…I ran across this flick and thought I’d give it a go.
And…I’m glad I did! For THE LOST CITY is a fun, charming film with 2 charismatic lead actors that you will want to go on this adventure with.
Written by Oren Uziel, Dana Fox and Adam Nee and Directed by Adam and Aaron Nee, THE LOST CITY tells the tale of Romance Novel Writer Loretta Sage (Bullock) who gets caught up in a treasure hunt when a crazed Mega-Millionaire (played with a spry twinkle in his eye by Harry Potter himself, Daniel Radcliffe) kidnaps Loretta for she had written something in her latest novel that he thinks is a clue to find the titular LOST CITY. Coming to her rescue? Her clue-less Fabio-like Cover Model (played with charming density by Channing Tatum). What could possibly go wrong?
With that sort of premise, the rest of the story is fairly predictable and pedestrian, so the weight of the entertainment value of this film falls squarely on the shoulders of the charm, charisma and chemistry of the 2 leads - and the Direction of the Nee’s.
And…I’m surprised (and happy) to state that these all come through with flying colors making THE LOST CITY a pretty enjoyable romp.
Let’s start with Bullock and Tatum. They are really looking like they are enjoying themselves - and each other. Bullock is no stranger to playing emotionally repressed intellectuals and Tatum is no stranger to playing dumb lugs…and they both embrace these stereotypes and had fun brining these two to life. Add to this the aforementioned performance of Radcliffe as the comedic villain and an extended cameo from a very recognizable “A-List” performer - and the charm and charisma meter in this film is off the hook.
The Nees, then, play to the strengths of these performers and move the film quickly from set piece to set piece, wisely only slowing down the action to let these performers play. The Directors show a light touch to this piece - and the audience is rewarded by this.
Not the type of movie that will cause focus groups to sit around and discuss it after, but if you are looking for a fun romp, summer action/comedy flick to sit on the couch some summer afternoon/evening with a bowl of popcorn and your favorite beverage, look no further than THE LOST CITY.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And…I’m glad I did! For THE LOST CITY is a fun, charming film with 2 charismatic lead actors that you will want to go on this adventure with.
Written by Oren Uziel, Dana Fox and Adam Nee and Directed by Adam and Aaron Nee, THE LOST CITY tells the tale of Romance Novel Writer Loretta Sage (Bullock) who gets caught up in a treasure hunt when a crazed Mega-Millionaire (played with a spry twinkle in his eye by Harry Potter himself, Daniel Radcliffe) kidnaps Loretta for she had written something in her latest novel that he thinks is a clue to find the titular LOST CITY. Coming to her rescue? Her clue-less Fabio-like Cover Model (played with charming density by Channing Tatum). What could possibly go wrong?
With that sort of premise, the rest of the story is fairly predictable and pedestrian, so the weight of the entertainment value of this film falls squarely on the shoulders of the charm, charisma and chemistry of the 2 leads - and the Direction of the Nee’s.
And…I’m surprised (and happy) to state that these all come through with flying colors making THE LOST CITY a pretty enjoyable romp.
Let’s start with Bullock and Tatum. They are really looking like they are enjoying themselves - and each other. Bullock is no stranger to playing emotionally repressed intellectuals and Tatum is no stranger to playing dumb lugs…and they both embrace these stereotypes and had fun brining these two to life. Add to this the aforementioned performance of Radcliffe as the comedic villain and an extended cameo from a very recognizable “A-List” performer - and the charm and charisma meter in this film is off the hook.
The Nees, then, play to the strengths of these performers and move the film quickly from set piece to set piece, wisely only slowing down the action to let these performers play. The Directors show a light touch to this piece - and the audience is rewarded by this.
Not the type of movie that will cause focus groups to sit around and discuss it after, but if you are looking for a fun romp, summer action/comedy flick to sit on the couch some summer afternoon/evening with a bowl of popcorn and your favorite beverage, look no further than THE LOST CITY.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Free Guy (2021) in Movies
Sep 5, 2021
Wonderful - and Family Friendly!
Like most of us, when I first saw the trailer for the Ryan Reynolds comedy, FREE GUY (well over a year ago), I thought this looked like a bad “money grab” that will quickly come and go.
But after it premiered earlier this summer, buzz started to grow - and a few people that I trust recommended it to me, so I decided to check it out.
And…I’m glad I did for FREE GUY is a fun, family-friendly romp with a charismatic Ryan Reynolds anchoring a strong cast in a surprisingly heart-felt film.
Directed by Shawn Levy (NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM), Free Guy tells the story of an NPC (Non-Playable Character in a video game) that becomes sentient.
In the capable hands of Director Levy and actor Reynolds, Guy (his character) is charming, earnest and likeable - a trio of qualities that is hard to pull off, but Levy and Reynolds walk this fine line very well, making Guy a character to root for. They wisely steer away from this character becoming cloying and annoying and just keep him charming and sincere.
This is do-able because Levy and screenwriters Matt Lieberman and Zak Penn wisely choose to not make Guy the emotional center of this film, but rather, Guy is the catalyst who moves the plot (and the other characters) towards their final destinations - all the while keeping Guy (basically) the same. A very smart move that has been used in other, successful films (most notably Michael J. Fox in the BACK TO THE FUTURE FILMS).
Jodie Comer (Killing Eve) and Joe Keery (Stranger Things) are a the heart of this film as 2 video game designers that are trying to find proof that their code was stolen by a heartless Video Game mogul (broadly, comically played by Taika Waititi). Both Comer and Keery are pleasant in their roles and they play off of Waititi (and his chief henchman, played with specific focus - this is a compliment - by Utkarsh Ambudkar). Comer and Keery make it easy for the audience to root for them and Waititi and Ambdukar make it easy for the audience to root against them.
Credit for all of this goes to Director Levy. This film has the same feel as NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM. It doesn’t try to do too much, makes the motivations of the good guys and the bad guys very simple to understand and then drops in the variable (Guy) to mix things up - all done with wit, simplicity and charm - a pretty easy combination, that often gets lost in the machinations, but Levy avoids this trap very, very well.
Finally, I have to point out the performance of Lil Rel Howery as Guy’s buddy…named…Buddy. He is the perfect “Best Friend”. Again, Directed to a simple and direct performance by Levy, not trying to be more than he is, but ends up being a character you care about and root for.
A winning combination of Director, Actors and material, FREE GUY isn’t going to win any Oscars, but it is going to do something that very few films these days do - provide entertainment for the entire family.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
But after it premiered earlier this summer, buzz started to grow - and a few people that I trust recommended it to me, so I decided to check it out.
And…I’m glad I did for FREE GUY is a fun, family-friendly romp with a charismatic Ryan Reynolds anchoring a strong cast in a surprisingly heart-felt film.
Directed by Shawn Levy (NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM), Free Guy tells the story of an NPC (Non-Playable Character in a video game) that becomes sentient.
In the capable hands of Director Levy and actor Reynolds, Guy (his character) is charming, earnest and likeable - a trio of qualities that is hard to pull off, but Levy and Reynolds walk this fine line very well, making Guy a character to root for. They wisely steer away from this character becoming cloying and annoying and just keep him charming and sincere.
This is do-able because Levy and screenwriters Matt Lieberman and Zak Penn wisely choose to not make Guy the emotional center of this film, but rather, Guy is the catalyst who moves the plot (and the other characters) towards their final destinations - all the while keeping Guy (basically) the same. A very smart move that has been used in other, successful films (most notably Michael J. Fox in the BACK TO THE FUTURE FILMS).
Jodie Comer (Killing Eve) and Joe Keery (Stranger Things) are a the heart of this film as 2 video game designers that are trying to find proof that their code was stolen by a heartless Video Game mogul (broadly, comically played by Taika Waititi). Both Comer and Keery are pleasant in their roles and they play off of Waititi (and his chief henchman, played with specific focus - this is a compliment - by Utkarsh Ambudkar). Comer and Keery make it easy for the audience to root for them and Waititi and Ambdukar make it easy for the audience to root against them.
Credit for all of this goes to Director Levy. This film has the same feel as NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM. It doesn’t try to do too much, makes the motivations of the good guys and the bad guys very simple to understand and then drops in the variable (Guy) to mix things up - all done with wit, simplicity and charm - a pretty easy combination, that often gets lost in the machinations, but Levy avoids this trap very, very well.
Finally, I have to point out the performance of Lil Rel Howery as Guy’s buddy…named…Buddy. He is the perfect “Best Friend”. Again, Directed to a simple and direct performance by Levy, not trying to be more than he is, but ends up being a character you care about and root for.
A winning combination of Director, Actors and material, FREE GUY isn’t going to win any Oscars, but it is going to do something that very few films these days do - provide entertainment for the entire family.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Johnny English Strikes Again (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Spy spoof caper that’s only passably amusing.
It’s a HILARIOUS concept. It’s Bond but not as we know it: a suave, sophisticated, well-dressed hero but someone who’s a complete klutz when it comes to the spy business. Rowan Atkinson is perfect in the role: because when he plays his face ”straight” he IS strangely good-looking and certainly pulls off the air of confidence, intelligence and sophistication well.
So it was that 2003’s Johnny English was a refreshing novelty. Roll forwards 15 years (via 2011’s “Johnny English Reborn”) and the concoction needs… you know… actual JOKES.
For “Johnny English Strikes Again” is unfortunately a pretty lame affair.
The Plot
Johnny English (Atkinson) is retired from MI7 and living life as a Geography teacher at a public school. Aside from teaching them about sheep farming in Australia and magma, English delights in teaching his young pupils the tricks of the spy trade: “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight”, with a twinkle and a vodka martini in hand. “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight” repeats the class.
But the quiet life of English is about to end, since a cyber-attack has exposed all of MI7’s current agents and the Prime Minister (Emma Thompson) needs to re-hire a retired agent who is currently ‘off the grid’. But noone – friend or foe – is safe when the bumbling English and his faithful helper Bough (Ben Miller) go back into the field.
The Turns
As UK comedy professionals, Atkinson and Miller deliver their English/Bough schtick serviceably enough. The brilliant Emma Thompson though is woefully underused as a straight-woman, being asked to do little more than an exasperated Theresa May impersonation.
If you need a sexy and sophisticated femme fatale for a Bond spoof, what better than a real ex-Bond girl? So the extremely sexy and sophisticated Olga Kurylenko (Camille from “Quantum of Solace”) plays Ophelia Bhuletova, which sounds much funnier when pronounced by Atkinson. And a very good job she does too.
The Review
To emphasise the positive for a moment, the film is suitably glossy, which are table stakes for a spy caper like this or Austin Powers.
But the script by William Davies (who did the previous Johnny Englishes, but nothing much since “Reborn”) doesn’t deliver any real laugh-out-loud moments. My hopes were raised when the “pensioner interviews” happened and Charles Dance, Edward Fox and Michael Gambon turned up. Great, I thought… having the old timers play off Atkinson will be fun. But unfortunately they were nothing but cameos and (although one of the film’s comedy highlights) they came and went in the blink of an eye.
Elsewhere the film relied too much on a few running jokes: ostensibly the need for health and safety in MI7, where guns are rather frowned upon, given their potential to caused injury or worse. A ‘virtual reality’ training mission also delivers smiles but outstays its welcome.
The film is a first-time feature for TV-comedy director David Kerr.
Final thoughts
There are films which are wildly offensive. There are films that are just plain bad. This is neither: it is as Douglas Adams might have described it as “Mostly Harmless”. But to get any more than the rating I have given it, a comedy film has to make me laugh and this one failed miserably. It’s a watchable TV film for a rainy afternoon, but not worth heading out to the cinema to watch.
So it was that 2003’s Johnny English was a refreshing novelty. Roll forwards 15 years (via 2011’s “Johnny English Reborn”) and the concoction needs… you know… actual JOKES.
For “Johnny English Strikes Again” is unfortunately a pretty lame affair.
The Plot
Johnny English (Atkinson) is retired from MI7 and living life as a Geography teacher at a public school. Aside from teaching them about sheep farming in Australia and magma, English delights in teaching his young pupils the tricks of the spy trade: “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight”, with a twinkle and a vodka martini in hand. “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight” repeats the class.
But the quiet life of English is about to end, since a cyber-attack has exposed all of MI7’s current agents and the Prime Minister (Emma Thompson) needs to re-hire a retired agent who is currently ‘off the grid’. But noone – friend or foe – is safe when the bumbling English and his faithful helper Bough (Ben Miller) go back into the field.
The Turns
As UK comedy professionals, Atkinson and Miller deliver their English/Bough schtick serviceably enough. The brilliant Emma Thompson though is woefully underused as a straight-woman, being asked to do little more than an exasperated Theresa May impersonation.
If you need a sexy and sophisticated femme fatale for a Bond spoof, what better than a real ex-Bond girl? So the extremely sexy and sophisticated Olga Kurylenko (Camille from “Quantum of Solace”) plays Ophelia Bhuletova, which sounds much funnier when pronounced by Atkinson. And a very good job she does too.
The Review
To emphasise the positive for a moment, the film is suitably glossy, which are table stakes for a spy caper like this or Austin Powers.
But the script by William Davies (who did the previous Johnny Englishes, but nothing much since “Reborn”) doesn’t deliver any real laugh-out-loud moments. My hopes were raised when the “pensioner interviews” happened and Charles Dance, Edward Fox and Michael Gambon turned up. Great, I thought… having the old timers play off Atkinson will be fun. But unfortunately they were nothing but cameos and (although one of the film’s comedy highlights) they came and went in the blink of an eye.
Elsewhere the film relied too much on a few running jokes: ostensibly the need for health and safety in MI7, where guns are rather frowned upon, given their potential to caused injury or worse. A ‘virtual reality’ training mission also delivers smiles but outstays its welcome.
The film is a first-time feature for TV-comedy director David Kerr.
Final thoughts
There are films which are wildly offensive. There are films that are just plain bad. This is neither: it is as Douglas Adams might have described it as “Mostly Harmless”. But to get any more than the rating I have given it, a comedy film has to make me laugh and this one failed miserably. It’s a watchable TV film for a rainy afternoon, but not worth heading out to the cinema to watch.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Battle of the Sexes (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tennis and sex, but without the grunting.
Here’s a good test of someone’s age…. ask the question “Billie-Jean?”. Millennials will probably come back with “Huh?”; those in their 30’s or 40’s might come back with “Michael Jackson!”; those older than that will probably reply “King!”.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.