Search
Search results
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Forgotten Child (A Riley Thomas Mystery #1) in Books
Oct 3, 2018
Well Written Characters (1 more)
Spooky Scenes
Pointless Sex Scenes (1 more)
Cheesy Dialogue at Times
A Spooky Read
The synopsis for The Forgotten Child by Melissa Erin Jackson really drew me in. It was one of those books that I knew I had to read. I even pre-ordered the book. Luckily, I won it on a Goodreads giveaway, so I had the chance to read it before it was released.
I found the pacing to be fairly consistent for The Forgotten Child. For the most part, it was a fast paced read which I thoroughly enjoyed! There were a few times that the pacing slowed down a bit, and I was wishing for it to speed up again. However, those moments weren't very often.
The plot for The Forgotten Child has been done before, but Ms. Jackson made the story line interesting enough for me to enjoy the story. Riley, the main character, gets roped in to going to a house that has been featured on a popular ghost hunting show and known to be very haunted. It was also the site of some very brutal murders. Riley is reluctant to go due to her ability to see and interact with ghosts and because of something that happened when she was 10 years old involving a spirit. While there, she interacts with the ghost of a little boy as well as the infamous serial killer who used to live there. After getting completely freaked out by a ghostly encounter with the serial killer's ghost, she leaves early to go back home. However, the ghost boy has followed her home. She feels sorry for the little boy and vows to find out what happened to him. Finding out what happened to him won't be easy, and it will put her in grave danger. While trying to uncover the mystery of the little boy, she also is juggling her love life with her new boyfriend. I felt like there were no plot twists, but there were plenty of spooky moments! There was one point in the story where I was really regretting my decision to read The Forgotten Child late at night due to a very spooky scene! Even though this book is part of a series, there were no cliffhangers. All of my questions were answered by the end of the book which I was thankful for. I wish this focused more on Riley's abilities and on the ghostly aspect instead of Riley's relationship with Michael, but that's just a personal preference. I also could have done without the sex scenes between Riley and Michael as I felt like they didn't really fit the tone of the book. Perhaps that's just a me thing though.
The world building for The Forgotten Child was written fairly well. There were some times where I was wondering about the dialogue in the book. Some of the choices of phrases used were a bit cheesy. I hadn't heard anyone use some of the phrases used in the book ever! However, the dialogue was still very believable for the most part. I loved the way some of The Forgotten Child was set a creepy ranch in a spooky house. I do wish more of the action took place here, but I still enjoyed the book.
I enjoyed the characters in The Forgotten Child. Melissa Erin Jackson did a fantastic job in making each character feel like a real person. Not one of the characters was lacking. I found each one to be interesting. I really enjoyed the chemistry between Riley and Michael. I enjoyed their banter a lot even if I wish the book would have focused less on their physical and romantic relationship. I also enjoyed reading about Jade and Riley's friendship. You could feel how strong their friendship was. I loved how Miss Jackson wrote about Orin and Hank. I could feel the evilness of both Orin and Hank oozing from the pages! Both of them made fantastic evil characters.
Trigger warnings include a lot of swearing, violence, a few graphic (but not too graphic) sex scenes including a non-graphic rape, murder including child murder, drinking, an evil spirit, and other scenes dealing with the occult.
All in all, The Forgotten Child was a good read. I loved how spooky it was as well as how great the characters were written. I would definitely recommend The Forgotten Child by Melissa Erin Jackson to those 18+ who love a good paranormal mystery. I will definitely be reading the next book in the Riley Thomas Mystery series.
I found the pacing to be fairly consistent for The Forgotten Child. For the most part, it was a fast paced read which I thoroughly enjoyed! There were a few times that the pacing slowed down a bit, and I was wishing for it to speed up again. However, those moments weren't very often.
The plot for The Forgotten Child has been done before, but Ms. Jackson made the story line interesting enough for me to enjoy the story. Riley, the main character, gets roped in to going to a house that has been featured on a popular ghost hunting show and known to be very haunted. It was also the site of some very brutal murders. Riley is reluctant to go due to her ability to see and interact with ghosts and because of something that happened when she was 10 years old involving a spirit. While there, she interacts with the ghost of a little boy as well as the infamous serial killer who used to live there. After getting completely freaked out by a ghostly encounter with the serial killer's ghost, she leaves early to go back home. However, the ghost boy has followed her home. She feels sorry for the little boy and vows to find out what happened to him. Finding out what happened to him won't be easy, and it will put her in grave danger. While trying to uncover the mystery of the little boy, she also is juggling her love life with her new boyfriend. I felt like there were no plot twists, but there were plenty of spooky moments! There was one point in the story where I was really regretting my decision to read The Forgotten Child late at night due to a very spooky scene! Even though this book is part of a series, there were no cliffhangers. All of my questions were answered by the end of the book which I was thankful for. I wish this focused more on Riley's abilities and on the ghostly aspect instead of Riley's relationship with Michael, but that's just a personal preference. I also could have done without the sex scenes between Riley and Michael as I felt like they didn't really fit the tone of the book. Perhaps that's just a me thing though.
The world building for The Forgotten Child was written fairly well. There were some times where I was wondering about the dialogue in the book. Some of the choices of phrases used were a bit cheesy. I hadn't heard anyone use some of the phrases used in the book ever! However, the dialogue was still very believable for the most part. I loved the way some of The Forgotten Child was set a creepy ranch in a spooky house. I do wish more of the action took place here, but I still enjoyed the book.
I enjoyed the characters in The Forgotten Child. Melissa Erin Jackson did a fantastic job in making each character feel like a real person. Not one of the characters was lacking. I found each one to be interesting. I really enjoyed the chemistry between Riley and Michael. I enjoyed their banter a lot even if I wish the book would have focused less on their physical and romantic relationship. I also enjoyed reading about Jade and Riley's friendship. You could feel how strong their friendship was. I loved how Miss Jackson wrote about Orin and Hank. I could feel the evilness of both Orin and Hank oozing from the pages! Both of them made fantastic evil characters.
Trigger warnings include a lot of swearing, violence, a few graphic (but not too graphic) sex scenes including a non-graphic rape, murder including child murder, drinking, an evil spirit, and other scenes dealing with the occult.
All in all, The Forgotten Child was a good read. I loved how spooky it was as well as how great the characters were written. I would definitely recommend The Forgotten Child by Melissa Erin Jackson to those 18+ who love a good paranormal mystery. I will definitely be reading the next book in the Riley Thomas Mystery series.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Spotlight (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Greetings & Salutations Fellow Movie Fanatics!
We’ve definitely got a serious drama film for you this time around. Not for the faint of heart but
one that discusses a serious controversy that shook the foundations of the Catholic community
not only in the city of Boston but also America and the rest of the world.
Directed by Thomas McCarthy (The Station Agent, The Visitor, Up, Win Win, Million Dollar Arm,
and The Cobbler) and co-written by McCarthy and Josh Singer (The West Wing, Law &
Order:SVU) ‘Spotlight’ follows the Boston Globe’s investigation and coverage of the
Massachusetts Catholic sex abuse scandal which was brought to the public’s attention in early
2002 after nearly a year of investigation and research by the Boston Globe’s ‘Spotlight Team’
the oldest continuously running newspaper investigative group in the United States.
Starring Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, and Brian d’Arcy James, as reporters
Michael Rezendes, Walter “Robby” Robinson, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Matt Carroll, the movie
begins just after the Globe’s new editor Marty Baron’s (Liev Schreiber) arrival in Boston. At a
time when more and more people are going to the Internet to get their news the Globe is like
many other large newspapers around the country facing declining revenue and possible job
losses. What appears to be an isolated case involving one priest soon evolves into something
much bigger than one church or one diocese and the Spotlight Team sets out to uncover a
conspiracy within the church hide an epidemic of abuse which has been covered up for
decades.
To say that this scandal is horrifying to think about is an understatement. Knowing it was
covered up for so many years is even worse. I remember when I first started seeing the news
stories about it how sick it made me feel. In a day and age where the news is now more about
ratings and how many news organizations have become compromised and biased beyond
belief, the truth no matter how bad it might be is a rare thing. This film is basically a dramatic,
well written, and well acted account of the reporter’s investigation into the scandal … the
complete and true story and its scope … and bring it to the public’s attention. So that the people
would know what happened and also perhaps, help bring some sort of closure to the victims.
The film helps to put the whole scandal and its scope in perspective.
With an excellent supporting cast including Gene Amoroso, John Slattery, Liev Schreiber,
Jamey Sheridan, Stanley Tucci, Billy Crudup, Maureen Keiller, Paul Guilfoyle, Len Cariou,
Neal Huff, and Michael Cyril Creighton, ‘Spotlight’ is a film certainly worthy of mention. It shows
that sometimes even in this world of ‘instant news’ that sometimes, the most important stories
are brought to light they way they were brought to our attention before the Internet, before
computers, before satellites. By honest reporters who wanted the public to know the truth.
I’m giving this film 4 out of 5 stars. As I mentioned earlier, it puts the whole scandal in
perspective and allows you to see it theoretically from the perspective of the reporters and the
situations it sometimes places them in in their public and personal lives.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ i’d like to say Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll
see you at the movies
Review By Lauren Dove
The movie all together was slower than I thought it might be. Coming from a person that enjoys conspiracy theories, I enjoyed the movie. However, someone who is not interested in the plot line I don’t think would enjoy it.
I think the movie could have added a little more drama, in order to draw in more people. I would watch this movie when comes out on dvd, probably would not pay money to see in a movie theater. I think the facts themselves were shocking to a lot people although it wasn’t surprising for me. A large powerful group such as the church I would expect some corruption.
I feel like the plot line built up and was expecting this grand finally that never came. I was expecting this to go a lot farther than it did. It really didn’t tell us what happened to the people themselves who were found guilty. Or what was done or not done to change after all the victims came forward with all these accusations of being sexually abused by priest in the Catholic Church. I would give this movie 3 out of 5 stars.
We’ve definitely got a serious drama film for you this time around. Not for the faint of heart but
one that discusses a serious controversy that shook the foundations of the Catholic community
not only in the city of Boston but also America and the rest of the world.
Directed by Thomas McCarthy (The Station Agent, The Visitor, Up, Win Win, Million Dollar Arm,
and The Cobbler) and co-written by McCarthy and Josh Singer (The West Wing, Law &
Order:SVU) ‘Spotlight’ follows the Boston Globe’s investigation and coverage of the
Massachusetts Catholic sex abuse scandal which was brought to the public’s attention in early
2002 after nearly a year of investigation and research by the Boston Globe’s ‘Spotlight Team’
the oldest continuously running newspaper investigative group in the United States.
Starring Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, and Brian d’Arcy James, as reporters
Michael Rezendes, Walter “Robby” Robinson, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Matt Carroll, the movie
begins just after the Globe’s new editor Marty Baron’s (Liev Schreiber) arrival in Boston. At a
time when more and more people are going to the Internet to get their news the Globe is like
many other large newspapers around the country facing declining revenue and possible job
losses. What appears to be an isolated case involving one priest soon evolves into something
much bigger than one church or one diocese and the Spotlight Team sets out to uncover a
conspiracy within the church hide an epidemic of abuse which has been covered up for
decades.
To say that this scandal is horrifying to think about is an understatement. Knowing it was
covered up for so many years is even worse. I remember when I first started seeing the news
stories about it how sick it made me feel. In a day and age where the news is now more about
ratings and how many news organizations have become compromised and biased beyond
belief, the truth no matter how bad it might be is a rare thing. This film is basically a dramatic,
well written, and well acted account of the reporter’s investigation into the scandal … the
complete and true story and its scope … and bring it to the public’s attention. So that the people
would know what happened and also perhaps, help bring some sort of closure to the victims.
The film helps to put the whole scandal and its scope in perspective.
With an excellent supporting cast including Gene Amoroso, John Slattery, Liev Schreiber,
Jamey Sheridan, Stanley Tucci, Billy Crudup, Maureen Keiller, Paul Guilfoyle, Len Cariou,
Neal Huff, and Michael Cyril Creighton, ‘Spotlight’ is a film certainly worthy of mention. It shows
that sometimes even in this world of ‘instant news’ that sometimes, the most important stories
are brought to light they way they were brought to our attention before the Internet, before
computers, before satellites. By honest reporters who wanted the public to know the truth.
I’m giving this film 4 out of 5 stars. As I mentioned earlier, it puts the whole scandal in
perspective and allows you to see it theoretically from the perspective of the reporters and the
situations it sometimes places them in in their public and personal lives.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ i’d like to say Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll
see you at the movies
Review By Lauren Dove
The movie all together was slower than I thought it might be. Coming from a person that enjoys conspiracy theories, I enjoyed the movie. However, someone who is not interested in the plot line I don’t think would enjoy it.
I think the movie could have added a little more drama, in order to draw in more people. I would watch this movie when comes out on dvd, probably would not pay money to see in a movie theater. I think the facts themselves were shocking to a lot people although it wasn’t surprising for me. A large powerful group such as the church I would expect some corruption.
I feel like the plot line built up and was expecting this grand finally that never came. I was expecting this to go a lot farther than it did. It really didn’t tell us what happened to the people themselves who were found guilty. Or what was done or not done to change after all the victims came forward with all these accusations of being sexually abused by priest in the Catholic Church. I would give this movie 3 out of 5 stars.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Large and Small on screen, but just ends up middling.
So, for the first time we divided last night at the cinema. I went off to watch “Ant-Man and the Wasp” and my wife – not a Marvel fan – went to see “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again” (for the THIRD time!). Incidentally, Mamma Mia 2 seems to be the movie phenomenon of the summer, taking over from “The Greatest Showman” as the movie phenomenon of the winter. It’s been out three weeks now and the shows are still selling out, with people (mostly groups of women) being turned away at the ticket desk. I can see this one running in theatres until October, when they bring out a sing-a-long edition and it carries on running ‘til Christmas. Extraordinary.
But, let’s turn from big things to small things. In a prologue we see a young Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) torn apart as Janet miniturises herself into the “quantum realm” to save the world from nuclear disaster. But in the present day Hank thinks there might be a way to find and retrieve Janet with the help of their superhero daughter Hope (“The Wasp”, played by Evangeline Lilly). (“What the f*** have you been thinking about instead for the last 30 years while I’ve been sat here avoiding neutrons”, would be the imagined response from Janet, but we don’t go there!).
But Scott Lang (aka “Ant Man”, Paul Rudd), having also been to the quantum realm, holds a key part of the puzzle. To add to their problems, a strange ghost-like girl called Ava has her own reasons for retrieving the lost soul, but in ways that will tear Janet limb from limb. Can Hank, Hope and Scott succeed, while dodging both The Ghost, the FBI and other criminal forces intent on seizing Pym’s technology?
I must admit that I’d somewhat forgotten how “Ant Man” ended three years ago, which together with the one film missing from my Marvel-watching canon being “Captain America: Civil War” left me somewhat confused by why we start the film with our hero Lang under two-year’s house arrest. But much fun is had with Lang’s curfew and the frustration of FBI agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park) in trying to catch him breaking the rules.
For we are again at the comedic end of the Marvel universe. However the comedy is extremely uneven this time and doesn’t sit particularly well with the dramatic and emotional elements of the film. It’s certainly nowhere near the consistently funny content of the surprisingly good “Thor: Ragnarok”. Some of Rudd’s lines just smell of “trying too hard”.
Adding comedic value is Michael Peña returning here as Scott’s partner Luis. His motor-mouth routine after taking a truth drug (“not a truth drug”!) was hilarious, with the rest of the cast miming his words in flashback.
It has to be said though that there are some truly great sight-gags, to rival the Thomas the Tank Engine scenes in the first film. The expanding salt-cellar; the expanding / contracting car and building moments; and the “skateboard” scenes. But all – and I mean ALL – of these scenes were universally spoiled by the trailer, such that the reaction to them was “oh, that’s that bit then”. NEVER has there been a better case for a teaser trailer that basically said “Ant Man’s back; here’s ONE wow-factor visual”. It’s just criminal. Interestingly, re the trailer, there was also at least one scene (the “you go high, I’ll go low” one, which I thought was very funny) that didn’t make the cut I saw.
Acting wise you can’t fault the cast with Lilly just great as “The Wasp”. If I was her, I would have said “OK… I’ll do the film, but I get to keep the suit!”. That would be her age monitoring device for years to come…. “Does the zip still do up at the back? Do my impossibly pert breasts still align with these impossibly well-moulded contours?”. It’s also great to see Michael Douglas and Laurence Fishburne going head-to-head in the acting stakes. Walton Goggins again crops up as a believable bad-guy, a performance I really enjoyed, but the star turn for me in the whole film was a career-making performance by Hannah John-Kamen as Ava/The Ghost: she’s previously only had small supporting roles in “Tomb Raider” and “Ready Player One”. Looking like a Star Wars sand-person in her outfit she removes her mask to reveal a stunningly piercing gaze and great screen presence. One to watch for the future.
Directed by original “Ant Man” director Peyton Reed, it’s a perfectly entertaining watch for a summer night, but it is uneven in tone, perhaps the result of the team of five credited with the writing. Ask me in two months’ time to tell you anything about it and I will probably struggle. It’s a “meh” sort of film for me.
But, let’s turn from big things to small things. In a prologue we see a young Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) torn apart as Janet miniturises herself into the “quantum realm” to save the world from nuclear disaster. But in the present day Hank thinks there might be a way to find and retrieve Janet with the help of their superhero daughter Hope (“The Wasp”, played by Evangeline Lilly). (“What the f*** have you been thinking about instead for the last 30 years while I’ve been sat here avoiding neutrons”, would be the imagined response from Janet, but we don’t go there!).
But Scott Lang (aka “Ant Man”, Paul Rudd), having also been to the quantum realm, holds a key part of the puzzle. To add to their problems, a strange ghost-like girl called Ava has her own reasons for retrieving the lost soul, but in ways that will tear Janet limb from limb. Can Hank, Hope and Scott succeed, while dodging both The Ghost, the FBI and other criminal forces intent on seizing Pym’s technology?
I must admit that I’d somewhat forgotten how “Ant Man” ended three years ago, which together with the one film missing from my Marvel-watching canon being “Captain America: Civil War” left me somewhat confused by why we start the film with our hero Lang under two-year’s house arrest. But much fun is had with Lang’s curfew and the frustration of FBI agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park) in trying to catch him breaking the rules.
For we are again at the comedic end of the Marvel universe. However the comedy is extremely uneven this time and doesn’t sit particularly well with the dramatic and emotional elements of the film. It’s certainly nowhere near the consistently funny content of the surprisingly good “Thor: Ragnarok”. Some of Rudd’s lines just smell of “trying too hard”.
Adding comedic value is Michael Peña returning here as Scott’s partner Luis. His motor-mouth routine after taking a truth drug (“not a truth drug”!) was hilarious, with the rest of the cast miming his words in flashback.
It has to be said though that there are some truly great sight-gags, to rival the Thomas the Tank Engine scenes in the first film. The expanding salt-cellar; the expanding / contracting car and building moments; and the “skateboard” scenes. But all – and I mean ALL – of these scenes were universally spoiled by the trailer, such that the reaction to them was “oh, that’s that bit then”. NEVER has there been a better case for a teaser trailer that basically said “Ant Man’s back; here’s ONE wow-factor visual”. It’s just criminal. Interestingly, re the trailer, there was also at least one scene (the “you go high, I’ll go low” one, which I thought was very funny) that didn’t make the cut I saw.
Acting wise you can’t fault the cast with Lilly just great as “The Wasp”. If I was her, I would have said “OK… I’ll do the film, but I get to keep the suit!”. That would be her age monitoring device for years to come…. “Does the zip still do up at the back? Do my impossibly pert breasts still align with these impossibly well-moulded contours?”. It’s also great to see Michael Douglas and Laurence Fishburne going head-to-head in the acting stakes. Walton Goggins again crops up as a believable bad-guy, a performance I really enjoyed, but the star turn for me in the whole film was a career-making performance by Hannah John-Kamen as Ava/The Ghost: she’s previously only had small supporting roles in “Tomb Raider” and “Ready Player One”. Looking like a Star Wars sand-person in her outfit she removes her mask to reveal a stunningly piercing gaze and great screen presence. One to watch for the future.
Directed by original “Ant Man” director Peyton Reed, it’s a perfectly entertaining watch for a summer night, but it is uneven in tone, perhaps the result of the team of five credited with the writing. Ask me in two months’ time to tell you anything about it and I will probably struggle. It’s a “meh” sort of film for me.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Miami Vice (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In 1984 a show arrived on NBC that instantly became a media sensation and set new standards for television dramas, as well as for music and fashion as it soon became a cultural icon.
The show was Miami Vice, and up until the final episode in 1989, legions of viewers tuned in every Friday night for a heady mix of action, music, color, and sex making series stars Philip Michael Thomas and Don Johnson some of the most identified and emulated celebrities in the world.
As time passed, the fickle television audience cooled on the show and it passed to television history, but not before leaving an indelible mark upon pop culture as to this day, the mere mention of the show unleashes a flood of memories and images from fans the world over.
Now close to two decades after the show went off the air, the creative talent behind the show, Michael Mann, has unleashed a cinematic version of his hit series, and it has arrived awash in the trademark neon colors, action, and style that made the series such a hit.
This time out, Oscar winner Jaime Foxx and Colin Farrell are Tubs and Crockett respectively, and they soon find themselves deep undercover posing as drug runners while trying to get to the bottom of a leak inside one of the law enforcement agencies. As troublesome as the leak, is, the fact that leaked information caused the deaths of undercover agents, by suspected white supremacists armed with the latest in high tech weaponry.
The deadly game of cloak and dagger unfolds as Tubbs and Crockett find themselves deep into a major criminal organization, and to add to the tension, Crockett finds himself drawn to an attractive member of the organization (Li Gong), who “belongs” to the head of the criminal plot.
As the plot unfolds, the danger of being discovered as well as becoming lost in the parts they are playing becomes a growing danger for Tubbs and Crockett, as they not only battle to keep their cover, but to stay alive and protect those closest to them.
The film has a plot that is a bit muddled at first, but like the world in which Tubbs and Crockett find themselves, there are not always clearly defines parameters as well as individuals. As simplistic as the basic plot may seem, the varying layers of characters, locales, and motivations keeps Miami Vice, a changing mystery, yet one that is lacking tension and deep drama.
The first hour of the film plods along with plenty of sex and setup, but surprisingly little action. I noted that there were five scenes of sex, and at least two more implied sex scenes before one of the lead characters even fired a weapon, which surprisingly came at 1 Hour and 40 minutes into the film.
While the film may take a while to get to the action, when it does come, it is surprisingly effective without falling victim to the usual Hollywood Traps of numerous gigantic explosions, car chases, stunts, and an abundance of C.G.I.
The violence in the film is also very graphic as there are numerous headshots, as well as splatter moments and gaping exit wounds. Despite this, it does not seem gratuitous but rather realistic as it portrays the brutality of the characters as well as the world in which they live and work.
The surprisingly effective finale confrontation satisfies and like any good director, Mann knows when to pull back, and when to go full out, without letting the action dominate the characters and the story.
Farrell and Foxx do a solid job with their characters without having the luxury of a deep back story. Mann’s script takes the approach that the viewers will know the characters and their history and omits things like Crockett’s ex wife, son, houseboat and pet alligator Elvis.
While this may seem trivial for a film that is over two hours in length, it does provide viewers with a better understanding of the characters and their actions and motivations, which I hope will be fully explored should a second film in the series be made.
That being said, despite the long setup, and a somewhat muddles plot, Miami Vice is a stylish and refreshing film, that should entertain fans of the original show.
The show was Miami Vice, and up until the final episode in 1989, legions of viewers tuned in every Friday night for a heady mix of action, music, color, and sex making series stars Philip Michael Thomas and Don Johnson some of the most identified and emulated celebrities in the world.
As time passed, the fickle television audience cooled on the show and it passed to television history, but not before leaving an indelible mark upon pop culture as to this day, the mere mention of the show unleashes a flood of memories and images from fans the world over.
Now close to two decades after the show went off the air, the creative talent behind the show, Michael Mann, has unleashed a cinematic version of his hit series, and it has arrived awash in the trademark neon colors, action, and style that made the series such a hit.
This time out, Oscar winner Jaime Foxx and Colin Farrell are Tubs and Crockett respectively, and they soon find themselves deep undercover posing as drug runners while trying to get to the bottom of a leak inside one of the law enforcement agencies. As troublesome as the leak, is, the fact that leaked information caused the deaths of undercover agents, by suspected white supremacists armed with the latest in high tech weaponry.
The deadly game of cloak and dagger unfolds as Tubbs and Crockett find themselves deep into a major criminal organization, and to add to the tension, Crockett finds himself drawn to an attractive member of the organization (Li Gong), who “belongs” to the head of the criminal plot.
As the plot unfolds, the danger of being discovered as well as becoming lost in the parts they are playing becomes a growing danger for Tubbs and Crockett, as they not only battle to keep their cover, but to stay alive and protect those closest to them.
The film has a plot that is a bit muddled at first, but like the world in which Tubbs and Crockett find themselves, there are not always clearly defines parameters as well as individuals. As simplistic as the basic plot may seem, the varying layers of characters, locales, and motivations keeps Miami Vice, a changing mystery, yet one that is lacking tension and deep drama.
The first hour of the film plods along with plenty of sex and setup, but surprisingly little action. I noted that there were five scenes of sex, and at least two more implied sex scenes before one of the lead characters even fired a weapon, which surprisingly came at 1 Hour and 40 minutes into the film.
While the film may take a while to get to the action, when it does come, it is surprisingly effective without falling victim to the usual Hollywood Traps of numerous gigantic explosions, car chases, stunts, and an abundance of C.G.I.
The violence in the film is also very graphic as there are numerous headshots, as well as splatter moments and gaping exit wounds. Despite this, it does not seem gratuitous but rather realistic as it portrays the brutality of the characters as well as the world in which they live and work.
The surprisingly effective finale confrontation satisfies and like any good director, Mann knows when to pull back, and when to go full out, without letting the action dominate the characters and the story.
Farrell and Foxx do a solid job with their characters without having the luxury of a deep back story. Mann’s script takes the approach that the viewers will know the characters and their history and omits things like Crockett’s ex wife, son, houseboat and pet alligator Elvis.
While this may seem trivial for a film that is over two hours in length, it does provide viewers with a better understanding of the characters and their actions and motivations, which I hope will be fully explored should a second film in the series be made.
That being said, despite the long setup, and a somewhat muddles plot, Miami Vice is a stylish and refreshing film, that should entertain fans of the original show.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Gosford Park (2001) in Movies
Mar 24, 2020
Underneath it all...and Altman film
Do you like DOWNTON ABBEY? Do you like Agatha Christie Murder Mysteries? Do you like the 1970's British television series UPSTAIRS DOWNSTAIRS? If your answer to any of these questions is yes, then do I have a film for you.
GOSFORD PARK is an English Murder Mystery, set in the 1920's, featuring an All Star Cast, Directed by a 7 time Oscar nominee. It received critical acclaim in the year it was released (2001), earned 7 Oscar nominations (including Best Picture) and won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay (Julian Fellowes...who would go on to create/write DOWNTON ABBEY).
Set in an English Country Manor, overseen by overbearing Lord William McCordle (Michael Gambon, the 2nd Albus Dumbledore in the Harry Potter films), GOSFORD PARK tells of the trials, tribulations, loves and death (yes, there's a murder) of a host of characters both Upstairs (the wealthy) and Downstairs (the servants).
And what a cast it is! Kristin Scott Thomas, Maggie Smith, Charles Dance, Jeremy Northam, Tom Hollander and Bob Balaban lead the group of the wealthy, while Helen Mirren, Alan Bates, Clive Owen, Kelly MacDonald, Eileen Atkins and Emily Watson head up the cast of servants below the stairs.
Both Maggie Smith and Helen Mirren were nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for their work in this film (both losing to Jennifer Connelly for A BEAUTIFUL MIND).
Directed by Robert Altman (M*A*S*H, NASHVILLE), GOSFORD PARK is much of what you would expect from an Altman film...many, many people living their lives, sometimes intersecting with others, often times just going off on their own, tied together by the circumstances of being in this giant manor house on a weekend of a murder.
It is an ambitious, "Oscar bait" film that succeeds for the most part. And, if you are into the costumes, sets, Interior Design and intimate scenes of people talking, then you will be richly rewarded by this film.
I loved this film when it first came out and was anxiously looking forward to re-visiting it.
While I still liked it during this viewing, I did find the pacing to be languid and I started finding myself being frustrated by threads and character direction that just sort of petered out or ended all together with no real resolution. I know this was on purpose, for Altman would argue that this is what happens in real life, but I found this frustrating.
But this film has much, much going for it and if you haven't seen this - or haven't seen this in awhile - and are a fan of these types of films, then GOSFORD PARK will be a very rewarding 2 hours and 11 minutes of a movie going experience.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
GOSFORD PARK is an English Murder Mystery, set in the 1920's, featuring an All Star Cast, Directed by a 7 time Oscar nominee. It received critical acclaim in the year it was released (2001), earned 7 Oscar nominations (including Best Picture) and won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay (Julian Fellowes...who would go on to create/write DOWNTON ABBEY).
Set in an English Country Manor, overseen by overbearing Lord William McCordle (Michael Gambon, the 2nd Albus Dumbledore in the Harry Potter films), GOSFORD PARK tells of the trials, tribulations, loves and death (yes, there's a murder) of a host of characters both Upstairs (the wealthy) and Downstairs (the servants).
And what a cast it is! Kristin Scott Thomas, Maggie Smith, Charles Dance, Jeremy Northam, Tom Hollander and Bob Balaban lead the group of the wealthy, while Helen Mirren, Alan Bates, Clive Owen, Kelly MacDonald, Eileen Atkins and Emily Watson head up the cast of servants below the stairs.
Both Maggie Smith and Helen Mirren were nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for their work in this film (both losing to Jennifer Connelly for A BEAUTIFUL MIND).
Directed by Robert Altman (M*A*S*H, NASHVILLE), GOSFORD PARK is much of what you would expect from an Altman film...many, many people living their lives, sometimes intersecting with others, often times just going off on their own, tied together by the circumstances of being in this giant manor house on a weekend of a murder.
It is an ambitious, "Oscar bait" film that succeeds for the most part. And, if you are into the costumes, sets, Interior Design and intimate scenes of people talking, then you will be richly rewarded by this film.
I loved this film when it first came out and was anxiously looking forward to re-visiting it.
While I still liked it during this viewing, I did find the pacing to be languid and I started finding myself being frustrated by threads and character direction that just sort of petered out or ended all together with no real resolution. I know this was on purpose, for Altman would argue that this is what happens in real life, but I found this frustrating.
But this film has much, much going for it and if you haven't seen this - or haven't seen this in awhile - and are a fan of these types of films, then GOSFORD PARK will be a very rewarding 2 hours and 11 minutes of a movie going experience.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Rum Diary (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
For those unfamiliar with Hunter S. Thompson’s work (as I am), you may not recognize that this movie is based on his book of the same title, first published in 1998. Hunter S. Thompson is the same author who gave us the novel for which the film Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was based on.
The Rum Diary follows Paul Kemp (played by Johnny Depp), a failed novelist turn journalist, who finds himself at a critical turning point in his life. Having written two and a half novels that were never published, he was having trouble finding his voice, in that he needed to find a way to “write like him” as Paul put it himself. So he decides to do some freelance writing for a small publication located in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1960.
The movie opens with Kemp waking up in a hotel, and you can immediately, and clearly, see that he partakes in certain pleasures of life. After reporting to work at San Juan Star, Kemp meets Sala (played by Michael Rispoli), the photographer for the Star who quickly becomes his cohort. The editor-in-chief of the San Juan Star, Lotterman (played by Richard Jenkins) indicates to Kemp that the publication is only a few months away from being closed down, and that there really isn’t much to look forward to. He assigns Kemp to do some fluff pieces and the horoscope section of the paper.
Kemp is not content with this as he is looking at this experience as a way to put his career back on track. Over the next few days, during his adventures with Sala, he comes across a few different story ideas that are immediately shot down by Lotterman, as they emphasize the things that are wrong with San Juan, and Lotterman feels that the focus should be on the good things (like bowling alleys).
During one of his nights of boozing, he meets Chenault (played by Amber Heard). She’s aloof, mysterious, and of course… Kemp falls immediately in love with her. She just happens to be the girlfriend of Sanderson (played by Aaron Eckhart). Sanderson immediately recognizes the talents that Kemp has and begins recruiting him for a real estate scam. The idea is to get a foothold and build a new hotel on a private island that is used for United States military testing, but will soon be relinquished from that purpose. Sanderson and a group of investors want Kemp to put a brilliant positive spin on the hotel investment so that the public opinion, and that of those in a position to block the development, is a positive one.
Things begin to unravel as Kemp and Sala’s shenanigans keep getting them into trouble, culminating in a heated night where Kemp, Sala, Chenault and Sanderson end up at a bar during the St. Thomas Carnival.
The Rum Diary was highly entertaining with a great supporting cast. Giovani Ribisi provides an excellent distraction from some of the more serious events of the movie as he appears every now and then as Moburg, another reporter for the San Juan Star. The movie played like a great alcohol-induced, drug-fueled adventures of a journalist in the 1960s. Definitely some quirky moments, and you will find yourself laughing at many of Kemp and Sala’s exploits.
My only gripe with the movie is how it ended. The build up to Kemp printing the story and putting it out there leaves you wanting more. While I don’t think the film will reach the same cult-status that Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas will, it is definitely entertaining (all the way until the end). It is a good nod to Thompson and fans of his books and movie adaptations are sure to enjoy.
The Rum Diary follows Paul Kemp (played by Johnny Depp), a failed novelist turn journalist, who finds himself at a critical turning point in his life. Having written two and a half novels that were never published, he was having trouble finding his voice, in that he needed to find a way to “write like him” as Paul put it himself. So he decides to do some freelance writing for a small publication located in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1960.
The movie opens with Kemp waking up in a hotel, and you can immediately, and clearly, see that he partakes in certain pleasures of life. After reporting to work at San Juan Star, Kemp meets Sala (played by Michael Rispoli), the photographer for the Star who quickly becomes his cohort. The editor-in-chief of the San Juan Star, Lotterman (played by Richard Jenkins) indicates to Kemp that the publication is only a few months away from being closed down, and that there really isn’t much to look forward to. He assigns Kemp to do some fluff pieces and the horoscope section of the paper.
Kemp is not content with this as he is looking at this experience as a way to put his career back on track. Over the next few days, during his adventures with Sala, he comes across a few different story ideas that are immediately shot down by Lotterman, as they emphasize the things that are wrong with San Juan, and Lotterman feels that the focus should be on the good things (like bowling alleys).
During one of his nights of boozing, he meets Chenault (played by Amber Heard). She’s aloof, mysterious, and of course… Kemp falls immediately in love with her. She just happens to be the girlfriend of Sanderson (played by Aaron Eckhart). Sanderson immediately recognizes the talents that Kemp has and begins recruiting him for a real estate scam. The idea is to get a foothold and build a new hotel on a private island that is used for United States military testing, but will soon be relinquished from that purpose. Sanderson and a group of investors want Kemp to put a brilliant positive spin on the hotel investment so that the public opinion, and that of those in a position to block the development, is a positive one.
Things begin to unravel as Kemp and Sala’s shenanigans keep getting them into trouble, culminating in a heated night where Kemp, Sala, Chenault and Sanderson end up at a bar during the St. Thomas Carnival.
The Rum Diary was highly entertaining with a great supporting cast. Giovani Ribisi provides an excellent distraction from some of the more serious events of the movie as he appears every now and then as Moburg, another reporter for the San Juan Star. The movie played like a great alcohol-induced, drug-fueled adventures of a journalist in the 1960s. Definitely some quirky moments, and you will find yourself laughing at many of Kemp and Sala’s exploits.
My only gripe with the movie is how it ended. The build up to Kemp printing the story and putting it out there leaves you wanting more. While I don’t think the film will reach the same cult-status that Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas will, it is definitely entertaining (all the way until the end). It is a good nod to Thompson and fans of his books and movie adaptations are sure to enjoy.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Mist (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In 1987, I picked up a copy of the new Stephen King novel, Skeleton Crew, a collection of short stories that were amongst the best short stories the author has ever written. The first story in the collection was a novella entitled The Mist and I was captivated by the engrossing stories, characters, and supernatural situations depicted.
As I moved on to other books and films, I never forgot the impact of the story, and for years wondered why nobody had attempted to bring the story to the screen. A few years later, I heard rumblings of an attempt to make a film version of the story with Michael J. Fox being listed as the intended lead.
While this never came to be, Frank Darabont who masterfully adapted King’s “The Green Mile” and “The Shawshank Redemption”, into solid films, took up the task of writing and directing “The Mist” and has done a solid job of translating the master story for the screen.
The film stars Thomas Jane as David Drayton, a movie poster artist who lives in a quiet Maine town in a nice house overlooking the water with his wife and son Billy (Nathan Gamble). The morning after a freak storm lays waste to the surrounding area, Frank and Billy set out for the store with their estranged neighbor Brent Norton (Andre Braugher).
When they arrive at the store, they find it packed with people who are trying to stock up on supplies following the storm. With the power, phones, and cell service being out, and military forces being deployed all around them, the town is in a state of chaos.
A man marked with blood suddenly emerges from an expanding mist that has formed over the town and claims that something in this mist has taken his friend. This event is punctuated with a warning siren that has started to sound, which leads the people in the store to lock the doors and seek shelter in the store.
Frank attempts to tell the people that there was something scraping against the back loading door, but his concerns are ignored with tragic results. Since this event was witnessed by only a small group of people, the residents trapped in the store quickly give in to their fears and star to accuse Frank of fabricating the situation, and locale crackpot Mrs. Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden), and blames their situation on Judgment Day and starts to convert people to her radical beliefs.
Things get even worse when creatures from the mist get into the store and attack the people which forces Frank and company to take a risky trip to the neighboring drug store in an attempt to gain much needed medical supplies.
In short order the situation gets even worse as Frank and his supporters are faced to contend not only with the creatures in the mist, but the growing threat from Mrs. Carmody and her fanatics who have adapted a mob mentality towards anyone they think is a non-believer.
What follows is a thrilling series of events that leads to one of the most shocking and memorable finale acts that will stay with you long after the film has ended.
There has been much made of the decision to add a proper ending to the story instead of the nebulous ending in the story where nothing was truly resolved. I think this decision was wise, as being a fan of the story; I was a bit frustrated that there was not final outcome in the story and I was left with more questions than answers when the story ended.
Darabont has crafted a finale that is sure to upset some people and please others, but credit has to be given for crafting an ending that does not take the standard Hollywood outs.
The cast is strong, and the FX and Gore are restrained to the point that they do not overshadow what is essentially a drama about people in an extra-ordinary situation, and what happens when the rules and creature comforts of society collapse.
While the film will not break new ground in the horror genre, it is one of the best adaptation of a King story, and is very entertaining.
As I moved on to other books and films, I never forgot the impact of the story, and for years wondered why nobody had attempted to bring the story to the screen. A few years later, I heard rumblings of an attempt to make a film version of the story with Michael J. Fox being listed as the intended lead.
While this never came to be, Frank Darabont who masterfully adapted King’s “The Green Mile” and “The Shawshank Redemption”, into solid films, took up the task of writing and directing “The Mist” and has done a solid job of translating the master story for the screen.
The film stars Thomas Jane as David Drayton, a movie poster artist who lives in a quiet Maine town in a nice house overlooking the water with his wife and son Billy (Nathan Gamble). The morning after a freak storm lays waste to the surrounding area, Frank and Billy set out for the store with their estranged neighbor Brent Norton (Andre Braugher).
When they arrive at the store, they find it packed with people who are trying to stock up on supplies following the storm. With the power, phones, and cell service being out, and military forces being deployed all around them, the town is in a state of chaos.
A man marked with blood suddenly emerges from an expanding mist that has formed over the town and claims that something in this mist has taken his friend. This event is punctuated with a warning siren that has started to sound, which leads the people in the store to lock the doors and seek shelter in the store.
Frank attempts to tell the people that there was something scraping against the back loading door, but his concerns are ignored with tragic results. Since this event was witnessed by only a small group of people, the residents trapped in the store quickly give in to their fears and star to accuse Frank of fabricating the situation, and locale crackpot Mrs. Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden), and blames their situation on Judgment Day and starts to convert people to her radical beliefs.
Things get even worse when creatures from the mist get into the store and attack the people which forces Frank and company to take a risky trip to the neighboring drug store in an attempt to gain much needed medical supplies.
In short order the situation gets even worse as Frank and his supporters are faced to contend not only with the creatures in the mist, but the growing threat from Mrs. Carmody and her fanatics who have adapted a mob mentality towards anyone they think is a non-believer.
What follows is a thrilling series of events that leads to one of the most shocking and memorable finale acts that will stay with you long after the film has ended.
There has been much made of the decision to add a proper ending to the story instead of the nebulous ending in the story where nothing was truly resolved. I think this decision was wise, as being a fan of the story; I was a bit frustrated that there was not final outcome in the story and I was left with more questions than answers when the story ended.
Darabont has crafted a finale that is sure to upset some people and please others, but credit has to be given for crafting an ending that does not take the standard Hollywood outs.
The cast is strong, and the FX and Gore are restrained to the point that they do not overshadow what is essentially a drama about people in an extra-ordinary situation, and what happens when the rules and creature comforts of society collapse.
While the film will not break new ground in the horror genre, it is one of the best adaptation of a King story, and is very entertaining.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Feb 23, 2020
A complete mess, but kids will probably love it.
With the words of Mark Kermode's review ringing in my ears ("It's shockingly poor... and that's the same in any language") I was bracing myself when I went to see this latest incarnation of Hugh Lofting's famous animal-chatting character. And I have to agree that it is a shocking mess of a film, given $175 million was poured into this thing. But, and I say this cautiously without first-hand empirical evidence, I *think* this is a movie that kids in the 6 to 10 age range might fall in love with.
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
