Search
Search results

Jonas Carpignano recommended Fish Tank (2010) in Movies (curated)

Erika (17789 KP) rated Peter Rabbit 2: The Runaway (2021) in Movies
Jun 15, 2021
Full disclosure, I absolutely loved the first Peter Rabbit film. I found it completely hilarious and cackled numerous times. The sequel did not make me laugh.
I typically don’t watch straight-up kid movies anymore, because they’re not funny, and they are as annoying as the kids in the audience. This movie completely reminded me of that.
The film begins with the wedding of Bea and Thomas, the rabbits and other members of McGregor’s Garden are all present. The animals are mixed in with the humans, and it looked very odd. I can’t figure out why. Bea and Thomas enter married bliss (?), running a shop in town, and tending the garden. Bea’s first Peter Rabbit book has been published by Thomas himself. Bea receives an offer from a publisher, Nigel Basil-Jones, played by David Oyelowo, to have her book republished so it can reach a wider audience. Bea begins to compromise her integrity to please Nigel and make the rabbits hipper to boost sales. Meanwhile, Peter embraces his bad boy/ mischievous image and makes friends with this super creepy rabbit from the city, participating in food heists.
The two main plotlines really didn’t make sense together and seemed to only be related because they were both about family. Yawn.
James Corden, who I can tolerate most of the time, was so completely annoying. His performance killed any motivation I had to see a possible third movie. This movie was just dumb, but I guess it probably entertained children.
There were a few positives. Oyelowo was hilarious, and one of the best parts of the film. He is the only reason I’m giving this film two-stars His comedy skills are on point and his interactions with Domhnall Gleeson were the best source of adult laughs. I also loved the voice acting of Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail. Though, I was a little bummed that Daisy Ridley did not return as Cottontail.
The recent marketing stated, “In Theaters. Finally”. I’m not sure this film should have been released in theaters, they should have released it on VOD at Easter-time either in 2020, or 2021.
I typically don’t watch straight-up kid movies anymore, because they’re not funny, and they are as annoying as the kids in the audience. This movie completely reminded me of that.
The film begins with the wedding of Bea and Thomas, the rabbits and other members of McGregor’s Garden are all present. The animals are mixed in with the humans, and it looked very odd. I can’t figure out why. Bea and Thomas enter married bliss (?), running a shop in town, and tending the garden. Bea’s first Peter Rabbit book has been published by Thomas himself. Bea receives an offer from a publisher, Nigel Basil-Jones, played by David Oyelowo, to have her book republished so it can reach a wider audience. Bea begins to compromise her integrity to please Nigel and make the rabbits hipper to boost sales. Meanwhile, Peter embraces his bad boy/ mischievous image and makes friends with this super creepy rabbit from the city, participating in food heists.
The two main plotlines really didn’t make sense together and seemed to only be related because they were both about family. Yawn.
James Corden, who I can tolerate most of the time, was so completely annoying. His performance killed any motivation I had to see a possible third movie. This movie was just dumb, but I guess it probably entertained children.
There were a few positives. Oyelowo was hilarious, and one of the best parts of the film. He is the only reason I’m giving this film two-stars His comedy skills are on point and his interactions with Domhnall Gleeson were the best source of adult laughs. I also loved the voice acting of Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail. Though, I was a little bummed that Daisy Ridley did not return as Cottontail.
The recent marketing stated, “In Theaters. Finally”. I’m not sure this film should have been released in theaters, they should have released it on VOD at Easter-time either in 2020, or 2021.

Nick McCabe recommended Halloween by John Carpenter in Music (curated)

Dave Eggers recommended The Landlord (1970) in Movies (curated)

Moby recommended Architecture & Morality by Orchestral Manoeuvres In The Dark in Music (curated)

Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Deerskin (Le Daim) (2019) in Movies
Jul 15, 2021
Anarchic concept and lots of surprises (1 more)
Dujardin and Haenel act well
Killer style… but bloody bonkers.
This French movie (with subtitles) by Quentin Dupieux is a black comedy that veers towards the violently absurd. So it certainly won't be for everyone.
Positives:
- There's an anarchy to the black comedy on show in Deerskin that's mildly exhilarating. It really IS bloody bonkers. But the absurd story, of a man spiralling into a deerskin-lined black hole, is delivered in an extremely entertaining way.
- It's all delivered with a straight face by Dujardin (famous of course as the Oscar-winner from "The Artist"). And very good he is at it too.
- Adèle Haenel was one of the two lovers in "Portrait of a Lady on Fire" (actually completed after this movie, which has been on the Covid-shelf since 2019). Here she again shows star-power as the barmaid with dreams of hitting the movie-making big-time. Every absurd twist and turn seems to be believable in her hands, once you understand that she is "into it".
Negatives:
- The anarchic story and the extreme violence will not be for everyone. There were 2 walk-outs in my cinema (about 10% of the Cineworld Unlimited audience).
- A few of the lines irritate: Georges mistakenly saying "creditor" instead of "editor" was an example.
Summary Thoughts on "Deerskin": Based on the trailer, I really wasn't sure I was going to enjoy this one. But it has a style about it that is unmistakable. I had no idea where it was going, and the denouement was surprising and satisfying.
It'll be a "marmite" film for sure - some will love it; many will hate it. I doubt there will be much middle ground for this one.
BTW, there is a mid-credits scene, a few seconds into the end credits. Doesn't add much, to be honest.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/15/deerskin-killer-style-but-bloody-bonkers/ . There's also a new Tiktok channel at @onemannsmovies. Thanks).
Positives:
- There's an anarchy to the black comedy on show in Deerskin that's mildly exhilarating. It really IS bloody bonkers. But the absurd story, of a man spiralling into a deerskin-lined black hole, is delivered in an extremely entertaining way.
- It's all delivered with a straight face by Dujardin (famous of course as the Oscar-winner from "The Artist"). And very good he is at it too.
- Adèle Haenel was one of the two lovers in "Portrait of a Lady on Fire" (actually completed after this movie, which has been on the Covid-shelf since 2019). Here she again shows star-power as the barmaid with dreams of hitting the movie-making big-time. Every absurd twist and turn seems to be believable in her hands, once you understand that she is "into it".
Negatives:
- The anarchic story and the extreme violence will not be for everyone. There were 2 walk-outs in my cinema (about 10% of the Cineworld Unlimited audience).
- A few of the lines irritate: Georges mistakenly saying "creditor" instead of "editor" was an example.
Summary Thoughts on "Deerskin": Based on the trailer, I really wasn't sure I was going to enjoy this one. But it has a style about it that is unmistakable. I had no idea where it was going, and the denouement was surprising and satisfying.
It'll be a "marmite" film for sure - some will love it; many will hate it. I doubt there will be much middle ground for this one.
BTW, there is a mid-credits scene, a few seconds into the end credits. Doesn't add much, to be honest.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/15/deerskin-killer-style-but-bloody-bonkers/ . There's also a new Tiktok channel at @onemannsmovies. Thanks).

Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Escape Room: Tournament of Champions (2021) in Movies
Jul 21, 2021
Taylor Russell - as in the first film, very watchable (1 more)
Production design of the "games"
The script is lazy, lame and insulting to the audience (1 more)
There are a load of plot holes
Totally clueless
I only gave Adam Robitel's original "Escape Room" 5/10. It was perhaps hoping for too much that his sequel - "Escape Room: Tournament of Champions" - would be better.
Positives:
- As in the first film, Taylor Russell again stands out as a personable, attractive and convincing actress. She deserves a role in something a lot better.
- The production design on the "game sets" is certainly very impressive.
Negatives:
- The fact that SIX people are down with writing credits for this astonishes me. The whole thing comes across as lazily plotted, with virtually no character development of the players. (Yes, even less than the first film.) You might think Nathan (Thomas Cocquerel) as an athletic priest might be an interesting character. I was expecting him at one point to channel the dramatic demise of Gene Hackman's similar character in "The Poseidon Adventure". But no. Nothing much is done with this.
- It's a movie where the more you think about it afterwards, the less sense it makes. Some examples:
-- People are dead, but then again - when inconvenient for the plot - dead no longer.
-- There's some bizarre "daughter kidnap" sub-plot at one point, but that's never referred to again.
-- Acid rain has no effect on a lock... until that is, the rainwater is captured and poured on the lock! Bonkers!
- There's a tragic amount of inane running around and wailing that gets mentally tiresome. You can imagine this written in the script as "Now run down the corridor and adlib some 'teenagers in peril' noises". (This is a best case guess: I'd hate to think that some of the "Quick!"s and "Hurreeeee!"'s had actually been scripted).
Summary Thoughts on "Escape Room: Tournament of Champions": I found this one to be tragically bad. A lame attempt to cash in on the bizarre $155M success of the first B-movie. My personal recommendation: Avoid!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
Positives:
- As in the first film, Taylor Russell again stands out as a personable, attractive and convincing actress. She deserves a role in something a lot better.
- The production design on the "game sets" is certainly very impressive.
Negatives:
- The fact that SIX people are down with writing credits for this astonishes me. The whole thing comes across as lazily plotted, with virtually no character development of the players. (Yes, even less than the first film.) You might think Nathan (Thomas Cocquerel) as an athletic priest might be an interesting character. I was expecting him at one point to channel the dramatic demise of Gene Hackman's similar character in "The Poseidon Adventure". But no. Nothing much is done with this.
- It's a movie where the more you think about it afterwards, the less sense it makes. Some examples:
-- People are dead, but then again - when inconvenient for the plot - dead no longer.
-- There's some bizarre "daughter kidnap" sub-plot at one point, but that's never referred to again.
-- Acid rain has no effect on a lock... until that is, the rainwater is captured and poured on the lock! Bonkers!
- There's a tragic amount of inane running around and wailing that gets mentally tiresome. You can imagine this written in the script as "Now run down the corridor and adlib some 'teenagers in peril' noises". (This is a best case guess: I'd hate to think that some of the "Quick!"s and "Hurreeeee!"'s had actually been scripted).
Summary Thoughts on "Escape Room: Tournament of Champions": I found this one to be tragically bad. A lame attempt to cash in on the bizarre $155M success of the first B-movie. My personal recommendation: Avoid!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).

Reggie Watts recommended Slacker (1991) in Movies (curated)

BookInspector (124 KP) rated The Girlfriend in Books
Sep 24, 2020
This whole story was told from three different perspectives, and I think Laura and Cherry shared the spotlight as the main characters, and Daniel was kind of supporting actor. I really enjoyed reading these different perspectives, I like to see what different characters think and how they analyze the situations. One thing was very obvious to me, that no one would be excepted into the “rich circle” with the name like Cherry. It just sounds trashy to me. I really enjoyed the unique personalities, which characters brought to this novel, as well as the complex relationships between each other. If I would have to pick my favourite in this book, I think it would be Daniel, I liked his personality and was feeling pity, that he was stuck in this crossfire.
Even though the narrative was sometimes quite repetitive to me, I enjoyed it. I liked the twists and turns which author incorporated in this novel, they made me more curious about what else the author has up her sleeve. I can easily see authors personal experience in this book. This book felt like some of the movies I saw, I think that’s where author’s knowledge of scripts and film industry comes in, as well as details of the TV serials which Laura was creating. I think that the daughter-in-law – mother-in-law relationship was quite realistic and relatable to some of the readers, I heard plenty of stories about evil mother-in-laws/ daughter-in-law.
I really enjoyed the easy flowing writing style of this novel, as well as great knowledge of London and rich people’s lifestyle. I loved the short chapters of this book, which kept me interested of what will happen next, till the last page. Even though the ending was quite predictable, I think it rounded up the story nicely and left me very satisfied with it. So, to conclude, it is a chilling thriller filled with unique characters and interesting story, which really hooked me, as I really wanted to see how this mother-in-law – daughter-in-law relationship will evolve. I really enjoyed it and I do recommend to give this book a try.
Even though the narrative was sometimes quite repetitive to me, I enjoyed it. I liked the twists and turns which author incorporated in this novel, they made me more curious about what else the author has up her sleeve. I can easily see authors personal experience in this book. This book felt like some of the movies I saw, I think that’s where author’s knowledge of scripts and film industry comes in, as well as details of the TV serials which Laura was creating. I think that the daughter-in-law – mother-in-law relationship was quite realistic and relatable to some of the readers, I heard plenty of stories about evil mother-in-laws/ daughter-in-law.
I really enjoyed the easy flowing writing style of this novel, as well as great knowledge of London and rich people’s lifestyle. I loved the short chapters of this book, which kept me interested of what will happen next, till the last page. Even though the ending was quite predictable, I think it rounded up the story nicely and left me very satisfied with it. So, to conclude, it is a chilling thriller filled with unique characters and interesting story, which really hooked me, as I really wanted to see how this mother-in-law – daughter-in-law relationship will evolve. I really enjoyed it and I do recommend to give this book a try.

LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Iron Man 3 (2013) in Movies
Sep 27, 2020
Full disclosure - I hated Iron Man 3 upon release. As a kid, growing up and reading Marvel comics, I was so excited to finally see The Mandarin bought to life, with Ben Kingsley of all people in the role. So when the Mandarin twist hit just over halfway through the runtime, it annoyed me so much that I just couldn't enjoy the rest of the film.
Fast forward a few years and I can just about look past it and find the positives in this threequel.
There's a lot less Iron Man this time around, and a lot more Tony Stark. This isn't an issue though as luckily Robert Downey Jr. is reliable as ever further proving why Iron Man has become the face of Marvel Studios.
There's also a lot of emphasis on his relationship with Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow), which is a great aspect of this movie. It really drills home how human Tony's story is, even with all the crazy tech flying around.
An issue I do have with Iron Man 3 is the villains however. Marvel Studios are still balls deep in the habit of having boring bad guys at this point, and Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) is unfortunately another underwhelming antagonist to add to the pile (although I can appreciate that Shane Black didn't resort to another evil-person-in-an-Iron-Man/hero-suit, an issue that seems to plague these movies).
I like Guy Pearce generally, and he's doing his best to ham it up, but it just lands flat and severely de-rails the film as a whole.
Ben Kingsley is great as usual. It's not his fault that the writers fucked with The Mandarin so much, and he works wonders with what he's given.
Iron Man 3 does boast some decent set pieces. Tony's home being blown to shit is a highlight, and the finale is pretty fun and aestheticly fan pleasing with the House Party Protocol. The CGI is near flawless, even 7 years later.
Overall then, not the worst of the bunch but certainly not in the top 50% (for me anyway) but still an important part of the overarching MCU narrative.
Fast forward a few years and I can just about look past it and find the positives in this threequel.
There's a lot less Iron Man this time around, and a lot more Tony Stark. This isn't an issue though as luckily Robert Downey Jr. is reliable as ever further proving why Iron Man has become the face of Marvel Studios.
There's also a lot of emphasis on his relationship with Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow), which is a great aspect of this movie. It really drills home how human Tony's story is, even with all the crazy tech flying around.
An issue I do have with Iron Man 3 is the villains however. Marvel Studios are still balls deep in the habit of having boring bad guys at this point, and Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) is unfortunately another underwhelming antagonist to add to the pile (although I can appreciate that Shane Black didn't resort to another evil-person-in-an-Iron-Man/hero-suit, an issue that seems to plague these movies).
I like Guy Pearce generally, and he's doing his best to ham it up, but it just lands flat and severely de-rails the film as a whole.
Ben Kingsley is great as usual. It's not his fault that the writers fucked with The Mandarin so much, and he works wonders with what he's given.
Iron Man 3 does boast some decent set pieces. Tony's home being blown to shit is a highlight, and the finale is pretty fun and aestheticly fan pleasing with the House Party Protocol. The CGI is near flawless, even 7 years later.
Overall then, not the worst of the bunch but certainly not in the top 50% (for me anyway) but still an important part of the overarching MCU narrative.