Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ghostbusters (1984) in Movies
Oct 30, 2020
A Comedy Classic
My daughter was flipping channels the other day and ran across the great 1984 Supernatural comedy GHOSTBUSTERS and stopped to watch for awhile. As happens with her generation, she eventually got more interested in her phone and friends and wandered away. Me? I was drawn back into this film so much so that I went downstairs, grabbed the DVD (yes, kids, I still own DVDs) and popped the film into my Home Theater System to give it a proper viewing.
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Lost At Christmas (2020) in Movies
Nov 23, 2020
'Tis the season for Christmas cliche and Lost At Christmas certainly fits the bill... but stay tuned for a "pleasant" surprise?
When life changes very suddenly for two strangers they need to make their way back to their normal lives, but it's Christmas, and the simple journey home becomes something of an epic adventure across the Scottish Highlands.
I have realised that many years ago I found myself in a very similar situation to the one in this film, though thankfully I wasn't the one travelling anywhere. I have never really considered how difficult it might be to do this sort of journey... I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't do what this duo do... but you never know! So quite how believable this scenario is I can't say, but it does allow for the expected drama.
There's a great Doctor Who contingent in the cast and I loved Sylvester McCoy and Frazer Hines as Ernie and Frank. They're a fantastic little double act and McCoy definitely helped areas of the film that struggled. Jen, played by Natalie Clark, was quite a likeable character and I enjoyed the performance, but it was difficult to get anything more out of it once she was paired with our leading man. Rob, played by Kenny Boyle, was the chalk to Jen's cheese, he's gruff and mean but doesn't really have the redeemable qualities these characters have in reserve that make you root for them at the end of the film, coupled with the bland performance I found myself hoping that another stray singleton was going to appear and sweep Jen off her feet.
In my notes I tried to do some maths... maths in a film review?! I know! It baffled me too. There felt like discrepancies in Rob's timeline with his girlfriend when you compare their initial interaction and his reveal to Jen later on. It may just be me overthinking it, but when it came up my reaction was confusion, these things are easily foiled by vagueness but... *shrug*.
There's some beautiful scenery involved throughout the film but when you mix it with the obligatory Christmas film shenanigans you're not getting to enjoy a lot of it. Even its use in the opening titles wasn't great. The main backdrop of the pub is fun, though there are some issues with the use of space. Some shots make it seem expansive and some claustrophobic, and there's one shot in particular that made me audibly groan. Nearly everyone is in it, adults talking, teens (about four foot away from the rest of the cast) kissing... no... no kissing teens are putting themselves in that position, especially not these two. There would have been plenty of opportunity to have them in the back of this shot had the camera had a different angle.
The thing I think we should acknowledge about this film though is that it has some balls. Whenever I discuss romcoms and Christmas movies there are always a handful of scenarios that make me say "wouldn't it be great if these films did [insert realistic scenario here]?" Lost At Christmas went for it! Yeah... so it turns out... I want the cliche! Real-life sucks and actually, I'd rather bitch about things being unrealistic than see something that is much more likely to happen. Well done for doing it, but to quote my notes... "F*** THIS FILM!"
Lost At Christmas has so much potential in it. Let's take a look at my scale... You have bad Christmas films, very few fall into this category because they usually drop down so far that they get pushed back up the scale to "so bad they're good". Right next to "so bad they're good" is a general level for Hallmark-esque schmaltz (NOTE: this isn't to say that Hallmark movies won't break out into other areas, this is just a general descriptor for films that are pretty consistent in their watchability and themes... AKA: quality Sunday holiday fodder.) Then of course we have the Christmas classic level, that holds things like Home Alone, Klaus, Love Actually and Die Hard. Lost At Christmas is somewhere in the snowdrift between bad and schmaltz. With a bit more glitz and a few changes I could easily see this film being a hop, skip and a jump over the other side of Hallmark schmaltz as something you don't just watch because it started on the TV and you can't change the channel because you're holding down wrapping paper with one hand and have a spiral of sellotape in the other.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/lost-at-christmas-movie-review.html
When life changes very suddenly for two strangers they need to make their way back to their normal lives, but it's Christmas, and the simple journey home becomes something of an epic adventure across the Scottish Highlands.
I have realised that many years ago I found myself in a very similar situation to the one in this film, though thankfully I wasn't the one travelling anywhere. I have never really considered how difficult it might be to do this sort of journey... I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't do what this duo do... but you never know! So quite how believable this scenario is I can't say, but it does allow for the expected drama.
There's a great Doctor Who contingent in the cast and I loved Sylvester McCoy and Frazer Hines as Ernie and Frank. They're a fantastic little double act and McCoy definitely helped areas of the film that struggled. Jen, played by Natalie Clark, was quite a likeable character and I enjoyed the performance, but it was difficult to get anything more out of it once she was paired with our leading man. Rob, played by Kenny Boyle, was the chalk to Jen's cheese, he's gruff and mean but doesn't really have the redeemable qualities these characters have in reserve that make you root for them at the end of the film, coupled with the bland performance I found myself hoping that another stray singleton was going to appear and sweep Jen off her feet.
In my notes I tried to do some maths... maths in a film review?! I know! It baffled me too. There felt like discrepancies in Rob's timeline with his girlfriend when you compare their initial interaction and his reveal to Jen later on. It may just be me overthinking it, but when it came up my reaction was confusion, these things are easily foiled by vagueness but... *shrug*.
There's some beautiful scenery involved throughout the film but when you mix it with the obligatory Christmas film shenanigans you're not getting to enjoy a lot of it. Even its use in the opening titles wasn't great. The main backdrop of the pub is fun, though there are some issues with the use of space. Some shots make it seem expansive and some claustrophobic, and there's one shot in particular that made me audibly groan. Nearly everyone is in it, adults talking, teens (about four foot away from the rest of the cast) kissing... no... no kissing teens are putting themselves in that position, especially not these two. There would have been plenty of opportunity to have them in the back of this shot had the camera had a different angle.
The thing I think we should acknowledge about this film though is that it has some balls. Whenever I discuss romcoms and Christmas movies there are always a handful of scenarios that make me say "wouldn't it be great if these films did [insert realistic scenario here]?" Lost At Christmas went for it! Yeah... so it turns out... I want the cliche! Real-life sucks and actually, I'd rather bitch about things being unrealistic than see something that is much more likely to happen. Well done for doing it, but to quote my notes... "F*** THIS FILM!"
Lost At Christmas has so much potential in it. Let's take a look at my scale... You have bad Christmas films, very few fall into this category because they usually drop down so far that they get pushed back up the scale to "so bad they're good". Right next to "so bad they're good" is a general level for Hallmark-esque schmaltz (NOTE: this isn't to say that Hallmark movies won't break out into other areas, this is just a general descriptor for films that are pretty consistent in their watchability and themes... AKA: quality Sunday holiday fodder.) Then of course we have the Christmas classic level, that holds things like Home Alone, Klaus, Love Actually and Die Hard. Lost At Christmas is somewhere in the snowdrift between bad and schmaltz. With a bit more glitz and a few changes I could easily see this film being a hop, skip and a jump over the other side of Hallmark schmaltz as something you don't just watch because it started on the TV and you can't change the channel because you're holding down wrapping paper with one hand and have a spiral of sellotape in the other.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/lost-at-christmas-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nomadland (2020) in Movies
May 5, 2021
Frances McDormand - outstanding acting (2 more)
Cinematography
A novel slice of American alternative lifestyle
Don't exit with your sail-boat still in the driveway
"Nomadland" sees a widowed and depressed Fern (Frances McDormand) take what she needs from her lockup garage and head out on the road in her beat-up converted camper-van. Taking work wherever she can get it, she joins and befriends a similar set of 'nomads', all equally battered by life in different ways.
Positives:
- Undeniably a superior motion picture, full of memorable imagery and with an incredible central performance from the impeccably dour Frances McDormand. Few actors can 'listen' and react as well as she can.
- A key part of this is the superb cinematography from (Brit-born) Joshua James Richards. This is a movie which I MUST revisit on the big-screen when the cinemas reopen in the UK in 2 week's time. I thought "Mank" was terrific (rather against the grain of many other movie fans) largely because of Erik Messerschmitt's glorious black-and-white cinematography. But I suspect Mr Richards (interestingly, Chloé Zhao's partner) was mightily hacked-off for missing out on the golden prize, as well he might be.
- It's difficult to rate the script on this one, primarily because it's difficult to know sometimes where the scripted bits end and the 'ad lib' parts begin. The majority of the cast are real nomads, recounting - presumably - their genuine life experiences. (The only exceptions, I believe, are Frances McDormand, David Strathairn and his son Tay Strathairn. The two Strathairn's last appeared on screen together in 1988's "Eight Men Out" when Tay was just eight years old!). As such, the film is an interesting blend of fiction and documentary.
- The movie skewers both capitalism and materialism nicely. As someone who has recently got off the corporate rat-race by retiring, the tale of the man who died before he could use the retirement sail-boat parked in his driveway resonated strongly (and made me very pleased with my decision!). We all get so wrapped up with running around the maze trying to find the cheese that it's often difficult to appreciate that 'getting off and cutting back' is a stress-free and acceptable option. (Not that I'm particularly cutting back, a la Fern..... start saving the retirement coppers early kids!!)
- The movie is also an effective study of grief and the different ways in which people come to terms with it. (Although that does make the overall film feel like a bit of a downer).
- Beautiful classical accompanying music by the great Ludovico Einaudi.
Negatives:
- I really loved this movie for its first hour. But then, for me, the story didn't really maintain my full interest. It was all a bit grey and bland. Did Fern really have much of a story-arc here? She started off at point A and ended up at point B where AB is a short distance! True that perhaps she has a little more acceptance and contentment with her position. But I was looking for more. If this had been a 90 minute film rather than a 107 minute movie, it would have (imho) worked better.
Summary Thoughts on "Nomadland": When a movie gets so much awards-hype thrown at it, I often fear watching it in case I absolutely hate it! That's not really possible with Nomadland, since it is just so well made that you can't help but appreciate what Chloé Zhao and her team have done here. It successfully challenges your misconceptions of what a "normal life" can be. The life might not be for you, or me, but it is an option.
That being said, this is not a movie that will be on my "must re-watch repeatedly" list (although I definitely DO want to see it on the big screen). It sits on that 'worthy-but-dull' list, alongside "Lincoln" and "Moonlight": Movies that I can fully appreciate for their artistry but not for their entertainment value.
As a movie that explores an unexplored social strata in America, and does it in a novel semi-documentary manner, I can understand and accept why it was voted as the Best Film by the Academy. But 'entertainment' ranks highly on my list of criteria. So - for my personal Oscar Best Film choice - I would still go with "Promising Young Woman" every time.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/05/nomadland-dont-exit-with-your-sailboat-still-in-your-driveway/ . Thanks.)
Positives:
- Undeniably a superior motion picture, full of memorable imagery and with an incredible central performance from the impeccably dour Frances McDormand. Few actors can 'listen' and react as well as she can.
- A key part of this is the superb cinematography from (Brit-born) Joshua James Richards. This is a movie which I MUST revisit on the big-screen when the cinemas reopen in the UK in 2 week's time. I thought "Mank" was terrific (rather against the grain of many other movie fans) largely because of Erik Messerschmitt's glorious black-and-white cinematography. But I suspect Mr Richards (interestingly, Chloé Zhao's partner) was mightily hacked-off for missing out on the golden prize, as well he might be.
- It's difficult to rate the script on this one, primarily because it's difficult to know sometimes where the scripted bits end and the 'ad lib' parts begin. The majority of the cast are real nomads, recounting - presumably - their genuine life experiences. (The only exceptions, I believe, are Frances McDormand, David Strathairn and his son Tay Strathairn. The two Strathairn's last appeared on screen together in 1988's "Eight Men Out" when Tay was just eight years old!). As such, the film is an interesting blend of fiction and documentary.
- The movie skewers both capitalism and materialism nicely. As someone who has recently got off the corporate rat-race by retiring, the tale of the man who died before he could use the retirement sail-boat parked in his driveway resonated strongly (and made me very pleased with my decision!). We all get so wrapped up with running around the maze trying to find the cheese that it's often difficult to appreciate that 'getting off and cutting back' is a stress-free and acceptable option. (Not that I'm particularly cutting back, a la Fern..... start saving the retirement coppers early kids!!)
- The movie is also an effective study of grief and the different ways in which people come to terms with it. (Although that does make the overall film feel like a bit of a downer).
- Beautiful classical accompanying music by the great Ludovico Einaudi.
Negatives:
- I really loved this movie for its first hour. But then, for me, the story didn't really maintain my full interest. It was all a bit grey and bland. Did Fern really have much of a story-arc here? She started off at point A and ended up at point B where AB is a short distance! True that perhaps she has a little more acceptance and contentment with her position. But I was looking for more. If this had been a 90 minute film rather than a 107 minute movie, it would have (imho) worked better.
Summary Thoughts on "Nomadland": When a movie gets so much awards-hype thrown at it, I often fear watching it in case I absolutely hate it! That's not really possible with Nomadland, since it is just so well made that you can't help but appreciate what Chloé Zhao and her team have done here. It successfully challenges your misconceptions of what a "normal life" can be. The life might not be for you, or me, but it is an option.
That being said, this is not a movie that will be on my "must re-watch repeatedly" list (although I definitely DO want to see it on the big screen). It sits on that 'worthy-but-dull' list, alongside "Lincoln" and "Moonlight": Movies that I can fully appreciate for their artistry but not for their entertainment value.
As a movie that explores an unexplored social strata in America, and does it in a novel semi-documentary manner, I can understand and accept why it was voted as the Best Film by the Academy. But 'entertainment' ranks highly on my list of criteria. So - for my personal Oscar Best Film choice - I would still go with "Promising Young Woman" every time.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/05/nomadland-dont-exit-with-your-sailboat-still-in-your-driveway/ . Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Upside (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Not the 5* French classic, but a fun and moving movie nonetheless.
So, the movie-going audience for this film will divide into two categories:
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Joe Kline (10 KP) rated Beetlejuice (1988) in Movies
Dec 9, 2017
The style of Tim Burton makes this movie amazing visually (3 more)
Michael Keaton creates one of the funniest ghosts of all time
The score by Danny Elfman is phenomenal
Still unique after all these years
Some of the stop motion effects may turn off certain people (1 more)
Although originally rated PG it would easily be a PG13 by modern standards
80's Classic with Timeless Appeal
This is a movie about a young couple's struggle to cope with life, or rather their lack there of. The Maitlands discover that death is just the beginning and the living can be a nuisance.
Trouble is on the horizon as a yuppie couple and their terminally dismal daughter Lydia move in. The rustic country house is soon renovated into a warped view of abstract modernism. The Maitlands are unable to scare off the invaders. In a moment of desperation they respond to an erie advertisement by calling Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice.
After awakening this audacious spirit they soon realise why the other ghosts had warned against him. He is crass and crude and has no boundaries. However the Maitlands discover that putting this genie back in the bottle will not be easy.
Chaos ensues when Beetlejuice goes overboard and makes the family right back. Lydia, who has befriended the Maitlands, is caught in the middle.
This is one of my favorite movies of all time. It's a funny, quirky take on the afterlife. Tim Burton's signature style makes the world beyond both creepy and intriguing. It's paired perfectly with a brilliant score by Danny Elfman.
This is easily one of Michael Keaton best performances. Beetlejuice is the perfect villain that you love to hate, and you hate that you love. Every character is perfectly cast.
There are some negatives, but they're mostly nit-picks. This movie was PG when it came out, but some of the language and humor would easily make it a PG13 today. Some of the stop motion effects may look cheesey to some, although personally I love them. Finally, the eighties modern stylings of the Deets family may date the movie for some.
I cannot recommend this movie enough. If you love dark humor and the visual flare of Tim Burton you owe it to yourself to see this movie.
One final warning: The song Day-O will be stuck in your head for days.
Trouble is on the horizon as a yuppie couple and their terminally dismal daughter Lydia move in. The rustic country house is soon renovated into a warped view of abstract modernism. The Maitlands are unable to scare off the invaders. In a moment of desperation they respond to an erie advertisement by calling Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice.
After awakening this audacious spirit they soon realise why the other ghosts had warned against him. He is crass and crude and has no boundaries. However the Maitlands discover that putting this genie back in the bottle will not be easy.
Chaos ensues when Beetlejuice goes overboard and makes the family right back. Lydia, who has befriended the Maitlands, is caught in the middle.
This is one of my favorite movies of all time. It's a funny, quirky take on the afterlife. Tim Burton's signature style makes the world beyond both creepy and intriguing. It's paired perfectly with a brilliant score by Danny Elfman.
This is easily one of Michael Keaton best performances. Beetlejuice is the perfect villain that you love to hate, and you hate that you love. Every character is perfectly cast.
There are some negatives, but they're mostly nit-picks. This movie was PG when it came out, but some of the language and humor would easily make it a PG13 today. Some of the stop motion effects may look cheesey to some, although personally I love them. Finally, the eighties modern stylings of the Deets family may date the movie for some.
I cannot recommend this movie enough. If you love dark humor and the visual flare of Tim Burton you owe it to yourself to see this movie.
One final warning: The song Day-O will be stuck in your head for days.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Annabelle: Creation (2017) in Movies
May 12, 2018
I’ve been waiting for quite some time to get the opportunity to watch Annabelle: Creation and thanks to my boyfriend, that chance finally arrived. My interest in the Conjuring universe as a whole began with the introduction of the Warrens in The Conuring. Having been a devout fan of anything paranormal, I knew their names and history long before I watched the fictionalized film. That said, I was definitely curious as to the story behind the doll, Annabelle. (I watched that film shortly after it came out, naturally.)
The plot of Annabelle: Creation is pretty self-explanatory. It delves into the origin of the possessed doll, providing viewers with the history of how it came to be. A la dead girl, Faustian deals, and things going, you guessed it, wrong. This is a bit cliché in the world of hauntings, but I feel Annabelle: Creation pulls it off well enough. Perhaps this is because the film doesn’t rely entirely on creepy sounds and eardrum-bursting music to accentuate creepy occurrences. (Yes, the film does have plenty of those, but that doesn’t mark every eerie happening.)
Keeping to the feel of being part of the Conjuring universe, there is a reference to the upcoming film, The Nun. I liked this, and am, naturally, looking forward to that film.
Of course, rarely do any of my reviews come without a complaint and in this instance, it has to do with character development. One of the things I love most about horror movies is the building need for certain characters to stay alive. In Annabelle: Creation none of the characters felt overly dynamic except for Janice. It’s like all the work went into making her the sort of gal you feel sorry for while nothing else is left for the others – especially Mr. Mullins.
Overall, I really enjoyed watching this film and would likely watch it again. While it wasn’t extremely original in its design, it did manage to catch me a few times and as a result, my heart rate elevated (and I felt some anxiety with at least one of the scenes). For me, this is a good thing. Couple that with the fact that the movie ends precisely where Annabelle begins, and it’s a pretty solid 4/5 for me.
The plot of Annabelle: Creation is pretty self-explanatory. It delves into the origin of the possessed doll, providing viewers with the history of how it came to be. A la dead girl, Faustian deals, and things going, you guessed it, wrong. This is a bit cliché in the world of hauntings, but I feel Annabelle: Creation pulls it off well enough. Perhaps this is because the film doesn’t rely entirely on creepy sounds and eardrum-bursting music to accentuate creepy occurrences. (Yes, the film does have plenty of those, but that doesn’t mark every eerie happening.)
Keeping to the feel of being part of the Conjuring universe, there is a reference to the upcoming film, The Nun. I liked this, and am, naturally, looking forward to that film.
Of course, rarely do any of my reviews come without a complaint and in this instance, it has to do with character development. One of the things I love most about horror movies is the building need for certain characters to stay alive. In Annabelle: Creation none of the characters felt overly dynamic except for Janice. It’s like all the work went into making her the sort of gal you feel sorry for while nothing else is left for the others – especially Mr. Mullins.
Overall, I really enjoyed watching this film and would likely watch it again. While it wasn’t extremely original in its design, it did manage to catch me a few times and as a result, my heart rate elevated (and I felt some anxiety with at least one of the scenes). For me, this is a good thing. Couple that with the fact that the movie ends precisely where Annabelle begins, and it’s a pretty solid 4/5 for me.
When it comes to books, non-fiction typically isn't something I'm interested in. Lately though, I've found a few from that genre that have piqued my interest, most notably former FBI Agent Joe Navarro's Three Minutes to Doomsday, Andrew Leatherbarrow's Chernobyl: 01:23:40, and another upcoming novel entitled The Radium Girls by Kate Moore. The latter two of these books I'll discuss at another time, because this review is about Navarro's latest book, detailing the final moments of the Cold War and the arrests of Clyde Conrad and Rod Ramsey.
I was born in the late 90s, so this particular espionage case is not something I had any knowledge about prior to opening Navarro's book. All I knew was that it took place shortly before I was born and had extremely high risks associated with it. Given my tastes in crime, movies, and most fiction, this seemed to be something that would appeal to my interests and I was not wrong. In this account of Joe Navarro's pursuit of Rod Ramsey against attempts at hampering the investigation by the FBIHQ and Washington Field Office, readers discover just how terrifying close we came to a crushing defeat with the information sold by Conrad and Ramsey.
The build-up to Ramsey's arrest, trial, and conviction is agonizingly slow, which is quite suiting given that the process itself was not only flawed by those higher up in rank than Navarro, but nearly crippled by inaction. It was easy to feel Navarro's tension and frustration, while simultaneously granting readers that may prefer fiction over non-fiction a very human-like perspective of an account that might have seemed uninteresting.
The only nitpick I truly have is how unclear the passage of time is. Whether or not this was intentional, I do not know. I just know that I prefer clear indications of time's passing. Other than that, it is clear from his style of writing that Former Agent Navarro is, first and foremost, a gentleman in every aspect of the word.
Joe Navarro's memoir of this espionage case is mind-numbing and terrifyingly well-written and I would like to thank NetGalley, Scribner, and Joe Navarro for this advanced copy for the purpose of review. Not only that, I would like to thank Former Agent Joe Navarro especially for his service to our country, and his drive to fulfill his duty to his fellow Americans first and foremost.
I was born in the late 90s, so this particular espionage case is not something I had any knowledge about prior to opening Navarro's book. All I knew was that it took place shortly before I was born and had extremely high risks associated with it. Given my tastes in crime, movies, and most fiction, this seemed to be something that would appeal to my interests and I was not wrong. In this account of Joe Navarro's pursuit of Rod Ramsey against attempts at hampering the investigation by the FBIHQ and Washington Field Office, readers discover just how terrifying close we came to a crushing defeat with the information sold by Conrad and Ramsey.
The build-up to Ramsey's arrest, trial, and conviction is agonizingly slow, which is quite suiting given that the process itself was not only flawed by those higher up in rank than Navarro, but nearly crippled by inaction. It was easy to feel Navarro's tension and frustration, while simultaneously granting readers that may prefer fiction over non-fiction a very human-like perspective of an account that might have seemed uninteresting.
The only nitpick I truly have is how unclear the passage of time is. Whether or not this was intentional, I do not know. I just know that I prefer clear indications of time's passing. Other than that, it is clear from his style of writing that Former Agent Navarro is, first and foremost, a gentleman in every aspect of the word.
Joe Navarro's memoir of this espionage case is mind-numbing and terrifyingly well-written and I would like to thank NetGalley, Scribner, and Joe Navarro for this advanced copy for the purpose of review. Not only that, I would like to thank Former Agent Joe Navarro especially for his service to our country, and his drive to fulfill his duty to his fellow Americans first and foremost.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Die-Fi Experiment in Books
May 16, 2018
After a run of several disappointing books, I decided to take a hot bath last night and delve into M. R. Tapia’s novella, The Die-Fi Experiment. Like most books I read, I set a high expectation for this one in terms of gory horror. While it isn’t quite as grotesque as I might like, I find it to be a rather amusing read. On the same page in which Tapia scribes the fears many couples face, he makes a mockery of today’s society.
As a fan of horror movies, it’s hard to find this piece of work original. Many elements within the novella are reminiscent of the Saw franchise – all the way down to the marshmallow eye scene (which you’ll encounter if you choose to read The Die-Fi Experiment). Although a few of the other scenes are cringe-worthy if you imagine yourself as the victim.
The Die-Fi Experiment goes back and forth between the not-so-distant past and present, and my largest issue therein is the fact that sometimes the tenses switch. I am aware that the present parts of the story are meant to be present tense and vice versa; however, I think it works best to choose one tense and stick with it. Otherwise things can quickly become confusing.
On Goodreads, this novella is tagged humor. Personally, I find the term “black comedy” more fitting. After all, viewers appear comically oblivious to the fact that what they watch live is truly torture (or perhaps they’re particularly disturbed individuals). For a little extra splash of humor, Tapia throws in a few hashtags that serve as a parody of the tweets and instagram posts that show up throughout the novella.
Overall, I liked The Die-Fi Experiment. I don’t find it exceptional by any means, but it serves its purpose fairly well. The ending falls a bit short of my expectations, but Tapia manages to produce a piece of work that ensnares my short attention span. In fact, I read this novella in one sitting. While I likely will not read it again, this is definitely a short book for fans of Saw and other torture films.
I would like to thank M. R. Tapia for providing me with a copy of his novella free of charge in exchange for an honest review.
As a fan of horror movies, it’s hard to find this piece of work original. Many elements within the novella are reminiscent of the Saw franchise – all the way down to the marshmallow eye scene (which you’ll encounter if you choose to read The Die-Fi Experiment). Although a few of the other scenes are cringe-worthy if you imagine yourself as the victim.
The Die-Fi Experiment goes back and forth between the not-so-distant past and present, and my largest issue therein is the fact that sometimes the tenses switch. I am aware that the present parts of the story are meant to be present tense and vice versa; however, I think it works best to choose one tense and stick with it. Otherwise things can quickly become confusing.
On Goodreads, this novella is tagged humor. Personally, I find the term “black comedy” more fitting. After all, viewers appear comically oblivious to the fact that what they watch live is truly torture (or perhaps they’re particularly disturbed individuals). For a little extra splash of humor, Tapia throws in a few hashtags that serve as a parody of the tweets and instagram posts that show up throughout the novella.
Overall, I liked The Die-Fi Experiment. I don’t find it exceptional by any means, but it serves its purpose fairly well. The ending falls a bit short of my expectations, but Tapia manages to produce a piece of work that ensnares my short attention span. In fact, I read this novella in one sitting. While I likely will not read it again, this is definitely a short book for fans of Saw and other torture films.
I would like to thank M. R. Tapia for providing me with a copy of his novella free of charge in exchange for an honest review.
Steven Sklansky (231 KP) rated A Quiet Place (2018) in Movies
Apr 5, 2018
Shhh. You Make a Sound You Die.
These types of movies are never really my favorite. Most of the time the trailer is what makes me not want to see a movie. This time was a little bit different. I didn't really know what to think of this trailer, it wasn't really appealing but I thought I might be good. So I broke the trend and went to see it. This was a fantastic movie and it was written and directed by a guy would not normally associate with horror. .John Krasinski, most known for comedy and sometime drama, made me really like this movie.
This movie is about a world taken over by monsters that find and kill you by sound. Could you live in a world of silence? I don't think I could, but in a movie with almost no dialogue they did an amazing job. Now there was sign language, which I thought was very smart, otherwise facial expressions and body language was the words of this movie. The grown up actors were great. The kids actually did a very good job with this. Sometimes kids do not have the emotional range to be able to pull something like this off.
There are several this in this movie that are never really answered. One of them is where the monster came from. Not that it really matters but I kind of would like to know if they are aliens or just monsters that just showed up one day. I think they came from the upside down. They really do look like demogorgons from Stranger Thing. I thought this was kind of a cheat, but the way they act and kill was very original.
It wasn't a bloody or gorey movie, which was just fine. The suspense was done just right,. making you jump in just the right places. The other cool thing with this movie was, being that there was no dialogue for about the first 45 minutes the theater was creepy quiet. Like you could hear a pin drop.
If you can go see this movie, you will not be disappointed. You might also be afraid to talk or make a noise upon leaving the theater. Until next time, enjoy the show.
This movie is about a world taken over by monsters that find and kill you by sound. Could you live in a world of silence? I don't think I could, but in a movie with almost no dialogue they did an amazing job. Now there was sign language, which I thought was very smart, otherwise facial expressions and body language was the words of this movie. The grown up actors were great. The kids actually did a very good job with this. Sometimes kids do not have the emotional range to be able to pull something like this off.
There are several this in this movie that are never really answered. One of them is where the monster came from. Not that it really matters but I kind of would like to know if they are aliens or just monsters that just showed up one day. I think they came from the upside down. They really do look like demogorgons from Stranger Thing. I thought this was kind of a cheat, but the way they act and kill was very original.
It wasn't a bloody or gorey movie, which was just fine. The suspense was done just right,. making you jump in just the right places. The other cool thing with this movie was, being that there was no dialogue for about the first 45 minutes the theater was creepy quiet. Like you could hear a pin drop.
If you can go see this movie, you will not be disappointed. You might also be afraid to talk or make a noise upon leaving the theater. Until next time, enjoy the show.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Wedlocked in Books
Feb 11, 2019
While the cover of the book gives the impression that the story is exclusively about the main character Rebecca's bad marriage. The book actually encompasses her life leading up to the bad marriage and what happens as a result of the rocky nuptials. The actual ceremony is understood to have happened sort of "between the lines," so to speak. The book is a before and after image in prose.
The prologue to the book is the immediate aftermath of the ceremony when Rebecca is undergoing the realization of her mistake. I was a bit confused at this point since I could not figure out if the ceremony took place or not. The next chapter starts in Rebecca's childhood, growing up with two sisters and a very marriage-minded mother in a strict Jewish household. To her mother's dismay, Rebecca is quickly influenced by her grandma Emma into a love for acting, movies, and theater. From there, the book walks us through Rebecca's pursuit of an acting career and near-absence of dating material.
Though Rebecca is likable enough, I had a difficult time relating to her career struggles, since I have little interest in that side of the business. I also did wonder if she was really as talented as she claimed to be, since her struggles were so great.
When a man, Evan, finally lays claim to Rebecca's heart, both Rebecca and Evan handle the relationship poorly and Rebecca abandons her suffering career with a broken heart. The man she eventually becomes "wedlocked" to, Craig, then shows up in her life, and a rebound relationship becomes a permanent one before Rebecca thinks to learn a bit more about her new husband. A honeymoon from hell makes the reality of her situation quite clear as Craig's bad behavior and numerous secrets get him in trouble with the Italian government, until a new friend, Michael, flies in to save the day.
Without spoiling the ending, I think Rebecca handled her problems remarkably well, with a little help, and ended the book with a humorous twist. If I suspend my opinions of the Hollywood-influenced methods of dating, marriage, and divorce that is so common in America today, the book was an entertaining read, and likely would make an even better movie.
The prologue to the book is the immediate aftermath of the ceremony when Rebecca is undergoing the realization of her mistake. I was a bit confused at this point since I could not figure out if the ceremony took place or not. The next chapter starts in Rebecca's childhood, growing up with two sisters and a very marriage-minded mother in a strict Jewish household. To her mother's dismay, Rebecca is quickly influenced by her grandma Emma into a love for acting, movies, and theater. From there, the book walks us through Rebecca's pursuit of an acting career and near-absence of dating material.
Though Rebecca is likable enough, I had a difficult time relating to her career struggles, since I have little interest in that side of the business. I also did wonder if she was really as talented as she claimed to be, since her struggles were so great.
When a man, Evan, finally lays claim to Rebecca's heart, both Rebecca and Evan handle the relationship poorly and Rebecca abandons her suffering career with a broken heart. The man she eventually becomes "wedlocked" to, Craig, then shows up in her life, and a rebound relationship becomes a permanent one before Rebecca thinks to learn a bit more about her new husband. A honeymoon from hell makes the reality of her situation quite clear as Craig's bad behavior and numerous secrets get him in trouble with the Italian government, until a new friend, Michael, flies in to save the day.
Without spoiling the ending, I think Rebecca handled her problems remarkably well, with a little help, and ended the book with a humorous twist. If I suspend my opinions of the Hollywood-influenced methods of dating, marriage, and divorce that is so common in America today, the book was an entertaining read, and likely would make an even better movie.