Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mrs Lowry & Son (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
I seriously considered not reviewing this film, I knew that it probably wouldn't be something I'd ever watch again but I was hoping that with Timothy Spall and Vanessa Redgrave at the helm it would be a pleasant thing to watch.
Lowry's life revolves around his mother, he cooks for her and keeps her company, but nothing he does seems to be good enough. Her life isn't what she'd like at all, her husband left them with debts and they're living in a neighbourhood that's beneath her and she's clinging to the things that are "better" in the world. He son's hobby of painting isn't to her liking especially after a critic pans a piece he submits. Lowry has one thing to cling to in life but his mother is a fickle person and it may be that nothing is ever enough to her.
The majority of the film is made up of scenes around Lowry and his mother, even at only 1 hour 31 minutes that's a lot of time with limited cast. Both leads are impressive actors and there's no denying that you can see it in this movie but there's something lacking. The story wasn't going to be an overly exciting one and was going to rely on its dramatic performances to keep your interest, everything was "nearly but not quite". You expect some moving moments and at several points you think "oh it's coming now" but it always seems to peter off before the pay-off.
That's not to say that the acting isn't good, it is, but all the scenes were just moments short of something special. Spall does get a few opportunities that get you choked up for him, but as I say, there was opportunity for much more.
It's an intriguing story of the way love for family can dictate the way your life goes. The dynamic between the two is toxic and Lowry's battle between getting his mother's approval and doing what he wants is a powerful one... that this film doesn't quite manage to capture.
What this film does do beautifully is the portrayal of Lowry's paintings. I'm not an expert on his work but it was easy to spot where the scenes had been framed to reflect a piece, you get a chance to see the comparisons briefly at the end of the film. The colours throughout are also spot on for his pieces and the whole film has a very effective range in that respect.
The picturesque doesn't make up for the way the rest of the film cuts off moment in their prime, while I knew it probably wasn't going to hit the high star ratings I had hoped for something above average considering the cast. It sadly didn't deliver and to add even more disappointment it was ended with what I can only describe as a BBC ending to a partially dramatised biography and well, that just put the final nail in the coffin for me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/09/mrs-lowry-son-movie-review.html
Lowry's life revolves around his mother, he cooks for her and keeps her company, but nothing he does seems to be good enough. Her life isn't what she'd like at all, her husband left them with debts and they're living in a neighbourhood that's beneath her and she's clinging to the things that are "better" in the world. He son's hobby of painting isn't to her liking especially after a critic pans a piece he submits. Lowry has one thing to cling to in life but his mother is a fickle person and it may be that nothing is ever enough to her.
The majority of the film is made up of scenes around Lowry and his mother, even at only 1 hour 31 minutes that's a lot of time with limited cast. Both leads are impressive actors and there's no denying that you can see it in this movie but there's something lacking. The story wasn't going to be an overly exciting one and was going to rely on its dramatic performances to keep your interest, everything was "nearly but not quite". You expect some moving moments and at several points you think "oh it's coming now" but it always seems to peter off before the pay-off.
That's not to say that the acting isn't good, it is, but all the scenes were just moments short of something special. Spall does get a few opportunities that get you choked up for him, but as I say, there was opportunity for much more.
It's an intriguing story of the way love for family can dictate the way your life goes. The dynamic between the two is toxic and Lowry's battle between getting his mother's approval and doing what he wants is a powerful one... that this film doesn't quite manage to capture.
What this film does do beautifully is the portrayal of Lowry's paintings. I'm not an expert on his work but it was easy to spot where the scenes had been framed to reflect a piece, you get a chance to see the comparisons briefly at the end of the film. The colours throughout are also spot on for his pieces and the whole film has a very effective range in that respect.
The picturesque doesn't make up for the way the rest of the film cuts off moment in their prime, while I knew it probably wasn't going to hit the high star ratings I had hoped for something above average considering the cast. It sadly didn't deliver and to add even more disappointment it was ended with what I can only describe as a BBC ending to a partially dramatised biography and well, that just put the final nail in the coffin for me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/09/mrs-lowry-son-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dream Horse (2021) in Movies
Jun 12, 2021
Ensemble cast (1 more)
Cinematography of racing scenes
My lovely lovely horse fails to fully engage
An extraordinary story of ambition against all the odds - based on a true story - will Dream Alliance fulfil the town's dreams, or will it all end in tears?
Positives:
- Toni Collette! Without her powerful acting presence at the heart of the piece, I think the movie would have died in a ditch. As for her Welsh accent I (as an Englishman) thought it was pretty good: on my 'Welshometer', using the scale of Richard Burton as a 10 to RDW's "Doctor Dolittle" as a 1, I'd give Ms Collette about an 8. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man (as a Welsh lady) was less impressed, but found her "tolerable" when mixed with the other Welsh-born actors!
- And what a wonderful supporting cast of well know names from all our yesterdays. Just so great to see the great Siân Phillips ("I, Claudius"), Lynda Baron ('Nurse Gladys' from "Open all Hours"), Peter Davison ("Doctor Who") and Nicholas Farrell ("Chariots of Fire") in the cast. It was also (as is traditional in these "true stories") for the actual people to appear alongside their acting counterparts in the end titles: Howard Davies in particular seemed to be chuffed to bits to be singing alongside Damien Lewis!
- Hats off to cinematographer Erik Wilson and Chris Bates (the "drone operator"), for some impressive shots. The camera angles from the turf-pumping racing scenes are very impressive.
Negatives:
- How did it make me feel? Very little at all. Which is a problem. The movie is so utterly predictable that I saw every element of the story play out way before it did. Did this happen in real life? In which case, that's annoying that life was so unrealistically predictable in its ups and downs!
- Elements of the story also felt formulaic: from the token comedy cranky old bloke (Karl Johnson) to Jan's brooding father-with-a-grudge. This latter element seems unnecessarily bolted onto the plot: poorly worked through and pretty superfluous.
Summary Thoughts on "Dream Horse": This is a feature debut for welsh-born Euros Lyn, most familiar (as a peculiar name) for popping up in the end credits of TV shows such as "Doctor Who", "Torchwood" and "His Dark Materials". And, as a great supporter of UK films, I really wanted to like this one. But it just didn't do it for me. It's also unfortunate that some of the subject material makes it unsuitable for the 6-to-8 year old horse fanatics... this is no "International Velvet".
I've seen some social media comments from people who adore the movie. And, to be clear, it's NOT a bad movie. I just personally didn't connect with me. Just goes to show that cinema really is 'horses for courses' sometimes!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/dream-horse-%e2%99%abi-want-to-shower-you-in-sugar-lumps-and-ride-you-over-fences%e2%99%ab/ . Thanks).
Positives:
- Toni Collette! Without her powerful acting presence at the heart of the piece, I think the movie would have died in a ditch. As for her Welsh accent I (as an Englishman) thought it was pretty good: on my 'Welshometer', using the scale of Richard Burton as a 10 to RDW's "Doctor Dolittle" as a 1, I'd give Ms Collette about an 8. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man (as a Welsh lady) was less impressed, but found her "tolerable" when mixed with the other Welsh-born actors!
- And what a wonderful supporting cast of well know names from all our yesterdays. Just so great to see the great Siân Phillips ("I, Claudius"), Lynda Baron ('Nurse Gladys' from "Open all Hours"), Peter Davison ("Doctor Who") and Nicholas Farrell ("Chariots of Fire") in the cast. It was also (as is traditional in these "true stories") for the actual people to appear alongside their acting counterparts in the end titles: Howard Davies in particular seemed to be chuffed to bits to be singing alongside Damien Lewis!
- Hats off to cinematographer Erik Wilson and Chris Bates (the "drone operator"), for some impressive shots. The camera angles from the turf-pumping racing scenes are very impressive.
Negatives:
- How did it make me feel? Very little at all. Which is a problem. The movie is so utterly predictable that I saw every element of the story play out way before it did. Did this happen in real life? In which case, that's annoying that life was so unrealistically predictable in its ups and downs!
- Elements of the story also felt formulaic: from the token comedy cranky old bloke (Karl Johnson) to Jan's brooding father-with-a-grudge. This latter element seems unnecessarily bolted onto the plot: poorly worked through and pretty superfluous.
Summary Thoughts on "Dream Horse": This is a feature debut for welsh-born Euros Lyn, most familiar (as a peculiar name) for popping up in the end credits of TV shows such as "Doctor Who", "Torchwood" and "His Dark Materials". And, as a great supporter of UK films, I really wanted to like this one. But it just didn't do it for me. It's also unfortunate that some of the subject material makes it unsuitable for the 6-to-8 year old horse fanatics... this is no "International Velvet".
I've seen some social media comments from people who adore the movie. And, to be clear, it's NOT a bad movie. I just personally didn't connect with me. Just goes to show that cinema really is 'horses for courses' sometimes!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/dream-horse-%e2%99%abi-want-to-shower-you-in-sugar-lumps-and-ride-you-over-fences%e2%99%ab/ . Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tail as old as Kline.
With the Disney marketing machine in full swing, its hard to separate the hype from the movie reality in this latest live-action remake of one of their classic animated features from 1991. If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child tends to have “their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4) that film would be “Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to (“I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it proved.
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Apr 5, 2019
In a word...bland
There are many words that you can use to describe films by Tim Burton: Gothic, Bizarre, Dark, Interesting, SteamPunk, Unique, Visual.
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated McLintock! (1963) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Solid Visuals but Nothing Else
A cattle baron’s wife returns after a two-year separation wanting a divorce.
Acting: 10
It’s a tough task to ask someone not to like John Wayne and the things he brings to the big screen. He has a distinct way of capturing your attention and holding it with his no-nonsense demeanor and sheer bad-assery. I enjoyed the other performances as well, but, for me, it always goes back to Wayne and your sheer desire as a viewer to see what he’s going to do or say next.
Beginning: 2
Not a strong start in the least. Even past the first ten minutes, I spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out just what the hell the plot was. A beginning that is mired in confusion is not a very good beginning at all.
Characters: 7
I’ll admit, George Washington McLintock is probably someone I would like to have a glass of whiskey with. He’s charming and doesn’t take any guff from anyone. Other fun characters included the Native American guy (whose name slips me right now) and Drago. If it weren’t for McLintock’s wife who was just a horrible character to deal with the entire movie, this category would have scored higher.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 6
It’s hard to really appreciate conflict when you don’t know fully what the story is about. Throughout the movie, I was never really grabbed as there wasn’t enough action to keep me fully entertained. It’s like watching two dudes square up a bar, but all they do is push each other the whole time. I wanted more and damned if McLintock! wanted to give it to me.
Genre: 6
Memorability: 6
One of the reasons I will review a movie well after having seen it is to gauge how memorable it is. How many scenes stick out in my head days, weeks, sometimes months later? The answer as it relates to McLintock!: Not a whole damn lot. I remember one scene where they were fighting in a mud slide. I also remember a spanking. Outside of that…nothing. Mind you, I just watched this movie two months ago.
Pace: 7
Once the movie picks up, it holds on pretty consistently. Outside of a couple small lulls, it managed to hold my attention and keep me entertained enough to want to see what would happen next. I love movies and pacing is extremely important to me. It’s too bad the pacing here wasn’t enough to alter the overall strength of the movie.
Plot: 7
Yes, I finally figured out what the story was about. Once I had a better sense, it made the overall movie a bit more enjoyable. Pretty straightforward, we are looking at something that was good, not great.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 62
So why did I dislike this movie so much? Outside of a terrible beginning and ending, I think a lot of it has to do with Mrs. McLintock’s character. She was just a ghastly person, plain and simple, with not a redeeming characteristic in her body. And I don’t think she was even meant to be a villain, yet that’s how she came across. Probably won’t be watching McLintock! again anytime soon.
Acting: 10
It’s a tough task to ask someone not to like John Wayne and the things he brings to the big screen. He has a distinct way of capturing your attention and holding it with his no-nonsense demeanor and sheer bad-assery. I enjoyed the other performances as well, but, for me, it always goes back to Wayne and your sheer desire as a viewer to see what he’s going to do or say next.
Beginning: 2
Not a strong start in the least. Even past the first ten minutes, I spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out just what the hell the plot was. A beginning that is mired in confusion is not a very good beginning at all.
Characters: 7
I’ll admit, George Washington McLintock is probably someone I would like to have a glass of whiskey with. He’s charming and doesn’t take any guff from anyone. Other fun characters included the Native American guy (whose name slips me right now) and Drago. If it weren’t for McLintock’s wife who was just a horrible character to deal with the entire movie, this category would have scored higher.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 6
It’s hard to really appreciate conflict when you don’t know fully what the story is about. Throughout the movie, I was never really grabbed as there wasn’t enough action to keep me fully entertained. It’s like watching two dudes square up a bar, but all they do is push each other the whole time. I wanted more and damned if McLintock! wanted to give it to me.
Genre: 6
Memorability: 6
One of the reasons I will review a movie well after having seen it is to gauge how memorable it is. How many scenes stick out in my head days, weeks, sometimes months later? The answer as it relates to McLintock!: Not a whole damn lot. I remember one scene where they were fighting in a mud slide. I also remember a spanking. Outside of that…nothing. Mind you, I just watched this movie two months ago.
Pace: 7
Once the movie picks up, it holds on pretty consistently. Outside of a couple small lulls, it managed to hold my attention and keep me entertained enough to want to see what would happen next. I love movies and pacing is extremely important to me. It’s too bad the pacing here wasn’t enough to alter the overall strength of the movie.
Plot: 7
Yes, I finally figured out what the story was about. Once I had a better sense, it made the overall movie a bit more enjoyable. Pretty straightforward, we are looking at something that was good, not great.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 62
So why did I dislike this movie so much? Outside of a terrible beginning and ending, I think a lot of it has to do with Mrs. McLintock’s character. She was just a ghastly person, plain and simple, with not a redeeming characteristic in her body. And I don’t think she was even meant to be a villain, yet that’s how she came across. Probably won’t be watching McLintock! again anytime soon.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Transformers Revenge of the Fallen (2009) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
The good, the bad, and the down right ugly return in the sequel to Michael Bay’s 2007 summer blockbuster, Transformers. Revenge of the Fallen picks up 2 years after the events of the first film and really shows why Michael Bay was again the perfect choice to helm this franchise. Speculation about how long the film was going to be has finally been answered. 2 and a half hours for the uninitiated would seem a terrifying prospect as characters are introduced from all corners; but for fans of the bots, it’s a thrill ride from the very start, right up until the end credits role. Shia Le Beouf and Megan Foxx return as Sam Witwicky and love interest Mikeala in a sequel that’s as loud and obnoxious as it is long. As with the first film, the story is a little thin on the ground, but thankfully there is enough here to satisfy even the hardest to please. The Decepticons (the bad guys) are mobilizing once again to take control of Earth, while the Autobots (the good guys) working together with human intelligence try to destroy their feared rivals. It’s based on plastic toy figures, so you can’t expect much more.
Special effects are again outstanding with a finish on them that not even the first movie could hold a candle to, the transformers once more look 100% realistic in their presence, though with a $200m budget, outstanding was the least to be expected. Regrettably, the action sequences sometimes can look messy, with a mash of metal making it hard to distinguish who is attacking who or who has fallen; one heart wrenching scene in particular makes this point even more evident. Acting from all corners is sublime, Le Beouf certainly knows how to do that cocky teenager and Megan Foxx provides a nice bit of lustre to place on the horizon. But, by far the standout is Julie White as Mrs. Witwicky, her performance in the first film was brilliant, but she has exceeded that by a mile in this instalment; utterly hilarious is the only way to describe her acting. Of the robotic kind, Peter Cullen does an excellent job as the voice of Autobot leader Optimus Prime, with the same gravely texture that made him such a hit for the cartoon series in the first place. Hugo Weaving also returns as the voice of arch nemesis Megatron. Bay packs on the slapstick in this sequel, perhaps going a little too far with the humour; after all, it isn’t supposed to be an outright comedy, though some of the funny touches are out-and-out hilarious. The finale is, as with its predecessor a little short and to the point, though many would say it was ‘succinct’, but any longer and the film would have started to drag, Bay obviously learning his lesson from the mess that was Pearl Harbour. Overall then, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is an excellent sequel to what promises to be an exciting future for the franchise. Whilst it may not match its predecessor in terms of story and plot, it is a must watch for all action cravers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/transformers-revenge-of-the-fallen-2009/
Special effects are again outstanding with a finish on them that not even the first movie could hold a candle to, the transformers once more look 100% realistic in their presence, though with a $200m budget, outstanding was the least to be expected. Regrettably, the action sequences sometimes can look messy, with a mash of metal making it hard to distinguish who is attacking who or who has fallen; one heart wrenching scene in particular makes this point even more evident. Acting from all corners is sublime, Le Beouf certainly knows how to do that cocky teenager and Megan Foxx provides a nice bit of lustre to place on the horizon. But, by far the standout is Julie White as Mrs. Witwicky, her performance in the first film was brilliant, but she has exceeded that by a mile in this instalment; utterly hilarious is the only way to describe her acting. Of the robotic kind, Peter Cullen does an excellent job as the voice of Autobot leader Optimus Prime, with the same gravely texture that made him such a hit for the cartoon series in the first place. Hugo Weaving also returns as the voice of arch nemesis Megatron. Bay packs on the slapstick in this sequel, perhaps going a little too far with the humour; after all, it isn’t supposed to be an outright comedy, though some of the funny touches are out-and-out hilarious. The finale is, as with its predecessor a little short and to the point, though many would say it was ‘succinct’, but any longer and the film would have started to drag, Bay obviously learning his lesson from the mess that was Pearl Harbour. Overall then, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is an excellent sequel to what promises to be an exciting future for the franchise. Whilst it may not match its predecessor in terms of story and plot, it is a must watch for all action cravers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/transformers-revenge-of-the-fallen-2009/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Surprise Me in Books
Feb 2, 2018
Great supporting cast of characters (1 more)
Funny and humorous
Fun yet serious story of romance gone awry
Dan and Sylvie are happily married, with twin daughters, when they go in for their annual physicals and get the news that they could live past 100 and hence be married for 60+ years. This sends some shock-waves through their marriage. The couple prides themselves on knowing each other inside and out, even being nearly psychic with one another, so they decide to help pass the years of marriage by "surprising" each other with various things. Needless to say, it doesn't go as planned. Meanwhile, Sylvie has a (perhaps unhealthy) attachment to her late father, who died two years ago in a car crash, and is still dealing with her grief. She works at Willoughby House, a museum run by an older woman, Mrs. Kendrick, who is quite set in her ways. Robert, her nephew, has been called in to modernize museum operations, much to everyone's dismay. Suddenly, Sylvie's well-planned life is upside down in every possible way.
A good Sophie Kinsella book is a great treat and a wonderful break from stressful thrillers. I enjoy her characters and a chance to get away in the world she creates. Sylvie and Dan, have five-year-old twin daughters, just as my wife and myself, so I was immediately drawn in. "When you have baby twins, you're in the trenches together... You hone your routines. You don't waste words." Exactly. I figured I would grow attached to Sylvie pretty quickly, and I wasn't wrong.
She's an interesting character, too. I won't lie--both Sylvie and Dan are a bit dramatic at first about the health news. I get that hearing your increased life expectancy and marriage time might come as a bit of a shock, but these two really took it to the limit. Sylvie was also a bit clueless and spoiled at times, but I like that she knew that about herself and sort of embraced it as part of her personality traits.
The book really kept me befuddled at times where things were headed. It's not your typical romantic comedy where you can sort of tell how everything will work out. At some points, I was quite surprised by some of the plot turns. I found parts of it tense. I was so invested in Dan and Sylvie that I didn't enjoy when they were fighting or having issues--Kinsella does a good job of getting you involved in these characters and their lives. You're along for the ride with Sylvie, trying to figure things out. I had an inkling of some of what might have happened, but I was certainly flipping the pages frantically, trying to work it all out.
I loved that parts of this one were just really very funny. Sylvie has a sense of humor and I just enjoy the dry wit that comes across. As the surprises backfire (you just know they will, right?), you can't help but feel sorry for both Sylvie and Dan. And, yes, laugh at a little at their expense. There's also a great supporting cast of characters -- Sylvie's best friend, her co-workers, the next-door neighbors. They are humorous and really add to the book, versus standing in as props.
Overall, this one really grew on me as I was reading. It was a great diversion and a quick read.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for a honest review. More at http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.
A good Sophie Kinsella book is a great treat and a wonderful break from stressful thrillers. I enjoy her characters and a chance to get away in the world she creates. Sylvie and Dan, have five-year-old twin daughters, just as my wife and myself, so I was immediately drawn in. "When you have baby twins, you're in the trenches together... You hone your routines. You don't waste words." Exactly. I figured I would grow attached to Sylvie pretty quickly, and I wasn't wrong.
She's an interesting character, too. I won't lie--both Sylvie and Dan are a bit dramatic at first about the health news. I get that hearing your increased life expectancy and marriage time might come as a bit of a shock, but these two really took it to the limit. Sylvie was also a bit clueless and spoiled at times, but I like that she knew that about herself and sort of embraced it as part of her personality traits.
The book really kept me befuddled at times where things were headed. It's not your typical romantic comedy where you can sort of tell how everything will work out. At some points, I was quite surprised by some of the plot turns. I found parts of it tense. I was so invested in Dan and Sylvie that I didn't enjoy when they were fighting or having issues--Kinsella does a good job of getting you involved in these characters and their lives. You're along for the ride with Sylvie, trying to figure things out. I had an inkling of some of what might have happened, but I was certainly flipping the pages frantically, trying to work it all out.
I loved that parts of this one were just really very funny. Sylvie has a sense of humor and I just enjoy the dry wit that comes across. As the surprises backfire (you just know they will, right?), you can't help but feel sorry for both Sylvie and Dan. And, yes, laugh at a little at their expense. There's also a great supporting cast of characters -- Sylvie's best friend, her co-workers, the next-door neighbors. They are humorous and really add to the book, versus standing in as props.
Overall, this one really grew on me as I was reading. It was a great diversion and a quick read.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for a honest review. More at http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Sheltered in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can also be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.co.uk">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
I heard about Sheltered by Debra Chapoton on someone else's blog. After reading the synopsis of the book, I knew it was one I was going to have to read. Luckily, this book didn't disappoint.
Ben, a teenager, is renting out a house to troubled teens. He creates a fictitious landlord called Mrs. Kremer to make things believable. As time goes by, it becomes apparent just how troubled these teens really are. Are their troubles from this world or are they something more sinister?
I must admit that I'm not a fan of the cover. I don't think it's done very well and doesn't look very professional. I admit I was a bit put off this book by the cover, but the synopsis of the book really intrigued me.
I don't think the title of the book really fit in with the story at all. Besides living in a house, that's all the title really describes. It doesn't sound creepy nor does it make me envision anything pertaining to this story.
The author did a fantastic job with the world building. Everything happening in the world of Sheltered felt very real which made it that much more freaky. The whole set up of the book is written fantastically!
The pacing was great! Not once did I find myself struggling to get through this book. Each chapter is fast paced and thrilling, and I love the way how each character gets their point of view across. I found myself eagerly devouring every word of Sheltered.
I loved the dialogue in this book. There are a few words that I didn't understand, but perhaps that's just my limited vocabulary. There is moderate swearing in this book, so be warned. However, the interactions between the characters are done brilliantly. There's not very much humour in this book, but that doesn't take away from the dialogue. One thing I did find slightly annoying was the fact that in one part of the book, Cori's (one of the characters in the story) name was spelt "Cory" and then changed back to Cori.
I loved the characters of Sheltered. Ben comes across as being wise beyond his years. Megan comes across as one of those people who tries to see the best in everyone. Chuck seems like the type of person who's anti-social. Emily surprised me as she started out being a shy teenage girl. Her true colours eventually become apparent. Cori was my favourite character. I loved her sarcasm and her wit. I think I found myself relating with her more than any other character.
Then ending was a bit confusing and felt a bit rushed if I'm honest. In fact, I was a little disappointed by it. I really wish I could explain why, but then I'd be giving away spoilers. Sheltered, judging by the ending, has the ability to become a series. If it does become a series, perhaps the ending would be explained better.
I'd recommend Sheltered by Debra Chapoton to those aged 16+ due to the swearing and the themes throughout the book.
I heard about Sheltered by Debra Chapoton on someone else's blog. After reading the synopsis of the book, I knew it was one I was going to have to read. Luckily, this book didn't disappoint.
Ben, a teenager, is renting out a house to troubled teens. He creates a fictitious landlord called Mrs. Kremer to make things believable. As time goes by, it becomes apparent just how troubled these teens really are. Are their troubles from this world or are they something more sinister?
I must admit that I'm not a fan of the cover. I don't think it's done very well and doesn't look very professional. I admit I was a bit put off this book by the cover, but the synopsis of the book really intrigued me.
I don't think the title of the book really fit in with the story at all. Besides living in a house, that's all the title really describes. It doesn't sound creepy nor does it make me envision anything pertaining to this story.
The author did a fantastic job with the world building. Everything happening in the world of Sheltered felt very real which made it that much more freaky. The whole set up of the book is written fantastically!
The pacing was great! Not once did I find myself struggling to get through this book. Each chapter is fast paced and thrilling, and I love the way how each character gets their point of view across. I found myself eagerly devouring every word of Sheltered.
I loved the dialogue in this book. There are a few words that I didn't understand, but perhaps that's just my limited vocabulary. There is moderate swearing in this book, so be warned. However, the interactions between the characters are done brilliantly. There's not very much humour in this book, but that doesn't take away from the dialogue. One thing I did find slightly annoying was the fact that in one part of the book, Cori's (one of the characters in the story) name was spelt "Cory" and then changed back to Cori.
I loved the characters of Sheltered. Ben comes across as being wise beyond his years. Megan comes across as one of those people who tries to see the best in everyone. Chuck seems like the type of person who's anti-social. Emily surprised me as she started out being a shy teenage girl. Her true colours eventually become apparent. Cori was my favourite character. I loved her sarcasm and her wit. I think I found myself relating with her more than any other character.
Then ending was a bit confusing and felt a bit rushed if I'm honest. In fact, I was a little disappointed by it. I really wish I could explain why, but then I'd be giving away spoilers. Sheltered, judging by the ending, has the ability to become a series. If it does become a series, perhaps the ending would be explained better.
I'd recommend Sheltered by Debra Chapoton to those aged 16+ due to the swearing and the themes throughout the book.
Louise (64 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in Books
Jul 2, 2018
***Contains minor spoiler***
Harry Potter is young orphan living with his Aunt Petunia, Uncle Vernon and Cousin Dudley. The Dursley’s are not a nice family and Harry is near non-existent to them. Strange things start happening, things that Harry cannot explain but he can’t tell the Dursley’s as they already look at him like he is something they have trodden in. One day Harry gets a letter, Harry never gets letters, he doesn’t know anyone. Only Mrs Figg down the road but she wouldn’t send a letter and surely she doesn’t know he sleeps in the cupboard under the stairs. Unfortunately the letter is snapped away before Harry can open it, whoever wants to get hold of Harry is persistent, the next day 2 letters arrive the day after that 3 and so on and till Uncle Vernon is at breaking point and takes the family to a deserted shack on a little island. Vernon thinks he has outsmarted the sender until a huge monstrous man charges through the shack and introduces himself as Hagrid from Hogwarts, the school of magic and wizardry. Harry is shocked to find that this Hagrid knows his name and is now telling him that he is a wizard and a famous one at that. Harry finds himself being whisked off into a magical world where people play a sport called Quidditch and have potion lessons. He makes friends with Ron and Hermione but also he makes enemies of Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle from the Slytherin House. With him trying to pass his first year at Hogwarts and bypassing Filch in the corridors, it seems that Harry is to be at the centre of attention and adventures as Voldermort tries to kill Harry for the second time.
I loved this book, I liked all the characters. My daughter asked me who my favourite character was and I couldn’t answer it, they were all equally good and when I asked my partner who has been listening to it on Audio he couldn’t pick a favourite either. (Harry Potter on audio narrated by Stephen Fry is supposed to be amazing) All the characters were equally fleshed out they were complex and three-dimensional, there are a lot of characters to this book but it’s not overwhelming. The world building was brilliant even without the pictures from this book you would have a clear understanding of what Hogwarts was like. The different characters names, spells, potions and various animals/mythical creatures were just phenomenal, Rowling has one pretty amazing imagination and she grips you from the start and holds on to the finish. The ending to this book was great, it gave me a fuzzy feeling inside and also happy goosebumps. The writing style was easy to read as it’s aimed at children as our main character is only eleven in this book, however this shouldn’t put you off reading it. It doesn’t matter how old you are, this book is for everyone who just wants a bit of magic and adventure in their life. I have to say that JK Rowling has changed a lot for children, reading has become joyous and somewhat an inspiration and pivotal role in the educational system, my daughter is at primary school and is set into houses just like Hogwarts and gain points and urges them to do better.
Harry Potter is young orphan living with his Aunt Petunia, Uncle Vernon and Cousin Dudley. The Dursley’s are not a nice family and Harry is near non-existent to them. Strange things start happening, things that Harry cannot explain but he can’t tell the Dursley’s as they already look at him like he is something they have trodden in. One day Harry gets a letter, Harry never gets letters, he doesn’t know anyone. Only Mrs Figg down the road but she wouldn’t send a letter and surely she doesn’t know he sleeps in the cupboard under the stairs. Unfortunately the letter is snapped away before Harry can open it, whoever wants to get hold of Harry is persistent, the next day 2 letters arrive the day after that 3 and so on and till Uncle Vernon is at breaking point and takes the family to a deserted shack on a little island. Vernon thinks he has outsmarted the sender until a huge monstrous man charges through the shack and introduces himself as Hagrid from Hogwarts, the school of magic and wizardry. Harry is shocked to find that this Hagrid knows his name and is now telling him that he is a wizard and a famous one at that. Harry finds himself being whisked off into a magical world where people play a sport called Quidditch and have potion lessons. He makes friends with Ron and Hermione but also he makes enemies of Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle from the Slytherin House. With him trying to pass his first year at Hogwarts and bypassing Filch in the corridors, it seems that Harry is to be at the centre of attention and adventures as Voldermort tries to kill Harry for the second time.
I loved this book, I liked all the characters. My daughter asked me who my favourite character was and I couldn’t answer it, they were all equally good and when I asked my partner who has been listening to it on Audio he couldn’t pick a favourite either. (Harry Potter on audio narrated by Stephen Fry is supposed to be amazing) All the characters were equally fleshed out they were complex and three-dimensional, there are a lot of characters to this book but it’s not overwhelming. The world building was brilliant even without the pictures from this book you would have a clear understanding of what Hogwarts was like. The different characters names, spells, potions and various animals/mythical creatures were just phenomenal, Rowling has one pretty amazing imagination and she grips you from the start and holds on to the finish. The ending to this book was great, it gave me a fuzzy feeling inside and also happy goosebumps. The writing style was easy to read as it’s aimed at children as our main character is only eleven in this book, however this shouldn’t put you off reading it. It doesn’t matter how old you are, this book is for everyone who just wants a bit of magic and adventure in their life. I have to say that JK Rowling has changed a lot for children, reading has become joyous and somewhat an inspiration and pivotal role in the educational system, my daughter is at primary school and is set into houses just like Hogwarts and gain points and urges them to do better.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Not since the film The War of the Roses has the silver screen portrayed marital discord in such as humorous and violent fashion as it does in Mr. and Mrs. Smith.
The film stars Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie as the title characters who are approaching their sixth year of marriage, though Mr. Smith seems to be convinced it has only been five.
Tedium has set into their suburban lives, and the couple has entered counseling in an effort to help their lack of communication. The story of how they met and various aspects of their lives with one another paints the picture of how much the flame has dulled after such an explosive start for the couple.
As routine has their home lives have become, one thing that has not changed is their work. Unknown to each other, the Smiths are actually assassins for competing firms. Both Smiths are convinced that their spouse works in other fields and manage to complete most of their missions during the day or night under the guise of work for the cover careers.
Things change when both agents are assigned by their firms to a mission where they end up encountering each other from a distance. Unsure of whom the person they spotted is, they are ordered to eliminate the person in order to protect their cover.
This begins a rapid series of events that, as anyone who has seen the trailer will realize, the Smiths will figure out that the person they have been seeking is their very own spouse. While this destination is inevitable to the plot is not a surprise, the trip leading up to it, and the whirlwind of events that follows this discovery, is what really makes this film such an enjoyable ride.
Naturally when the two uncover their spouse’s true identity, the instincts of their professions as well as their pent up frustrations come out in an orgy of passion and violence that leaves a trail of devastation. The various encounters between the Smiths not only escalate on the violence scale, but due to issue such as pride, reputations, and betrayal, the objectivity and impersonal nature of their work are abandoned.
I think Shakespeare put it best when he said that “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”, as the scenes of Jane Smith unloading her pent up fury are almost as hysterical as the segments where John Smith takes his turn at the plate.
A prime example of the films ability to mix action and comedy to perfection is the classic dance scene where the two attempt to disarm one another in an effort to get the upper hand. Pitt and Jolie dance and exchanges barbs, as they keep the beat and discard the weapons they find, as they plot to gain the upper hand.
The film did lose a bit of its amazing momentum about a third of the way in, before regrouping and bringing the film to an action packed and very satisfying conclusion. The supporting work of Vince Vaughn is very funny, but sadly his presence is limited. The films works very well because the chemistry between the two leads is very strong, as are the action and humor sequences. Without a doubt one of the best movies of the summer and one not to be missed
The film stars Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie as the title characters who are approaching their sixth year of marriage, though Mr. Smith seems to be convinced it has only been five.
Tedium has set into their suburban lives, and the couple has entered counseling in an effort to help their lack of communication. The story of how they met and various aspects of their lives with one another paints the picture of how much the flame has dulled after such an explosive start for the couple.
As routine has their home lives have become, one thing that has not changed is their work. Unknown to each other, the Smiths are actually assassins for competing firms. Both Smiths are convinced that their spouse works in other fields and manage to complete most of their missions during the day or night under the guise of work for the cover careers.
Things change when both agents are assigned by their firms to a mission where they end up encountering each other from a distance. Unsure of whom the person they spotted is, they are ordered to eliminate the person in order to protect their cover.
This begins a rapid series of events that, as anyone who has seen the trailer will realize, the Smiths will figure out that the person they have been seeking is their very own spouse. While this destination is inevitable to the plot is not a surprise, the trip leading up to it, and the whirlwind of events that follows this discovery, is what really makes this film such an enjoyable ride.
Naturally when the two uncover their spouse’s true identity, the instincts of their professions as well as their pent up frustrations come out in an orgy of passion and violence that leaves a trail of devastation. The various encounters between the Smiths not only escalate on the violence scale, but due to issue such as pride, reputations, and betrayal, the objectivity and impersonal nature of their work are abandoned.
I think Shakespeare put it best when he said that “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”, as the scenes of Jane Smith unloading her pent up fury are almost as hysterical as the segments where John Smith takes his turn at the plate.
A prime example of the films ability to mix action and comedy to perfection is the classic dance scene where the two attempt to disarm one another in an effort to get the upper hand. Pitt and Jolie dance and exchanges barbs, as they keep the beat and discard the weapons they find, as they plot to gain the upper hand.
The film did lose a bit of its amazing momentum about a third of the way in, before regrouping and bringing the film to an action packed and very satisfying conclusion. The supporting work of Vince Vaughn is very funny, but sadly his presence is limited. The films works very well because the chemistry between the two leads is very strong, as are the action and humor sequences. Without a doubt one of the best movies of the summer and one not to be missed