Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated Against All Odds (1984) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Against All Odds starts as veteran American football Terry Brogan (Bridges) gets cu from his team, wanting to take legal action it is his former friend and gangster Jake Wise (Woods) that hires him to track down a woman Jessie Wyler (Ward) daughter of Terry’s former employer.
Terry ends up doing the job with both sides fighting to pay him to finds Jessie, Terry uses this as a chance for a paid vacation even after locating Jessie who he gets to spend time with and fall in love with. Soon not everything is as it seems and Terry finds himself needing to fight for his own life too.
Thoughts on Against All Odds
Characters/Performance – Terry Brogan is a veteran American footballer, his career is about to be ended on the field due to injuries and after not saving money in his life, he finds himself with nothing. Terry finds himself needing to work for both Mrs Wyler and Jake Wise from different sides to locate Jessie but soon he finds himself in bigger trouble. Jessie is the daughter of the owner of the football team and former lover of Jake Wise, she has gone into hiding for her own reasons with Terry searching for her to hopefully return to the States. Jake is the gangster that has details on Terry which could ruin his legacy but offers him money to find Jessie for him.
Performance wise, Jeff Bridges is good as he always is through any film he steps into and shows that he was always going to be a big name, Rachel Ward is good but doesn’t reach the levels of Bridges and James Woods can always splay the creepy figure which is why we love him so.
Story – A former sports star needs money and takes a risky job for a shady figure to earn the money and not have his career exposed. This all seems like a simple enough story and one we can all follow nicely. We have twists along the way which try to put u in the wrong direction but otherwise everything is all simple enough to enjoy for an 80s style of film.
REPORT THIS AD
Action/Adventure/Crime/Romance – When we break down the genres we get plenty to go through but the reality is that because we focus on too many we don’t get a strong enough side to any of them with each part being the first part of the generic of any of them.
Settings – The two main settings are LA which is the one we can all understand as being the glitz and glamour with the crimes taking place in while the Mexico setting shows us the calm before the storm.
Final Thoughts – The 80s were a decade of films with unlikely heroes taking over the leading roles in action like films and this was no different, it can be enjoyed throughout the film.
Overall: Thriller that just says 80s all over it.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/02/07/against-all-odds-1984/
Terry ends up doing the job with both sides fighting to pay him to finds Jessie, Terry uses this as a chance for a paid vacation even after locating Jessie who he gets to spend time with and fall in love with. Soon not everything is as it seems and Terry finds himself needing to fight for his own life too.
Thoughts on Against All Odds
Characters/Performance – Terry Brogan is a veteran American footballer, his career is about to be ended on the field due to injuries and after not saving money in his life, he finds himself with nothing. Terry finds himself needing to work for both Mrs Wyler and Jake Wise from different sides to locate Jessie but soon he finds himself in bigger trouble. Jessie is the daughter of the owner of the football team and former lover of Jake Wise, she has gone into hiding for her own reasons with Terry searching for her to hopefully return to the States. Jake is the gangster that has details on Terry which could ruin his legacy but offers him money to find Jessie for him.
Performance wise, Jeff Bridges is good as he always is through any film he steps into and shows that he was always going to be a big name, Rachel Ward is good but doesn’t reach the levels of Bridges and James Woods can always splay the creepy figure which is why we love him so.
Story – A former sports star needs money and takes a risky job for a shady figure to earn the money and not have his career exposed. This all seems like a simple enough story and one we can all follow nicely. We have twists along the way which try to put u in the wrong direction but otherwise everything is all simple enough to enjoy for an 80s style of film.
REPORT THIS AD
Action/Adventure/Crime/Romance – When we break down the genres we get plenty to go through but the reality is that because we focus on too many we don’t get a strong enough side to any of them with each part being the first part of the generic of any of them.
Settings – The two main settings are LA which is the one we can all understand as being the glitz and glamour with the crimes taking place in while the Mexico setting shows us the calm before the storm.
Final Thoughts – The 80s were a decade of films with unlikely heroes taking over the leading roles in action like films and this was no different, it can be enjoyed throughout the film.
Overall: Thriller that just says 80s all over it.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/02/07/against-all-odds-1984/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Miracle (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
n 1980, America was in a state of transition and turmoil as political events threatened world stability. The Reagan era was just starting but the nation was still trying to deal with economic issues as well as the Iran hostage crisis, and long gas lines.
As if those issues were not enough, the Cold War was still in full swing and tensions had mounted due to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Against this backdrop, coach Herb Brooks (Kurt Russell), is busy preparing a team of college Hockey players to represent the United States in the upcoming Winter Olympics.
Since the Olympics were being held in Lake Placid New York, the pressure was on for the U.S. team to make a respectable showing as the Olympic committee did not want the team to be embarrassed in front of the home crowd.
This was a task easier said than done, as the young players would be facing the best the world could throw at them, including the invincible Russian team that had not lost a game in 15 years and had recently handily defeated a team of NHL All Stars. The Russians like many of the teams that the Americans would face had played with each other for years and were like well-oiled machines in comparison to the assembled Americans who had less than a year to prepare.
The early part of the film focuses on the team selection process and Brook’s constant pushing of the team mentally and physically, even when it is to the dismay of his assistant coaches and disdain of his players. The audience is introduced to the players but they are never given much depth as the story focuses on Brooks and his desire to beat the Russians.
The later part of the film deals with the warm up games the team faced and then swings into the Olympics and the march to glory. The games are recreated mainly in highlight format as the focus of the films game recreation is saved for the dramatic and emotional game with the Russians. The action is fast and furious and is very accurate to the actual game itself.
While very emotional and entertaining, much of “Miracle” unfolds like a movie of the week. Russell does a great job as Brooks, but the supporting cast is not given any chance to shine. Patricia Clarkson is wasted in the role of Mrs. Brooks as she is not given much to do other than utter a few lines of encouragement and be the wife by the side of the coach.
All that being said, “Miracle;” is an uplifting and enjoyable look back at arguably the greatest moment in U.S. sports history. The film does stir the emotions and those of us who were old enough to remember the huge shot of patriotic pride that enveloped the land during those magical two weeks and how that team gave a nation renewed hope for the future and made us feel good just when we needed it the most.
As if those issues were not enough, the Cold War was still in full swing and tensions had mounted due to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Against this backdrop, coach Herb Brooks (Kurt Russell), is busy preparing a team of college Hockey players to represent the United States in the upcoming Winter Olympics.
Since the Olympics were being held in Lake Placid New York, the pressure was on for the U.S. team to make a respectable showing as the Olympic committee did not want the team to be embarrassed in front of the home crowd.
This was a task easier said than done, as the young players would be facing the best the world could throw at them, including the invincible Russian team that had not lost a game in 15 years and had recently handily defeated a team of NHL All Stars. The Russians like many of the teams that the Americans would face had played with each other for years and were like well-oiled machines in comparison to the assembled Americans who had less than a year to prepare.
The early part of the film focuses on the team selection process and Brook’s constant pushing of the team mentally and physically, even when it is to the dismay of his assistant coaches and disdain of his players. The audience is introduced to the players but they are never given much depth as the story focuses on Brooks and his desire to beat the Russians.
The later part of the film deals with the warm up games the team faced and then swings into the Olympics and the march to glory. The games are recreated mainly in highlight format as the focus of the films game recreation is saved for the dramatic and emotional game with the Russians. The action is fast and furious and is very accurate to the actual game itself.
While very emotional and entertaining, much of “Miracle” unfolds like a movie of the week. Russell does a great job as Brooks, but the supporting cast is not given any chance to shine. Patricia Clarkson is wasted in the role of Mrs. Brooks as she is not given much to do other than utter a few lines of encouragement and be the wife by the side of the coach.
All that being said, “Miracle;” is an uplifting and enjoyable look back at arguably the greatest moment in U.S. sports history. The film does stir the emotions and those of us who were old enough to remember the huge shot of patriotic pride that enveloped the land during those magical two weeks and how that team gave a nation renewed hope for the future and made us feel good just when we needed it the most.
EmersonRose (320 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in Books
Nov 20, 2019
The Haunting of Hill House was written by Shirley Jackson in 1959. Since then it has been heralded as a milestone in the horror genre. The book takes its reader on an unnerving adventure with four characters who chose to spend a summer in a haunted house.
Dr. Montague wishes to track the supernatural and write a factual paper on hauntings. He enlists the help of two women who he believes to have connections with the unnatural. The first is Theodora lighthearted and the center of attention, and Eleanor, quiet and fragile but ready for something in her life to change. Their party is completed by Luke, the charming heir to Hill House. The unnerving atmosphere of the house puts them all on edge from the moment they see it, but things only get stranger as the power of the house grows.
I was drawn to this book for several reasons. First, it was the week of Halloween, why not get into the spirit. But Hill House had begun to orbit in my life before this. I myself read The Lottery in my eighth-grade creative writing class. I also recently read a book called House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski, which is also a haunted house story and Shirley Jackson’s book began getting recommended to me. As I started to read the book, I began to have this feeling best expressed through a quote from the book itself: “Am I walking toward something I should be running away from?”
When I started reading the story, I could not help but let my thoughts fly trying to solve 13388the mystery myself. The language of the book captured my attention completely. The descriptions built up the house so vividly in my imagination. The haunting Victorian atmosphere is both beautiful and disturbing. The unnerving and uncomfortable were created, kept up, and made the book hard to put down. I loved wondering about Mrs. Dudley, questioning the other characters, and imagining what could be knocking on the door.
Eleanor, as the point of view character, is the easiest to identify with. Her paranoia, fear, and anxiety are central parts to her identity, but she also seems to the most real in her reactions to both the house and the other characters. He relationships with each of the other four are almost dreamlike in the way level of closeness she has with them ebbs and flows. I could not help but feel for Eleanor, especially when it seems she is being targeted by the house.
I found this book to be enthralling. The horror genre is not my go-to read, but Shirley Jackson has a way with words and intimate feelings that makes me want to read through every book she has ever written. The psychological descent of the characters is natural and terrifying to behold. Now that I have read it, I cannot help but see Jackson’s influence on horror and psychological thriller. I am very pleased with having finally read this book and would highly recommend it as a must read. Only beware, the house as power and no one’s mind is safe.
Dr. Montague wishes to track the supernatural and write a factual paper on hauntings. He enlists the help of two women who he believes to have connections with the unnatural. The first is Theodora lighthearted and the center of attention, and Eleanor, quiet and fragile but ready for something in her life to change. Their party is completed by Luke, the charming heir to Hill House. The unnerving atmosphere of the house puts them all on edge from the moment they see it, but things only get stranger as the power of the house grows.
I was drawn to this book for several reasons. First, it was the week of Halloween, why not get into the spirit. But Hill House had begun to orbit in my life before this. I myself read The Lottery in my eighth-grade creative writing class. I also recently read a book called House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski, which is also a haunted house story and Shirley Jackson’s book began getting recommended to me. As I started to read the book, I began to have this feeling best expressed through a quote from the book itself: “Am I walking toward something I should be running away from?”
When I started reading the story, I could not help but let my thoughts fly trying to solve 13388the mystery myself. The language of the book captured my attention completely. The descriptions built up the house so vividly in my imagination. The haunting Victorian atmosphere is both beautiful and disturbing. The unnerving and uncomfortable were created, kept up, and made the book hard to put down. I loved wondering about Mrs. Dudley, questioning the other characters, and imagining what could be knocking on the door.
Eleanor, as the point of view character, is the easiest to identify with. Her paranoia, fear, and anxiety are central parts to her identity, but she also seems to the most real in her reactions to both the house and the other characters. He relationships with each of the other four are almost dreamlike in the way level of closeness she has with them ebbs and flows. I could not help but feel for Eleanor, especially when it seems she is being targeted by the house.
I found this book to be enthralling. The horror genre is not my go-to read, but Shirley Jackson has a way with words and intimate feelings that makes me want to read through every book she has ever written. The psychological descent of the characters is natural and terrifying to behold. Now that I have read it, I cannot help but see Jackson’s influence on horror and psychological thriller. I am very pleased with having finally read this book and would highly recommend it as a must read. Only beware, the house as power and no one’s mind is safe.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Airplane! in Apps
Mar 27, 2020
Holds Up Well
Doctor: Can you fly this plane, and land it?
Striker: Surely you can't be serious.
Doctor: I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.
And that, in a nutshell, is the humor to be found in the 1980 laugh-a-minute comedy AIRPLANE brought to us by the demented minds of David Zucker, Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker. If you haven't seen this flick in awhile - or if you have NEVER seen it - check it out, you'll be glad you did.
Parodying Disaster Movies that were all the rage in the 1970's, AIRPLANE tells the tale of an airliner who's flight crew is incapacitated by food poisoning and it is up to a Stewardess and her on again/off again former fighter pilot (fighting PTSD) boyfriend to land the plane and save the passengers.
And...along the way we have a hodgepodge of quirky, weird characters that are not afraid to sling a joke in a deadpan style. It is an unusual film to watch.
And...make sure you put your phone down and actually WATCH this film, for there is quite a bit of visual humor that you need to be paying attention to to catch it...humor such as...
Kramer: Steve, I want every light you can get poured onto that field.
Steve: Bein' done right now.
[On the runway, a truck dumps a full load of lamps onto the ground]
Also...the verbal humor needs to be paid attention to...
Doctor: What was it we had for dinner tonight?
Elaine: Well, we had a choice of steak or fish.
Doctor: Yes, yes, I remember, I had lasagna.
All of this delivered with a deadpan wink in the eye by such dramatic 1960's and '70's TV stalwarts as Leslie Nielsen, Lloyd Bridges and Robert Stack. Add to that the wholesome cuteness of leads Robert Hayes and Julie Hagerty with fun cameos by the likes of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Mrs. Cleaver herself, Barbara Billingsly ("Excuse me stewardess, I speak jive) and a fun time was had by all.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't single out the craziness of the character Johnny (Stephen Stucker). He flits in and out of this film (in some cases quite literally) throwing non-sequiturs at the screen that had me laughing out loud on my umpteenth viewing of this film. Non-sequiturs like...
Steve: Johnny, what can you make out of this?
[Hands him the weather briefing]
Johnny: This? Why, I can make a hat or a brooch or a pterodactyl...
This film gave myself and my family some much need yuks - even my "eye rolling" 19 year old College Freshman was heard guffawing out loud from time to time.
So...check out AIRPLANE - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade:: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Oh...and one other thing...
Kramer: Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. Sorry, Ted, that's a dumb question... skip that...
Striker: Surely you can't be serious.
Doctor: I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.
And that, in a nutshell, is the humor to be found in the 1980 laugh-a-minute comedy AIRPLANE brought to us by the demented minds of David Zucker, Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker. If you haven't seen this flick in awhile - or if you have NEVER seen it - check it out, you'll be glad you did.
Parodying Disaster Movies that were all the rage in the 1970's, AIRPLANE tells the tale of an airliner who's flight crew is incapacitated by food poisoning and it is up to a Stewardess and her on again/off again former fighter pilot (fighting PTSD) boyfriend to land the plane and save the passengers.
And...along the way we have a hodgepodge of quirky, weird characters that are not afraid to sling a joke in a deadpan style. It is an unusual film to watch.
And...make sure you put your phone down and actually WATCH this film, for there is quite a bit of visual humor that you need to be paying attention to to catch it...humor such as...
Kramer: Steve, I want every light you can get poured onto that field.
Steve: Bein' done right now.
[On the runway, a truck dumps a full load of lamps onto the ground]
Also...the verbal humor needs to be paid attention to...
Doctor: What was it we had for dinner tonight?
Elaine: Well, we had a choice of steak or fish.
Doctor: Yes, yes, I remember, I had lasagna.
All of this delivered with a deadpan wink in the eye by such dramatic 1960's and '70's TV stalwarts as Leslie Nielsen, Lloyd Bridges and Robert Stack. Add to that the wholesome cuteness of leads Robert Hayes and Julie Hagerty with fun cameos by the likes of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Mrs. Cleaver herself, Barbara Billingsly ("Excuse me stewardess, I speak jive) and a fun time was had by all.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't single out the craziness of the character Johnny (Stephen Stucker). He flits in and out of this film (in some cases quite literally) throwing non-sequiturs at the screen that had me laughing out loud on my umpteenth viewing of this film. Non-sequiturs like...
Steve: Johnny, what can you make out of this?
[Hands him the weather briefing]
Johnny: This? Why, I can make a hat or a brooch or a pterodactyl...
This film gave myself and my family some much need yuks - even my "eye rolling" 19 year old College Freshman was heard guffawing out loud from time to time.
So...check out AIRPLANE - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade:: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Oh...and one other thing...
Kramer: Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. Sorry, Ted, that's a dumb question... skip that...
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/