Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated How Do You Know (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
How Do You Know? is a heartfelt comedy about a woman who thought she had her whole life planned out and had answers to all the questions except for the most important, what she really wants in life.
Reese Witherspoon plays Lisa a former athlete who recently was cut from her team and is left to wonder what she will do with her life. Lisa has always been a confident woman who dated only athletes like herself. Matty (Owen Wilson), is her current love interest and also an athlete who does not really understand women, their feelings and the importance of monogamy.
Knowing this, Lisa still decides to stay with Matty and try and make things work as a couple.
At the same time, George (Paul Rudd), is being investigated by the FBI for wrong doings within the company that his father Charles (Jack Nicholson), owns. In the same day, George learns he is not only being investigated by the FBI, but his girlfriend breaks up with him because of his problems.
Lisa and George’s paths crossed earlier when a friend decides that it would be a great idea for Lisa to go on a date with a corporate type of guy rather than continue with her current athlete fixaton.
Lisa decides to meet George for dinner, but this sadly does not go well for either of them. Matty decides to be spontaneous and asks Lisa to move in but only ends up pushing her away. As a result, Lisa ends up getting to know George more and they become great friends during the on and off again relationship she has with Matty which leads to Lisa trying to find what she wants in life.
Director James L. Brooks did not allow the film to flow very well due to a slow beginning and middle and Jack Nicholson seemed out of place with such a small part for an actor of his status.
I was not a fan of the cinematography in some scenes and I wish the story would have flowed a little better and while this was not my favorite Reese Witherspoon role, Paul Rudd stole the show with his funny dialogue and silly antics.
Reese Witherspoon plays Lisa a former athlete who recently was cut from her team and is left to wonder what she will do with her life. Lisa has always been a confident woman who dated only athletes like herself. Matty (Owen Wilson), is her current love interest and also an athlete who does not really understand women, their feelings and the importance of monogamy.
Knowing this, Lisa still decides to stay with Matty and try and make things work as a couple.
At the same time, George (Paul Rudd), is being investigated by the FBI for wrong doings within the company that his father Charles (Jack Nicholson), owns. In the same day, George learns he is not only being investigated by the FBI, but his girlfriend breaks up with him because of his problems.
Lisa and George’s paths crossed earlier when a friend decides that it would be a great idea for Lisa to go on a date with a corporate type of guy rather than continue with her current athlete fixaton.
Lisa decides to meet George for dinner, but this sadly does not go well for either of them. Matty decides to be spontaneous and asks Lisa to move in but only ends up pushing her away. As a result, Lisa ends up getting to know George more and they become great friends during the on and off again relationship she has with Matty which leads to Lisa trying to find what she wants in life.
Director James L. Brooks did not allow the film to flow very well due to a slow beginning and middle and Jack Nicholson seemed out of place with such a small part for an actor of his status.
I was not a fan of the cinematography in some scenes and I wish the story would have flowed a little better and while this was not my favorite Reese Witherspoon role, Paul Rudd stole the show with his funny dialogue and silly antics.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Mute (2017) in Movies
Feb 17, 2021 (Updated Feb 25, 2021)
Oh no Duncan Jones! How are you managing that occasional trick of each subsequent film you make being inferior to your last? Moon was sublime, Source Code was pretty damn good, Warcraft: The Beginning (and end probably) was just about watchable, and Mute is… fucking dreadful! I don’t buy Alexander Skarsgård as a leading man at the best of times, but given this ridiculous premise, script and downright careless production value, he falls flat to a ridiculous, almost laughable degree. It looks pretty in parts, very shiny and HD, but is never believable as a reality. I mean the main character can’t talk, which could have been used interestingly with good direction, but is frankly annoying here. Paul Rudd has a blast as Cactus Bill, and is mostly forgiven. Look out also for Robert Sheenan (Klaus from the Umbrella Academy) in a blameless and interesting role as Luba. Very very minor cult status is possible for this a few years down the line, but not enough to save it from the gutter.
KyleQ (267 KP) rated Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995) in Movies
Jul 19, 2020
Better then #5, but still flawed.
In a weird turn for the franchise, a cult has forced Michael Myers to impregnate Jamie Lloyd, in an attempt to end his bloodline he kills Jamie, but she hid the baby from him, the infant is found by Tommy Doyle (Paul Rudd in his introductory role), Doyle lives across the street from the former Myers house, now housing a new family of Strode's. Michael returns to Haddonfield, and death follows.
It's apparent that director Joe Chappelle is trying to harken back to John Carpenter's style of film-making. Focusing more on trying to create tension then fill the film with death scenes. Michael actually doesn't have as much screen time here. We return to him sneaking around in the shadows.
Mostly H6's weakness is in it's acting, they just fail to feel believable, thus ruining what suspense Chappelle created, then there's the weird plotline which will turn away some viewers.
This one also marks Donald Pleasence's last time as Loomis, it's sad but he's also a bit unnecessary at this point.
I enjoyed Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers for what it was, I think if you're open to the strange plot you will too.
It's apparent that director Joe Chappelle is trying to harken back to John Carpenter's style of film-making. Focusing more on trying to create tension then fill the film with death scenes. Michael actually doesn't have as much screen time here. We return to him sneaking around in the shadows.
Mostly H6's weakness is in it's acting, they just fail to feel believable, thus ruining what suspense Chappelle created, then there's the weird plotline which will turn away some viewers.
This one also marks Donald Pleasence's last time as Loomis, it's sad but he's also a bit unnecessary at this point.
I enjoyed Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers for what it was, I think if you're open to the strange plot you will too.
Lee KM Pallatina (951 KP) rated Friends in TV
Aug 30, 2019
The one with all the FRIENDS
Friends is a show about 6 people-
siblings Ross and monica Gellar (still suffering with sibling rivalry) monicas neighbours from across the hall Joey tribbiani (a struggling actor, with the IQ of a child but a heart of gold) and Chandler Bing (the groups comedian and Ross's college roommate) monica's High school bestie Rachel Green ( queen Rachel. Who does whatever she wants in her little Rachel land) & phoebe buffay (wacky, unpredictable and very odd).
The characters and their daily lives are what makes this show great as it mirrors the reality of every day people, although there have been shows since it ended that have had a similar impact on viewers, none have truly come close to being as genuine.
Heart warming storylines, legendary one liners and quotes we all still use today, there's Love, Laughter, Lust, Loss and great cameos from brad Pitt, Jeff Goldblum, Robin Williams, Paul Rudd, Bruce Willis and so many more, it's easy to see why after nearly 20yrs since it ended, it's still here.
Its 2019 & I have personally watched this show from beginning to end (with a little help from Netflix) 7 times an will continue to do so.
siblings Ross and monica Gellar (still suffering with sibling rivalry) monicas neighbours from across the hall Joey tribbiani (a struggling actor, with the IQ of a child but a heart of gold) and Chandler Bing (the groups comedian and Ross's college roommate) monica's High school bestie Rachel Green ( queen Rachel. Who does whatever she wants in her little Rachel land) & phoebe buffay (wacky, unpredictable and very odd).
The characters and their daily lives are what makes this show great as it mirrors the reality of every day people, although there have been shows since it ended that have had a similar impact on viewers, none have truly come close to being as genuine.
Heart warming storylines, legendary one liners and quotes we all still use today, there's Love, Laughter, Lust, Loss and great cameos from brad Pitt, Jeff Goldblum, Robin Williams, Paul Rudd, Bruce Willis and so many more, it's easy to see why after nearly 20yrs since it ended, it's still here.
Its 2019 & I have personally watched this show from beginning to end (with a little help from Netflix) 7 times an will continue to do so.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
May 11, 2019
'Hold on, you gave her wings?!'
A much welcome breather after the heavyweight that was Avengers: Infinity War, the 20th instalment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is another lighthearted ride unfolding on the same minuscule scale as Ant-Man, and though not as impressive as Marvel's best works, it still delivers a fine dose of fun, amusing & action-packed entertainment.
Set in the aftermath of Captain America: Civil War, the story of Ant-Man and the Wasp finds Scott Lang under house arrest and Dr. Hank Pym & Hope van Dyne in hiding until an urgent mission brings them together once again as the trio attempt to unlock the secrets of quantum realm before it's too late, while being pursued by both cops & new enemies.
Directed by Peyton Reed, the sequel offers him more freedom & bigger canvas to showcase his vision & creativity yet he fails to makes the most of the opportunity and delivers a story that's pretty much on same level as its predecessor. Its action scenes do get an upgrade but the plot is quite simple and is missing the character complexity that drives most sequels.
On the plus side, the film retains the humour of the original while the continuous banter & brisk pacing make sure that its 118 mins runtime never becomes a chore. The swift, kinetic operation of camera infuses an energy to its moments of action on both macro & micro levels while the bright colour tones add a rich texture that makes the images pop out. And Christophe Beck's splendid score adds energy of its own into the mix.
Coming to the performances, Ant-Man and the Wasp benefits from Paul Rudd's natural charisma but it's Evangeline Lilly who steals the show this time in the role of Hope/Wasp. The chemistry between the two still carries a spark but purely on individual inputs, Lilly outshines Rudd by a significant margin. Both Michael Peña & Michael Douglas are more fun in their respective roles this time around but the new characters are no good.
On an overall scale, Ant-Man and the Wasp makes for a sufficiently entertaining action-adventure and is at its best when it isn't trying too hard. A standalone entry for the most part that eventually connects with the heavy conclusion of Infinity War in a shocking mid-credits sequence, Ant-Man and the Wasp does enough to allow the viewers to settle down before things got hot & heavy once again in Avengers Endgame
Set in the aftermath of Captain America: Civil War, the story of Ant-Man and the Wasp finds Scott Lang under house arrest and Dr. Hank Pym & Hope van Dyne in hiding until an urgent mission brings them together once again as the trio attempt to unlock the secrets of quantum realm before it's too late, while being pursued by both cops & new enemies.
Directed by Peyton Reed, the sequel offers him more freedom & bigger canvas to showcase his vision & creativity yet he fails to makes the most of the opportunity and delivers a story that's pretty much on same level as its predecessor. Its action scenes do get an upgrade but the plot is quite simple and is missing the character complexity that drives most sequels.
On the plus side, the film retains the humour of the original while the continuous banter & brisk pacing make sure that its 118 mins runtime never becomes a chore. The swift, kinetic operation of camera infuses an energy to its moments of action on both macro & micro levels while the bright colour tones add a rich texture that makes the images pop out. And Christophe Beck's splendid score adds energy of its own into the mix.
Coming to the performances, Ant-Man and the Wasp benefits from Paul Rudd's natural charisma but it's Evangeline Lilly who steals the show this time in the role of Hope/Wasp. The chemistry between the two still carries a spark but purely on individual inputs, Lilly outshines Rudd by a significant margin. Both Michael Peña & Michael Douglas are more fun in their respective roles this time around but the new characters are no good.
On an overall scale, Ant-Man and the Wasp makes for a sufficiently entertaining action-adventure and is at its best when it isn't trying too hard. A standalone entry for the most part that eventually connects with the heavy conclusion of Infinity War in a shocking mid-credits sequence, Ant-Man and the Wasp does enough to allow the viewers to settle down before things got hot & heavy once again in Avengers Endgame
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated This is 40 (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The last time we saw Pete and Debbie in the movie “Knocked Up”, they were just reconciling after a short separation. Pete found Debbie too controlling and regularly escaped the house leading Debbie to believe he was having an affair when really he was in a fantasy baseball draft. Five years later, Pete is no longer a band promoter but trying to keep his own record label afloat, while Debbie owns and manages a clothing boutique.
To the casual observer, Pete and Debbie, played with great chemistry by Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann, live an idyllic life with a nice house, two daughters and promising businesses. But a closer look finds Pete would rather play Scrabble on his iPad while on the toilet than spend time playing with his daughters. Most would never guess Debbie is a stress smoker since she goes to great lengths to hide her habit. Stressing over turning 40 isn’t helping her quit and neither is trying to figure out which of her employees is stealing from her. Is it the sexpot Desi, played easily by Megan Fox, or is it the strange Jodi, played with eerie weirdness by Charlyne Yi? As for Pete’s business, his stubborn antipathy towards popular music is driving his record label towards bankruptcy. But that’s not all that’s troubling Pete and Debbie. Both have daddy issues and neither know how quite to handle their over-emotional 14 year old daughter.
Sound like a hodge-podge of dilemmas? It certainly is. What started out as an amusing tale of turning 40 quickly devolved into a manic mess of pointing fingers, curse words, teenage angst and mental breakdowns. At one point in the film, Debbie’s dad, played by John Lithgow, looked utterly confused and I could empathize. If this movie had a storyline, it got lost along with any sympathy for Pete or Pete’s dad played by Albert Brooks. You know it’s bad when you start hoping the 8 year old daughter, Charlotte, says something funny again to break the tension.
With this strong cast of actors, including director Judd Apatow’s daughters Maude and Iris who played Pete and Debbie’s daughters, Sadie and Charlotte, there was no issue with the performances. Maybe some of the story was trimmed away in the editing room, but with a run time of 134 minutes, one would think some semblance of a storyline could have been left. Sure, there was plenty to laugh at, especially with bit parts played by Jason Segal, Melissa McCarthy and Chris O’Dowd.
I really wanted to like this movie. Judd Apatow, Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann sounded like the perfect trio to make a funny movie. Alas, the funny stuff is in the trailers. Save yourself some dough and wait for the DVD, where some of the storyline may make it in the deleted scenes.
To the casual observer, Pete and Debbie, played with great chemistry by Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann, live an idyllic life with a nice house, two daughters and promising businesses. But a closer look finds Pete would rather play Scrabble on his iPad while on the toilet than spend time playing with his daughters. Most would never guess Debbie is a stress smoker since she goes to great lengths to hide her habit. Stressing over turning 40 isn’t helping her quit and neither is trying to figure out which of her employees is stealing from her. Is it the sexpot Desi, played easily by Megan Fox, or is it the strange Jodi, played with eerie weirdness by Charlyne Yi? As for Pete’s business, his stubborn antipathy towards popular music is driving his record label towards bankruptcy. But that’s not all that’s troubling Pete and Debbie. Both have daddy issues and neither know how quite to handle their over-emotional 14 year old daughter.
Sound like a hodge-podge of dilemmas? It certainly is. What started out as an amusing tale of turning 40 quickly devolved into a manic mess of pointing fingers, curse words, teenage angst and mental breakdowns. At one point in the film, Debbie’s dad, played by John Lithgow, looked utterly confused and I could empathize. If this movie had a storyline, it got lost along with any sympathy for Pete or Pete’s dad played by Albert Brooks. You know it’s bad when you start hoping the 8 year old daughter, Charlotte, says something funny again to break the tension.
With this strong cast of actors, including director Judd Apatow’s daughters Maude and Iris who played Pete and Debbie’s daughters, Sadie and Charlotte, there was no issue with the performances. Maybe some of the story was trimmed away in the editing room, but with a run time of 134 minutes, one would think some semblance of a storyline could have been left. Sure, there was plenty to laugh at, especially with bit parts played by Jason Segal, Melissa McCarthy and Chris O’Dowd.
I really wanted to like this movie. Judd Apatow, Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann sounded like the perfect trio to make a funny movie. Alas, the funny stuff is in the trailers. Save yourself some dough and wait for the DVD, where some of the storyline may make it in the deleted scenes.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Apr 20, 2019
Not bad, but nothing special
The first Ant-Man film was a pleasant surprise and much better than expected, but it was still lacking in some of the magic of the other Marvel films. Sadly Ant-Man and The Wasp suffers even more than the first.
I love Paul Rudd and I think he's the best thing about this film by far, his Scott Lang is nothing other than lovable. The second best things about this film are Michael Douglas who is surprisingly funny and of course Michael Pena, but sadly the rest of the cast fall flat. The bad guys aren't particularly threatening and the whole film lacks any real threat, tension or suspense. I'm also not a big fan of Hope. I have nothing against Evangeline Lilly but I find Hope a little dull and irritating and not endearing in the slightest.
The effects in this are good but after the first film there's nothing particularly remarkable. The plot just seems a bit generic and boring, and the film drags and it isn't even on for 2 hours. I just found the whole thing a bit meh, it's entertaining enough with just enough humour and nods to the other Marvel characters but it's nothing special. What I liked the most was the toy-like end credits sequence. Oh and the post credits scene is totally not worth it. This isn't a bad Marvel film, and certainly isn't anywhere near the likes of Iron Man 3, but it's just a good/average film lacking anything memorable. And that's not good enough when it has to follow something like Infinity War.
I love Paul Rudd and I think he's the best thing about this film by far, his Scott Lang is nothing other than lovable. The second best things about this film are Michael Douglas who is surprisingly funny and of course Michael Pena, but sadly the rest of the cast fall flat. The bad guys aren't particularly threatening and the whole film lacks any real threat, tension or suspense. I'm also not a big fan of Hope. I have nothing against Evangeline Lilly but I find Hope a little dull and irritating and not endearing in the slightest.
The effects in this are good but after the first film there's nothing particularly remarkable. The plot just seems a bit generic and boring, and the film drags and it isn't even on for 2 hours. I just found the whole thing a bit meh, it's entertaining enough with just enough humour and nods to the other Marvel characters but it's nothing special. What I liked the most was the toy-like end credits sequence. Oh and the post credits scene is totally not worth it. This isn't a bad Marvel film, and certainly isn't anywhere near the likes of Iron Man 3, but it's just a good/average film lacking anything memorable. And that's not good enough when it has to follow something like Infinity War.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Cider House Rules (1999) in Movies
Apr 26, 2020
Great acting, great writing, great directing
When we do our "Secret Cinema" adventures at our house (one person picks the film and the rest of the family doesn't know what it is until it starts running), we try to give clues. This film was nominated for 7 Oscars for the 1999 season, winning 2 - including a 2nd BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR OSCAR for a veteran actor. It is based on a wonderful novel and features 3 young actors well before they became stars.
Sound interesting? Then check out THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
Based on the novel by John Irving, THE CIDER HOUSE RULES follows the life of Homer Wells (a pre-SPIDERMAN Tobey Maguire), a young orphan who is raised/mentored by the head of his Orphanage, Dr. Wilbur Larch (Michael Caine). When Homer decides to leave the orphanage and experience the world, he learns quite a bit about life including THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
This is one of those "coming of age/follow a person through their life"-type films that relies heavily on style, substance and the performance of the actors on the screen. And under the Direction of Swedish Director Lasse Hallstrom and with words of the Screenplay by the author of the novel, John Irving, and with terrific actors like Maguire and Caine (amongst others) speaking those lines - a spell is cast and a heartwarming, life-affirming experience unfolds.
Caine won his 2nd Oscar for his role as Dr. Larch. This is a complex character who has his own, very certain, views on the world and is uncompromising in his care for others. It is a wonderful performance - even taking into account the peculiar Maine/United States accent Caine puts on. His character's empathy, strength and vulnerability are at play throughout this performance and he is a very deserving recipient of the Oscar.
A very young Charlize Theron and a (then) unknown Paul Rudd are engaging, charming and extremely photogenic as a young couple that Homer leaves the orphanage to see the world with. Rudd is the embodiment of the "nice guy" in this film - you can see the seeds of a career of playing "the nice guy" in this performance. Theron radiates beauty, power and a self-reliance that shows the strong actress she will become. While Homer's relationship with Dr. Larch is the heart and conflict of this film, the trio of McGuire/Theron/Rudd are the soul. The film also features a bevy of strong character actors in smaller roles that prop this film up. Jane Alexander, Kathy Baker, J.K. Simmons, Kate Nelligan and Delroy Lindo all shine in smaller roles - as do some of the child actors that portray other orphans like Keiran Caulkin and (especially) Per Erik Sullivan as the physically compromised Fuzzy.
But...none of this works if Maguire doesn't hold this film together (for we see this world/film through his eyes and he is in every scene) and he brings it. He has a quiet charm and innocence that helps bring us into his world in a welcoming way. Certainly, the awkwardness that Homer shows around Theron will be in evidence when he plays Peter Parker years later, but it is the inner strength that Maguire shows that really makes this character shine.
John Irving wrote the screen play based on his novel - and the results are satisfying, both to those who've never read the book (or have encountered an Irving novel/book before) or veteran readers/lovers of Irving's work (like myself).
All of this is wrapped in a package by Director Lasse Hallstrom (MY LIFE AS A DOG) in a charming, loving way that show the people, events and times through a lens that amplifies the proceedings in a way that is welcoming and engaging.
It is always a bit of a concern of mine to revisit a film that I remember fondly, but in this case, I am glad I jumped at the chance to revisit this charming film.
And you'll be glad you did, too.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sound interesting? Then check out THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
Based on the novel by John Irving, THE CIDER HOUSE RULES follows the life of Homer Wells (a pre-SPIDERMAN Tobey Maguire), a young orphan who is raised/mentored by the head of his Orphanage, Dr. Wilbur Larch (Michael Caine). When Homer decides to leave the orphanage and experience the world, he learns quite a bit about life including THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
This is one of those "coming of age/follow a person through their life"-type films that relies heavily on style, substance and the performance of the actors on the screen. And under the Direction of Swedish Director Lasse Hallstrom and with words of the Screenplay by the author of the novel, John Irving, and with terrific actors like Maguire and Caine (amongst others) speaking those lines - a spell is cast and a heartwarming, life-affirming experience unfolds.
Caine won his 2nd Oscar for his role as Dr. Larch. This is a complex character who has his own, very certain, views on the world and is uncompromising in his care for others. It is a wonderful performance - even taking into account the peculiar Maine/United States accent Caine puts on. His character's empathy, strength and vulnerability are at play throughout this performance and he is a very deserving recipient of the Oscar.
A very young Charlize Theron and a (then) unknown Paul Rudd are engaging, charming and extremely photogenic as a young couple that Homer leaves the orphanage to see the world with. Rudd is the embodiment of the "nice guy" in this film - you can see the seeds of a career of playing "the nice guy" in this performance. Theron radiates beauty, power and a self-reliance that shows the strong actress she will become. While Homer's relationship with Dr. Larch is the heart and conflict of this film, the trio of McGuire/Theron/Rudd are the soul. The film also features a bevy of strong character actors in smaller roles that prop this film up. Jane Alexander, Kathy Baker, J.K. Simmons, Kate Nelligan and Delroy Lindo all shine in smaller roles - as do some of the child actors that portray other orphans like Keiran Caulkin and (especially) Per Erik Sullivan as the physically compromised Fuzzy.
But...none of this works if Maguire doesn't hold this film together (for we see this world/film through his eyes and he is in every scene) and he brings it. He has a quiet charm and innocence that helps bring us into his world in a welcoming way. Certainly, the awkwardness that Homer shows around Theron will be in evidence when he plays Peter Parker years later, but it is the inner strength that Maguire shows that really makes this character shine.
John Irving wrote the screen play based on his novel - and the results are satisfying, both to those who've never read the book (or have encountered an Irving novel/book before) or veteran readers/lovers of Irving's work (like myself).
All of this is wrapped in a package by Director Lasse Hallstrom (MY LIFE AS A DOG) in a charming, loving way that show the people, events and times through a lens that amplifies the proceedings in a way that is welcoming and engaging.
It is always a bit of a concern of mine to revisit a film that I remember fondly, but in this case, I am glad I jumped at the chance to revisit this charming film.
And you'll be glad you did, too.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Ant-Man (2015) in Movies
May 10, 2019
"I Know a Guy"
I've been a comic book junkie all my life. I have, however, never been really interested in Ant-Man. It's not an easy super hero to fall for. It is therefore to me all the more astonishing they managed to pull it off so well in this troubled production.
There are only a handful of ways to treat an origin story an Ant-Man breaks no molds there. It hits every single beat you'd expect it to, builds up the story like you'd expect it to and concludes it like you'd expect it to. So it is left to the moments in between and the schwung with which it delivers them to make the film. And it works like a charm.
Every time I felt myself getting a bit annoyed with yet another piece of expository dialogue or predictable plot development, it sideswiped me with a fantastic action sequence, hilarious fight scene or the utterly brilliant Michael Peña. There is so much clever entertainment chucked into the film that it was very easy for me to just say 'Fuck it' and enjoy the ride.
What I loved about it was the toned down treatment of the bizarreness of the super powers. It would have been very easy to go completely overboard with this, but Reed actually manages to bring a level headedness to the fantastical which I appreciated and which actually strengthened what they were basically trying to instill in Rudd's character, some semblance of identifiable humanity. As much as I love Wright, I'm perhaps one of the few people who don't think he would have been able to restrain himself and gone the route of Scott Pilgrim which is not something that would have worked I feel.
Rudd is excellent and plays it straight, casting off a vibe of 'What the hell am I doing?' very successfully. He is likable and his transformation into this unlikely hero worked mainly because of the way he played it. The rest of the cast is great (CGI-Michael Douglas will haunt me forever) and Michael Peña truly is stellar. Give him his own film. Please.
The main attraction in this type of film is usually the action. And while the action in this is fantastic, there is surprisingly little of it, making the final confrontation actually something to look forward to And boy does it deliver. It uses the potential of the, let's be honest, silliness of the powers to its fullest, making it what it should be. A thrilling ride.
Ant-Man surprised me. Wright's involvement is palpable, which is good. But its main attraction lies in the simple fact that it is effortlessly entertaining. Fun, funny and exciting. Exactly what it should be.
There are only a handful of ways to treat an origin story an Ant-Man breaks no molds there. It hits every single beat you'd expect it to, builds up the story like you'd expect it to and concludes it like you'd expect it to. So it is left to the moments in between and the schwung with which it delivers them to make the film. And it works like a charm.
Every time I felt myself getting a bit annoyed with yet another piece of expository dialogue or predictable plot development, it sideswiped me with a fantastic action sequence, hilarious fight scene or the utterly brilliant Michael Peña. There is so much clever entertainment chucked into the film that it was very easy for me to just say 'Fuck it' and enjoy the ride.
What I loved about it was the toned down treatment of the bizarreness of the super powers. It would have been very easy to go completely overboard with this, but Reed actually manages to bring a level headedness to the fantastical which I appreciated and which actually strengthened what they were basically trying to instill in Rudd's character, some semblance of identifiable humanity. As much as I love Wright, I'm perhaps one of the few people who don't think he would have been able to restrain himself and gone the route of Scott Pilgrim which is not something that would have worked I feel.
Rudd is excellent and plays it straight, casting off a vibe of 'What the hell am I doing?' very successfully. He is likable and his transformation into this unlikely hero worked mainly because of the way he played it. The rest of the cast is great (CGI-Michael Douglas will haunt me forever) and Michael Peña truly is stellar. Give him his own film. Please.
The main attraction in this type of film is usually the action. And while the action in this is fantastic, there is surprisingly little of it, making the final confrontation actually something to look forward to And boy does it deliver. It uses the potential of the, let's be honest, silliness of the powers to its fullest, making it what it should be. A thrilling ride.
Ant-Man surprised me. Wright's involvement is palpable, which is good. But its main attraction lies in the simple fact that it is effortlessly entertaining. Fun, funny and exciting. Exactly what it should be.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I really wanted this movie to be epic. I wanted it to be the follow up that so many waited so long to see.
However, it fell just short of that goal in my book.
Anchorman 2 picks up in 1980 where Ron Burgandy (Will Ferrell) and Veronica Corningstone (Christina
Applegate) are married, have a 6-year old son, and are co-anchors for a local news station in New York.
Not long into the movie, something comes between the two, and we see Burgandy hit a new low as an
announcer at Sea World. But he is approached with an opportunity to work at the first 24-hour news
channel, and a chance to get his old team back together. Along with Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), Champ
Kind (David Koechner) and Brick Tamland (Steve Carrell), Ron Burgandy takes the world by storm with
a new format, and vastly different “news” stories than what some traditionalists would call news.
As I said, there was so much potential for this movie that it just seemed to miss. It felt like they tried
to force too much of Brick’s “natural charm” that made him so popular in the first, even with the love
interest they brought in for him this go around. You top that off with recycled jokes, not just from
the first movie (which I would have been okay with), but from other movies as well. I immediately
recognized 2 from the Austin Powers franchise alone.
It’s not to say that the movie didn’t have its moments. There were quite a few times where I was caught
off guard by something I was not expecting, or where the joke fell naturally into place. But the rest of
the movie seemed forced. And one cameo in reference to MTV had me downright upset. But hey, not
everyone shares my view.
So my test? Would I pay to see this movie in theaters? No. Wait for it to come to disc/digital
download. I have a feeling it won’t be long before it gets there.
However, it fell just short of that goal in my book.
Anchorman 2 picks up in 1980 where Ron Burgandy (Will Ferrell) and Veronica Corningstone (Christina
Applegate) are married, have a 6-year old son, and are co-anchors for a local news station in New York.
Not long into the movie, something comes between the two, and we see Burgandy hit a new low as an
announcer at Sea World. But he is approached with an opportunity to work at the first 24-hour news
channel, and a chance to get his old team back together. Along with Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), Champ
Kind (David Koechner) and Brick Tamland (Steve Carrell), Ron Burgandy takes the world by storm with
a new format, and vastly different “news” stories than what some traditionalists would call news.
As I said, there was so much potential for this movie that it just seemed to miss. It felt like they tried
to force too much of Brick’s “natural charm” that made him so popular in the first, even with the love
interest they brought in for him this go around. You top that off with recycled jokes, not just from
the first movie (which I would have been okay with), but from other movies as well. I immediately
recognized 2 from the Austin Powers franchise alone.
It’s not to say that the movie didn’t have its moments. There were quite a few times where I was caught
off guard by something I was not expecting, or where the joke fell naturally into place. But the rest of
the movie seemed forced. And one cameo in reference to MTV had me downright upset. But hey, not
everyone shares my view.
So my test? Would I pay to see this movie in theaters? No. Wait for it to come to disc/digital
download. I have a feeling it won’t be long before it gets there.