Search
Search results
Awix (3310 KP) rated Godzilla Vs Biollante (1989) in Movies
Feb 8, 2018 (Updated Feb 8, 2018)
The Rise of the Rose of the Risen Dead
Toho Studios held a competition to find the plot for their next Godzilla movie after the semi-reboot of the series in 1984, and this is the film that resulted from the winning idea. Heaven knows what the losing entries must have been like, because this is a tale dripping with utter insanity of a kind you just don't get in conventional western movies.
Scientists hoping to grow extra-resilient genetically-modified wheat give some harvested Godzilla cells to a brilliant scientist who has been left unhinged by the death of his lovely young daughter in a terrorist attack. The scientist promptly decides to use the G-cells to create a new form of hybrid rose (as you would), which starts to exhibit worrying Godzilla-ish tendencies (demolishing the greenhouse and heading off across country, for instance). It transpires the new creature is possessed by the spirit of the scientist's daughter. 'I think now I may have made a mistake,' admits the scientist, in one of the great movie understatements.
Not to worry, for Godzilla himself erupts from the volcanic prison he was stuck in at the end of the previous film, and the new creature (Biollante, in case you haven't already figured it out) may be able to lend a hand in sorting him out. There is also a slightly dull subplot about evil American corporations and spies from the desert nation of Saradia (i.e. Saudi Arabia) which sometimes gets in the way of the monster action.
Well, if you've ever wanted to see cinema's most famous mutant nuclear dinosaur battling a botanical semi-clone of himself which has been possessed by the ghost of a young woman, this is the movie for you. Actually, this is a cut above most Godzilla movies of this period, being filled with (admittedly mad) ideas and actually keeping Godzilla at the centre of the plot. The monsters look good and it treats them with a welcome seriousness. Unfortunately, the poor box office for this outing led Toho to adopt a policy of bringing back old favourites in subsequent movies, rather than new monsters, but this is a refreshingly different and rather well-made Godzilla film.
Scientists hoping to grow extra-resilient genetically-modified wheat give some harvested Godzilla cells to a brilliant scientist who has been left unhinged by the death of his lovely young daughter in a terrorist attack. The scientist promptly decides to use the G-cells to create a new form of hybrid rose (as you would), which starts to exhibit worrying Godzilla-ish tendencies (demolishing the greenhouse and heading off across country, for instance). It transpires the new creature is possessed by the spirit of the scientist's daughter. 'I think now I may have made a mistake,' admits the scientist, in one of the great movie understatements.
Not to worry, for Godzilla himself erupts from the volcanic prison he was stuck in at the end of the previous film, and the new creature (Biollante, in case you haven't already figured it out) may be able to lend a hand in sorting him out. There is also a slightly dull subplot about evil American corporations and spies from the desert nation of Saradia (i.e. Saudi Arabia) which sometimes gets in the way of the monster action.
Well, if you've ever wanted to see cinema's most famous mutant nuclear dinosaur battling a botanical semi-clone of himself which has been possessed by the ghost of a young woman, this is the movie for you. Actually, this is a cut above most Godzilla movies of this period, being filled with (admittedly mad) ideas and actually keeping Godzilla at the centre of the plot. The monsters look good and it treats them with a welcome seriousness. Unfortunately, the poor box office for this outing led Toho to adopt a policy of bringing back old favourites in subsequent movies, rather than new monsters, but this is a refreshingly different and rather well-made Godzilla film.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Favourite (2018) in Movies
Jan 18, 2019 (Updated Jan 18, 2019)
Fantastic script (3 more)
Brilliant performances
Clever cinematography
Insanely detailed set design
Strange But Brilliant
To be honest, I am not a huge fan of Yorgos Lanthimos' other movies, I also have a hatred for most period pieces. I am however a huge fan of Olivia Colman and it was her that swayed me to go and see this movie and I am very glad that I did.
Colman absolutely nails her role as a grief stricken, overly dramatic, short tempered Queen Anne. Her acting ability is diverse enough that she can take you from a side splitting remark one moment to a genuinely saddening comment the next and do it flawlessly and convincingly. Rachel Weisz is also pretty good here as Queen Anne's original favourite lady, Anne may be the Queen, but it is Lady Marlborough who is really running the show.
The biggest surpise for me was Emma Stone's performance. I don't hate Emma Stone, but I do feel like she plays the same goofy studenty American girl in everything that she is in, but here she is actually acting and her English accent was brilliant throughout the whole movie. It proves how much a good director is able to get out of their actors performance-wise.
The other main star here is the script. It is jam packed with brilliantly crass lines that are fired out so quickly and with such venom from the respective characters that you really feel the words being said. It is one of the best written scripts I have seen in a film in a while.
I'm not normally one to gush about set design, but my God... This movie goes all out with it's backdrops. I know that for the exterior shots, they shot on location at real palaces and castles and used mostly natural lighting at least for the daytime scenes. While these scenes are impressive, it is the interior scenes that are really mesmerising. The level of detail on the background elements in this movie is insane and anywhere that you look onscreen, there is something new and interesting to catch your eye.
The other great thing about this movie, is that even if you don't care about the competition for favour that is at the centre of the movie's plot, there is enough going on with the filmmaking itself to keep your attention throughout. The odd looking fish eye lenses that Lanthimos uses and the bizarre shot compositions looking up from waist-height at the actors is as fascinating to look at as it is weird. It gives the movie a unique feel that sets it apart from any other period piece I have seen.
Overall, I got way more out of The Favourite than I expected to going in. The movie is funny, witty and pretty unique. The attention to detail is impressive and the performances are great, with Olivia Colman's alone making the film worth the price of admission. The script is great and the direction is oddly interesting. Do be warned though; this movie is very weird and definitely not your typical period piece movie.
Colman absolutely nails her role as a grief stricken, overly dramatic, short tempered Queen Anne. Her acting ability is diverse enough that she can take you from a side splitting remark one moment to a genuinely saddening comment the next and do it flawlessly and convincingly. Rachel Weisz is also pretty good here as Queen Anne's original favourite lady, Anne may be the Queen, but it is Lady Marlborough who is really running the show.
The biggest surpise for me was Emma Stone's performance. I don't hate Emma Stone, but I do feel like she plays the same goofy studenty American girl in everything that she is in, but here she is actually acting and her English accent was brilliant throughout the whole movie. It proves how much a good director is able to get out of their actors performance-wise.
The other main star here is the script. It is jam packed with brilliantly crass lines that are fired out so quickly and with such venom from the respective characters that you really feel the words being said. It is one of the best written scripts I have seen in a film in a while.
I'm not normally one to gush about set design, but my God... This movie goes all out with it's backdrops. I know that for the exterior shots, they shot on location at real palaces and castles and used mostly natural lighting at least for the daytime scenes. While these scenes are impressive, it is the interior scenes that are really mesmerising. The level of detail on the background elements in this movie is insane and anywhere that you look onscreen, there is something new and interesting to catch your eye.
The other great thing about this movie, is that even if you don't care about the competition for favour that is at the centre of the movie's plot, there is enough going on with the filmmaking itself to keep your attention throughout. The odd looking fish eye lenses that Lanthimos uses and the bizarre shot compositions looking up from waist-height at the actors is as fascinating to look at as it is weird. It gives the movie a unique feel that sets it apart from any other period piece I have seen.
Overall, I got way more out of The Favourite than I expected to going in. The movie is funny, witty and pretty unique. The attention to detail is impressive and the performances are great, with Olivia Colman's alone making the film worth the price of admission. The script is great and the direction is oddly interesting. Do be warned though; this movie is very weird and definitely not your typical period piece movie.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Divorce has been depicted many times onscreen, as it’s one of those difficult realities about adult relationships. There’s still a lot of stigma around the breakdown of a marriage, but Marriage Story deals with the topic in a very raw and unique way.
The film follows Nicole (Scarlett Johansson) and Charlie (Adam Driver) as they’re going through the turbulent divorce period. The couple share a young son Henry, who naturally causes complications for the two when it comes to custodial agreements.
Marriage Story opens with two gorgeous monologues about what the two characters love about each other, both of which are enough to make you cry a mere few minutes into the film. This contrasts very well with the present day, where they’re both struggling to make their marriage work.
It would have been very easy for Noah Baumbach to encourage the audience to pick sides, leaving them to subconsciously ‘root’ for either party to do well in the scenario. But remarkably that’s not the case, as it’s a very unbiased film that lays everything out on the table for us to see. Each messy, complicated detail is shown to us, and we end up sympathising with both.
One thing I really enjoyed about Marriage Story is the way Baumbach criticises some of the ridiculousness associated with divorce, especially when it comes to legal battles. Nicole reluctantly turns to ruthless lawyer Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern), who is honest about the lies that have to be told in order to get through this.
Dern’s performance is hilarious but also highlights some of the inequalities and utterly baffling scenarios that happen when picking up a legal case. I wasn’t aware of any of them so it was quite a shock.
Watching the film is excruciating in places, but that’s a compliment on how raw and honest it is. It seems wrong for Charlie and Nicole to have to say and do certain things, all dictated by their respective lawyers. A clean break just isn’t possible when a child is involved.
It becomes even more complicated for the couple when Nicole decides to move back to Los Angeles, 2,789 miles away from New York City where she and Charlie used to reside. This creates a very literal distance between them, and causes problems with the battle for custody and Henry’s wellbeing.
Whilst there are many scenes which will reduce you to tears, Marriage Story has some comedic elements to lighten the mood, especially when it comes to Nicole’s family and how they react to the news of the divorce.
The two central performances in Marriage Story really are exceptional, and you become invested in the lives of people you don’t even know. One dramatic scene between Charlie and Nicole in particular had me openly sobbing, as it was full of contempt instead of love. Many of us can react to that exchange in a failing relationship, and it hurts.
If you want a very honest look at what it’s like to go through a divorce, then Marriage Story is just that. This isn’t the kind of film that sugarcoats anything and instead takes its audience on an emotional rollercoaster from start to finish.
The film follows Nicole (Scarlett Johansson) and Charlie (Adam Driver) as they’re going through the turbulent divorce period. The couple share a young son Henry, who naturally causes complications for the two when it comes to custodial agreements.
Marriage Story opens with two gorgeous monologues about what the two characters love about each other, both of which are enough to make you cry a mere few minutes into the film. This contrasts very well with the present day, where they’re both struggling to make their marriage work.
It would have been very easy for Noah Baumbach to encourage the audience to pick sides, leaving them to subconsciously ‘root’ for either party to do well in the scenario. But remarkably that’s not the case, as it’s a very unbiased film that lays everything out on the table for us to see. Each messy, complicated detail is shown to us, and we end up sympathising with both.
One thing I really enjoyed about Marriage Story is the way Baumbach criticises some of the ridiculousness associated with divorce, especially when it comes to legal battles. Nicole reluctantly turns to ruthless lawyer Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern), who is honest about the lies that have to be told in order to get through this.
Dern’s performance is hilarious but also highlights some of the inequalities and utterly baffling scenarios that happen when picking up a legal case. I wasn’t aware of any of them so it was quite a shock.
Watching the film is excruciating in places, but that’s a compliment on how raw and honest it is. It seems wrong for Charlie and Nicole to have to say and do certain things, all dictated by their respective lawyers. A clean break just isn’t possible when a child is involved.
It becomes even more complicated for the couple when Nicole decides to move back to Los Angeles, 2,789 miles away from New York City where she and Charlie used to reside. This creates a very literal distance between them, and causes problems with the battle for custody and Henry’s wellbeing.
Whilst there are many scenes which will reduce you to tears, Marriage Story has some comedic elements to lighten the mood, especially when it comes to Nicole’s family and how they react to the news of the divorce.
The two central performances in Marriage Story really are exceptional, and you become invested in the lives of people you don’t even know. One dramatic scene between Charlie and Nicole in particular had me openly sobbing, as it was full of contempt instead of love. Many of us can react to that exchange in a failing relationship, and it hurts.
If you want a very honest look at what it’s like to go through a divorce, then Marriage Story is just that. This isn’t the kind of film that sugarcoats anything and instead takes its audience on an emotional rollercoaster from start to finish.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Assassin's Creed (2016) in Movies
Nov 12, 2019 (Updated Nov 12, 2019)
Nahhhh
Assassin's Creed is a series of (mostly) decent games that I personally enjoy. It's got a simple yet solid premise that has a story running in a select time in history, whilst simultaneously having another story running in modern day. It's full of parkour action, and flashy combat, and lends itself nicely to a movie adaption format?
So just how on Earth is said movie adaption so damn forgettable?
It's got a strong cast - Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Brendan Gleeson, Jeremy Irons - all fantastic actors, and all completely wasted in a boring story, and boring script.
A huge part is the issue, is perhaps that a lot of the film is stuck in the modern day setting - there's only so much of Fassbender becoming unhinged whilst strapped to the (admittedly pretty neat re designed) Animus.
The parts set in the past (taking place in the 15th Century Granada War) is much more fun. It's here that the movie looks and feels like the beloved game series, and I like that the writers set it in a period we haven't yet seen in the games.
The costume design and setting looks great.
The action set pieces we get here are entertaining, even if they are sometimes hidden between quick cut style camera work.
But it's all a bit light on this side of things.
Assassin's Creed isn't an all out awful film, it's just a bit of a non event, lacking in excitement and proving to be mostly forgettable, leaving me with little desire to rewatch.
It's a shame - if Assassin's Creed can't be adapted well, then I have little hope left for anything video game related (Once again, except Detective Pikachu goddamn it)
So just how on Earth is said movie adaption so damn forgettable?
It's got a strong cast - Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Brendan Gleeson, Jeremy Irons - all fantastic actors, and all completely wasted in a boring story, and boring script.
A huge part is the issue, is perhaps that a lot of the film is stuck in the modern day setting - there's only so much of Fassbender becoming unhinged whilst strapped to the (admittedly pretty neat re designed) Animus.
The parts set in the past (taking place in the 15th Century Granada War) is much more fun. It's here that the movie looks and feels like the beloved game series, and I like that the writers set it in a period we haven't yet seen in the games.
The costume design and setting looks great.
The action set pieces we get here are entertaining, even if they are sometimes hidden between quick cut style camera work.
But it's all a bit light on this side of things.
Assassin's Creed isn't an all out awful film, it's just a bit of a non event, lacking in excitement and proving to be mostly forgettable, leaving me with little desire to rewatch.
It's a shame - if Assassin's Creed can't be adapted well, then I have little hope left for anything video game related (Once again, except Detective Pikachu goddamn it)
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Prom Night (1980) in Movies
Sep 19, 2019
Halloween 1.5
Fairly forgettable slasher/horror film with a lot of similarities to the original Halloween which had been released only 2 years earlier also starring Jamie Lee Curtis. Maybe at the time, all the now predictable horror cliches had not been overdone as they have been these days, but it was still mostly a bore.
After several children murder another girl in an abandoned building, they decide to keep their crime as a secret. Years later the children are now in high school when a mysterious stranger now decides to look them up and make them pay for the dastardly deed. They don't notice subtle clues immediately as the stranger starting calling them with his "spooky voice". The night of the prom is different though, as he decides to take his revenge on them one at a time after there is plenty of disco dancing of course.
Were audiences easier to please back in 1980? Clearly this was a cash grab of a film coming right on the heels of a much better ground breaking entry into the horror genre. This killer is pretty boring in comparison to others even of the same time period. No Captain Kirk or hockey masks here. The guy just wears all black with a black ski mask.
The soundtrack of disco tunes and the prom dancing scene with Jamie Lee strutting her stuff with her date was the highlight for me. It was also funny, yet not funny to see Leslie Nielsen in a dramatic role. It's hard to believe his career would change forever the same year when Airplane! was released.
I would pass if I were you.
After several children murder another girl in an abandoned building, they decide to keep their crime as a secret. Years later the children are now in high school when a mysterious stranger now decides to look them up and make them pay for the dastardly deed. They don't notice subtle clues immediately as the stranger starting calling them with his "spooky voice". The night of the prom is different though, as he decides to take his revenge on them one at a time after there is plenty of disco dancing of course.
Were audiences easier to please back in 1980? Clearly this was a cash grab of a film coming right on the heels of a much better ground breaking entry into the horror genre. This killer is pretty boring in comparison to others even of the same time period. No Captain Kirk or hockey masks here. The guy just wears all black with a black ski mask.
The soundtrack of disco tunes and the prom dancing scene with Jamie Lee strutting her stuff with her date was the highlight for me. It was also funny, yet not funny to see Leslie Nielsen in a dramatic role. It's hard to believe his career would change forever the same year when Airplane! was released.
I would pass if I were you.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Suburbicon (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Suburbicon is a picturesque community built to free families from all the hustle and bustle of the big city but with all the amenities a community will need. For all intents in purposes Suburbicon is the ideal place to raise a family in the 1950s. That is exactly what the Lodge family is doing. That is until the night Nicky (Noah Jupe) is awoken by his father, Gardner (Matt Damon), and told that there are two men in the house. The two criminals, Sloan and Louis (Glenn Fleshler and Alex Hassell), move the family to the kitchen and tie Nicky, Gardner, Nicky’s mother Rose (Julianne Moore) and Rose’s sister Margaret (also Julianne Moore) to chairs and put them to sleep using chloroform. When Nicky awakens in the hospital his father and aunt are waiting for him but sadly his mother was overdosed with chloroform and died. After the funeral it is decided by Gardner that Aunt Margaret should come stay with them. When officer Hightower (Jack Conley) calls to let them know they have found two possible suspects Gardner rushes to the police station to look at a lineup. Gardner arrives and is surprised to find Margaret and Nicky there. He asks that Nicky be left outside to save him from the trauma. After a line of potential criminals are paraded in front of Gardner and Margaret both agree that the perpetrators are not there. When they turn around they are surprised to see Nicky with a shocked look on his face as he is staring directly at Sloan and Louis. Nicky now knows that something is going on with his mother’s death and he may be trapped in a house with the two people who are responsible. He is not the only one that thinks something is amiss an insurance investigator, Bud Cooper (Oscar Isaac), shows up with questions about the policy. Is the Suburbicon truly the sanctuary that it looks like from the outside or is there something sinister happening behind closed doors?
This dark comedy, thriller, and mystery is directed by George Clooney (The Monuments Men, Leatherheads) and written by Joel and Ethan Coen (Fargo, The Big Lebowski). The film has some fun moments and interesting twists. I enjoyed how they made the film authentic to the 1950s era. The scenery and sets all give you the feel of the time period. The performances were are mostly well done. Julianne Moore’s performance was really good in both roles but especially as the out there Margaret. She was at times very innocent and loving and the next moment really scary in a deranged kind of way. The supporting cast was large and all were fun, especially the dry Hightower (Conley) and the lovable Uncle Mitch (Gary Basaraba). Matt Damon is part scary and funny but sometimes over the top.
Where this film lost me was on parts of the story really that felt disjointed from other parts of the film. For instance another story line that is playing out during the film is that the Mayers’ family moves to Suburbicon on the same day that the break in at the Lodge’s. The Mayers are the first African American family to move into the area and they are instantly judged and discriminated against. As the movie continues and more craziness is happing at the Lodge home, which shares a back yard with the Mayers, there is an escalation in the persecution of the Mayers. I totally understand what point the film was attempting to make about how people were up in arms about a single family that just moving the town and ignoring, or rather too busy to even notice, the evil deeds being committed so close. I just believe that two stories never felt like they were truly tied together and in some points even part of the same film. I really believe an opportunity was missed. Also the comedy was at times really good but also times where it felt forced. When Matt Damon is riding a child bike with a blood soaked shirt down suburban streets you would think that would be funny, and it looked funny in the trailer, but it felt forced when put into the context of the scene.
Overall this is a film was good but really left me feeling like I just didn’t get it. It was definitely original and I would encourage people to watch it and come to their own conclusions.
This dark comedy, thriller, and mystery is directed by George Clooney (The Monuments Men, Leatherheads) and written by Joel and Ethan Coen (Fargo, The Big Lebowski). The film has some fun moments and interesting twists. I enjoyed how they made the film authentic to the 1950s era. The scenery and sets all give you the feel of the time period. The performances were are mostly well done. Julianne Moore’s performance was really good in both roles but especially as the out there Margaret. She was at times very innocent and loving and the next moment really scary in a deranged kind of way. The supporting cast was large and all were fun, especially the dry Hightower (Conley) and the lovable Uncle Mitch (Gary Basaraba). Matt Damon is part scary and funny but sometimes over the top.
Where this film lost me was on parts of the story really that felt disjointed from other parts of the film. For instance another story line that is playing out during the film is that the Mayers’ family moves to Suburbicon on the same day that the break in at the Lodge’s. The Mayers are the first African American family to move into the area and they are instantly judged and discriminated against. As the movie continues and more craziness is happing at the Lodge home, which shares a back yard with the Mayers, there is an escalation in the persecution of the Mayers. I totally understand what point the film was attempting to make about how people were up in arms about a single family that just moving the town and ignoring, or rather too busy to even notice, the evil deeds being committed so close. I just believe that two stories never felt like they were truly tied together and in some points even part of the same film. I really believe an opportunity was missed. Also the comedy was at times really good but also times where it felt forced. When Matt Damon is riding a child bike with a blood soaked shirt down suburban streets you would think that would be funny, and it looked funny in the trailer, but it felt forced when put into the context of the scene.
Overall this is a film was good but really left me feeling like I just didn’t get it. It was definitely original and I would encourage people to watch it and come to their own conclusions.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Richard Jewell (2019) in Movies
Sep 21, 2020 (Updated Nov 26, 2020)
There were long stretches of this movie where I liked it a lot... right until I remembered who made it and why (a story about a 'good ole boy' famously + very publicly under investigation by the government where both the FBI and the media are both portrayed as parasitic losers with nothing better to do - yeah I'm sure this has absolutely no parallels to anything going on in the present day whatsoever...……..). Other than that it's like your regular late-period Eastwood: mostly just fine with assorted confirmation biases, too much fat, drippy over-fabrications, unabashed factual inaccuracies (the addition of the sex-for-news bit is just ew let alone stupidly unoriginal), a general oversimplification of the events, and a dated view of women - though not without a fair amount of awesome scenes to keep it (for the most part) watchable. I think even this movie's supporters underplayed how fortifyingly *amazing* Paul Walter Hauser is in this - he's not only uncannily casted but straight-up riveting, I recommend this movie simply to see him alone tbh. He's behind only Phoenix and Sandler for the best actor of 2019 imo - nothing else in this film even matters. The last ten or so minutes are horrendous.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
Neil Patrick Harris is delightfully devious. (1 more)
MacFarlane shows he has potential in his on-screen acting debut.
The humor is at times very vulgar and immature. (2 more)
The film is slow-paced and overly long.
"A Dozen Ways to Die in the West" would have been a more appropriate title.
A Million Ways to Die in the West is good for a few laughs but it feels like it goes on unreasonably long. Still, if you're a fan of MacFarlane's other works, you'll most likely enjoy his parody of the Old West.
Following the success of his directorial debut, Ted, Seth MacFarlane steps in front of the movie camera for the first time in his new film, A Million Ways to Die in the West. MacFarlane is best known as the creator of the popular animated television series, Family Guy, and he was also the host of the Oscars just two years ago. Now he’s taking the starring role in a film he wrote and directed himself. Here MacFarlane plays a cowardly sheep farmer named Albert who is miserably living in the dangerous Old West. Or rather, the not-so-dangerous Old West. Despite what the title suggests, there’s not a whole lot of dying going on in A Million Ways to Die in the West. You won’t find a whole lot of substance either, but there are a fair amount of laughs if you’re able to tolerate the crude toilet humor and dirty jokes. All in all, MacFarlane does a decent job in this comedy, but his jokes stick too close to his own conventions, and much like life on the frontier, the film can be kind of a drag.
If you’ve ever seen Family Guy, you should feel right at home with the humor in this film. It’s crass, edgy, violent, and full of pop culture references. Although, given that this is an R-rated movie, MacFarlane’s able to push the limits further than usual, and he makes sure to do that by including a lot of raunchy humor and toilet-gags. Oh, and in case you were wondering, yes, male genitals are still the hottest thing in comedy right now. As you’ve no doubt deduced, this is certainly not a film you’d want to take your kids to see. Nor is it for the easily-offended. Though in the film’s defense, it’s not entirely tasteless, and its use of vulgarity isn’t overly frequent. There’s plenty of great slapstick physical comedy and some pretty hilarious dialogue. I laughed more than I thought I would, and was never so disgusted that I wanted to walk out. It’s an entertaining film, it just happens to run a little long and lose momentum down the stretch. Plus the main premise of the film is never all that compelling to begin with.
In A Million Ways to Die in the West, MacFarlane’s character Albert is a man entirely self-aware of the time and place he’s living in, as well as the many dangers that come with it. He sheepishly lives his life, terrified by the threat of death that lurks around every corner. When his beloved girlfriend leaves him for a man with a mighty mustache, Albert has to cowboy up to prove his machismo and try to win her back. Luckily for him, he meets a gun-toting woman named Anna who’s happy to help him face his fears and show him the ropes of being a cowboy. Unfortunately however, this new friendship ends up putting Albert right into the crosshairs of Clinch Leatherwood, the deadliest outlaw around.
While MacFarlane does a respectable job in his first foray into acting, his character feels rather uninspired. I couldn’t help but see him as a hodgepodge of various Family Guy characters, having the clumsiness of Peter Griffin, the self-consciousness of Chris Griffin, and the intelligence and charm of Brian. Given that he created that show, perhaps that should be expected, but it just felt like Albert was lacking a unique and consistent identity. He’s a character who can be charming and funny, but he also comes off seeming like a jerk. All in all, the film has a good cast of actors, with Neil Patrick Harris being the stand-out of the bunch. He plays the pompous, mustached snob, Foy, who steals the heart of Albert’s girlfriend, Louise. Giovanni Ribisi and Sarah Silverman are likable as the flawed, clueless couple who serve as Albert’s close friends, Edward and Ruth. Although their characters stay pretty comfortably within the realm of what you would expect from their respective actors, with Edward being the naïve nice guy, while Silverman’s Ruth is the seemingly-sweet-and-innocent, foul-mouthed hussy. Charlize Theron does a fine job as Albert’s mentor, Anna. She has a strong presence in the film and is fun to watch, but despite her best efforts, the emotional element she brings to the story ends up feeling forced and unconvincing. Though that’s no fault of her own. It’s just hard to imagine her, or anyone, falling head over heels so easily and suddenly for a guy like Albert. Then, of course, there’s Liam Neeson, who is effective in his performance as the intimidating villain, Clinch, but would have benefitted from more screen-time.
A Million Ways to Die in the West proficiently parodies the western film genre, capturing the right atmosphere for the setting and time period. Visually it’s a pleasant film to look at, with good camera-work, well-created sets, and lots of beautiful scenery. This makes it all the more disappointing then that the filmmakers decided to place a visual filter over the entirety of the film to give it a more old-fashioned look. As a result, there is a constant flickering throughout the whole movie, and while not quite seizure-inducing, it certainly is distracting. At times you kind of get used to it and forget about it, but it really stands out in scenes with heavy lighting and most of the movie takes place in broad daylight. On the audio side of things, the music is appropriately fitting, but little of it is particularly noteworthy. There is a great song about mustaches, accompanied with a well-orchestrated dance number led by Neil Patrick Harris in what is undoubtedly one of the highlights of the film. Additionally the film’s theme song is appropriately fun. The visual effects in the movie, although limited, are done quite well and nicely add to the film’s comedic effect. Although I’m sure I speak for everyone when I say the movie could have done just fine without all of the animated urinating sheep.
I think the film’s greatest flaw is the fact that it’s doing too much as it tries to incorporate all of the main stereotypes of the western genre. It has duels, bar brawls, jailbreaks, horse chases, and even capture by Indians thrown in for good measure. In trying to cover all of the bases, the movie ends up running too long and becomes a little boring and tired. Rather than building up to a climax, the film diverges with some unnecessary scenes, and then concludes with a lackluster ending. It would have been cool to see Clinch and his group of bandits lay siege to the main town, which could have given the filmmakers an opportunity to create a wide variety of deaths, and allow Albert to exercise his newly developed skills before setting up to an ultimate final showdown. Maybe that would be adding to the long list of clichés, but at least it would have given this slow-paced film some much needed adrenaline and would have made it more true to its misleading title. There are also several cameo appearances in the film, and while a couple of them are great conceptually, I don’t think any of them are quite as satisfying as they should be. They end up feeling out of place, like last-second additions that have no purpose other than to acknowledge other films. I can appreciate the attempt but the cameos aren’t particularly funny and they just seems to emphasize how much better those other films are.
Seth MacFarlane’s A Million Ways to Die in the West is good for a few laughs, but just like his character Albert’s long-winded ramblings, it feels like it goes on unreasonably long. It’s still an entertaining film regardless, and if you’re a fan of MacFarlane’s other work, you’ll most likely enjoy his parody of the Old West. The movie has a talented cast, some truly great scenes such as a bar brawl and a memorable dance, as well as plenty of good old-fashioned slapstick, and witty dialogue. If you can handle the occasional gross-out gag, you’ll probably have a good time. Just don’t expect to actually see the many ways people can die In the Old West. The movie doesn’t show many deaths at all, and all the best ones you likely already saw in the trailer.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 6.3.14.)
If you’ve ever seen Family Guy, you should feel right at home with the humor in this film. It’s crass, edgy, violent, and full of pop culture references. Although, given that this is an R-rated movie, MacFarlane’s able to push the limits further than usual, and he makes sure to do that by including a lot of raunchy humor and toilet-gags. Oh, and in case you were wondering, yes, male genitals are still the hottest thing in comedy right now. As you’ve no doubt deduced, this is certainly not a film you’d want to take your kids to see. Nor is it for the easily-offended. Though in the film’s defense, it’s not entirely tasteless, and its use of vulgarity isn’t overly frequent. There’s plenty of great slapstick physical comedy and some pretty hilarious dialogue. I laughed more than I thought I would, and was never so disgusted that I wanted to walk out. It’s an entertaining film, it just happens to run a little long and lose momentum down the stretch. Plus the main premise of the film is never all that compelling to begin with.
In A Million Ways to Die in the West, MacFarlane’s character Albert is a man entirely self-aware of the time and place he’s living in, as well as the many dangers that come with it. He sheepishly lives his life, terrified by the threat of death that lurks around every corner. When his beloved girlfriend leaves him for a man with a mighty mustache, Albert has to cowboy up to prove his machismo and try to win her back. Luckily for him, he meets a gun-toting woman named Anna who’s happy to help him face his fears and show him the ropes of being a cowboy. Unfortunately however, this new friendship ends up putting Albert right into the crosshairs of Clinch Leatherwood, the deadliest outlaw around.
While MacFarlane does a respectable job in his first foray into acting, his character feels rather uninspired. I couldn’t help but see him as a hodgepodge of various Family Guy characters, having the clumsiness of Peter Griffin, the self-consciousness of Chris Griffin, and the intelligence and charm of Brian. Given that he created that show, perhaps that should be expected, but it just felt like Albert was lacking a unique and consistent identity. He’s a character who can be charming and funny, but he also comes off seeming like a jerk. All in all, the film has a good cast of actors, with Neil Patrick Harris being the stand-out of the bunch. He plays the pompous, mustached snob, Foy, who steals the heart of Albert’s girlfriend, Louise. Giovanni Ribisi and Sarah Silverman are likable as the flawed, clueless couple who serve as Albert’s close friends, Edward and Ruth. Although their characters stay pretty comfortably within the realm of what you would expect from their respective actors, with Edward being the naïve nice guy, while Silverman’s Ruth is the seemingly-sweet-and-innocent, foul-mouthed hussy. Charlize Theron does a fine job as Albert’s mentor, Anna. She has a strong presence in the film and is fun to watch, but despite her best efforts, the emotional element she brings to the story ends up feeling forced and unconvincing. Though that’s no fault of her own. It’s just hard to imagine her, or anyone, falling head over heels so easily and suddenly for a guy like Albert. Then, of course, there’s Liam Neeson, who is effective in his performance as the intimidating villain, Clinch, but would have benefitted from more screen-time.
A Million Ways to Die in the West proficiently parodies the western film genre, capturing the right atmosphere for the setting and time period. Visually it’s a pleasant film to look at, with good camera-work, well-created sets, and lots of beautiful scenery. This makes it all the more disappointing then that the filmmakers decided to place a visual filter over the entirety of the film to give it a more old-fashioned look. As a result, there is a constant flickering throughout the whole movie, and while not quite seizure-inducing, it certainly is distracting. At times you kind of get used to it and forget about it, but it really stands out in scenes with heavy lighting and most of the movie takes place in broad daylight. On the audio side of things, the music is appropriately fitting, but little of it is particularly noteworthy. There is a great song about mustaches, accompanied with a well-orchestrated dance number led by Neil Patrick Harris in what is undoubtedly one of the highlights of the film. Additionally the film’s theme song is appropriately fun. The visual effects in the movie, although limited, are done quite well and nicely add to the film’s comedic effect. Although I’m sure I speak for everyone when I say the movie could have done just fine without all of the animated urinating sheep.
I think the film’s greatest flaw is the fact that it’s doing too much as it tries to incorporate all of the main stereotypes of the western genre. It has duels, bar brawls, jailbreaks, horse chases, and even capture by Indians thrown in for good measure. In trying to cover all of the bases, the movie ends up running too long and becomes a little boring and tired. Rather than building up to a climax, the film diverges with some unnecessary scenes, and then concludes with a lackluster ending. It would have been cool to see Clinch and his group of bandits lay siege to the main town, which could have given the filmmakers an opportunity to create a wide variety of deaths, and allow Albert to exercise his newly developed skills before setting up to an ultimate final showdown. Maybe that would be adding to the long list of clichés, but at least it would have given this slow-paced film some much needed adrenaline and would have made it more true to its misleading title. There are also several cameo appearances in the film, and while a couple of them are great conceptually, I don’t think any of them are quite as satisfying as they should be. They end up feeling out of place, like last-second additions that have no purpose other than to acknowledge other films. I can appreciate the attempt but the cameos aren’t particularly funny and they just seems to emphasize how much better those other films are.
Seth MacFarlane’s A Million Ways to Die in the West is good for a few laughs, but just like his character Albert’s long-winded ramblings, it feels like it goes on unreasonably long. It’s still an entertaining film regardless, and if you’re a fan of MacFarlane’s other work, you’ll most likely enjoy his parody of the Old West. The movie has a talented cast, some truly great scenes such as a bar brawl and a memorable dance, as well as plenty of good old-fashioned slapstick, and witty dialogue. If you can handle the occasional gross-out gag, you’ll probably have a good time. Just don’t expect to actually see the many ways people can die In the Old West. The movie doesn’t show many deaths at all, and all the best ones you likely already saw in the trailer.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 6.3.14.)
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
The premise of Jojo Rabbit is a bold one, and something that could have very easily been executed terribly on-screen.
Whilst you might feel some apprehension about the concept of a 10-year-old boy who has Hitler as an imaginary friend, Taika Waititi has turned it into something brilliant and poignant.
As mentioned above, the film follows Johannes ‘Jojo’ Betzler, who lives in Nazi Germany. He’s a fanatic and is driven by his desire to serve Adolf Hitler in the German army during World War II, even joining a Hitler Youth Camp which is run by Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell).
Jojo is unlike any other child protagonist I’ve seen, because it’s easy to have very mixed feelings about who he is as a person. He’s a child and his everyday behaviour is indicative of someone who lacks maturity, resulting in some laugh out loud moments.
However, a lot of what he says happens to be horrendous insults towards the Jewish community. He’s fuelled by a love of Hitler (even going as far as to describe him as his ‘best friend’).
Throughout the film, he imagines scenarios in which Hitler is there with him, such as when he’s looking in the mirror and giving himself a pep-talk.
The strength of Jojo Rabbit‘s protagonist is a testament to actor Roman Griffin Davis, and I found it hard to believe that this was his first ever film performance. He’s funny, flawed, and a very well-rounded character brilliantly brought to life.
As for Jojo’s imaginary Hitler, he’s hysterically funny and not at all how you’d imagine the real man to be. Played brilliantly by director Taika Waititi, he is a caricature of a deplorable historical figure, and fuels Jojo’s delusions of how wonderful he is.
He’s simply someone’s interpretation of a political leader, created by a child who has been brainwashed into believing Nazi propaganda by adults in his life.
This bubbly oversimplification of a dictator is what you’d expect from a naive child, who isn’t fully aware of the atrocities around him.
The fact Taika Waititi plays this version of Hitler feels important, because he’s mocking him in the best possible way. As a Jewish man, it feels very appropriate that he criticises Hitler’s ideology through his satirical performance. It was brilliant.
Adding jokes to such a horrific situation is difficult, but this is where Jojo Rabbit really excels. The balance between humour and gut-punching reality checks is beautifully done, and there were times when I wasn’t sure whether my tears were from laughing or because I was genuinely sad at what I’d just seen.
Relationships are an important part of the film, particularly the one between Jojo and his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson). However, this becomes strained when he finds out that his mother is hiding a young Jewish woman in their home.
Jojo’s meeting with Elsa Korr (Thomasin McKenzie) is central to the story and gives us a real insight into the horrific treatment of Jewish people during this period, and the extreme lengths they’d go to keep themselves safe.
Despite Elsa’s life constantly being in jeopardy, she’s very sassy and gives young Jojo a run for his money once the two meet. The way the two characters bounce off each other is exceptional, and again, you’ll laugh and cry in equal measure.
I was also impressed by some brief appearances in the film such as Rebel Wilson as Fraulein Rahm, who I found hilarious in this film. I must admit I’m not always a fan of her work, but here she really delivered.
Stephen Merchant as Captain Deertz and Archie Yates as young Yorki are also worthy of praise, as every time they were on screen I found them delightful to watch. Much like Roman Griffin Davis, this was Archie’s first film, and he stole the show every time he was in a scene.
Jojo Rabbit is, simply put, political satire at its finest. As a result of this, it’s an emotional rollercoaster and one that I am excited to revisit whenever I get the chance.
It’s darkly funny with an important overall message of confronting ideologies, and I’d urge you to seek it out ASAP.
Whilst you might feel some apprehension about the concept of a 10-year-old boy who has Hitler as an imaginary friend, Taika Waititi has turned it into something brilliant and poignant.
As mentioned above, the film follows Johannes ‘Jojo’ Betzler, who lives in Nazi Germany. He’s a fanatic and is driven by his desire to serve Adolf Hitler in the German army during World War II, even joining a Hitler Youth Camp which is run by Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell).
Jojo is unlike any other child protagonist I’ve seen, because it’s easy to have very mixed feelings about who he is as a person. He’s a child and his everyday behaviour is indicative of someone who lacks maturity, resulting in some laugh out loud moments.
However, a lot of what he says happens to be horrendous insults towards the Jewish community. He’s fuelled by a love of Hitler (even going as far as to describe him as his ‘best friend’).
Throughout the film, he imagines scenarios in which Hitler is there with him, such as when he’s looking in the mirror and giving himself a pep-talk.
The strength of Jojo Rabbit‘s protagonist is a testament to actor Roman Griffin Davis, and I found it hard to believe that this was his first ever film performance. He’s funny, flawed, and a very well-rounded character brilliantly brought to life.
As for Jojo’s imaginary Hitler, he’s hysterically funny and not at all how you’d imagine the real man to be. Played brilliantly by director Taika Waititi, he is a caricature of a deplorable historical figure, and fuels Jojo’s delusions of how wonderful he is.
He’s simply someone’s interpretation of a political leader, created by a child who has been brainwashed into believing Nazi propaganda by adults in his life.
This bubbly oversimplification of a dictator is what you’d expect from a naive child, who isn’t fully aware of the atrocities around him.
The fact Taika Waititi plays this version of Hitler feels important, because he’s mocking him in the best possible way. As a Jewish man, it feels very appropriate that he criticises Hitler’s ideology through his satirical performance. It was brilliant.
Adding jokes to such a horrific situation is difficult, but this is where Jojo Rabbit really excels. The balance between humour and gut-punching reality checks is beautifully done, and there were times when I wasn’t sure whether my tears were from laughing or because I was genuinely sad at what I’d just seen.
Relationships are an important part of the film, particularly the one between Jojo and his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson). However, this becomes strained when he finds out that his mother is hiding a young Jewish woman in their home.
Jojo’s meeting with Elsa Korr (Thomasin McKenzie) is central to the story and gives us a real insight into the horrific treatment of Jewish people during this period, and the extreme lengths they’d go to keep themselves safe.
Despite Elsa’s life constantly being in jeopardy, she’s very sassy and gives young Jojo a run for his money once the two meet. The way the two characters bounce off each other is exceptional, and again, you’ll laugh and cry in equal measure.
I was also impressed by some brief appearances in the film such as Rebel Wilson as Fraulein Rahm, who I found hilarious in this film. I must admit I’m not always a fan of her work, but here she really delivered.
Stephen Merchant as Captain Deertz and Archie Yates as young Yorki are also worthy of praise, as every time they were on screen I found them delightful to watch. Much like Roman Griffin Davis, this was Archie’s first film, and he stole the show every time he was in a scene.
Jojo Rabbit is, simply put, political satire at its finest. As a result of this, it’s an emotional rollercoaster and one that I am excited to revisit whenever I get the chance.
It’s darkly funny with an important overall message of confronting ideologies, and I’d urge you to seek it out ASAP.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Hacksaw Ridge (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
World War II was an event that changed America’s standing globally and ensured the end of Hitler’s tyranny over Europe. It witnessed an isolated nation enter the war after being attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. The war forced men from all walks of life to step up in defense of their nation and for the freedom of those abroad. Desmond Dawes was one of these men, however, he sought to serve a different function in war. Instead of taking lives, he wanted to save them.
Hacksaw Ridge brings viewers a different perspective of war and the soldiers that were fighting it. Unlike previous films, this one discusses and displays the contributions made by a pacifist, a contentious objector, something that we look at as an anomaly and counter to the personalities and individuals that we are accustomed to seeing in a warfighting capacity. We don’t typically think about those who would resist fighting, other than those who dodged the draft or sought deferments. This film allows for a glimpse into how one man’s principles and faith allow him to resist actively fighting in order to serve as a combat medic in order for his fellow soldiers to return home. The story is harrowing and audiences will find themselves rooting for Private Dawes while questioning how his principles could remain so strong despite all of the obstacles that are put in his way. He wants to serve his country in the war, but does not want to kill in service to it. He is constantly referred to and treated as a coward for his stance. Despite this, he proves himself of heroism that cannot be measured.
The film is beautiful in displaying the various complexities in warfare and individual soldiers’ experiences. We get to see how Dawes is shaped into having the beliefs that guide him in his quest to become a soldier. We see the relationships that he develops in his hometown, his family, and the conflict that erupts between him and other members of his unit. We see that war is more complex than men fighting and killing. There is depth. There is character. These men are not simply numbers on a board or text. There is something about each one of them that played into the success of taking Okinawa as part of the Pacific campaign.
Hacksaw Ridge is not simply a film about one man’s journey to serve his principles and God while struggling against various agents seeking to break his spirit and demean who he is. The battle scenes and brutality rival that of Saving Private Ryan. Audiences seeking to see a traditional “rah rah” war film are going to be surprised with the way that this film will, hopefully, make them think more deeply about the calamity and horror of war. It will hopefully have them think about how far we have come as a people. More importantly, it will make us think differently about the men who served and helped to ensure democracy globally.
The film, overall, is strong with its presentation of information, action, sequences and storytelling. It may surpass previous WWII films with respect to significance and allowing itself to serve as a historical lens to the past. Audiences will be satisfied, shocked, and a bit disgusted with what is on display whether it is how war is conducted or in how we treat others with different beliefs or stances. Hacksaw Ridge may be an instant classic in not only its approach to the Pacific Theater, but in how we look at the soldiers and their contributions to this period.
Hacksaw Ridge brings viewers a different perspective of war and the soldiers that were fighting it. Unlike previous films, this one discusses and displays the contributions made by a pacifist, a contentious objector, something that we look at as an anomaly and counter to the personalities and individuals that we are accustomed to seeing in a warfighting capacity. We don’t typically think about those who would resist fighting, other than those who dodged the draft or sought deferments. This film allows for a glimpse into how one man’s principles and faith allow him to resist actively fighting in order to serve as a combat medic in order for his fellow soldiers to return home. The story is harrowing and audiences will find themselves rooting for Private Dawes while questioning how his principles could remain so strong despite all of the obstacles that are put in his way. He wants to serve his country in the war, but does not want to kill in service to it. He is constantly referred to and treated as a coward for his stance. Despite this, he proves himself of heroism that cannot be measured.
The film is beautiful in displaying the various complexities in warfare and individual soldiers’ experiences. We get to see how Dawes is shaped into having the beliefs that guide him in his quest to become a soldier. We see the relationships that he develops in his hometown, his family, and the conflict that erupts between him and other members of his unit. We see that war is more complex than men fighting and killing. There is depth. There is character. These men are not simply numbers on a board or text. There is something about each one of them that played into the success of taking Okinawa as part of the Pacific campaign.
Hacksaw Ridge is not simply a film about one man’s journey to serve his principles and God while struggling against various agents seeking to break his spirit and demean who he is. The battle scenes and brutality rival that of Saving Private Ryan. Audiences seeking to see a traditional “rah rah” war film are going to be surprised with the way that this film will, hopefully, make them think more deeply about the calamity and horror of war. It will hopefully have them think about how far we have come as a people. More importantly, it will make us think differently about the men who served and helped to ensure democracy globally.
The film, overall, is strong with its presentation of information, action, sequences and storytelling. It may surpass previous WWII films with respect to significance and allowing itself to serve as a historical lens to the past. Audiences will be satisfied, shocked, and a bit disgusted with what is on display whether it is how war is conducted or in how we treat others with different beliefs or stances. Hacksaw Ridge may be an instant classic in not only its approach to the Pacific Theater, but in how we look at the soldiers and their contributions to this period.