Search
Search results
Martin Scorsese recommended 8 1/2 (1963) in Movies (curated)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Shadow in the Cloud (2020) in Movies
Sep 7, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
In short, Shadow in the Cloud is a whole load of silly, but entertaining nonsense. In all honesty, the opening 30 or so minutes completely grabbed me - it has a foreboding synth heavy soundtrack that's completely at odds with its WWII time period but still works, it has a sort of gothic aesthetic in it's cloudy night sky setting that boasts some wonderful shots, it has a well built up sense of dread, and then, when the penny drops that there's something not quite right, there's a shot that is legitimately chilling. I was hooked and found myself thinking "this is going to be one of my new favourite films", but alas, it wasn't to last.
From the moment the gremlin creature is fully revealed, proceedings get sillier and sillier - there is one bit in particular that is so mind numbingly dumb, I felt some brain cells die off (but it still made me audibly laugh so, every cloud). The silliness isn't even the main problem, it's actually a plus, but it does highlight how shoddy most of the writing is. Chloë Grace Moretz does the best with what she's given, but honestly, Max Landis' claims that 95% of the finished product is still his work despite re-writes isn't something to be proud of. There's just a lot of iffy dialogue, and some narrative twists later down the line that feel forced and unnecessary.
However, all the silliness that I mentioned makes up for it, if that's your kind of thing. I really can't hate on a film too much when it has its lead beating the shit out of a CGI monkey-bat thing that's trying to eat her baby after all.
From the moment the gremlin creature is fully revealed, proceedings get sillier and sillier - there is one bit in particular that is so mind numbingly dumb, I felt some brain cells die off (but it still made me audibly laugh so, every cloud). The silliness isn't even the main problem, it's actually a plus, but it does highlight how shoddy most of the writing is. Chloë Grace Moretz does the best with what she's given, but honestly, Max Landis' claims that 95% of the finished product is still his work despite re-writes isn't something to be proud of. There's just a lot of iffy dialogue, and some narrative twists later down the line that feel forced and unnecessary.
However, all the silliness that I mentioned makes up for it, if that's your kind of thing. I really can't hate on a film too much when it has its lead beating the shit out of a CGI monkey-bat thing that's trying to eat her baby after all.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 7, 2021 (Updated Oct 10, 2021)
What a wait it’s been for Bond 25! But Daniel Craig’s last outing as Bond is finally here and I thought it was great! It has all the elements of Bond… but perhaps not as we traditionally know it.
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Murder mystery films tend to be more fun in theory and anticipation than they are to watch. It’s a genre that I very much enjoy and have indulged in over the years. Yet, if I look back in detail at it, I find that it is the books, especially those of Agatha Christie, that I like much more than anything lasting a couple of hours on the screen. There’s something about the mystery being rushed and squeezed into the cinema artform that is usually anti-climactic or even a full on let down.
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) in Movies
Mar 1, 2019
Cracks Me Up
Growing up, I never really understood British humor. There is a bit of a bite to it, dry wit that I didn’t really get as a kid. The older I get, the more I appreciate and love it. Monty Python’s Life of Brian is a the perfect example of British humor at its finest. Set in 33 A.D., it follows the story of Brian Cohen who is mistaken for the Messiah and worshipped at every turn.
Acting: 10
One of the things I love about the Python movies is the fact that no character is restricted to one mere role. John Cleese, for example, is listed as a Wise Man, Centurion, and Official. Not only does he play three parts, but he is hilarious in every single role he owns. He has a way of trying to be serious but making you laugh anyway. Same thing with the likes of Terry Gilliam who plays Man Even Further Forward, Revolutionary, and Jailer to name just a handful of his roles. For all of the many hats the characters wear, they maintain a natural chemistry that makes their roles and timing perfect.
Beginning: 10
Hands-down, one of the best beginnings I’ve ever seen in a movie period. It’s a comedic spin on the birth of Jesus featuring the Three Wisemen showing up at the wrong manger. The scene sets up the entire film perfectly in all of its hilarity. By the time you’ve laughed through this, you’re ready to laugh more.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 7
While Life of Brian is definitely a light-hearted affair, there is enough consistent conflict to keep the story moving. The story runs parallel to that of Jesus, right up to the crucifixion. Just like Jesus, Brian finds himself constantly in different bad situations, most of which he hasn’t prepared for. The film, of course, takes these situations, and makes each of them hilarious.
Genre: 8
A high-quality comedy that holds up even today. It makes you laugh from beginning to end and excels in originality. Definitely bordering along the lines of classic status.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 8
Plot: 10
Resolution: 9
Overall: 85
The misunderstanding of Brian as the savior is the key that makes the whole thing work. Monty Python’s Life of Brian works on a number of different levels and is sure to appeal to most, even Christians. If you have a sense of humor, that is.
Acting: 10
One of the things I love about the Python movies is the fact that no character is restricted to one mere role. John Cleese, for example, is listed as a Wise Man, Centurion, and Official. Not only does he play three parts, but he is hilarious in every single role he owns. He has a way of trying to be serious but making you laugh anyway. Same thing with the likes of Terry Gilliam who plays Man Even Further Forward, Revolutionary, and Jailer to name just a handful of his roles. For all of the many hats the characters wear, they maintain a natural chemistry that makes their roles and timing perfect.
Beginning: 10
Hands-down, one of the best beginnings I’ve ever seen in a movie period. It’s a comedic spin on the birth of Jesus featuring the Three Wisemen showing up at the wrong manger. The scene sets up the entire film perfectly in all of its hilarity. By the time you’ve laughed through this, you’re ready to laugh more.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 7
While Life of Brian is definitely a light-hearted affair, there is enough consistent conflict to keep the story moving. The story runs parallel to that of Jesus, right up to the crucifixion. Just like Jesus, Brian finds himself constantly in different bad situations, most of which he hasn’t prepared for. The film, of course, takes these situations, and makes each of them hilarious.
Genre: 8
A high-quality comedy that holds up even today. It makes you laugh from beginning to end and excels in originality. Definitely bordering along the lines of classic status.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 8
Plot: 10
Resolution: 9
Overall: 85
The misunderstanding of Brian as the savior is the key that makes the whole thing work. Monty Python’s Life of Brian works on a number of different levels and is sure to appeal to most, even Christians. If you have a sense of humor, that is.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The King (2019) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Verdict: Another King Fighting Film
Story: The King starts as the war between the English and the Scots continues to rage on, King Henry IV (Mendlesohn) is getting tired of the bloodshed and disloyalty being found in his own soldiers and with his health getting worse he recalls his son Hal (Chalamet) to his side.
As Hal find himself in a new power, he doesn’t know who to trust, so he turns to Falstaff (Edgerton) to help him in battle, with in latest battle being with the future French king The Dauphin (Pattinson).
Thoughts on The King
Characters – Hal is the young prince that would become King, a role he isn’t ready for, he doesn’t want to see large scale bloodshed like his father’s reign, but finds his country in war from all sides, he wants to end the battles and will look for solutions, which don’t always work for him. Falstaff is the man Hal turns to for advice when it comes to conflict, he thought under King Richard and he knows how to outsmart an enemy, first he must give up his drinking problem though. The Dauphin is next in line to be king of France, he is leading the armies into battle and doesn’t want any part of a deal with the King of England.
Performances – Timothee Chalamet is strong in the leading role, continuing to put himself on the right path to do anything he wants to in the future. Joel Edgerton is always a great supporting star in any movie, this is no different, while Robert Pattinson as the villainous soon to be king does a great job too.
Story – The story here follows a young king taking his place on the throne while his country is involved in wars that he never started and now he wants to end, hoping to find a more peaceful way to end the battles, forcing him to learn the truth about the bitter war between the nations. This is one of those stories which once again puts our history out there for the world to see with the English being seen as an all-conquering nation that always believed they were right, the spin is seeing how the young king wants to try and find a more peaceful way to end things, but just doesn’t get a chance to solve these problems. The pacing follows everything we have seen before, not making this standout on any means whatsoever, which just leads us to disappointment once again.
Biopic/History – This is a film that claims to tell the story of a real king and how he was brave, just like every single one through the years, we don’t know what he was like or what the battles were like, we only know the outcome.
Settings – The settings show us how the kingdoms are beautiful and how the battlefields are covered in blood and bodies.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is the same typical history story.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the period piece dramas that does everything it needs to without giving us the complete truth to what is happening with the real history.
Overall: Simple Royalty Film.
As Hal find himself in a new power, he doesn’t know who to trust, so he turns to Falstaff (Edgerton) to help him in battle, with in latest battle being with the future French king The Dauphin (Pattinson).
Thoughts on The King
Characters – Hal is the young prince that would become King, a role he isn’t ready for, he doesn’t want to see large scale bloodshed like his father’s reign, but finds his country in war from all sides, he wants to end the battles and will look for solutions, which don’t always work for him. Falstaff is the man Hal turns to for advice when it comes to conflict, he thought under King Richard and he knows how to outsmart an enemy, first he must give up his drinking problem though. The Dauphin is next in line to be king of France, he is leading the armies into battle and doesn’t want any part of a deal with the King of England.
Performances – Timothee Chalamet is strong in the leading role, continuing to put himself on the right path to do anything he wants to in the future. Joel Edgerton is always a great supporting star in any movie, this is no different, while Robert Pattinson as the villainous soon to be king does a great job too.
Story – The story here follows a young king taking his place on the throne while his country is involved in wars that he never started and now he wants to end, hoping to find a more peaceful way to end the battles, forcing him to learn the truth about the bitter war between the nations. This is one of those stories which once again puts our history out there for the world to see with the English being seen as an all-conquering nation that always believed they were right, the spin is seeing how the young king wants to try and find a more peaceful way to end things, but just doesn’t get a chance to solve these problems. The pacing follows everything we have seen before, not making this standout on any means whatsoever, which just leads us to disappointment once again.
Biopic/History – This is a film that claims to tell the story of a real king and how he was brave, just like every single one through the years, we don’t know what he was like or what the battles were like, we only know the outcome.
Settings – The settings show us how the kingdoms are beautiful and how the battlefields are covered in blood and bodies.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is the same typical history story.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the period piece dramas that does everything it needs to without giving us the complete truth to what is happening with the real history.
Overall: Simple Royalty Film.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) in Movies
May 9, 2019
"i'm just a kid from brooklyn"
"I'm just a kid from Brooklyn"
A rip-roaring homage to old fashioned serials and comic books. Joe Johnston somehow pulls off the tone and look, firmly planting me into the 1940's time period. As fantastical as it is I still feel the real world within the picture.
Protagonist Steve Rogers makes for an easily likable guy who at the start is a smaller guy, who stands up to bullies even if it means getting his ass beat. His dream is to serve his country and although not meeting physical requirements for the army, he proves the heart and courage to become the specimen of a super soldier syrum. With this experiment, Steve's size, strength and conditioning is greatly enhanced and becomes the face of WW2 propaganda. His desire to fight however gets him involved with the battle against a division of the Nazi's known as Hydra, headed by Johann Schmidt, the "Red Skull".
Red Skull is one of the best villians of the Marvel cinematic universe. I couldn't imagine him played by anyone other than Hugo Weaving who brings such gravitas and personality to the role. Red Skull is an experiment of the soldier syrum himself which gives him a certain connection to Rogers, but chooses to use his power for the service of himself and his evil desires. The film includes the element of Nazi fascination with science and experimentation, taking it a step further. Red Skull discovers other worldly magic, the Tesseract of Asgard, which he utilizes for the use of weaponry. Thus, blending historical events with an exciting dose of imagination. A Nazi more powerful than Hitler? That's pretty scary.
The action comes swift and mighty, combining the fleshy violence of war with creative comic book thrills. It's some of the most entertaining action I've ever seen. I love that the presence of Hitler can be felt even though he is not on screen. It seamlessly connects the future with the past, makes the looming threat of the entire world felt, and contains elements of other Marvel films past and present that only adds to the movie and never detracts. Tony Stark's father has a direct influence on Captain America which adds a layer to the proceeding films. Thor and Loki's place in future events are tied in perfectly. Steve's friendship with Bucky and presumed death is one of the emotional cores to the film that also plays into the sequels. Unbelievable.
Can I just mention the charming romance between Peggy and Steve Rogers? It's so natural and plays out over the duration of the film without anything ridiculous. When Peggy tears up as Steve is speeding toward the unkown in a downed plane, I lose it. I lose it every time. They never got that last dance and my heart is broken.
When Red Skull calls Steve a "simpleton with a shield" I'm like YES!! that's why I love him. I could be Steve Rogers. I could be Captain America. Well, not really, but he's one of the most relatable on screen super heroes. I'd even say he's the one I can see myself in the most. Consider me #TeamCap.
I must make mention of the wonderful musical score and songs written for the film. Very important piece to the puzzle. I listen to "Star Spangled Man" just about every time I take a walk. The costumes and production design deserve all the love in the world as well. Tommy Lee Jones is great and makes me laugh as usual. All performances are great. Points for finding a use for Captain America's vintage comic book costume and re-enacting the punch to Hitler's face from Captain America issue #1.
Who taught Cap how to fight like that though? Guess that's one of the perks of the syrum too.
A rip-roaring homage to old fashioned serials and comic books. Joe Johnston somehow pulls off the tone and look, firmly planting me into the 1940's time period. As fantastical as it is I still feel the real world within the picture.
Protagonist Steve Rogers makes for an easily likable guy who at the start is a smaller guy, who stands up to bullies even if it means getting his ass beat. His dream is to serve his country and although not meeting physical requirements for the army, he proves the heart and courage to become the specimen of a super soldier syrum. With this experiment, Steve's size, strength and conditioning is greatly enhanced and becomes the face of WW2 propaganda. His desire to fight however gets him involved with the battle against a division of the Nazi's known as Hydra, headed by Johann Schmidt, the "Red Skull".
Red Skull is one of the best villians of the Marvel cinematic universe. I couldn't imagine him played by anyone other than Hugo Weaving who brings such gravitas and personality to the role. Red Skull is an experiment of the soldier syrum himself which gives him a certain connection to Rogers, but chooses to use his power for the service of himself and his evil desires. The film includes the element of Nazi fascination with science and experimentation, taking it a step further. Red Skull discovers other worldly magic, the Tesseract of Asgard, which he utilizes for the use of weaponry. Thus, blending historical events with an exciting dose of imagination. A Nazi more powerful than Hitler? That's pretty scary.
The action comes swift and mighty, combining the fleshy violence of war with creative comic book thrills. It's some of the most entertaining action I've ever seen. I love that the presence of Hitler can be felt even though he is not on screen. It seamlessly connects the future with the past, makes the looming threat of the entire world felt, and contains elements of other Marvel films past and present that only adds to the movie and never detracts. Tony Stark's father has a direct influence on Captain America which adds a layer to the proceeding films. Thor and Loki's place in future events are tied in perfectly. Steve's friendship with Bucky and presumed death is one of the emotional cores to the film that also plays into the sequels. Unbelievable.
Can I just mention the charming romance between Peggy and Steve Rogers? It's so natural and plays out over the duration of the film without anything ridiculous. When Peggy tears up as Steve is speeding toward the unkown in a downed plane, I lose it. I lose it every time. They never got that last dance and my heart is broken.
When Red Skull calls Steve a "simpleton with a shield" I'm like YES!! that's why I love him. I could be Steve Rogers. I could be Captain America. Well, not really, but he's one of the most relatable on screen super heroes. I'd even say he's the one I can see myself in the most. Consider me #TeamCap.
I must make mention of the wonderful musical score and songs written for the film. Very important piece to the puzzle. I listen to "Star Spangled Man" just about every time I take a walk. The costumes and production design deserve all the love in the world as well. Tommy Lee Jones is great and makes me laugh as usual. All performances are great. Points for finding a use for Captain America's vintage comic book costume and re-enacting the punch to Hitler's face from Captain America issue #1.
Who taught Cap how to fight like that though? Guess that's one of the perks of the syrum too.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Kingdom (2019) in Movies
Aug 12, 2019
Action sequences. (2 more)
The Mountain Tribe.
Zuo Ci.
134-minute duration feels like a marathon. (1 more)
Drags a lot in its first half.
I haven’t read any of the 55 volumes (and counting) of Yasuhisa Hara’s Kingdom manga or watched any of the 77 episodes of the anime adapted by animation studio Pierrot (Bleach, Yu Yu Hakusho, and Tokyo Ghoul among many others). To make matters worse, I haven’t seen any of the films by director and co-screenwriter Shinsuke Sato (the two live-action Gantz films, Death Note: Light Up the New World, the live-action Bleach film for Netflix). I’m going into Kingdom completely blind and I have no idea if that makes the viewing experience any better or worse.
In 255 B.C., Kingdom revolves around the quick-tempered and charge-headfirst-into-battle-without-thinking Xin (Kento Yamazaki) that dreams of being the greatest general of the Qin Kingdom. There’s other stuff going on; a bloody 500 year war between the seven states of China, Xin’s best friend Piao (Ryô Yoshizawa) being enlisted by the King only to turn around and be killed, and King Yin Zheng being a splitting image of Piao, but nothing is emphasized or screamed louder than Xin’s desire to become the greatest general China has ever known.
Kingdom feels like it’s about 45 minutes too long for its own good. The first hour seems to drag as blood spraying into the air every now and then isn’t enough to keep you fully intrigued. The manga is an exaggerated recounting of Zheng actually becoming king in 221 B.C. during the Warring States period and eventually unifying China while the characters are loosely based on actual historical figures. The action adventure film attempts to portray Xin and Piao as worthy and capable swordsman because they clunked stick swords together 10,000 times in an empty field throughout their childhood and teenage years.
The film tries to compensate for its slow first hour with a more eventful second half, but it doesn’t totally succeed. Yang Duan He (Masami Nagasawa) and her mountain tribe are pretty awesome. Their masks remind you of something straight out of Princess Mononoke and you’ll be trying your hardest not to compare Yang Duan He to Xena: Warrior Princess. There’s this competition for the throne that gets a little complicated. Zheng’s brother Cheng Jiao (Kanata Hongo) is nasty and heartless and basically a human version of Salacious Crumb sitting on an even more elaborate version of Jabba the Hutt’s dais. Zheng and Jiao have the same father, but different mothers; Jiao’s is of royal blood and Zheng’s is a dancer or, in other words, a commoner. Jiao viewed peasantry as being bone deep; it isn’t something that can ever go away.
The main theme of Kingdom sounds like a direct ripoff of the main Guardians of the Galaxy theme, which is kind of brain-numbing. The prosthetics in the film are questionable with Li Dian, the original slave owner of Xin and Piao, having this awkwardly orange colored face, inhumanly puffy cheeks, stringy facial hair, and the ugliest facial expressions imaginable. After Xin joins up with Zheng, a girl in a bushy owl costume named He Liao Diao (Kanna Hasimoto) is mostly only around to take everyone to the mountains later. The chemistry Xin, Zheng, and Diao have is reminiscent of what Mugen, Jin, and Foo have in Samurai Champloo. Another observation is that Xin is basically Goku with Vegeta’s short-fuse temper; he lives to fight and eat, he’s dumber than a bag of rocks, and he can’t identify a woman when she’s standing directly in front of him.
Cheng Jiao’s go-to henchman, former general and current hitman for hire Zuo Ci (Tak Sakaguchi) may be the film’s coolest character. He doesn’t care about anybody, tells Xin that all dreams are BS, and is a part of what is arguably the best action sequence in the film. Meanwhile, General Wang Yi (Takao Ohsawa), the most renowned general in all of China and the guy with the status Xin plans on taking in the future, is a bit overrated. He mostly just parades his weird and pointy facial hair around and swings his giant sword as if it won’t remind us of Guts from Berserk.
All in all, Kingdom is a decent action adventure that just takes a while to really get going. The performances aren’t totally satisfying with Kento Yamazaki hamming it up on more than occasion and taking the brainless dolt with a huge mouth thing to uncomfortable levels. The story isn’t exactly hard to follow, but it does feel like it’s trying to be more convoluted than it needs to be. You don’t feel any sort of attachment to any of the characters and any sort of twist can be seen long before the reveal. Kingdom is just an okay way to spend two hours that is probably a justifiable rental on a day when you have nothing better to do, but is not worth paying full price to own.
In 255 B.C., Kingdom revolves around the quick-tempered and charge-headfirst-into-battle-without-thinking Xin (Kento Yamazaki) that dreams of being the greatest general of the Qin Kingdom. There’s other stuff going on; a bloody 500 year war between the seven states of China, Xin’s best friend Piao (Ryô Yoshizawa) being enlisted by the King only to turn around and be killed, and King Yin Zheng being a splitting image of Piao, but nothing is emphasized or screamed louder than Xin’s desire to become the greatest general China has ever known.
Kingdom feels like it’s about 45 minutes too long for its own good. The first hour seems to drag as blood spraying into the air every now and then isn’t enough to keep you fully intrigued. The manga is an exaggerated recounting of Zheng actually becoming king in 221 B.C. during the Warring States period and eventually unifying China while the characters are loosely based on actual historical figures. The action adventure film attempts to portray Xin and Piao as worthy and capable swordsman because they clunked stick swords together 10,000 times in an empty field throughout their childhood and teenage years.
The film tries to compensate for its slow first hour with a more eventful second half, but it doesn’t totally succeed. Yang Duan He (Masami Nagasawa) and her mountain tribe are pretty awesome. Their masks remind you of something straight out of Princess Mononoke and you’ll be trying your hardest not to compare Yang Duan He to Xena: Warrior Princess. There’s this competition for the throne that gets a little complicated. Zheng’s brother Cheng Jiao (Kanata Hongo) is nasty and heartless and basically a human version of Salacious Crumb sitting on an even more elaborate version of Jabba the Hutt’s dais. Zheng and Jiao have the same father, but different mothers; Jiao’s is of royal blood and Zheng’s is a dancer or, in other words, a commoner. Jiao viewed peasantry as being bone deep; it isn’t something that can ever go away.
The main theme of Kingdom sounds like a direct ripoff of the main Guardians of the Galaxy theme, which is kind of brain-numbing. The prosthetics in the film are questionable with Li Dian, the original slave owner of Xin and Piao, having this awkwardly orange colored face, inhumanly puffy cheeks, stringy facial hair, and the ugliest facial expressions imaginable. After Xin joins up with Zheng, a girl in a bushy owl costume named He Liao Diao (Kanna Hasimoto) is mostly only around to take everyone to the mountains later. The chemistry Xin, Zheng, and Diao have is reminiscent of what Mugen, Jin, and Foo have in Samurai Champloo. Another observation is that Xin is basically Goku with Vegeta’s short-fuse temper; he lives to fight and eat, he’s dumber than a bag of rocks, and he can’t identify a woman when she’s standing directly in front of him.
Cheng Jiao’s go-to henchman, former general and current hitman for hire Zuo Ci (Tak Sakaguchi) may be the film’s coolest character. He doesn’t care about anybody, tells Xin that all dreams are BS, and is a part of what is arguably the best action sequence in the film. Meanwhile, General Wang Yi (Takao Ohsawa), the most renowned general in all of China and the guy with the status Xin plans on taking in the future, is a bit overrated. He mostly just parades his weird and pointy facial hair around and swings his giant sword as if it won’t remind us of Guts from Berserk.
All in all, Kingdom is a decent action adventure that just takes a while to really get going. The performances aren’t totally satisfying with Kento Yamazaki hamming it up on more than occasion and taking the brainless dolt with a huge mouth thing to uncomfortable levels. The story isn’t exactly hard to follow, but it does feel like it’s trying to be more convoluted than it needs to be. You don’t feel any sort of attachment to any of the characters and any sort of twist can be seen long before the reveal. Kingdom is just an okay way to spend two hours that is probably a justifiable rental on a day when you have nothing better to do, but is not worth paying full price to own.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Last Christmas (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019
Alas, Christmas
Oh Dear! Now I wouldn't go as far as saying I had "high hopes" for this film, but as a real fan of the goo-fest that is "Love Actually" I at least thought this might fill some seasonal void in the run up to the festive season. "Best Christmas film of the decade!!" screams the marketing. Er... no.
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Aug 24, 2019
Married into a life with the mob, three women living in Hell’s Kitchen, New York City in the late ‘70s find themselves trapped in their husband’s shadows in Andrea Berloff’s debut film, The Kitchen. Based on a 2014 DC Comics graphic novel by the same name, the film focuses on these three female friends facing the aftermath of their husband’s botched crime and subsequent imprisonment. Their Italian crime family promised to take care of them while their spouses are locked away, but their measly support simply isn’t enough when they’ve got mouths to feed and bills to pay. Tired of being weak and dependent, the ladies band together to take control of their situation by trying to take over the mob.
The Kitchen stars actresses Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, and Elisabeth Moss as the female trio who work to rise to the top of their crime family by carrying the dead weight of the lazy men who lead it. McCarthy plays Kathy Brennan, a housewife and mother of two, whose seemingly good-natured husband is clearly involved in the wrong crowd. In spite of that, she appears to have a pleasant life at home, but her heavy reliance on her husband puts her in peril once he’s locked away. On the other hand, Haddish and Moss play Ruby and Claire, who are both victimized and disrespected by their husbands, with Claire even being regularly abused. These characteristics help to define the women and their actions as they attempt to upend the male-dominated establishment.
However, despite The Kitchen’s strong set-up, the characters themselves don’t show much depth beyond this, and the film’s performances leave a lot to be desired. McCarthy felt like she was acting in an entirely different movie. I’ve never seen a more passive and unconvincing crime boss. She’s struggling with a balancing act that sees her going between being tough, funny, ruthless, submissive, and sweet. By comparison to the rest of the movie, her whole character feels off-key. Then there’s Haddish who gives the worst acting performance I’ve seen in quite some time. I’m not really a fan of her brand of humor, but I didn’t like her dramatic turn here either. She just delivers snarky lines with attitude and death glares before walking off-camera in practically every shot she’s in. It’s almost funny how cheesy and over-the-top it is. You can’t just go mean-mugging your way through a whole major motion picture and expect to be taken seriously.
On a more positive note, Moss was much more impressive as Claire, who is fed up with being beaten down and bullied, and is determined to learn how to defend herself. She partners up with Domhnall Gleeson’s hitman character Gabriel who teaches her how to kill. Their relationship ends up being perhaps the most interesting aspect of the whole movie, and it has something of a Bonnie and Clyde quality to it. I only wish we could have seen it fleshed out a bit more.
For all of its potential, especially in terms of portraying female empowerment, The Kitchen regrettably winds up being a generic, inconsistent, and lethargic affair. I personally love the premise of the film. It’s a bad ass statement to any man who has ever said that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. It sticks up a middle finger to sexism by taking the action to the criminal streets of Hell’s Kitchen where the women rise to power. Unfortunately, despite the kick-ass feminist concept, I found that the film’s attempt at empowerment never really manifests into anything meaningful.
Instead, The Kitchen feels messy and uninspired. There isn’t a single scene in the entire film that I would consider to be good. The story is thin, the suspense is absent, the setting is bland, the tone is confusing, and the characters are mostly uninspired. I hate to even say it, but while watching it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of last year’s train-wreck of a film, Gotti, starring John Travolta. I think both of these films had a lot of promise, but seriously failed to deliver. As someone who loves a good gangster movie, I feel really disappointed.
There’s ultimately very little I liked about The Kitchen. The movie lacks a pulse, and the stakes never feel significant, not even as the body count piles up. The set design shows no strong sense of place or time period. Most of the settings outside seemed to be looking at nondescript sidewalks that could have been filmed anywhere. With the setting of Hell’s Kitchen, I can’t help but immediately think of The Godfather. Similarly, the use of The Rolling Stones in the trailer evokes thoughts of Scorsese and Goodfellas. Unfortunately, this movie clearly doesn’t even come close to comparing to either of those classics. This movie’s plot is weak, the betrayals are obvious, and the ending is uncomfortably idiotic. Despite it all, however, I find myself still interested in The Kitchen’s graphic novel at least, because I can’t imagine it being this bad.
The Kitchen stars actresses Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, and Elisabeth Moss as the female trio who work to rise to the top of their crime family by carrying the dead weight of the lazy men who lead it. McCarthy plays Kathy Brennan, a housewife and mother of two, whose seemingly good-natured husband is clearly involved in the wrong crowd. In spite of that, she appears to have a pleasant life at home, but her heavy reliance on her husband puts her in peril once he’s locked away. On the other hand, Haddish and Moss play Ruby and Claire, who are both victimized and disrespected by their husbands, with Claire even being regularly abused. These characteristics help to define the women and their actions as they attempt to upend the male-dominated establishment.
However, despite The Kitchen’s strong set-up, the characters themselves don’t show much depth beyond this, and the film’s performances leave a lot to be desired. McCarthy felt like she was acting in an entirely different movie. I’ve never seen a more passive and unconvincing crime boss. She’s struggling with a balancing act that sees her going between being tough, funny, ruthless, submissive, and sweet. By comparison to the rest of the movie, her whole character feels off-key. Then there’s Haddish who gives the worst acting performance I’ve seen in quite some time. I’m not really a fan of her brand of humor, but I didn’t like her dramatic turn here either. She just delivers snarky lines with attitude and death glares before walking off-camera in practically every shot she’s in. It’s almost funny how cheesy and over-the-top it is. You can’t just go mean-mugging your way through a whole major motion picture and expect to be taken seriously.
On a more positive note, Moss was much more impressive as Claire, who is fed up with being beaten down and bullied, and is determined to learn how to defend herself. She partners up with Domhnall Gleeson’s hitman character Gabriel who teaches her how to kill. Their relationship ends up being perhaps the most interesting aspect of the whole movie, and it has something of a Bonnie and Clyde quality to it. I only wish we could have seen it fleshed out a bit more.
For all of its potential, especially in terms of portraying female empowerment, The Kitchen regrettably winds up being a generic, inconsistent, and lethargic affair. I personally love the premise of the film. It’s a bad ass statement to any man who has ever said that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. It sticks up a middle finger to sexism by taking the action to the criminal streets of Hell’s Kitchen where the women rise to power. Unfortunately, despite the kick-ass feminist concept, I found that the film’s attempt at empowerment never really manifests into anything meaningful.
Instead, The Kitchen feels messy and uninspired. There isn’t a single scene in the entire film that I would consider to be good. The story is thin, the suspense is absent, the setting is bland, the tone is confusing, and the characters are mostly uninspired. I hate to even say it, but while watching it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of last year’s train-wreck of a film, Gotti, starring John Travolta. I think both of these films had a lot of promise, but seriously failed to deliver. As someone who loves a good gangster movie, I feel really disappointed.
There’s ultimately very little I liked about The Kitchen. The movie lacks a pulse, and the stakes never feel significant, not even as the body count piles up. The set design shows no strong sense of place or time period. Most of the settings outside seemed to be looking at nondescript sidewalks that could have been filmed anywhere. With the setting of Hell’s Kitchen, I can’t help but immediately think of The Godfather. Similarly, the use of The Rolling Stones in the trailer evokes thoughts of Scorsese and Goodfellas. Unfortunately, this movie clearly doesn’t even come close to comparing to either of those classics. This movie’s plot is weak, the betrayals are obvious, and the ending is uncomfortably idiotic. Despite it all, however, I find myself still interested in The Kitchen’s graphic novel at least, because I can’t imagine it being this bad.