Search
Search results
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.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959) in Movies
Jan 14, 2020
A Love Story and An Atomic Bomb
An extramarital affair occurs between a Japanese architect and a French filmmaker during the horrific time period when an atomic bomb was dropped. Hiroshima Mon Amour has a wonderful concept, yet there were a few things missing that caused it to miss the mark for me.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
The film begins with two lovers locked in a nude embrace. As they exchange dialogue, you feel their sensual connection. It’s not long before that shot cuts to images of people in hospitals deeply affected by the atomic bomb. It’s a harrowing sequence and a wonderful way to start a movie.
Characters: 4
This is probably one of the areas where I struggled the most when watching this movie. I never found myself invested in the two main characters known simply as He (Eiji Okada) and She (Emmanuelle Riva). I don’t know what it was but their stories didn’t move me and their personalities felt a bit flat. Seeing as they were pretty much the only characters that carried any kind of weight, it made it hard to really get into the story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Not only is this film beautiful cinematically but It’s easily way ahead of its time. The cuts between sensuality and disaster are just sheer genius. Despite my lack of love for the characters, the movie itself is shot in a way that makes you feel, that leaves a jarring impact on you mentally. Very powerful.
Conflict: 5
Entertainment Value: 6
Memorability: 8
Because of the way it’s shot, the overall impact is strong. Unfortunately the movie itself is boring as all get out. I respect it sheerly for it being ahead of its time and being one of those cinematic pieces standing in a class of its own. At the very least, it will definitely stick out in your brain.
Pace: 6
Interesting at times, boring in others. I can see why people love this movie, but relate moreso to those that don’t. It drags on in a lot of spots where you’re hoping for a speedier resolution.
Plot: 8
Resolution: 3
I originally hated the ending. After going back and watching it again…I just really dislike it. The closure didn’t feel fully established leaving me extremely dissatisfied. Here was a chance for redemption and director Alain Resnais dropped the ball in my opinion.
Overall: 70
Hiroshima Mon Amour has flashes of absolute brilliance. Then those flashes get erased by poop. I think it’s worth a fair shot if you’re into the classics. Who knows, you may disagree with me. After all 89% of audience members did on Rotten Tomatoes.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
The film begins with two lovers locked in a nude embrace. As they exchange dialogue, you feel their sensual connection. It’s not long before that shot cuts to images of people in hospitals deeply affected by the atomic bomb. It’s a harrowing sequence and a wonderful way to start a movie.
Characters: 4
This is probably one of the areas where I struggled the most when watching this movie. I never found myself invested in the two main characters known simply as He (Eiji Okada) and She (Emmanuelle Riva). I don’t know what it was but their stories didn’t move me and their personalities felt a bit flat. Seeing as they were pretty much the only characters that carried any kind of weight, it made it hard to really get into the story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Not only is this film beautiful cinematically but It’s easily way ahead of its time. The cuts between sensuality and disaster are just sheer genius. Despite my lack of love for the characters, the movie itself is shot in a way that makes you feel, that leaves a jarring impact on you mentally. Very powerful.
Conflict: 5
Entertainment Value: 6
Memorability: 8
Because of the way it’s shot, the overall impact is strong. Unfortunately the movie itself is boring as all get out. I respect it sheerly for it being ahead of its time and being one of those cinematic pieces standing in a class of its own. At the very least, it will definitely stick out in your brain.
Pace: 6
Interesting at times, boring in others. I can see why people love this movie, but relate moreso to those that don’t. It drags on in a lot of spots where you’re hoping for a speedier resolution.
Plot: 8
Resolution: 3
I originally hated the ending. After going back and watching it again…I just really dislike it. The closure didn’t feel fully established leaving me extremely dissatisfied. Here was a chance for redemption and director Alain Resnais dropped the ball in my opinion.
Overall: 70
Hiroshima Mon Amour has flashes of absolute brilliance. Then those flashes get erased by poop. I think it’s worth a fair shot if you’re into the classics. Who knows, you may disagree with me. After all 89% of audience members did on Rotten Tomatoes.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Baby Driver (2017) in Movies
Feb 1, 2020
Will Baby Get Out of the Game?
A young getaway driver finds himself in over his head when he tries to get out of the crime game.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
It’s really hard not to love main character Baby (Ansel Elgort). Sure he’s helping criminals do criminal things but he has a great story and a solid motive. From the minute he shows up on screen beating his steering wheel to the music, you immediately want to root for this guy. Baby answers to Doc played by Kevin Spacey who reads the role with a controlled seriousness that forces you to focus on his every word. Doc along with an interesting gang of thugs make for a solid supporting cast.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Whether it’s two lovebirds in a diner talking or a death-defying car chase, I really appreciate the way Edgar Wright uses different angles to capture the perfect moment. I don’t know how he did it, but the movie has an 80’s feel to it even though it takes place in modern day. The action sequences play out in amazing fashion on screen and keep the story moving.
Conflict: 10
So many angles to consider here. Will Baby get out of the game? Does he get the girl? Will the next heist be a success? Something seems to always be happening whether at the forefront or in the background. This is a movie where you can get up to grab a drink and totally miss something you wish you hadn’t. Not to mention Baby Driver seriously has some of the best car chases in film period.
Entertainment Value: 10
It’s a movie that makes The French Connection car chase look like amateur night. There is so much going on, so many layers, that you will be hardpressed to be bored. It has the feel of an indie with blockbuster moments.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Moves at an extremely high clip. Even the dialogue scenes can feel action-driven at times due to the intensity of the conversation. It’s a movie that never really lets you get too comfortable, but rather continues to hit you repeatedly with more.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 8
While the ending is the weakest point of the movie, it doesn’t detract from the overall greatness of Baby Driver. I wasn’t blown away by the resolution, but it was complete enough to get a pass from me. Good, but not lifechanging.
Overall: 98
In addition to having great action, Baby Driver’s love story helps drive the movie (pun intended) as a whole. It’s movies like these I wish would get more love from the Academy as they help to keep the population in love with film. Proud to call this movie a classic.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
It’s really hard not to love main character Baby (Ansel Elgort). Sure he’s helping criminals do criminal things but he has a great story and a solid motive. From the minute he shows up on screen beating his steering wheel to the music, you immediately want to root for this guy. Baby answers to Doc played by Kevin Spacey who reads the role with a controlled seriousness that forces you to focus on his every word. Doc along with an interesting gang of thugs make for a solid supporting cast.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Whether it’s two lovebirds in a diner talking or a death-defying car chase, I really appreciate the way Edgar Wright uses different angles to capture the perfect moment. I don’t know how he did it, but the movie has an 80’s feel to it even though it takes place in modern day. The action sequences play out in amazing fashion on screen and keep the story moving.
Conflict: 10
So many angles to consider here. Will Baby get out of the game? Does he get the girl? Will the next heist be a success? Something seems to always be happening whether at the forefront or in the background. This is a movie where you can get up to grab a drink and totally miss something you wish you hadn’t. Not to mention Baby Driver seriously has some of the best car chases in film period.
Entertainment Value: 10
It’s a movie that makes The French Connection car chase look like amateur night. There is so much going on, so many layers, that you will be hardpressed to be bored. It has the feel of an indie with blockbuster moments.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Moves at an extremely high clip. Even the dialogue scenes can feel action-driven at times due to the intensity of the conversation. It’s a movie that never really lets you get too comfortable, but rather continues to hit you repeatedly with more.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 8
While the ending is the weakest point of the movie, it doesn’t detract from the overall greatness of Baby Driver. I wasn’t blown away by the resolution, but it was complete enough to get a pass from me. Good, but not lifechanging.
Overall: 98
In addition to having great action, Baby Driver’s love story helps drive the movie (pun intended) as a whole. It’s movies like these I wish would get more love from the Academy as they help to keep the population in love with film. Proud to call this movie a classic.
Gaspar Noe recommended Eraserhead (1977) in Movies (curated)
Dianne Robbins (1738 KP) rated Merrily We Go to Hell (1932) in Movies
Sep 3, 2020 (Updated Sep 3, 2020)
Pre-code (4 more)
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Skeet Gallagher as Buck, the sidekick
Florence Britton as Charlcie, the female sidekick
Directed by female director Dorothy Arzner
Contains spoilers, click to show
It was an important movie of its time. It is a pre-code movie so it was able to get away with sins such as alcoholism and infidelity of husbands AND wives without making them pay in the end.
Sylvia Sidney plays Joan Prentice, the daughter of the president of Prentice coffee and Fredric March plays Jerry Corbett, a newspaperman who wishes to be a playwright. They meet at a society party where she is trying to ignore the advances of a very handsy older man and he is on the terrace drunk and drinking even more. She somehow finds him charming and he finds her "swell." They make a date to meet up again and romance follows. I mean, allegedly follows though it seems like a huge plot point to me what they see in each other and what kind of substance their relationship has. I've never been a very romantic person but even this seems terribly lacking to me.
Skeets Gallagher plays the sidekick Buck and he's worth his weight in gold. He a drinking buddy and scenes with him often start with the camera panning him tap dancing from behind. He's sweet, sympathetic, charming, and adorable and brings so much life to the role and film. Florence Britton plays the female sidekick to Fredric March's Jerry Corbett and is a bold lady, and kind. She and Buck are so much fun and not sloppy drunk like Corbett. I would much rather watch a movie with the two of them.
Sylvia Sidney, the female protagonist was bold and determined. After her husband cheats on her with his former wife, she goes out to have a little fun, too. She gets tired of her husband's constant drunkenness and leaves him. He seems to come to his senses at the end of the movie and goes to her. Spoiler alert: she is in the hospital having delivered their baby. He didn't know she was pregnant and only learned about the baby after reading the birth announcement in the newspaper. This is a premonition of things to come once the code comes into play as any sin must be paid for with a person's ruin or death. However, it ends on a happy note that their marriage will be better and that they are hopeful for the future.
* Watch for Cary Grant in one of his earliest roles as the male lead in the period drama play towards the end of the film.
Sylvia Sidney plays Joan Prentice, the daughter of the president of Prentice coffee and Fredric March plays Jerry Corbett, a newspaperman who wishes to be a playwright. They meet at a society party where she is trying to ignore the advances of a very handsy older man and he is on the terrace drunk and drinking even more. She somehow finds him charming and he finds her "swell." They make a date to meet up again and romance follows. I mean, allegedly follows though it seems like a huge plot point to me what they see in each other and what kind of substance their relationship has. I've never been a very romantic person but even this seems terribly lacking to me.
Skeets Gallagher plays the sidekick Buck and he's worth his weight in gold. He a drinking buddy and scenes with him often start with the camera panning him tap dancing from behind. He's sweet, sympathetic, charming, and adorable and brings so much life to the role and film. Florence Britton plays the female sidekick to Fredric March's Jerry Corbett and is a bold lady, and kind. She and Buck are so much fun and not sloppy drunk like Corbett. I would much rather watch a movie with the two of them.
Sylvia Sidney, the female protagonist was bold and determined. After her husband cheats on her with his former wife, she goes out to have a little fun, too. She gets tired of her husband's constant drunkenness and leaves him. He seems to come to his senses at the end of the movie and goes to her. Spoiler alert: she is in the hospital having delivered their baby. He didn't know she was pregnant and only learned about the baby after reading the birth announcement in the newspaper. This is a premonition of things to come once the code comes into play as any sin must be paid for with a person's ruin or death. However, it ends on a happy note that their marriage will be better and that they are hopeful for the future.
* Watch for Cary Grant in one of his earliest roles as the male lead in the period drama play towards the end of the film.
David McK (3562 KP) rated Star Wars: Bloodline in Books
Jan 30, 2019
By and large, most of the Star Wars books to date (including in the old EU), have pretty much belonged to the 'boys club', dfocusing more on the male characters (Han, Luke, the X-Wing pilots, etc) than on their female contemporaries.
I think that's to be expected, given the predominantly male targer audience of the film series - an expectation that Disney themselves are trying to shake up, both in the new films (both of which - The Force Awakens and Rogue One - , so far, have female leads), and in the wider media, as can be shown by their 'Princess Leia' series of comics.
This follows(?) (or did it come first?) in the latter footsteps, with nary a sign of Luke and Han only popping in to give Leia a hand towards the climax of the novel.
Set in the period between the end of 'Return of the Jedi' and the start of 'The Force Awakens', this also seeks to bridge the gap between those two films, providing a bit of background to the history of The First Order and explaining why, if Leia was part of the Rebellion which toppled the Empire, just why she is now a key member in The Resistance - the Resistance to what, I hear you ask? This answers that question.
It's not a bad read by any strecth of the imagination - according to Goodreads own rating system, 2 stars is a 'I liked it'; I just personally found this a slower, somewhat heavier read than [a:Claudia Gray|1192311|Claudia Gray|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1234643683p2/1192311.jpg]'s other Star Wars title: '[b:Lost Stars|25067046|Lost Stars (Star Wars Journey to the Force Awakens)|Claudia Gray|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1462731623s/25067046.jpg|44751860]';. And yes, I'm aware that this is aimed at a different audience.
How best to put it? I didn't find myself reading this quite so much in my spare time on the bus on the way to work!
I think that's to be expected, given the predominantly male targer audience of the film series - an expectation that Disney themselves are trying to shake up, both in the new films (both of which - The Force Awakens and Rogue One - , so far, have female leads), and in the wider media, as can be shown by their 'Princess Leia' series of comics.
This follows(?) (or did it come first?) in the latter footsteps, with nary a sign of Luke and Han only popping in to give Leia a hand towards the climax of the novel.
Set in the period between the end of 'Return of the Jedi' and the start of 'The Force Awakens', this also seeks to bridge the gap between those two films, providing a bit of background to the history of The First Order and explaining why, if Leia was part of the Rebellion which toppled the Empire, just why she is now a key member in The Resistance - the Resistance to what, I hear you ask? This answers that question.
It's not a bad read by any strecth of the imagination - according to Goodreads own rating system, 2 stars is a 'I liked it'; I just personally found this a slower, somewhat heavier read than [a:Claudia Gray|1192311|Claudia Gray|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1234643683p2/1192311.jpg]'s other Star Wars title: '[b:Lost Stars|25067046|Lost Stars (Star Wars Journey to the Force Awakens)|Claudia Gray|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1462731623s/25067046.jpg|44751860]';. And yes, I'm aware that this is aimed at a different audience.
How best to put it? I didn't find myself reading this quite so much in my spare time on the bus on the way to work!
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Fighting with My Family (2019) in Movies
Jul 4, 2020
The Weight of Dreams And Expectations - 8/10
Fighting With My Family is a 2019 biographical sports comedy/drama based on a documentary, The Wrestlers: Fighting With My Family. The documentary was directed by Max Fisher and is about WWE wrestler Paige's career. Written and directed by Stephen Merchant, including executive producer Dwayne Johnson, the film also stars Florence Pugh, Nick Frost, Lena Heady and Vince Vaughn.
In 2000 Norwich, England inseparable siblings Zak (Jack Lowden) and Saraya Knight (Florence Pugh) are encouraged by their parents, Rick (Nick Frost) and Julia (Lena Heady) to wrestle in their family run wrestling promotion. Nervous about her first match, they change the opponent to her brother and the experience she has winning, cements her love of wrestling. Years later, their parents continue to manage and run the family wrestling promotion with both siblings helping to wrestle and train prospective wrestlers. Struggling financially their last hope rides on both children getting signed when they are invited to a WWE tryout. The outcome is bittersweet however when only Saraya is chosen. She is now given a "Once In A Lifetime" opportunity but must leave everyone she knows behind as she goes on this journey alone.
This movie was fantastic! Not just a great wrestling movie but a great movie, period. An emotional roller coaster. The cast was awesome and their camaraderie and chemistry really showed on screen. The writers did a great job keeping dialogue realistic and a plot like life; with its ups and downs. I really didn't think this movie would be that emotional, but it touches on so many themes. It's really a movie for everyone not just wrestling fans. It makes you really feel for the characters and has a way of pulling on your heartstrings in a way few movies do. I almost scored it a point higher but I give this movie an 8/10.
In 2000 Norwich, England inseparable siblings Zak (Jack Lowden) and Saraya Knight (Florence Pugh) are encouraged by their parents, Rick (Nick Frost) and Julia (Lena Heady) to wrestle in their family run wrestling promotion. Nervous about her first match, they change the opponent to her brother and the experience she has winning, cements her love of wrestling. Years later, their parents continue to manage and run the family wrestling promotion with both siblings helping to wrestle and train prospective wrestlers. Struggling financially their last hope rides on both children getting signed when they are invited to a WWE tryout. The outcome is bittersweet however when only Saraya is chosen. She is now given a "Once In A Lifetime" opportunity but must leave everyone she knows behind as she goes on this journey alone.
This movie was fantastic! Not just a great wrestling movie but a great movie, period. An emotional roller coaster. The cast was awesome and their camaraderie and chemistry really showed on screen. The writers did a great job keeping dialogue realistic and a plot like life; with its ups and downs. I really didn't think this movie would be that emotional, but it touches on so many themes. It's really a movie for everyone not just wrestling fans. It makes you really feel for the characters and has a way of pulling on your heartstrings in a way few movies do. I almost scored it a point higher but I give this movie an 8/10.
KyleQ (267 KP) rated Halloween II (2009) in Movies
Jul 20, 2020
Honestly, I thought this was best entry in the series since Carpenter's Original.
Halloween II opens up with a hospital sequence referencing the original Halloween II, and honestly, this hospital scene was not only the most intense and frightening sequence from a Halloween movie, but it was also one of the most frightening and intense sequences I've seen period.
After that Halloween II delves into wholly original territory.
Scout Taylor Compton's Laurie Strode is suffering from PTSD, she lives with her bestie Annie Brackett (Danielle Harris) and Annie's dad, Lee Brackett (Brad Douriff). The sight of Annie causes Laurie to remember that which pains her, straining their relationship. Laurie feels like she is losing her sanity, she's even dreamt of her mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) with a white horse, calling for her.
Meanwhile, Dr. Sam Loomis (Malcolm Mcdowell), truly believing Michael (Tyler Mane) to be dead, is getting rich off of his book which tells the story of the first film. Loomis is now wholly enveloped with this world.
But Michael is returning to Haddonfield once more.
I can see why longtime fans would have trouble getting into this. Michael's look has been changed for the first time, in parts he doesn't wear his mask, he dresses like a hobo, he has long hair and a great big bushy beard.
The movie also obviously takes characters into strange and different directions than previous installments.
But I don't think that's reason enough to hate it and bash it.
Halloween II is one the most brutal, intense, and disturbing horror movies I've seen in a while, and frankly, that's what I want in a horror movie. Horror should try to frighten and disturb its viewers.
It's a very original entry, but well worth it if you have an open mind.
I minus one star because I don't understand the white horse, it feels pointless, otherwise, I thought it was great!
After that Halloween II delves into wholly original territory.
Scout Taylor Compton's Laurie Strode is suffering from PTSD, she lives with her bestie Annie Brackett (Danielle Harris) and Annie's dad, Lee Brackett (Brad Douriff). The sight of Annie causes Laurie to remember that which pains her, straining their relationship. Laurie feels like she is losing her sanity, she's even dreamt of her mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) with a white horse, calling for her.
Meanwhile, Dr. Sam Loomis (Malcolm Mcdowell), truly believing Michael (Tyler Mane) to be dead, is getting rich off of his book which tells the story of the first film. Loomis is now wholly enveloped with this world.
But Michael is returning to Haddonfield once more.
I can see why longtime fans would have trouble getting into this. Michael's look has been changed for the first time, in parts he doesn't wear his mask, he dresses like a hobo, he has long hair and a great big bushy beard.
The movie also obviously takes characters into strange and different directions than previous installments.
But I don't think that's reason enough to hate it and bash it.
Halloween II is one the most brutal, intense, and disturbing horror movies I've seen in a while, and frankly, that's what I want in a horror movie. Horror should try to frighten and disturb its viewers.
It's a very original entry, but well worth it if you have an open mind.
I minus one star because I don't understand the white horse, it feels pointless, otherwise, I thought it was great!
Troy Aker (6 KP) rated Super 8 (2011) in Movies
Dec 13, 2017
Much fun from JJ Abrams
With Super 8, JJ Abrams did something I feel is rare in cinema. It was a monster movie in which you actually care about the people involved. Way too often in movies it becomes easy to cheer on the monster because the people involved just aren't likable, or that not enough time is spent on them to create a connection with the characters. A character driven monster-disaster movie is rare. This movie is the anti-Michael Bay movie. Which is part of the reason why I love it so much.
Another reason I enjoy it so much is because of the period of the film. It is a very believable 1979, and though the kids in the movie are a little bit older than me, I still felt a connection to them and what they did in their lives. I remember working on various projects with friends as kids, when we would do everything we could to make our silly and fun little projects seem more adult. There is a certain rush to compete, when hormones start kicking in, with older and more mature kids, but still wanting to hold on to the fun things that makes the group enjoyable. This was all conveyed very well during the movie, and it helps create a connection with the characters.
The movie brings to mine some absolutely wonderful movies about groups of friends that go through a life-changing journey together, like E.T., The Goonies, and Stand By Me.
This being said, I think that people that grew up in the late 70's and early to mid-80's will enjoy this movie for different reasons than somebody that grew up after that. There was a certain level of nostalgia that hooked me in this movie. Someone who can't necessarily relate to the characters that way can certainly relate to them as far as a group of friends having a shifting dynamic as the teen years come barreling down at you.
Then for the action fans, the movie has one of, if not the best, crash scene I have ever seen. The monster action through most of the movie is quick cuts, loud sounds and then you see the aftermath. As the movie progresses, you do start to see more and more of the monster, so be patient. It won't be hidden forever. Seeing a little town of 12,000 people turn into a war zone was crazy as the military gets progressively involved as well.
This movie was not perfect though. There were a couple jumps in logic I felt. The kind where you sit there and think, "No way that it would happen like that." And another where you wonder why certain things are happening and others there are not. Also, towards the end, there was a certain amount of sappiness. Maybe not uncalled for due to the extraordinary circumstances that this town was put through though. But all this is easy to move past because the movie it self is so enjoyable.
Another reason I enjoy it so much is because of the period of the film. It is a very believable 1979, and though the kids in the movie are a little bit older than me, I still felt a connection to them and what they did in their lives. I remember working on various projects with friends as kids, when we would do everything we could to make our silly and fun little projects seem more adult. There is a certain rush to compete, when hormones start kicking in, with older and more mature kids, but still wanting to hold on to the fun things that makes the group enjoyable. This was all conveyed very well during the movie, and it helps create a connection with the characters.
The movie brings to mine some absolutely wonderful movies about groups of friends that go through a life-changing journey together, like E.T., The Goonies, and Stand By Me.
This being said, I think that people that grew up in the late 70's and early to mid-80's will enjoy this movie for different reasons than somebody that grew up after that. There was a certain level of nostalgia that hooked me in this movie. Someone who can't necessarily relate to the characters that way can certainly relate to them as far as a group of friends having a shifting dynamic as the teen years come barreling down at you.
Then for the action fans, the movie has one of, if not the best, crash scene I have ever seen. The monster action through most of the movie is quick cuts, loud sounds and then you see the aftermath. As the movie progresses, you do start to see more and more of the monster, so be patient. It won't be hidden forever. Seeing a little town of 12,000 people turn into a war zone was crazy as the military gets progressively involved as well.
This movie was not perfect though. There were a couple jumps in logic I felt. The kind where you sit there and think, "No way that it would happen like that." And another where you wonder why certain things are happening and others there are not. Also, towards the end, there was a certain amount of sappiness. Maybe not uncalled for due to the extraordinary circumstances that this town was put through though. But all this is easy to move past because the movie it self is so enjoyable.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 3, 2020
There were several things that didn't make me leap at this one, but I was excited to have a "new release" to watch so...
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html