Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated Peter Rabbit (2018) in Movies
Nov 29, 2019
Verdict: Poor Film
Story: Peter Rabbit starts as we see how Peter Rabbit and his family and friends had a battle with old Mr McGregor (Neill) after they continued to steal from his garden, until he passes away. The next-door neighbour Bea (Byrne) does try to keep them safe the best she can.
When Thomas McGregor (Gleeson) moves into the house with plans to sell it, which sees the war coming back for Peter and his family, this time it might become deadlier.
Thoughts on Peter Rabbit
Characters – Peter Rabbit is the mischievous little rabbit that always gets his siblings into trouble as they always seem to terrorise the McGregor family, that does seem to be the only thing he does each day, making him out to be a horrible little rabbit. Thomas McGregor is a completely by the book toy store employee wanting to get to management, when he loses his job, he ends up following in his uncle footsteps, getting into a battle with the rabbits. Bea is the nice neighbour that has always tried to look after the animals, loves nature and is an artist.
Performances – Domhnall Gleeson is great along with Rose Byrne are the two main live action stars that both work well with how they act towards the animals. Most of the voice acting is mixed, with the three sisters working well, but James Corden not suiting the character.
Story – The story follows the adventures of Peter Rabbit against the McGregor’s, which just seems to keep escalating. The story is strange because it doesn’t make Peter likeable at all, he just seems to annoy McGregor and never do anything else, surely there would have been another food supply for him. Most of the story revolves around pop culture jokes, which have dated quickly, but by the end the story just becomes boring more than anything else.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure is just the troubles Peter gets himself in, we don’t seem to go any further, while the comedy is a miss already.
Settings – The film keeps the action in the country, which does seem to have only show how close the war between the two was.
Animation – The animated animals looks solid for the most part, but some of the moments seem weird.
Scene of the Movie – Harrods break down.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Peter Rabbit.
Final Thoughts – This is a big disappointment because the characters used are loveable for the most part, while this movie just makes them horrible.
Overall: Boring.
Story: Peter Rabbit starts as we see how Peter Rabbit and his family and friends had a battle with old Mr McGregor (Neill) after they continued to steal from his garden, until he passes away. The next-door neighbour Bea (Byrne) does try to keep them safe the best she can.
When Thomas McGregor (Gleeson) moves into the house with plans to sell it, which sees the war coming back for Peter and his family, this time it might become deadlier.
Thoughts on Peter Rabbit
Characters – Peter Rabbit is the mischievous little rabbit that always gets his siblings into trouble as they always seem to terrorise the McGregor family, that does seem to be the only thing he does each day, making him out to be a horrible little rabbit. Thomas McGregor is a completely by the book toy store employee wanting to get to management, when he loses his job, he ends up following in his uncle footsteps, getting into a battle with the rabbits. Bea is the nice neighbour that has always tried to look after the animals, loves nature and is an artist.
Performances – Domhnall Gleeson is great along with Rose Byrne are the two main live action stars that both work well with how they act towards the animals. Most of the voice acting is mixed, with the three sisters working well, but James Corden not suiting the character.
Story – The story follows the adventures of Peter Rabbit against the McGregor’s, which just seems to keep escalating. The story is strange because it doesn’t make Peter likeable at all, he just seems to annoy McGregor and never do anything else, surely there would have been another food supply for him. Most of the story revolves around pop culture jokes, which have dated quickly, but by the end the story just becomes boring more than anything else.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure is just the troubles Peter gets himself in, we don’t seem to go any further, while the comedy is a miss already.
Settings – The film keeps the action in the country, which does seem to have only show how close the war between the two was.
Animation – The animated animals looks solid for the most part, but some of the moments seem weird.
Scene of the Movie – Harrods break down.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Peter Rabbit.
Final Thoughts – This is a big disappointment because the characters used are loveable for the most part, while this movie just makes them horrible.
Overall: Boring.
Erika (17788 KP) rated Peter Rabbit 2: The Runaway (2021) in Movies
Jun 15, 2021
Full disclosure, I absolutely loved the first Peter Rabbit film. I found it completely hilarious and cackled numerous times. The sequel did not make me laugh.
I typically don’t watch straight-up kid movies anymore, because they’re not funny, and they are as annoying as the kids in the audience. This movie completely reminded me of that.
The film begins with the wedding of Bea and Thomas, the rabbits and other members of McGregor’s Garden are all present. The animals are mixed in with the humans, and it looked very odd. I can’t figure out why. Bea and Thomas enter married bliss (?), running a shop in town, and tending the garden. Bea’s first Peter Rabbit book has been published by Thomas himself. Bea receives an offer from a publisher, Nigel Basil-Jones, played by David Oyelowo, to have her book republished so it can reach a wider audience. Bea begins to compromise her integrity to please Nigel and make the rabbits hipper to boost sales. Meanwhile, Peter embraces his bad boy/ mischievous image and makes friends with this super creepy rabbit from the city, participating in food heists.
The two main plotlines really didn’t make sense together and seemed to only be related because they were both about family. Yawn.
James Corden, who I can tolerate most of the time, was so completely annoying. His performance killed any motivation I had to see a possible third movie. This movie was just dumb, but I guess it probably entertained children.
There were a few positives. Oyelowo was hilarious, and one of the best parts of the film. He is the only reason I’m giving this film two-stars His comedy skills are on point and his interactions with Domhnall Gleeson were the best source of adult laughs. I also loved the voice acting of Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail. Though, I was a little bummed that Daisy Ridley did not return as Cottontail.
The recent marketing stated, “In Theaters. Finally”. I’m not sure this film should have been released in theaters, they should have released it on VOD at Easter-time either in 2020, or 2021.
I typically don’t watch straight-up kid movies anymore, because they’re not funny, and they are as annoying as the kids in the audience. This movie completely reminded me of that.
The film begins with the wedding of Bea and Thomas, the rabbits and other members of McGregor’s Garden are all present. The animals are mixed in with the humans, and it looked very odd. I can’t figure out why. Bea and Thomas enter married bliss (?), running a shop in town, and tending the garden. Bea’s first Peter Rabbit book has been published by Thomas himself. Bea receives an offer from a publisher, Nigel Basil-Jones, played by David Oyelowo, to have her book republished so it can reach a wider audience. Bea begins to compromise her integrity to please Nigel and make the rabbits hipper to boost sales. Meanwhile, Peter embraces his bad boy/ mischievous image and makes friends with this super creepy rabbit from the city, participating in food heists.
The two main plotlines really didn’t make sense together and seemed to only be related because they were both about family. Yawn.
James Corden, who I can tolerate most of the time, was so completely annoying. His performance killed any motivation I had to see a possible third movie. This movie was just dumb, but I guess it probably entertained children.
There were a few positives. Oyelowo was hilarious, and one of the best parts of the film. He is the only reason I’m giving this film two-stars His comedy skills are on point and his interactions with Domhnall Gleeson were the best source of adult laughs. I also loved the voice acting of Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail. Though, I was a little bummed that Daisy Ridley did not return as Cottontail.
The recent marketing stated, “In Theaters. Finally”. I’m not sure this film should have been released in theaters, they should have released it on VOD at Easter-time either in 2020, or 2021.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Peter Rabbit (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Had they not attempt to make a movie based off a beloved children’s book
classic by Beatrix Potter, this film would be exceptional. Unfortunately,
they chose to deviate from the innocent storytelling and put a slapstick
comical spin on it. Peter Rabbit (James Corden) and his sisters, Flopsy,
Mopsy, Cottontail, and their cousin Benjamin are constantly trying to steal
vegetables from the unpleasant and always grumpy Mr. MacGregor’s garden.
Fortunately, the rabbits have one human on their side, MacGregor’s
neighbor, Bea (Rose Byrne), who reminds MacGregor, the animals were on the
land first and everyone should share.
One morning Mr. MacGregor (SamNeill) keels over after trying to save his garden from those pesky
rabbits. His straight-laced city boy grandnephew Thomas MacGregor (Dohmnall
Gleason) inherits the property and is left with trying to maintain the
“rodent” problem. An all-out war ensues between Peter and Thomas!
What made Beatrix Potter’s books so appealing, was her ability to show a
vulnerability to where the reader could sympathize with such
mischievous rabbits.
This film was chalked full of naughty behavior, jealousy, and entitlement
within the story line characters. As a film, it’s hilarious—Home Alone
type shenanigans with a little Dennis the Menace antics peppered in. Live
action mixed in with CGI effects is quite impressive—too good, you almost
think the rabbits were real. If you can deviate from the stories we’ve all
grown to love, this film is excellent, entertaining, and for the intended
audience-kids under the age of 10……… which all thought it was
“totally awesome!”
classic by Beatrix Potter, this film would be exceptional. Unfortunately,
they chose to deviate from the innocent storytelling and put a slapstick
comical spin on it. Peter Rabbit (James Corden) and his sisters, Flopsy,
Mopsy, Cottontail, and their cousin Benjamin are constantly trying to steal
vegetables from the unpleasant and always grumpy Mr. MacGregor’s garden.
Fortunately, the rabbits have one human on their side, MacGregor’s
neighbor, Bea (Rose Byrne), who reminds MacGregor, the animals were on the
land first and everyone should share.
One morning Mr. MacGregor (SamNeill) keels over after trying to save his garden from those pesky
rabbits. His straight-laced city boy grandnephew Thomas MacGregor (Dohmnall
Gleason) inherits the property and is left with trying to maintain the
“rodent” problem. An all-out war ensues between Peter and Thomas!
What made Beatrix Potter’s books so appealing, was her ability to show a
vulnerability to where the reader could sympathize with such
mischievous rabbits.
This film was chalked full of naughty behavior, jealousy, and entitlement
within the story line characters. As a film, it’s hilarious—Home Alone
type shenanigans with a little Dennis the Menace antics peppered in. Live
action mixed in with CGI effects is quite impressive—too good, you almost
think the rabbits were real. If you can deviate from the stories we’ve all
grown to love, this film is excellent, entertaining, and for the intended
audience-kids under the age of 10……… which all thought it was
“totally awesome!”
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Spider-Man 3 (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The most anticipated film of the summer, Spider-Man 3 has arrived to the delight of moviegoers the world over. It has been roughly a little more than a year since Spider-Man (Tobey Maguire), defeated Dr. Octopus and saved the city from certain doom.
During this time, Spider-man has become New York City’s celebrated hero, and his day to day alter ego, Peter Parker, delights in his fame, while dating the love of his life, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst).
As the film opens, Peter has decided to ask Mary Jane to be his wife, and plans to surprise her with a ring during dinner at a fancy restaurant. Mary Jane is starring in a Broadway play, and despite harsh reviews, she is living her dream and madly in love with Peter.
Things take an unexpected twist for Peter when he is attacked one night by his best friend Harry (James Franco), who blames him for the death of his father at the conclusion of the first film. Enhanced by his father’s Goblin serum, Harry is a deadly adversary for Peter who is able to fend off the attack eventually, and put into motion a series of events that will forever change his life.
When a career criminal named Flint Marko (Thomas Hayden Church), is accidentally caught in an experiment while fleeing the authorities, he becomes a living mass of sand, which enables him to start a string of robberies as “The Sandman”, and provides Spider-man with his most unusual opponent yet.
As if this was not enough, Peter must contend with a new hotshot photographer named Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), who is after a staff position at the Daily Bugle. The fact that Peter has more seniority at the paper is of little interest to Eddie, and he will stop at nothing to get the better of Peter.
At this point one would think that Peter has more than enough on his plate, but fate is about to drop an unexpected player into his life, a space based symbiote that bonds
with Peter’s costume and creates a dark black look for Spider-Man as well as an increase in his powers.
Peter becomes obsessed with his new powers, and there is a dramatic change in his persona, which does not sit well with Mary Jane. When new information is given to Peter about the death of his Uncle Ben, Peter is more than willing to use his new found abilities to exact the revenge that he craves.
Peter also has another area of interest as Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard), the daughter of the local Chief of Police has caught his eye, much to the chagrin of both Mary Jane and Gwen’s current boyfriend Eddie Brock.
This tangled web of characters soon forces Peter to take stock of his life and the choices he makes, in order to determine what truly matters to him, the love and respect of his friends, or giving into his darker side and pursing power and unending praise and adulation.
The film starts out well, and the early conflict between Peter and Harry is a brilliantly staged spectacle of sight, sound, and motion. There are also some great moments between the lead characters and Church, Howard and Grace do well with their characters, yet something about Spider-Man 3 did not click for me the way the previous two films in the series have.
Having the luxury of time from the press screener to the opening, I was able to look back at the film the past week and a half to try to determine what did not work for me, and I kept coming back to the same conclusions.
First, the film wants very much to be much darker and edgier than the other films, yet just when you think you are going to see Peter fully cross the line, the film pulls back into campy mode, and we are given scenes of Peter hamming it up as a ladies’ man, and I kid you not, doing an impromptu dance number.
While this works for comedic effect, I am supposed to believe that the darker side of Peter’s soul is being exposed, and I had a hard time thinking that his inner demons include “Saturday Night Fever” style strut down the sidewalk, and a floor show.
The second thing that bothered me was the villains, as aside from Harry as the New Goblin, both the Sandman and Venom were sadly lacking. Neither The Sandman nor Venom had over the top plots to rule the world, kill or enslave the masses, or endanger huge parts of the city as was the case with the original Green Goblin and Dr Octopus.
Rather we have one who is content to steal to fund a noble cause, and wishes only to complete this cause and have Spider-Man out of his way. The second simply wants revenge for being slighted, and does not elude the menace nor danger that the character warrants.
effects wise the film is solid and there are some great moments in the film, but to many times I thought I had seen the same sand effects years early in the “Mummy” series which lead to many cases of “been there, seen that” for me. With a budget that many claim to be the most expensive film ever made when based on current dollar values, I had expected more from the film, especially given the talented and dynamic cast, and the ample backing of the studio.
Director and series Guru Sam Raimi seems to be coasting here as one has to wonder if he used up many of his great ideas in the last two films, and was trying so hard not to repeat himself, that he lost that magic spark that made the last two films such classics.
As it stands, “Spider-Man 3” is a good film, but you can’t help but feel it could have been a better one.
During this time, Spider-man has become New York City’s celebrated hero, and his day to day alter ego, Peter Parker, delights in his fame, while dating the love of his life, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst).
As the film opens, Peter has decided to ask Mary Jane to be his wife, and plans to surprise her with a ring during dinner at a fancy restaurant. Mary Jane is starring in a Broadway play, and despite harsh reviews, she is living her dream and madly in love with Peter.
Things take an unexpected twist for Peter when he is attacked one night by his best friend Harry (James Franco), who blames him for the death of his father at the conclusion of the first film. Enhanced by his father’s Goblin serum, Harry is a deadly adversary for Peter who is able to fend off the attack eventually, and put into motion a series of events that will forever change his life.
When a career criminal named Flint Marko (Thomas Hayden Church), is accidentally caught in an experiment while fleeing the authorities, he becomes a living mass of sand, which enables him to start a string of robberies as “The Sandman”, and provides Spider-man with his most unusual opponent yet.
As if this was not enough, Peter must contend with a new hotshot photographer named Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), who is after a staff position at the Daily Bugle. The fact that Peter has more seniority at the paper is of little interest to Eddie, and he will stop at nothing to get the better of Peter.
At this point one would think that Peter has more than enough on his plate, but fate is about to drop an unexpected player into his life, a space based symbiote that bonds
with Peter’s costume and creates a dark black look for Spider-Man as well as an increase in his powers.
Peter becomes obsessed with his new powers, and there is a dramatic change in his persona, which does not sit well with Mary Jane. When new information is given to Peter about the death of his Uncle Ben, Peter is more than willing to use his new found abilities to exact the revenge that he craves.
Peter also has another area of interest as Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard), the daughter of the local Chief of Police has caught his eye, much to the chagrin of both Mary Jane and Gwen’s current boyfriend Eddie Brock.
This tangled web of characters soon forces Peter to take stock of his life and the choices he makes, in order to determine what truly matters to him, the love and respect of his friends, or giving into his darker side and pursing power and unending praise and adulation.
The film starts out well, and the early conflict between Peter and Harry is a brilliantly staged spectacle of sight, sound, and motion. There are also some great moments between the lead characters and Church, Howard and Grace do well with their characters, yet something about Spider-Man 3 did not click for me the way the previous two films in the series have.
Having the luxury of time from the press screener to the opening, I was able to look back at the film the past week and a half to try to determine what did not work for me, and I kept coming back to the same conclusions.
First, the film wants very much to be much darker and edgier than the other films, yet just when you think you are going to see Peter fully cross the line, the film pulls back into campy mode, and we are given scenes of Peter hamming it up as a ladies’ man, and I kid you not, doing an impromptu dance number.
While this works for comedic effect, I am supposed to believe that the darker side of Peter’s soul is being exposed, and I had a hard time thinking that his inner demons include “Saturday Night Fever” style strut down the sidewalk, and a floor show.
The second thing that bothered me was the villains, as aside from Harry as the New Goblin, both the Sandman and Venom were sadly lacking. Neither The Sandman nor Venom had over the top plots to rule the world, kill or enslave the masses, or endanger huge parts of the city as was the case with the original Green Goblin and Dr Octopus.
Rather we have one who is content to steal to fund a noble cause, and wishes only to complete this cause and have Spider-Man out of his way. The second simply wants revenge for being slighted, and does not elude the menace nor danger that the character warrants.
effects wise the film is solid and there are some great moments in the film, but to many times I thought I had seen the same sand effects years early in the “Mummy” series which lead to many cases of “been there, seen that” for me. With a budget that many claim to be the most expensive film ever made when based on current dollar values, I had expected more from the film, especially given the talented and dynamic cast, and the ample backing of the studio.
Director and series Guru Sam Raimi seems to be coasting here as one has to wonder if he used up many of his great ideas in the last two films, and was trying so hard not to repeat himself, that he lost that magic spark that made the last two films such classics.
As it stands, “Spider-Man 3” is a good film, but you can’t help but feel it could have been a better one.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Peter Rabbit 2: The Runaway (2021) in Movies
Jul 3, 2021
When I imagined the first time back into my Cineworld I was of course envisioning an epic first film back, something monumental... I succumbed to peer pressure and saw Peter Rabbit 2, but it was in a double bill with Spiral, what a combo. Bunnies and butchery.
Following Thomas and Bea's wedding, things start to change for this country family. Bea's story has become so popular that there's a book deal on the horizon, and the family head off to the big city to talk to the publisher. But Peter isn't happy about the way things are changing. He wanders off into the city streets where he meets a mysterious stranger that shows him a new way of living where he can be the bunny he wants to be.
Where do I begin? Peter doesn't like being cast as a brat, disappears and... does some brattish things. It's on brand for the bunny, so feels right for this second outing.
The animal antics felt right throughout the film, but the humans one... no so much. I know I'm probably overthinking about this film a little, but I honestly don't think this situation would have happened at all, not with the sort of person Bea was. That's the card we were dealt though so I guess we have to accept it.
I found the film to be very slow going at the start, it essentially wasn't very different from the first. Thankfully, somewhere at the midpoint it does pick up and you get more of the crazy action that, let's face it, was the only reasons that us adults are seeing this. (Apart from Hannah, Hannah is here for some Gleeson goodness as well as the bunnies.)
It seems a little daft to go over most of the things about this film as it really is a carbon copy where everything but the storyline is concerned. There are a few moments that even taking artistic license into account didn't sit right with me, but they would all constitute spoilers so I won't elaborate, rest assured though, you will have the same quibbles if you watch it.
Peter Rabbit 2 The Runaway. (not that anyone remembers the second bit), would have been good competition with the first had the beginning had the same pace as the rest of the film. What we've got is a sequel that is really just for the kids to enjoy, we'll just hang around for the action.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/peter-rabbit-2-runaway-movie-review.html
Following Thomas and Bea's wedding, things start to change for this country family. Bea's story has become so popular that there's a book deal on the horizon, and the family head off to the big city to talk to the publisher. But Peter isn't happy about the way things are changing. He wanders off into the city streets where he meets a mysterious stranger that shows him a new way of living where he can be the bunny he wants to be.
Where do I begin? Peter doesn't like being cast as a brat, disappears and... does some brattish things. It's on brand for the bunny, so feels right for this second outing.
The animal antics felt right throughout the film, but the humans one... no so much. I know I'm probably overthinking about this film a little, but I honestly don't think this situation would have happened at all, not with the sort of person Bea was. That's the card we were dealt though so I guess we have to accept it.
I found the film to be very slow going at the start, it essentially wasn't very different from the first. Thankfully, somewhere at the midpoint it does pick up and you get more of the crazy action that, let's face it, was the only reasons that us adults are seeing this. (Apart from Hannah, Hannah is here for some Gleeson goodness as well as the bunnies.)
It seems a little daft to go over most of the things about this film as it really is a carbon copy where everything but the storyline is concerned. There are a few moments that even taking artistic license into account didn't sit right with me, but they would all constitute spoilers so I won't elaborate, rest assured though, you will have the same quibbles if you watch it.
Peter Rabbit 2 The Runaway. (not that anyone remembers the second bit), would have been good competition with the first had the beginning had the same pace as the rest of the film. What we've got is a sequel that is really just for the kids to enjoy, we'll just hang around for the action.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/peter-rabbit-2-runaway-movie-review.html
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Spider-Man 3 (2007) in Movies
Sep 24, 2020 (Updated Sep 24, 2020)
The third and final entry in the Sam Raimi trilogy of Spider-Man films is arguably the most well known, unfortunately for all the wrong reasons, and it's a real shame as there are flashes of greatness, but the finished product is a hot mess.
One of the main issues is of course the three big villains all battling for screentime. Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) is a great villain to add to the series, but his story is executed poorly, and includes a dumb retcon in a half arsed attempt to link him to the original film. It's just unnecessary and soils something that could have been good. And then there's Venom - A huge fan favourite villain who Sam Raimi apparently doesn't like, and it's evident. Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) is rushed into the narrative, and his reasons for hating Peter Parker feel forced as a result. Venoms inclusion feels a bit tacked on, and unfortunately reaks of studio meddling.
Other than that, there's also the issue of over confidence - the assumption that an audience wants to watch an edgy version of Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker swanning and dancing down a street is bold to say the least - I could even forgive the infamous scene if it wasn't immediately followed up with a second dance number in a jazz bar. I get that it's designed to portray the symbiote suits hold over Peter and his deteriorating character attributes, buts it's a massive shitty swing and a miss (much like the whole movie in general) that makes me want to scream.
It's not all bad though. All of the cast, new and familiar, are good. I think Bryce Dallas Howard is a great Gwen Stacy. It has some decent set pieces as well - the scene where Sandman is discovering his new powers is brilliant, as is the fight between him and black suit Spider-Man in the underground. I also quite enjoy the final showdown when we (finally) get to see Venom properly.
It's not enough though, and Spider-Man 3 ultimately is a flawed if ambitious comic book sequel.
One of the main issues is of course the three big villains all battling for screentime. Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) is a great villain to add to the series, but his story is executed poorly, and includes a dumb retcon in a half arsed attempt to link him to the original film. It's just unnecessary and soils something that could have been good. And then there's Venom - A huge fan favourite villain who Sam Raimi apparently doesn't like, and it's evident. Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) is rushed into the narrative, and his reasons for hating Peter Parker feel forced as a result. Venoms inclusion feels a bit tacked on, and unfortunately reaks of studio meddling.
Other than that, there's also the issue of over confidence - the assumption that an audience wants to watch an edgy version of Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker swanning and dancing down a street is bold to say the least - I could even forgive the infamous scene if it wasn't immediately followed up with a second dance number in a jazz bar. I get that it's designed to portray the symbiote suits hold over Peter and his deteriorating character attributes, buts it's a massive shitty swing and a miss (much like the whole movie in general) that makes me want to scream.
It's not all bad though. All of the cast, new and familiar, are good. I think Bryce Dallas Howard is a great Gwen Stacy. It has some decent set pieces as well - the scene where Sandman is discovering his new powers is brilliant, as is the fight between him and black suit Spider-Man in the underground. I also quite enjoy the final showdown when we (finally) get to see Venom properly.
It's not enough though, and Spider-Man 3 ultimately is a flawed if ambitious comic book sequel.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated We Bought a Zoo (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
From the director of Jerry Maguire and Almost Famous, Cameron Crowe has brought us a great new film starring Mat Damon, Scarlett Johansson, Thomas Hadden Church and up and coming star Elle Fanning. Packed with amazing talent; “We Bought a Zoo” is a heartwarming true story of a man who wants to start over and in doing so, he provides a new life for his young family and his new friends.
Benjamin Mee (Mat Damon), a widowed father of two young children Dylan (Colin Ford) and Rosie (Magie Elizabeth Jones) are in need of a new start. Benjamin’s brother Duncan (Thomas Haden Church) has always provided Benjamin with useless and impractical advice. Only this time he strikes the nail on the head by telling his brother that he has to start over. He teams up with Mr. Stevens (J.B Smoove), a first time real estate agent and his daughter Rosie to find the perfect home to start there new future. When they come across the perfect house it comes with some big responsibilities. The Mee family have just become the new owners of a struggling Zoo (Rosemoore Wildlife Park). The Zoo is run by Kelly Foster (Scarlett Johansson) head zookeeper, Peter, Robin and her cousin Lily (Elle Fanning).They are in need of someone to take charge of the Zoo or it will close forever. With over forty seven animal species, the Zoo is in need of someone with lots of heart and determination to keep it from closing. Although everybody has doubts about Benjamin, even himself, he never gives up. Benjamin and his family are able to start fresh and after an argument here and there among father and son, are able to leave the past behind and look forward to the future.
“We Bought a Zoo” is such a heartwarming true story that will leave you with inspiration. The film is filled with vibrant colors, great cinematography, amazing actors and filled with such inspiration that I would be surprised if it is not in this years Oscar line up. Mat Damon surely delivers in his portrayal of Benjamin Mee. Most children actors don’t go far in the showbiz but great things come in small packages with Magie Elizabeth Jones. At her very young age of seven and her performance in this film I would be surprised if she doesn’t end up being a big star. Elle Fanning and Colin Ford make the perfect young couple and were perfectly paired up as the roles of Colin and Lily and like her sister Dakota Fanning she is becoming a great young actress. I wasn’t very impressed with Scarlett Johansson in this film as she always in my opinion plays the same sort of character in most of her movies with the exception of The Black Widow in the Iron Man films. Though having a somewhat small part in this film, Thomas Haden Church always seems to live up to the characters he portrays especially as Duncan.
This film is one that definitely can not be missed and is a perfect film to kick of the new year. If you love animals and are wanting to see a heartfelt film you will with out a doubt love this film and is definitely Oscar worthy. I left the theater feeling inspired and wanting to help animals that are going extinct. Big cats are disappearing at an alarming rate and with our help we can cause an uproar. To help go to causeanuproar.org to help.
Benjamin Mee (Mat Damon), a widowed father of two young children Dylan (Colin Ford) and Rosie (Magie Elizabeth Jones) are in need of a new start. Benjamin’s brother Duncan (Thomas Haden Church) has always provided Benjamin with useless and impractical advice. Only this time he strikes the nail on the head by telling his brother that he has to start over. He teams up with Mr. Stevens (J.B Smoove), a first time real estate agent and his daughter Rosie to find the perfect home to start there new future. When they come across the perfect house it comes with some big responsibilities. The Mee family have just become the new owners of a struggling Zoo (Rosemoore Wildlife Park). The Zoo is run by Kelly Foster (Scarlett Johansson) head zookeeper, Peter, Robin and her cousin Lily (Elle Fanning).They are in need of someone to take charge of the Zoo or it will close forever. With over forty seven animal species, the Zoo is in need of someone with lots of heart and determination to keep it from closing. Although everybody has doubts about Benjamin, even himself, he never gives up. Benjamin and his family are able to start fresh and after an argument here and there among father and son, are able to leave the past behind and look forward to the future.
“We Bought a Zoo” is such a heartwarming true story that will leave you with inspiration. The film is filled with vibrant colors, great cinematography, amazing actors and filled with such inspiration that I would be surprised if it is not in this years Oscar line up. Mat Damon surely delivers in his portrayal of Benjamin Mee. Most children actors don’t go far in the showbiz but great things come in small packages with Magie Elizabeth Jones. At her very young age of seven and her performance in this film I would be surprised if she doesn’t end up being a big star. Elle Fanning and Colin Ford make the perfect young couple and were perfectly paired up as the roles of Colin and Lily and like her sister Dakota Fanning she is becoming a great young actress. I wasn’t very impressed with Scarlett Johansson in this film as she always in my opinion plays the same sort of character in most of her movies with the exception of The Black Widow in the Iron Man films. Though having a somewhat small part in this film, Thomas Haden Church always seems to live up to the characters he portrays especially as Duncan.
This film is one that definitely can not be missed and is a perfect film to kick of the new year. If you love animals and are wanting to see a heartfelt film you will with out a doubt love this film and is definitely Oscar worthy. I left the theater feeling inspired and wanting to help animals that are going extinct. Big cats are disappearing at an alarming rate and with our help we can cause an uproar. To help go to causeanuproar.org to help.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Spider-Man 3 (2007) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019 (Updated Jul 3, 2019)
"None of that matters now, you're my friend"
After the worldwide success of the first two "Spider-Man" films, director Sam Raimi and the cast decided to take a break. The first two had been shot almost back-to-back, with very little "down time" in between. So, in late 2005, about 18 months after the release of "Spider-Man 2", Raimi began fleshing out ideas for a third storyline. For this chapter, the director wanted to teach Peter Parker about forgiveness; to do so, he'd need a villain with personal ties. The problem was that, besides the Osborn family and Otto Octavius, no villains in the comics had such a huge connection. Raimi didn't want to contradict a well-established character, so he sought one out whose backstory had never been fully realized: the Sandman, whose literary incarnation was little more than a random thief. Connecting the character to the death of Ben Parker gave Peter a huge obstacle that needed facing. Wrapping up Harry Osborn's story was also necessary, since Marvel wasn't sure if James Franco would agree to more chapters in the franchise. The addition of Gwen Stacy (who in the comics, was Peter's first love) was done mainly for the fans, and to create a conflicted love triangle with Peter & Mary Jane. Satisfied with his concept, Raimi told his plans to Marvel Comics; the result was less than expected.
Therein lies my biggest problem with "Spider-Man 3". I liked the Venom character as a kid, but in all honesty having 4 villains in the same film (Harry, Marko, the black symbiote itself, and eventually Venom) was just too much at once. From the standpoint of a fan, I'd have preferred that Venom be saved for a future entry, so he could have taken center stage. By having him alongside both Marko and Harry Osborn, the story became rather confusing for many fans, and the film's box office suffered as a direct result. Overall, this film made less money across the board than its predecessor...all because of corporate greed.
That being said, I still enjoy the film on many levels, but knowing what caused the multi-arc story makes some moments bittersweet. The actors clearly enjoyed this ride, but something in general seemed a bit lacking. Looking back, I realize it was the Venom character. The fact of it essentially being forced into the narrative only made the tale confusing and hard to follow. It became one of those films many people have to watch more than once, just to understand it...and these days, audiences don't have a lot of patience for films with too many angles. Rightfully so, in my opinion.
Tobey Maguire, slipping into the spandex suit for a third try, really shows his acting range here, even more so than his diverse performance in "Spider-Man 2". From intense love to seething hatred (and everything in between), he really brings his game up to a whole new level. Kirsten Dunst shines again as Parker's star-crossed love, Mary Jane Watson. I liked her performance very much, and her singing in the film is beautiful. She's less helpless than in either prior entry, and far more confident. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of acclaimed director Ron) makes her first apearance in the franchise as the bubbling, exuberant, and gorgeous Gwen Stacy. I liked her character, but felt she didn't have much to do in the long run.
James Franco does an equally-remarkable turn, finally completing the journey that began at the end of the original film. He gives Harry a blend of jealousy, mystique, and severe determination. He also revisits the lighter tones of his role, for the scenes where Harry has amnesia. And in the finale, he shows that in his heart, Harry was truly a hero. Thomas Haden Church gave Marko both sentiment and menace, and turned what was originally a two-bit thug into a far more interesting character. Topher Grace played the "creepy" card as Venom, and gave Eddie Brock a know-it-all arrogance that makes you almost feel disgusted.
Aside from the criticisms surrounding Venom, I honestly didn't have a lot for this entry. Mary Jane is no longer in a water-drenched position (thank God!), so I was very relieved. I guess my main concern was that there were too many villians should of just stuck with Harry and Venom or Harry and sandman. And for anyone who asks why i haven't put the dancing scenes as a negative. I get a kick out of them what can i say?
Therein lies my biggest problem with "Spider-Man 3". I liked the Venom character as a kid, but in all honesty having 4 villains in the same film (Harry, Marko, the black symbiote itself, and eventually Venom) was just too much at once. From the standpoint of a fan, I'd have preferred that Venom be saved for a future entry, so he could have taken center stage. By having him alongside both Marko and Harry Osborn, the story became rather confusing for many fans, and the film's box office suffered as a direct result. Overall, this film made less money across the board than its predecessor...all because of corporate greed.
That being said, I still enjoy the film on many levels, but knowing what caused the multi-arc story makes some moments bittersweet. The actors clearly enjoyed this ride, but something in general seemed a bit lacking. Looking back, I realize it was the Venom character. The fact of it essentially being forced into the narrative only made the tale confusing and hard to follow. It became one of those films many people have to watch more than once, just to understand it...and these days, audiences don't have a lot of patience for films with too many angles. Rightfully so, in my opinion.
Tobey Maguire, slipping into the spandex suit for a third try, really shows his acting range here, even more so than his diverse performance in "Spider-Man 2". From intense love to seething hatred (and everything in between), he really brings his game up to a whole new level. Kirsten Dunst shines again as Parker's star-crossed love, Mary Jane Watson. I liked her performance very much, and her singing in the film is beautiful. She's less helpless than in either prior entry, and far more confident. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of acclaimed director Ron) makes her first apearance in the franchise as the bubbling, exuberant, and gorgeous Gwen Stacy. I liked her character, but felt she didn't have much to do in the long run.
James Franco does an equally-remarkable turn, finally completing the journey that began at the end of the original film. He gives Harry a blend of jealousy, mystique, and severe determination. He also revisits the lighter tones of his role, for the scenes where Harry has amnesia. And in the finale, he shows that in his heart, Harry was truly a hero. Thomas Haden Church gave Marko both sentiment and menace, and turned what was originally a two-bit thug into a far more interesting character. Topher Grace played the "creepy" card as Venom, and gave Eddie Brock a know-it-all arrogance that makes you almost feel disgusted.
Aside from the criticisms surrounding Venom, I honestly didn't have a lot for this entry. Mary Jane is no longer in a water-drenched position (thank God!), so I was very relieved. I guess my main concern was that there were too many villians should of just stuck with Harry and Venom or Harry and sandman. And for anyone who asks why i haven't put the dancing scenes as a negative. I get a kick out of them what can i say?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Military Wives (2020) in Movies
Feb 25, 2020
The story perfectly balances between melodrama and feel good comedy (1 more)
Kristin Scott-Thomas and Sharon Horgan work fabulously together
Bound to grab the grey pound and be a huge UK success
I must admit that I was a bit of a drag-along to this one. The trailer excited me not.... one.... bit. Sentimental film. Dull story. Wrong demographic. No, no, no. But... in this case I am very happy to be proved wrong, wrong, wrong.
True that I didn't sit in the ideal demographic for this movie. 90% of the audience at the UK premiere showing I attended last night were female and older that me. This is a movie to turn the blue-rinse crowd out in DROVES! Because the - inherently British - story is engaging and rewarding from start to finish.
Loosely based on the true story, it's 2010 and a regiment of husbands (and at least one wife.... nice to see an all female marriage featured) are dispatched from the fictional "Flitcroft Barracks" to Afghanistan on a tour of duty. Thereafter every ring at the door by a friend spells mild panic ; every thoughtless call from an accident-chaser induces hypertension.
Trying to take their minds off there loved ones, Colonel's wife Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) muscles in on the insipid entertainment plans of Lisa (Sharon Horgan) in organising a singing group. Lisa thinks "girls just wanna have fun"; Kate thinks they should be training as a proper choir. Sparks fly.
But against all the odds, the women progressively improve until they get the chance to present their talents to an unaware nation.
My wife summed up in one word why this movie is so good...... "balance". The movie covers topics of fear, grief, social conflict, family conflict and uplifting joy. One step off the tightrope could have spelled disaster. But director Peter Cattaneo, of "Full Monty" fame, through the expert script of Roseanne Flynn and Rachel Tunnard, walks that line with perfect balance. It never feels overly melodramatic; never feels a light piece of superficial fluff either.
And when "the performance" happens, you will be hard pushed not to need a tissue or two..... I certainly succumbed to the emotion of the moment.
At the core of the story are the perfectly cast duo of Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan. With just a handful of introductory lines, you quickly get the measure of Kate's character, without ever knowing the story behind the icy and brittle facade. The conflict between her and the fun-loving egalitarian Lisa is writ large. What's nice here is that you are never totally sure who's side of the argument you are on. It is easy to side with Lisa at the start of the film, but as you learn more and particularly after a particularly careless act by Lisa towards the end of the film, your sympathies change.
The rest of the excellent ensemble cast also work naturally together, with Emma Lowndes as Annie and Amy James-Kelly as the newly married Sarah being particularly impressive.This feels like a group of actors who were brought together to film a story and bonded as friends in the process. You end up caring a great deal for what happens to them
Although the script is based on the true story of the military wives it diverges significantly from what actually happens in the interests of an engaging story. Choirmaster Gareth Malone was, of course, actively involved in the true story as a part of a TV programme, but none of that is referenced in the movie. But that doesn't remotely impinge on your enjoyment of the movie for one second.
In particular, a sub-story about the long-term effects of grief is particularly well handled, with 'Dave' turning from being a passive to an active participant in the story at a key moment.
It's that depressing time of the year when everyone is fed up of rain, wind and dripping noses. It's a time of year when you look for some uplifting entertainment.... people surely watch "Death in Paradise" for the sun rather than the stories? Ladies - and the odd gentleman - I give you "Military Wives". It's not bloody Shakespeare. But if this doesn't make you feel uplifted and better about the world, then I will dutifully kiss the regimental goat.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-military-wives-2020/. Thanks).
True that I didn't sit in the ideal demographic for this movie. 90% of the audience at the UK premiere showing I attended last night were female and older that me. This is a movie to turn the blue-rinse crowd out in DROVES! Because the - inherently British - story is engaging and rewarding from start to finish.
Loosely based on the true story, it's 2010 and a regiment of husbands (and at least one wife.... nice to see an all female marriage featured) are dispatched from the fictional "Flitcroft Barracks" to Afghanistan on a tour of duty. Thereafter every ring at the door by a friend spells mild panic ; every thoughtless call from an accident-chaser induces hypertension.
Trying to take their minds off there loved ones, Colonel's wife Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) muscles in on the insipid entertainment plans of Lisa (Sharon Horgan) in organising a singing group. Lisa thinks "girls just wanna have fun"; Kate thinks they should be training as a proper choir. Sparks fly.
But against all the odds, the women progressively improve until they get the chance to present their talents to an unaware nation.
My wife summed up in one word why this movie is so good...... "balance". The movie covers topics of fear, grief, social conflict, family conflict and uplifting joy. One step off the tightrope could have spelled disaster. But director Peter Cattaneo, of "Full Monty" fame, through the expert script of Roseanne Flynn and Rachel Tunnard, walks that line with perfect balance. It never feels overly melodramatic; never feels a light piece of superficial fluff either.
And when "the performance" happens, you will be hard pushed not to need a tissue or two..... I certainly succumbed to the emotion of the moment.
At the core of the story are the perfectly cast duo of Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan. With just a handful of introductory lines, you quickly get the measure of Kate's character, without ever knowing the story behind the icy and brittle facade. The conflict between her and the fun-loving egalitarian Lisa is writ large. What's nice here is that you are never totally sure who's side of the argument you are on. It is easy to side with Lisa at the start of the film, but as you learn more and particularly after a particularly careless act by Lisa towards the end of the film, your sympathies change.
The rest of the excellent ensemble cast also work naturally together, with Emma Lowndes as Annie and Amy James-Kelly as the newly married Sarah being particularly impressive.This feels like a group of actors who were brought together to film a story and bonded as friends in the process. You end up caring a great deal for what happens to them
Although the script is based on the true story of the military wives it diverges significantly from what actually happens in the interests of an engaging story. Choirmaster Gareth Malone was, of course, actively involved in the true story as a part of a TV programme, but none of that is referenced in the movie. But that doesn't remotely impinge on your enjoyment of the movie for one second.
In particular, a sub-story about the long-term effects of grief is particularly well handled, with 'Dave' turning from being a passive to an active participant in the story at a key moment.
It's that depressing time of the year when everyone is fed up of rain, wind and dripping noses. It's a time of year when you look for some uplifting entertainment.... people surely watch "Death in Paradise" for the sun rather than the stories? Ladies - and the odd gentleman - I give you "Military Wives". It's not bloody Shakespeare. But if this doesn't make you feel uplifted and better about the world, then I will dutifully kiss the regimental goat.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-military-wives-2020/. Thanks).
