Search
Search results
Rebecca Billcliff (2409 KP) rated Brooklyn Nine-Nine in TV
Dec 3, 2019 (Updated Dec 3, 2019)
Brooķyn 99 out of 100
Contains spoilers, click to show
I was not expecting to like this series, but I actually found it drew me in.
Detective Jake Parolta is a cop in the 99th precinct New York, young, headstrong and obsessed with all things cop.
Working by his side are Amy Santiargo, a rule following stationary lover, Rosa Diaz, a hard and scary detective who like her weapons and Sargent Terry Jeffords, a super buff health but who refers to himself in the third person.
The series starts with the introduction of their new captain; Raymond Holt, a hard working and articulate chap, who is not a shower of emotions.
These are just some of the characters, and just a few of their details, there are so many more as they work hard to rid the streets of Brooklyn of crime.
As the series progresses we learn more about the characters and follow them as they live their lives, and face the titles and tribulations of being a cop in a big city.
It is clever, funny with a lot of heart, not to mention the silly and the slapstick, there is something for everyone.
Though I am starting to feel it is looking it's way, I hope it will find it's way back.
Detective Jake Parolta is a cop in the 99th precinct New York, young, headstrong and obsessed with all things cop.
Working by his side are Amy Santiargo, a rule following stationary lover, Rosa Diaz, a hard and scary detective who like her weapons and Sargent Terry Jeffords, a super buff health but who refers to himself in the third person.
The series starts with the introduction of their new captain; Raymond Holt, a hard working and articulate chap, who is not a shower of emotions.
These are just some of the characters, and just a few of their details, there are so many more as they work hard to rid the streets of Brooklyn of crime.
As the series progresses we learn more about the characters and follow them as they live their lives, and face the titles and tribulations of being a cop in a big city.
It is clever, funny with a lot of heart, not to mention the silly and the slapstick, there is something for everyone.
Though I am starting to feel it is looking it's way, I hope it will find it's way back.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 96 Minutes (2012) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 96 Minutes starts by introducing us to all the characters involved, we have Lena (Serratos) a young woman questioning her relationship choice, Raymond (Martin) working hard at school and a job for Duane (Oyelowo), Kevin (Trautmann) an angry young man who doesn’t enjoy his life where his mother has caused problems, Dre (Ross) a young man that is finally achieving his grades but won’t leave his past behind him and Carley (Snow) a student that is studying law. All of this is leads to a carjacking gone wrong.
The carjacking includes an injured Lena being cared for by Carley after Kevin gets into the mind-set of trying to impress the local gang that Dre gets dragged into supporting his friend.
96 Minutes is a drama thriller that shows the effects of one wrong moment in life, we see how these four people are trying to start something in their lives but when they clash each person’s life will be changed. The film shows how the four characters are average everyday people that shows us how easily anyone could fall into the events. The story does bounce between showing us the normal lives of our characters and the carjacking which shows the character’s mind-sets are through each situation. This is a very powerful drama that is very good to watch.
Actor Review
Brittany Snow: Carley is the law student that is about to graduate but without her father seeing the important part of her life. She finds herself on the wrong end of a carjacking where she must tend to the wounds Lena has received. Brittany showed she can pull off a serious role to go against her more commercial roles.carley
Christian Serratos: Lena is a fellow student that is having an awful day when she discovers her boyfriend is seeing someone else, she then wrecks her car and just wanting to go home she finds herself injured during a carjacking. Christian is great in this role even with half of the film she finds herself injured.
J Michael Trautmann: Kevin is an angry young man who lives with his constantly abused mother while trying to impress the local gang. He is good friends with Dre who tries to calm him down but this only leads to him jacking Carley’s car putting Dre’s future at risk too. J is also great in this role showing how easily young men can be pushed into committing crimes.
Evan Ross: Dre is a young man from the wrong neighbourhood who has achieved something by graduating and wants to show Kevin the future he could one day have. He ends up being the driver in the carjacking but wants to do the right thing. Evan gives us a great performance where he shines through.dre
Support Cast: 96 Minutes has a supporting cast that really works well with our main four characters.
Director Review: Aimee Lagos – Aimee gives us a powerful drama that keeps us on edge wondering what is happens next.
Thriller: 96 Minutes keeps us wondering what will happen to our characters next as the story unfolds.
Settings: 96 Minutes shows the two worlds clashing with two boys coming from the wrong side of town trying to make their own future while the girls show where the next stage will be.
Suggestion: 96 Minutes is one I think everyone should watch at least once. (Watch)
Best Part: Performances are brilliant.
Worst Part: Jumping between the two sometimes comes off confusing.
Believability: Inspired by true events.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 33 Minutes
Tagline: Out of options. Out of control. Out of time.
Overall: Brilliant drama that really sucks you in to see one life changing events.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/31/96-minutes-2011/
The carjacking includes an injured Lena being cared for by Carley after Kevin gets into the mind-set of trying to impress the local gang that Dre gets dragged into supporting his friend.
96 Minutes is a drama thriller that shows the effects of one wrong moment in life, we see how these four people are trying to start something in their lives but when they clash each person’s life will be changed. The film shows how the four characters are average everyday people that shows us how easily anyone could fall into the events. The story does bounce between showing us the normal lives of our characters and the carjacking which shows the character’s mind-sets are through each situation. This is a very powerful drama that is very good to watch.
Actor Review
Brittany Snow: Carley is the law student that is about to graduate but without her father seeing the important part of her life. She finds herself on the wrong end of a carjacking where she must tend to the wounds Lena has received. Brittany showed she can pull off a serious role to go against her more commercial roles.carley
Christian Serratos: Lena is a fellow student that is having an awful day when she discovers her boyfriend is seeing someone else, she then wrecks her car and just wanting to go home she finds herself injured during a carjacking. Christian is great in this role even with half of the film she finds herself injured.
J Michael Trautmann: Kevin is an angry young man who lives with his constantly abused mother while trying to impress the local gang. He is good friends with Dre who tries to calm him down but this only leads to him jacking Carley’s car putting Dre’s future at risk too. J is also great in this role showing how easily young men can be pushed into committing crimes.
Evan Ross: Dre is a young man from the wrong neighbourhood who has achieved something by graduating and wants to show Kevin the future he could one day have. He ends up being the driver in the carjacking but wants to do the right thing. Evan gives us a great performance where he shines through.dre
Support Cast: 96 Minutes has a supporting cast that really works well with our main four characters.
Director Review: Aimee Lagos – Aimee gives us a powerful drama that keeps us on edge wondering what is happens next.
Thriller: 96 Minutes keeps us wondering what will happen to our characters next as the story unfolds.
Settings: 96 Minutes shows the two worlds clashing with two boys coming from the wrong side of town trying to make their own future while the girls show where the next stage will be.
Suggestion: 96 Minutes is one I think everyone should watch at least once. (Watch)
Best Part: Performances are brilliant.
Worst Part: Jumping between the two sometimes comes off confusing.
Believability: Inspired by true events.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 33 Minutes
Tagline: Out of options. Out of control. Out of time.
Overall: Brilliant drama that really sucks you in to see one life changing events.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/31/96-minutes-2011/
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 5, 2020
After the big budget train wreck that was King Arthur: Legend of the Sword in 2017, and the big budget Disney remake of Aladdin last year, Guy Ritchie has returned to the comedy gangster roots where he made his name more than two decades ago. It’s the kind of movie that I’m not really a fan of if I’m honest, and I didn’t even like the look of the trailer for The Gentlemen either, but I gave it a shot. I’m glad I did.
Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, a sharp suit wearing, self made millionaire. Mickey made his fortune by initially selling weed to students while studying with them at Oxford, before spending the next 20 years building up a nationwide marijuana empire. It’s a slick operation too - by striking up deals with British aristocrats who are struggling to maintain their large stately homes, Mickey has been able to setup 12 marijuana farms on their premises and kept them undetected. However, Mickey is now looking to sell up and retire so that he can buy himself one of those big stately homes for him and his ice queen wife (Michelle Dockery). But it’s not quite as easy as that. There are a number of interested parties who either want to screw the price down or just take the whole operation from under Mickey’s feet. And the king of the jungle isn’t having any of it.
The story plays out under the narration of sleazy reporter Fletcher (Hugh Grant), who has turned up on the doorstep of Mickey’s right hand man Raymond (Charlie Hunnam) one evening in order to try and blackmail his boss. Fletcher has been hired by a tabloid editor to dig up dirt on Mickey Pearson and has been closely following the events and players surrounding the sale of his business. Fletcher has decided that what he’s uncovered could be worth a hell of a lot more than the £150K promised by the newspaper and has turned his findings into a movie script which he then proceeds to describe to Raymond throughout the movie. Along the way, details are embellished by Fletcher to spice up certain moments that he feels are lacking in action, corrected by Raymond as we rewind to see the actual events.
The Gentlemen features a big ensemble cast, most of which give a brilliantly hilarious performance. Hugh Grant steals the show, with his campy Michael Caine. Along the way we meet Chinese rival Dry Eye (Henry Golding, redeeming himself after his wooden performance in Last Christmas recently) and Coach (another show stealer, played by Colin Farrell).
The pacing of The Gentlemen felt spot on for me, and as the story flipped back and forth in time, interspersed with Fletcher and Raymond’s comic interludes, I never felt bored. There are plenty of twists and turns, c-bombs and much more of what you’d expect from a Ritchie movie of this kind. But it also feels a lot slicker and more mainstream, with most of the violence occurring off screen - apart from the odd cocky young chav or drug addict getting the occasional well deserved slap!
Overall, I’m so glad I have this movie a chance. A great cast and a fun story with plenty of laugh out loud moments.
Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, a sharp suit wearing, self made millionaire. Mickey made his fortune by initially selling weed to students while studying with them at Oxford, before spending the next 20 years building up a nationwide marijuana empire. It’s a slick operation too - by striking up deals with British aristocrats who are struggling to maintain their large stately homes, Mickey has been able to setup 12 marijuana farms on their premises and kept them undetected. However, Mickey is now looking to sell up and retire so that he can buy himself one of those big stately homes for him and his ice queen wife (Michelle Dockery). But it’s not quite as easy as that. There are a number of interested parties who either want to screw the price down or just take the whole operation from under Mickey’s feet. And the king of the jungle isn’t having any of it.
The story plays out under the narration of sleazy reporter Fletcher (Hugh Grant), who has turned up on the doorstep of Mickey’s right hand man Raymond (Charlie Hunnam) one evening in order to try and blackmail his boss. Fletcher has been hired by a tabloid editor to dig up dirt on Mickey Pearson and has been closely following the events and players surrounding the sale of his business. Fletcher has decided that what he’s uncovered could be worth a hell of a lot more than the £150K promised by the newspaper and has turned his findings into a movie script which he then proceeds to describe to Raymond throughout the movie. Along the way, details are embellished by Fletcher to spice up certain moments that he feels are lacking in action, corrected by Raymond as we rewind to see the actual events.
The Gentlemen features a big ensemble cast, most of which give a brilliantly hilarious performance. Hugh Grant steals the show, with his campy Michael Caine. Along the way we meet Chinese rival Dry Eye (Henry Golding, redeeming himself after his wooden performance in Last Christmas recently) and Coach (another show stealer, played by Colin Farrell).
The pacing of The Gentlemen felt spot on for me, and as the story flipped back and forth in time, interspersed with Fletcher and Raymond’s comic interludes, I never felt bored. There are plenty of twists and turns, c-bombs and much more of what you’d expect from a Ritchie movie of this kind. But it also feels a lot slicker and more mainstream, with most of the violence occurring off screen - apart from the odd cocky young chav or drug addict getting the occasional well deserved slap!
Overall, I’m so glad I have this movie a chance. A great cast and a fun story with plenty of laugh out loud moments.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Young Frankenstein (1974) in Movies
Apr 20, 2020
My All Time Favorite Comedy
There are certain films that I can revisit time and time again and the effects of the film do not diminish for me and I would argue that they get better with age...and with repeated viewings.
Such is the case with Mel Brooks' Universal Horror film spoof/satire YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN from 1974. It is a work of comedic genius and features some of the most memorable characters in motion picture comedy history.
Co-Writen by Brooks and Gene Wilder, Directed by Brooks and starring Wilder, Marty Feldman, Peter Boyle, Teri Garr, Cloris Leachman and the great Madeline Kahn, this film sends up the black and white Universal Horror films of the 1930's not by making fun of them, but by lovingly recreating them and then exaggerating the scenes/circumstances.
Wilder is at his manic best as Dr. Frederick Frankenstein - the grandson of the original Frankenstein - who is brought to Transylvania and soon takes up his grandfather's work. He works through a controlled rage throughout the film until such times where the rage (and his hair) comes bursting forth in maniacal energy that is a comic tour-de-force.
He is surrounded by an outstanding collection of misfits, most notably Marty Feldman's servant/assistant Igor who is game for just about anything. Under-rated is the comedic performance of Teri Garr as Frankenstein's lab assistant Inga who not only has good looks ("what knockers") but can hold her own with Wilder and Feldman in a scene. Peter Boyle is earnest and scary and vulnerable (all at the same time) in his portrayal of "the Monster" who just wants to be understood - the "Puttin' on the Ritz" scene shows some fine comedic chops in an actor that up to this point had not really done comedy (his Emmy nominated work in EVERYONE LOVES RAYMOND is years in the future).
But it is the work of 2 female comediennes that drives this film to another level. Madeline Kahn as Frederick's fiance, Elizabeth, commands (and steals) every scene she is in while the inscrutable Cloris Leachman is deadpan perfection as castle housekeeper Frau Bleucher (horse whinny).
Director Brooks keeps the jokes coming at a fast a furious pace, but keeps the pace and the story going as well. This is much more than "just a collection of jokes" - it is a very good movie.
This film falls squarely in my "Top 10 All Time Favorite Films" - and my #1 comedy of all time.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Mel Brooks' Universal Horror film spoof/satire YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN from 1974. It is a work of comedic genius and features some of the most memorable characters in motion picture comedy history.
Co-Writen by Brooks and Gene Wilder, Directed by Brooks and starring Wilder, Marty Feldman, Peter Boyle, Teri Garr, Cloris Leachman and the great Madeline Kahn, this film sends up the black and white Universal Horror films of the 1930's not by making fun of them, but by lovingly recreating them and then exaggerating the scenes/circumstances.
Wilder is at his manic best as Dr. Frederick Frankenstein - the grandson of the original Frankenstein - who is brought to Transylvania and soon takes up his grandfather's work. He works through a controlled rage throughout the film until such times where the rage (and his hair) comes bursting forth in maniacal energy that is a comic tour-de-force.
He is surrounded by an outstanding collection of misfits, most notably Marty Feldman's servant/assistant Igor who is game for just about anything. Under-rated is the comedic performance of Teri Garr as Frankenstein's lab assistant Inga who not only has good looks ("what knockers") but can hold her own with Wilder and Feldman in a scene. Peter Boyle is earnest and scary and vulnerable (all at the same time) in his portrayal of "the Monster" who just wants to be understood - the "Puttin' on the Ritz" scene shows some fine comedic chops in an actor that up to this point had not really done comedy (his Emmy nominated work in EVERYONE LOVES RAYMOND is years in the future).
But it is the work of 2 female comediennes that drives this film to another level. Madeline Kahn as Frederick's fiance, Elizabeth, commands (and steals) every scene she is in while the inscrutable Cloris Leachman is deadpan perfection as castle housekeeper Frau Bleucher (horse whinny).
Director Brooks keeps the jokes coming at a fast a furious pace, but keeps the pace and the story going as well. This is much more than "just a collection of jokes" - it is a very good movie.
This film falls squarely in my "Top 10 All Time Favorite Films" - and my #1 comedy of all time.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Adrift (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Hurricane Raymond has been upgraded to a category 5”
“Should we be worried” says Tami. Well, yes dear, you really should.
In the glorious surroundings of Tahiti, the American footloose traveller Tami Oldham (Shailene Woodley, “Divergent trilogy“, “The Descendents) meets British footloose traveller Richard Sharp (Sam Claflin, “Journey’s End“, “Me Before You“) and a nautical-based love beckons. Richard is hired by his friends Peter (Jeffrey Thomas) and Christine (Elizabeth Hawthorne) to sail their luxury 44 foot yacht Hazana from Tahiti to Tami’s home city of San Diego. But they hadn’t reckoned on the decidedly un-romantic attentions of Raymond and severely battered and bruised it’s a battle for survival on the vast expanse of the Pacific.
I was intrigued by this film as it seems to have divided the professional critics’ opinions: Kevin Maher in The Times gave it five stars… five! Conversely Edward Porter in The Sunday Times gave it two stars. After seeing the film, I’m with Mr Maher on this one (breaking convention as I haven’t exactly been in tune with this reviewer recently!).
As a story with romantic undertones, the film will live or die on your belief in this aspect. And fortunately the romance works. There is real chemistry between the pair despite them striking you as an odd couple. This is in no small part to the quality of the acting: Claflin proves again that he is a safe pair of hands as a male lead, but it’s Shailene Woodley, who has to carry large portions of the film single-handedly, who again demonstrates just how excellent an actress she is. The camera of Tarentino favourite Robert Richardson (“The Hateful Eight“, “Django Unchained”) stays tightly on Woodley’s features dramatically capturing her tiniest of grimaces.
Woodley is also deliciously un-Hollywood, getting to where she has through acting talent as much as her looks. Yes, she has a great body (liberally, perhaps a tad lasciviously, featured here both above and under the water) but her face is gloriously assymettical with little wrinkles appearing unexpectedly when she grins. She’s a good role model for young girls that perfection is not a pre–requisite for success. (What’s perhaps less good, role-model-wise, is that Woodley allegedly ate only 350 calories a day to get to the emaciated state seen at the end of the film! But to compensate, it’s notable that she looks so much better/sexier at the start of the film than at the end).
It’s also interesting to note that the 27-year old Woodley is also a co-producer on the film, a sign perhaps that as well as being the ‘Meryl Streep of the future'(TM), she is also likely to become a significant mover and shaker in Hollywood when getting there.
A bit like “The Shallows“, it’s unapologetically a B movie, but it’s delivered with such style and chutzpah that it drives its way through the apallingly cheesy dialogue just as the poor Hazana bashes its way throught the mountainous seas. It’s even self-mocking, with Tami rolling her eyes at the corniness of Richard’s, very English, attempts at romantic dialogue. The script is more successful in establishing back-stories for Tami and Richard, demonstrating a degree of parallelism that perhaps better explains their mutual attraction. The irony of fate taking Tami back to her damaged past is exquisite.
A controversial and brave decision by Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur is to constantly flashback between the survival scenes and Tami and Richard’s courtship that leads up to the cataclismic event. This can be a little distracting, but given the gut-wrenching twist in the third act a linear storytelling would simply have not worked. It’s very well done too, with matched cross-cuts that really work well. Kormákur’s previous film “Everest” was his biggest hit to date, and I noted the cheeky addition of the book “Everest” on the bookshelf on Richard’s boat! (As an aside, “Everest” is for some reason the film review on One Mann’s Movies that has been viewed more often than any other… no idea why… must be down to search engine results!)
Extraordinarily, it’s a true story with the closing frames of the film being genuinely moving.
With many similarities to the excellent Robert Redford thriller “All Is Lost”, this is a robust and enthralling thriller-cum-romance that unusually delivers on both counts. The romance is believable and the thrills suitably thrilling, especially when a panic-ridden Tami is separated from her one patch of dry land. Although slightly let down by some dodgy dialogue, sitting amongst all the big-hitter summer blockbusters this is a movie you should definitely seek out.
In the glorious surroundings of Tahiti, the American footloose traveller Tami Oldham (Shailene Woodley, “Divergent trilogy“, “The Descendents) meets British footloose traveller Richard Sharp (Sam Claflin, “Journey’s End“, “Me Before You“) and a nautical-based love beckons. Richard is hired by his friends Peter (Jeffrey Thomas) and Christine (Elizabeth Hawthorne) to sail their luxury 44 foot yacht Hazana from Tahiti to Tami’s home city of San Diego. But they hadn’t reckoned on the decidedly un-romantic attentions of Raymond and severely battered and bruised it’s a battle for survival on the vast expanse of the Pacific.
I was intrigued by this film as it seems to have divided the professional critics’ opinions: Kevin Maher in The Times gave it five stars… five! Conversely Edward Porter in The Sunday Times gave it two stars. After seeing the film, I’m with Mr Maher on this one (breaking convention as I haven’t exactly been in tune with this reviewer recently!).
As a story with romantic undertones, the film will live or die on your belief in this aspect. And fortunately the romance works. There is real chemistry between the pair despite them striking you as an odd couple. This is in no small part to the quality of the acting: Claflin proves again that he is a safe pair of hands as a male lead, but it’s Shailene Woodley, who has to carry large portions of the film single-handedly, who again demonstrates just how excellent an actress she is. The camera of Tarentino favourite Robert Richardson (“The Hateful Eight“, “Django Unchained”) stays tightly on Woodley’s features dramatically capturing her tiniest of grimaces.
Woodley is also deliciously un-Hollywood, getting to where she has through acting talent as much as her looks. Yes, she has a great body (liberally, perhaps a tad lasciviously, featured here both above and under the water) but her face is gloriously assymettical with little wrinkles appearing unexpectedly when she grins. She’s a good role model for young girls that perfection is not a pre–requisite for success. (What’s perhaps less good, role-model-wise, is that Woodley allegedly ate only 350 calories a day to get to the emaciated state seen at the end of the film! But to compensate, it’s notable that she looks so much better/sexier at the start of the film than at the end).
It’s also interesting to note that the 27-year old Woodley is also a co-producer on the film, a sign perhaps that as well as being the ‘Meryl Streep of the future'(TM), she is also likely to become a significant mover and shaker in Hollywood when getting there.
A bit like “The Shallows“, it’s unapologetically a B movie, but it’s delivered with such style and chutzpah that it drives its way through the apallingly cheesy dialogue just as the poor Hazana bashes its way throught the mountainous seas. It’s even self-mocking, with Tami rolling her eyes at the corniness of Richard’s, very English, attempts at romantic dialogue. The script is more successful in establishing back-stories for Tami and Richard, demonstrating a degree of parallelism that perhaps better explains their mutual attraction. The irony of fate taking Tami back to her damaged past is exquisite.
A controversial and brave decision by Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur is to constantly flashback between the survival scenes and Tami and Richard’s courtship that leads up to the cataclismic event. This can be a little distracting, but given the gut-wrenching twist in the third act a linear storytelling would simply have not worked. It’s very well done too, with matched cross-cuts that really work well. Kormákur’s previous film “Everest” was his biggest hit to date, and I noted the cheeky addition of the book “Everest” on the bookshelf on Richard’s boat! (As an aside, “Everest” is for some reason the film review on One Mann’s Movies that has been viewed more often than any other… no idea why… must be down to search engine results!)
Extraordinarily, it’s a true story with the closing frames of the film being genuinely moving.
With many similarities to the excellent Robert Redford thriller “All Is Lost”, this is a robust and enthralling thriller-cum-romance that unusually delivers on both counts. The romance is believable and the thrills suitably thrilling, especially when a panic-ridden Tami is separated from her one patch of dry land. Although slightly let down by some dodgy dialogue, sitting amongst all the big-hitter summer blockbusters this is a movie you should definitely seek out.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Good Dinosaur (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Is it as good as Inside Out?
2015 has been a great year for film. From long-awaited sequels to the conclusion of epic franchises, it’s been one of the best and most successful movie seasons in recent memory, and with Star Wars: the Force Awakens out in December, it can only finish on a high.
It also marks the first time that Pixar has released two films in the same year. Summer saw the release of instant-classic Inside Out and now animation fans get to enjoy another movie from the studio, The Good Dinosaur, but has Pixar bitten of more than it can chew?
The Good Dinosaur follows the story of a young Apatosaurus named Arlo, voiced beautifully by Raymond Ochoa, as he comes to terms with growing up in an ever-changing world where dinosaurs never met their well-documented fates.
He, alongside human child Spot suddenly find themselves embroiled in a dangerous journey after getting lost a long way from their homes.
If this all sounds a little formulaic to you, then that’s because it is. The Good Dinosaur has a plot more akin to Paramount animation, rather than the exceptional storytelling we have come to expect from Pixar. There’s nothing particularly special or unique about the plot and this is a real shame.
Thankfully, Pixar’s usual gut-punches are out in full force and The Good Dinosaur is among one of the emotional films in the studio’s roster. Personal tragedy is never an easy thing to convey in a movie meant to be enjoyed by the whole family, but here it is dealt with in a beautiful and tasteful manner.
Scenes in which Arlo and Spot share their circumstances with each other hit home hard and are deeply saddening to watch.
The cinematography too is absolutely exceptional. The breath-taking prehistoric landscapes are rendered in such stunning animation, they almost feel real. From raging white-water to beautiful sun-flooded forests, everything is a joy to behold and this is where The Good Dinosaur excels – a firefly swarm in particular is spectacular and propels the film into How to Train Your Dragon territory for sheer spectacle.
However, the entire film feels like a show reel, albeit a mesmerising one, for the talents at Pixar. Each shot of scenery is lingered on for a little too long and agoraphobic Arlo’s plight can sometimes take a backseat to this beauty.
Nevertheless, there are some wonderful characters here. A trio of T-Rex, who turn out to be cowboys – or should that be cowdinos, provide The Good Dinosaur with some of its more standout moments and it’s the lack of these sequences where the film is found wanting.
Overall, Pixar has created another excellent piece of animation with The Good Dinosaur. Though not quite at their ‘gold standard,’ the film is a wonder to behold and shows just how gorgeous animated features can be.
Unfortunately, the lack of an original story ensures it’ll prove second best to Inside Out in this year’s battle despite its deeper emotional resonance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/29/is-it-as-good-as-inside-out-the-good-dinosaur-review/
It also marks the first time that Pixar has released two films in the same year. Summer saw the release of instant-classic Inside Out and now animation fans get to enjoy another movie from the studio, The Good Dinosaur, but has Pixar bitten of more than it can chew?
The Good Dinosaur follows the story of a young Apatosaurus named Arlo, voiced beautifully by Raymond Ochoa, as he comes to terms with growing up in an ever-changing world where dinosaurs never met their well-documented fates.
He, alongside human child Spot suddenly find themselves embroiled in a dangerous journey after getting lost a long way from their homes.
If this all sounds a little formulaic to you, then that’s because it is. The Good Dinosaur has a plot more akin to Paramount animation, rather than the exceptional storytelling we have come to expect from Pixar. There’s nothing particularly special or unique about the plot and this is a real shame.
Thankfully, Pixar’s usual gut-punches are out in full force and The Good Dinosaur is among one of the emotional films in the studio’s roster. Personal tragedy is never an easy thing to convey in a movie meant to be enjoyed by the whole family, but here it is dealt with in a beautiful and tasteful manner.
Scenes in which Arlo and Spot share their circumstances with each other hit home hard and are deeply saddening to watch.
The cinematography too is absolutely exceptional. The breath-taking prehistoric landscapes are rendered in such stunning animation, they almost feel real. From raging white-water to beautiful sun-flooded forests, everything is a joy to behold and this is where The Good Dinosaur excels – a firefly swarm in particular is spectacular and propels the film into How to Train Your Dragon territory for sheer spectacle.
However, the entire film feels like a show reel, albeit a mesmerising one, for the talents at Pixar. Each shot of scenery is lingered on for a little too long and agoraphobic Arlo’s plight can sometimes take a backseat to this beauty.
Nevertheless, there are some wonderful characters here. A trio of T-Rex, who turn out to be cowboys – or should that be cowdinos, provide The Good Dinosaur with some of its more standout moments and it’s the lack of these sequences where the film is found wanting.
Overall, Pixar has created another excellent piece of animation with The Good Dinosaur. Though not quite at their ‘gold standard,’ the film is a wonder to behold and shows just how gorgeous animated features can be.
Unfortunately, the lack of an original story ensures it’ll prove second best to Inside Out in this year’s battle despite its deeper emotional resonance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/29/is-it-as-good-as-inside-out-the-good-dinosaur-review/
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Curse of La Llorona (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
The Mexican Legend
The Curse of La Llorona is a 2019 supernatura/horror movie directed by Michael Chaves and written by Mikki Daughtry and Tobias Iaconis. The film was produced by James Wan through his Atomic Monster Productions. It is based on the Mexican folklore, is Chaves directorial debut, and is set in "The Conjuring" Universe. It stars Linda Cardellini, Raymond Cruz, and Patricia Velasquez.
While playing with his family in 1673 Mexico, a young boy closes his eyes only to re-open them and find his family missing. While searching for them he witnesses his mother drowning his brother in a stream. Frightened, he runs away but is caught and suffers the same fate.
300 years later, in 1973 Los Angeles, Anna Tate-Garcia (Linda Cardellini) works as a social worker and is investigating a well known client of hers, Patrica Alvarez (Patricia Velasquez) whose children have gone missing. Demanding to check on her children's well being, Anna goes to Patricia's home with a police of. She searches for the children and finds them locked in a room. Patricia attacks her as she locates the children and is dragged away by the officer while screaming for her not to open the door. Anna takes the boys, Carlos and Tomas out of the room, ignoring their request to stay in the room where they are safe. That night, two boys are found drowned in a nearby river and Anna is called in to investigate their deaths. At the scene Anna hears Patricia screaming that it was Anna's fault for their deaths. This draws Anna and her family into the frightening supernatural realm of "La Llorona" and her deadly wrath.
I felt like this movie was a tough mix of somewhat silly but still creepy. It was good but had too many jump scares that you could see coming from a mile a way. The acting was generally good with Linda Cardellini really selling the terror of fighting off the evil presence. The children's performances were kind of hit or miss for me.. The tone and atmosphere of the film was great but for me "La Llorona" was scarier when she had her face veiled rather than the highly CGI-ed one they gave her when it was removed. The opening was downright silly to me. I didn't find it scary/creepy at all but a little disturbing. Also for some reason I think they went for too many scares in daylight. I know everything scary doesn't have to be at night, but I felt like it undersold them or didn't do them justice. One aspect that I really liked was how they brought in a faith healer or shaman, in Spanish "Curandero" to the Conjuring Universe. He was an interesting original character addition. Astwo different critics put it, "convincing premise, sufficient drama, decent twists, and enough scares make it worth the watch", but "predictable jump scare treatment and dragging exposition take out the potential from this film despite decent performance Orverall I'd give this movie a 6/10.
While playing with his family in 1673 Mexico, a young boy closes his eyes only to re-open them and find his family missing. While searching for them he witnesses his mother drowning his brother in a stream. Frightened, he runs away but is caught and suffers the same fate.
300 years later, in 1973 Los Angeles, Anna Tate-Garcia (Linda Cardellini) works as a social worker and is investigating a well known client of hers, Patrica Alvarez (Patricia Velasquez) whose children have gone missing. Demanding to check on her children's well being, Anna goes to Patricia's home with a police of. She searches for the children and finds them locked in a room. Patricia attacks her as she locates the children and is dragged away by the officer while screaming for her not to open the door. Anna takes the boys, Carlos and Tomas out of the room, ignoring their request to stay in the room where they are safe. That night, two boys are found drowned in a nearby river and Anna is called in to investigate their deaths. At the scene Anna hears Patricia screaming that it was Anna's fault for their deaths. This draws Anna and her family into the frightening supernatural realm of "La Llorona" and her deadly wrath.
I felt like this movie was a tough mix of somewhat silly but still creepy. It was good but had too many jump scares that you could see coming from a mile a way. The acting was generally good with Linda Cardellini really selling the terror of fighting off the evil presence. The children's performances were kind of hit or miss for me.. The tone and atmosphere of the film was great but for me "La Llorona" was scarier when she had her face veiled rather than the highly CGI-ed one they gave her when it was removed. The opening was downright silly to me. I didn't find it scary/creepy at all but a little disturbing. Also for some reason I think they went for too many scares in daylight. I know everything scary doesn't have to be at night, but I felt like it undersold them or didn't do them justice. One aspect that I really liked was how they brought in a faith healer or shaman, in Spanish "Curandero" to the Conjuring Universe. He was an interesting original character addition. Astwo different critics put it, "convincing premise, sufficient drama, decent twists, and enough scares make it worth the watch", but "predictable jump scare treatment and dragging exposition take out the potential from this film despite decent performance Orverall I'd give this movie a 6/10.