Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
It seems of late that every month Hollywood either releases or plans to release a remake of a classic film. This summer has spawned no less than 5 remakes of classic films or televisions shows and with box office receipts in decline, it would seem that the public is craving for something fresh.
Thankfully the Tim Burton remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is not only a winner, but injects a much needed jolt of camp, charm, and wit into a late summer season that desperately needed it.
The film stars Johnny Depp as the mysterious candy maker Willie Wonka. Wonka has become a reclusive for two decades in order to protect his secret recipes from corporate spies and thieves.
As the film opens, a young boy named Charlie Bucket, (Freddie Highmore), returns home to his family shack, which he shares with his parents and four grandparents. As told via narration, that despite the poverty of his family, Charlie is a very lucky boy. Over their meager dinner of cabbage soup, Charlie’s grandfather (David Kelly) regales the family with tales of Willie Wonka and his exploits which he saw first hand while working in the factory decades earlier.
When Wonka resumed candy shipments after a hiatus the world was delighted, but many wondered who was making the candy as aside from shipping trucks, nobody was ever seen coming or going from the factory.
Such secrecy only added to the legend of Wonka as amazing candy creations continued to arrive in shops to the delight of customer’s world wide.
When it is announced that five golden tickets have been hidden inside candy bars world wide, and that the winners will be given a full day tour of the factory by Wonka himself, frenzy erupts across the globe as Wonka Bars are snatched up by a rabid public. Charlie dreams of getting one of the precious tickets, but his family’s meager income limits him to one bar a year on his birthday. Undaunted Charlie counts the days until his coming birthday, undaunted by the discovery of tickets around the globe.
When his efforts to get a ticket are daunted, and the fifth ticket is reported to be found, Charlie consoles himself by finding money in the street and purchases a Wonka Bar from the corner store. In the blink of an eye Charlie finds himself holding the last ticket when he learns that the last one reported found was a hoax.
Soon Charlie and his Grandfather are touring the magical factory complete with rivers of chocolate and edible candy forests in the company of the quirky Wonka and the fellow contest winners. What follows next is not going to be much of a surprise for those who have seen the 1971 version starring Gene Wilder or those who have read the novel by Roald Dahl, what is a surprise is how fresh and spirited this new version is. I was utterly charmed by the story and the effective pacing of the film.
Burton is a master of mixing visuals and fantasy and this time he not only excels, but he adds an effective touch of humanity to the fantasy which keeps the film from being lost in a see of color and effects.
Depp is brilliant as the eccentric Wonka as his mirth and camp, is underscored by equal amounts of fear and mistrust. The film is essentially a morality tale, but it never losses its focus or the charm by becoming preachy or drawn out. In a role that could easily have been mishandled, Depp soars and shows that he is one of the greatest actors of our generation.
Parents should note that there are a few moments in the film that may be a bit intense for the youngest of viewers, but that being said, the film is a true delight full of magic and fantasy that will delight young and old.
Thankfully the Tim Burton remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is not only a winner, but injects a much needed jolt of camp, charm, and wit into a late summer season that desperately needed it.
The film stars Johnny Depp as the mysterious candy maker Willie Wonka. Wonka has become a reclusive for two decades in order to protect his secret recipes from corporate spies and thieves.
As the film opens, a young boy named Charlie Bucket, (Freddie Highmore), returns home to his family shack, which he shares with his parents and four grandparents. As told via narration, that despite the poverty of his family, Charlie is a very lucky boy. Over their meager dinner of cabbage soup, Charlie’s grandfather (David Kelly) regales the family with tales of Willie Wonka and his exploits which he saw first hand while working in the factory decades earlier.
When Wonka resumed candy shipments after a hiatus the world was delighted, but many wondered who was making the candy as aside from shipping trucks, nobody was ever seen coming or going from the factory.
Such secrecy only added to the legend of Wonka as amazing candy creations continued to arrive in shops to the delight of customer’s world wide.
When it is announced that five golden tickets have been hidden inside candy bars world wide, and that the winners will be given a full day tour of the factory by Wonka himself, frenzy erupts across the globe as Wonka Bars are snatched up by a rabid public. Charlie dreams of getting one of the precious tickets, but his family’s meager income limits him to one bar a year on his birthday. Undaunted Charlie counts the days until his coming birthday, undaunted by the discovery of tickets around the globe.
When his efforts to get a ticket are daunted, and the fifth ticket is reported to be found, Charlie consoles himself by finding money in the street and purchases a Wonka Bar from the corner store. In the blink of an eye Charlie finds himself holding the last ticket when he learns that the last one reported found was a hoax.
Soon Charlie and his Grandfather are touring the magical factory complete with rivers of chocolate and edible candy forests in the company of the quirky Wonka and the fellow contest winners. What follows next is not going to be much of a surprise for those who have seen the 1971 version starring Gene Wilder or those who have read the novel by Roald Dahl, what is a surprise is how fresh and spirited this new version is. I was utterly charmed by the story and the effective pacing of the film.
Burton is a master of mixing visuals and fantasy and this time he not only excels, but he adds an effective touch of humanity to the fantasy which keeps the film from being lost in a see of color and effects.
Depp is brilliant as the eccentric Wonka as his mirth and camp, is underscored by equal amounts of fear and mistrust. The film is essentially a morality tale, but it never losses its focus or the charm by becoming preachy or drawn out. In a role that could easily have been mishandled, Depp soars and shows that he is one of the greatest actors of our generation.
Parents should note that there are a few moments in the film that may be a bit intense for the youngest of viewers, but that being said, the film is a true delight full of magic and fantasy that will delight young and old.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Ring (2002) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Characters – Rachel is a single mother and reporter that starts investigating the mysterious death of her niece, this leads her to a VHS tape which puts her in the same seven day warning, forcing her to investigate the tape, she uses her connections and skills as a reporter to unlock this truth, while become more desperate after her son watches the same tape. Noah is the ex-partner and father to Aidan, he is still dating college students, which is why they no longer date, he is however an expect on video, which sees him being used to help break down the tape, which does including him watching it, he doesn’t come off like a nice guy, but we get the scene which shows why he is the way he is. Aidan is the son of the two, he seems to be the most grounded of the three, he is always prepared for the day, knowing that his mother will be late, only he watches the video making him one of the targets for the curse within the video. Richard is the adopted father of Samara, his love for the horses as seen his life destroyed even with his connection to Samara being the reason for the curse.
Performances – Naomi Watts in the leading role is great, she gets to show us just how difficult being a single mother can be, while trying to face a life and death situation with trying to find the answers. Martin Henderson is solid enough in his role which sees him being a bad father that could learn over this week. David Dorfman does give us a creepy kid performance, while Brian Cox in his limited screen time makes a big impact.
Story – The story here follows a reporter that is investigating the death of a family member that is connecting a video tape which will give any viewer seven days to live. This story is a remake of Ringu and does fall into one of my favourite sub-genres of horror, the ghostly haunting investigation one, which is looking to solve a mystery and isn’t afraid to give us a moment of hauntings to push everything in the right direction. It is strange that part of this film has dated with the technology advances which could see the VHS side of the film going over people’s heads, but away from that seeing just how everything is connected, with glimpses of the video appearing through the film needing to be solved by both the character and audience gives this an interesting element for the audience to get involved in.
Horror/Mystery – The horror comes from the horrific imagines we see on the tape, we also know early on what will happen to anybody that watches the tape, by seeing just how the first opening kill looks. The mystery comes from just what we are seeing in the tape, it is a host of clues which will unlock the truth.
Settings – The film shows us the settings through the tape, each one has a connection to everything going on and makes us want to know just what the connection is going to be.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are fantastic to watch, with one of the greatest effects scenes in the closing of the film which will shock and wonder how it was done.
Scene of the Movie – The Horse on the boat is a horrific scene to watch.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – VHS has dated out now.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the greatest horror remakes, it remains scary through the years along with giving us the time scale everything is going to be revealed.
Overall: Wonderful horror remake.
Performances – Naomi Watts in the leading role is great, she gets to show us just how difficult being a single mother can be, while trying to face a life and death situation with trying to find the answers. Martin Henderson is solid enough in his role which sees him being a bad father that could learn over this week. David Dorfman does give us a creepy kid performance, while Brian Cox in his limited screen time makes a big impact.
Story – The story here follows a reporter that is investigating the death of a family member that is connecting a video tape which will give any viewer seven days to live. This story is a remake of Ringu and does fall into one of my favourite sub-genres of horror, the ghostly haunting investigation one, which is looking to solve a mystery and isn’t afraid to give us a moment of hauntings to push everything in the right direction. It is strange that part of this film has dated with the technology advances which could see the VHS side of the film going over people’s heads, but away from that seeing just how everything is connected, with glimpses of the video appearing through the film needing to be solved by both the character and audience gives this an interesting element for the audience to get involved in.
Horror/Mystery – The horror comes from the horrific imagines we see on the tape, we also know early on what will happen to anybody that watches the tape, by seeing just how the first opening kill looks. The mystery comes from just what we are seeing in the tape, it is a host of clues which will unlock the truth.
Settings – The film shows us the settings through the tape, each one has a connection to everything going on and makes us want to know just what the connection is going to be.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are fantastic to watch, with one of the greatest effects scenes in the closing of the film which will shock and wonder how it was done.
Scene of the Movie – The Horse on the boat is a horrific scene to watch.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – VHS has dated out now.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the greatest horror remakes, it remains scary through the years along with giving us the time scale everything is going to be revealed.
Overall: Wonderful horror remake.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The One and Only Ivan (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
Better than most CGI talking animal Disney movies
Originally scheduled for a cinematic release, but now arriving on Disney+ instead, The One and Only Ivan is the latest in a long line of stories involving CGI animals who can talk, banding together to outsmart us humans in order to escape captivity. Only this one is actually based on a true story.
There were no talking animals in the real version of events this is based on, but there was a silverback gorilla named Ivan,
Stolen as an infant from the rainforests of Congo and made to live in a tiny cage, while regularly putting on a show for visitors to a shopping centre for 27 years in total. This being a Disney movie though, the cruelty of that is glossed over somewhat, with funny animal friends with wacky voices aiming to brighten things up. Although, the message that his captivity was wrong is certainly there for all to see, and hopefully to be appreciated.
Bryan Cranston is Mack, the showman responsible for raising Ivan and making him a star, bristling when enthusiasm and “the show must go on” spirit, despite dwindling audiences and occasional animal illness. From flashbacks, it’s clear that Mack loves Ivan, his passion for raising him having cost him his marriage. But now that Ivan is the star of the show at the mini circus in the mall, complacency has set in, and Mack cannot see that all Ivan now truly wants is his freedom.
In an attempt to try and bring in the crowds, Mack brings in a baby elephant, which takes over top billing status from Ivan, much to his disappointment. Elderly elephant Stella (Angelina Jolie) takes the new baby under her wing, and during some late night storytelling sessions between the animals, we learn that Ivan had a sister back in the jungle, and was actually a budding artist, using mud to paint on rocks. When Julia, young daughter of one of the helping hands at the circus, gives Ivan some of her old crayons and finger paints, Ivan begins drawing again, and is soon moved back up to top billing in the show.
When I first saw the trailer for The One and Only Ivan, I was totally on board. That is, until the animals started talking. I thought the CGI remake of The Lion King last year was just terrible, and the Lady and the Tramp remake which landed on Disney+ earlier this year was even worse. Realistic looking animals simply cannot convey emotions like their traditionally animated counterparts, while retaining their realistic looks. But The One and Only Ivan thankfully feels so different, much better than those movies do. And a lot of that is down to the voice cast.
Sam Rockwell is Ivan. Perfectly cast, he brings a real much needed gravitas to the sombre silverback. Along with the stray dog (Danny DeVito) that visits Ivan’s cage and sleeps on his belly at night, they form a delightful double act, discussing freedom, and the fortunes of the circus. With a lot of time being spent with the animals in their cages, the movie does drag a little at times, but then maybe that’s the whole idea – portraying the solitude and boredom experienced when you do not have your freedom.
As if it wasn’t already clear enough, The One and Only Ivan nicely drives home the important message that animals really shouldn’t be kept in pokey cages for long periods of time, and certainly not for decades either. The end of the movie reminds us that Ivan’s story is actually based on truth, as we’re shown photos of the real Ivan, who stayed with a family before becoming a circus act. Seeing the photos of his eventual release to the vastly improved setting of Atlanta zoo, where he lived out the rest of his days, certainly proves to be very emotional, and a fitting end to a surprisingly enjoyable family movie.
There were no talking animals in the real version of events this is based on, but there was a silverback gorilla named Ivan,
Stolen as an infant from the rainforests of Congo and made to live in a tiny cage, while regularly putting on a show for visitors to a shopping centre for 27 years in total. This being a Disney movie though, the cruelty of that is glossed over somewhat, with funny animal friends with wacky voices aiming to brighten things up. Although, the message that his captivity was wrong is certainly there for all to see, and hopefully to be appreciated.
Bryan Cranston is Mack, the showman responsible for raising Ivan and making him a star, bristling when enthusiasm and “the show must go on” spirit, despite dwindling audiences and occasional animal illness. From flashbacks, it’s clear that Mack loves Ivan, his passion for raising him having cost him his marriage. But now that Ivan is the star of the show at the mini circus in the mall, complacency has set in, and Mack cannot see that all Ivan now truly wants is his freedom.
In an attempt to try and bring in the crowds, Mack brings in a baby elephant, which takes over top billing status from Ivan, much to his disappointment. Elderly elephant Stella (Angelina Jolie) takes the new baby under her wing, and during some late night storytelling sessions between the animals, we learn that Ivan had a sister back in the jungle, and was actually a budding artist, using mud to paint on rocks. When Julia, young daughter of one of the helping hands at the circus, gives Ivan some of her old crayons and finger paints, Ivan begins drawing again, and is soon moved back up to top billing in the show.
When I first saw the trailer for The One and Only Ivan, I was totally on board. That is, until the animals started talking. I thought the CGI remake of The Lion King last year was just terrible, and the Lady and the Tramp remake which landed on Disney+ earlier this year was even worse. Realistic looking animals simply cannot convey emotions like their traditionally animated counterparts, while retaining their realistic looks. But The One and Only Ivan thankfully feels so different, much better than those movies do. And a lot of that is down to the voice cast.
Sam Rockwell is Ivan. Perfectly cast, he brings a real much needed gravitas to the sombre silverback. Along with the stray dog (Danny DeVito) that visits Ivan’s cage and sleeps on his belly at night, they form a delightful double act, discussing freedom, and the fortunes of the circus. With a lot of time being spent with the animals in their cages, the movie does drag a little at times, but then maybe that’s the whole idea – portraying the solitude and boredom experienced when you do not have your freedom.
As if it wasn’t already clear enough, The One and Only Ivan nicely drives home the important message that animals really shouldn’t be kept in pokey cages for long periods of time, and certainly not for decades either. The end of the movie reminds us that Ivan’s story is actually based on truth, as we’re shown photos of the real Ivan, who stayed with a family before becoming a circus act. Seeing the photos of his eventual release to the vastly improved setting of Atlanta zoo, where he lived out the rest of his days, certainly proves to be very emotional, and a fitting end to a surprisingly enjoyable family movie.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Pet peeve
#petsematary is a dire #remake of an already bad #film. Its drab, lifeless & should never of been #reanimated. I had high hopes for this film because it feels like its been a while since the last mainstream horror movie so as I felt genuinely excited but after the first 15 minutes this feeling had quickly been replaced with sheer #fear there was still well over an hour left to go till i could leave. Before we hit the negatives ill give you my positives that saved the movie from being a total walk out. First - #johnlithgow is great as always but mostly wasted largely because of the terrible script he's been given to work with. Second - the running theme of #death is great & the film portrays how all living things fear it so much rather well (it also handles #grieving & guilt #trauma surrounding #death well too but its ultimately far to brief). Now the bad - the movie feels nasty & cheap to look at visually, cgi is bad, make up design is lazy, the camerawork feels awkward & strangely zoomed in just a bit to close to everything, theres weird #90s era motion blur on everything fast moving, acting is laughable/cheesy & scenes go on far to long as does build up to key scenes that have an anticlimactic pay off. If you've seen the original or the trailer for that matter the film becomes highly predictable killing all suspense & what little atmosphere the film conjures up is ruined by naff & bland set design. I honestly cant recomend anyone wasting their time on this highly forgettable film unless your a big fan of really #adorable #cats then this one in this is a clear 10/10 on the #cute scale. An uninspired lazy cash grab & there are a million horror films out there that tell almost the same story way better. #odeon #odeonlimitless #horror #gore #stephenking #scary #cat #animal #pet #classic #retro #cultclassic #80s #filmbuff #filmcritic #zombie
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Cold Pursuit (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Cold as ice
#coldpursuit tries to hit like an avalanche but ends up being disappointing & forgettable like #snowflakes falling on to wet ground. Cold Pursuit is a remake of the #Norwegian film #inorderofdisappearance which received extremely good reviews across the board begging the question why did it need to be remade? & the straight answer to that is no it didn't. #liamnesson plays #NelsCoxman he's quite an interesting character being the town s #hero forced to seek revenge for the death of his son, problem is Nesson plays him just has he does any character now days making him not only #boring but unlikable & its hard to sympathise with him at all. Overall the film is a huge rip off of the far superior #WindRiver & also #Fargo trying its very hardest to be a #coenbrothers movie but failing at everything especially the #humour. Tone wise its a mess with #Nesson taking everything far to seriously while the film tries its hardest to be quirky & #funny. Humour that would work well in a Norwegian movie simply fails here & at times stops the movie dead or ruins the flow/serious tension its created. #tombateman is probably the best character here but even he feels like his character is an audition for the next #Joker in a #DC #batman movie. Essentially one big statement on #racism, the fight over territory & how the benefits of having & decent upbringing shapes our future Cold Pursuit has a decent message in there somewhere its just poorly handled. I did however like the score & there are sprinklings of nice production & visuals too which helped to hold my attention. All in all Cold Pursuit is simply just 'FINE' nothing more nothing less but when there are better films out there aka Wind River, Fargo or even the original fine just doesn't really cut it. #odeon #odeonlimitless #filmbuff #filmcritic #racist #winter #cold #revenge #weekend #weekendvibes #nordicnoir
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 7 Days In Entebbe (2018) in Movies
Mar 22, 2018
Doesn't really work
Most of us (including me), when we heard about the new film 7 DAYS IN ENTEBBE, thought to themselves "didn't they just make this film a few years ago...?" The answer is yes. A similar film to this - RAID ON ENTEBBE - was a TV movie made a few years ago - 42 years ago, to be precise. It starred Peter Finch, Martin Balsam, Jack Warden and good ol' Charles Bronson. Made a mere few months after the true events, this slapped together movie was an old-fashioned "shoot 'em up."
This film is most definitely not.
7 DAYS IN ENTEBBE tells the true story of the 1976 Air France Hijacking of (mostly) Israeli citizens that settle in Entebbe, Uganda (under the leadership of crazed dictator Idi Amin) - refusing to negotiate with terrorists, the Israeli government plan, stage and execute a daring rescue mission.
Sounds like a pretty good plot for a Charles Bronson shoot-em-up.
In this version, Director Jose Padilha (the 2014 remake of ROBOCOP) decides to focus most of his attention not on the hijacked Israeli citizens, but rather, a pair of German hijackers juxtaposed against the political infighting in Israel between Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Defense Minister Shimon Peres. The Israeli governmental infighting was interesting to watch with intriguing characters and cat-and-mouse back-stabbing politics while the plight of the kidnappers was underwritten and underwhelming. Consequently, this film was "just okay".
Oh...and it had about an hour-fifteen minutes of content stretched over an hour-forty-five minutes, so to stretch things out, Padilha decided to cut back and forth between the action (what there was of it) and a modern dance recital. Clearly he was trying a metaphor of the dance punctuating the emotions and actions elsewhere. It just didn't work for me.
Neither did this film. Skip this one and check out the Charles Bronson shoot-em-up.
Letter Grade C+
5 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This film is most definitely not.
7 DAYS IN ENTEBBE tells the true story of the 1976 Air France Hijacking of (mostly) Israeli citizens that settle in Entebbe, Uganda (under the leadership of crazed dictator Idi Amin) - refusing to negotiate with terrorists, the Israeli government plan, stage and execute a daring rescue mission.
Sounds like a pretty good plot for a Charles Bronson shoot-em-up.
In this version, Director Jose Padilha (the 2014 remake of ROBOCOP) decides to focus most of his attention not on the hijacked Israeli citizens, but rather, a pair of German hijackers juxtaposed against the political infighting in Israel between Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Defense Minister Shimon Peres. The Israeli governmental infighting was interesting to watch with intriguing characters and cat-and-mouse back-stabbing politics while the plight of the kidnappers was underwritten and underwhelming. Consequently, this film was "just okay".
Oh...and it had about an hour-fifteen minutes of content stretched over an hour-forty-five minutes, so to stretch things out, Padilha decided to cut back and forth between the action (what there was of it) and a modern dance recital. Clearly he was trying a metaphor of the dance punctuating the emotions and actions elsewhere. It just didn't work for me.
Neither did this film. Skip this one and check out the Charles Bronson shoot-em-up.
Letter Grade C+
5 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Feb 24, 2018 (Updated Feb 24, 2018)
Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a solid film-going experience, albeit a little cheesy at times. While its overdone ending keeps it just short of a being an action/adventure classic, I have to say I was impressed with how well they were able to take the source material of the original and truly make it something entirely new. In this newer version of the remake, four kids in detention get trapped inside a video game and have to play their way out. They are eached armed with a set of "lives" and, just like in a game, losing lives brings you closer to losing everything. They must rely on the skills of their avatars to traverse the dangerous jungle terrain.
Jumanji gives you conventional funny meaning it's not going to be one of those films where you spend half of it doubled over in laughter. When it comes to characteristics of a solid film, however, the film checks all the boxes. Solid, hilarious characters that make it easy to root for them. The Bethany/Jack Black role alone was enough to keep a smile on my face for the majority of the movie. He is the ringleader in a lot of the hilarious moments, but the other stars (Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart) provide plenty of comedy as well. While the comedy isn't side-splitting, I give it it's due respect for being consistent. A solid, flowing story gets the same recognition as it never lingers in one spot for too long. The action does a good job of connecting plot points while not being overbearing.
I thought that by the time I finally got around to writing this, I would be recommending Jumanji for a home viewing. However, due to some great box office success, it's still kicking in theaters. So....go see it if you haven't already! I give it a solid 90.
Jumanji gives you conventional funny meaning it's not going to be one of those films where you spend half of it doubled over in laughter. When it comes to characteristics of a solid film, however, the film checks all the boxes. Solid, hilarious characters that make it easy to root for them. The Bethany/Jack Black role alone was enough to keep a smile on my face for the majority of the movie. He is the ringleader in a lot of the hilarious moments, but the other stars (Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart) provide plenty of comedy as well. While the comedy isn't side-splitting, I give it it's due respect for being consistent. A solid, flowing story gets the same recognition as it never lingers in one spot for too long. The action does a good job of connecting plot points while not being overbearing.
I thought that by the time I finally got around to writing this, I would be recommending Jumanji for a home viewing. However, due to some great box office success, it's still kicking in theaters. So....go see it if you haven't already! I give it a solid 90.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Friday the 13th (2009) in Movies
Feb 10, 2020
This "remake" of the cult classic 80s slasher is actually one of those modern horror soft reboots, that could be considered a sequel, in this case, following on directly from the original, but ignoring any of the original follow ups.
It's probably not accurately, a re-tread of the first four films, all rolled into a slick looking update.
That's precisely what the main positive is. Friday the 13th looks great. It has good production values, largely practical effects when it comes to the nasty stuff, and even boasts a few striking images here and there.
The main man himself, Jason Voorhees, is portrayed here as a kind of hunter, merely protecting his territory, and this time around, he's an absolute beast, he's brutal, he runs, and he is genuinely quote terrifying at times. The film cycles through both his original potato sack look, and his more well know hockey mask look, and actor Derek Mears successfully plays him off as an imposing threat.
The rest of the cast is where Friday the 13th really suffers. With the exception of Jared Padalecki, Danielle Panabaker, and Arlen Escarpeta, none of the human characters are remotely likable. I get that the writers were probably going for the whole rooting-for-them-to-die-horribly schtick, but honestly, these characters are so exhausting, non-funny, and irritating that it genuinely makes the bulk of the movie unenjoyable.
There's zero character development, and an unnecessary opening narrative (that lasts 25 minutes) about a separate group of equally unlikable douche bags makes the plot an absolute drag.
I did like the opening scene, that re-tells the climax of the original film in a stylish black and white sequence with the odd flash if colour, and a lot of the Jason action and kills are ridiculous and exciting, and that makes Friday the 13th just about watchable as a dumb-but-entertaining popcorn horror.
Here's hoping the whole rights issue gets sorted soon so someone can try again!
It's probably not accurately, a re-tread of the first four films, all rolled into a slick looking update.
That's precisely what the main positive is. Friday the 13th looks great. It has good production values, largely practical effects when it comes to the nasty stuff, and even boasts a few striking images here and there.
The main man himself, Jason Voorhees, is portrayed here as a kind of hunter, merely protecting his territory, and this time around, he's an absolute beast, he's brutal, he runs, and he is genuinely quote terrifying at times. The film cycles through both his original potato sack look, and his more well know hockey mask look, and actor Derek Mears successfully plays him off as an imposing threat.
The rest of the cast is where Friday the 13th really suffers. With the exception of Jared Padalecki, Danielle Panabaker, and Arlen Escarpeta, none of the human characters are remotely likable. I get that the writers were probably going for the whole rooting-for-them-to-die-horribly schtick, but honestly, these characters are so exhausting, non-funny, and irritating that it genuinely makes the bulk of the movie unenjoyable.
There's zero character development, and an unnecessary opening narrative (that lasts 25 minutes) about a separate group of equally unlikable douche bags makes the plot an absolute drag.
I did like the opening scene, that re-tells the climax of the original film in a stylish black and white sequence with the odd flash if colour, and a lot of the Jason action and kills are ridiculous and exciting, and that makes Friday the 13th just about watchable as a dumb-but-entertaining popcorn horror.
Here's hoping the whole rights issue gets sorted soon so someone can try again!
JT (287 KP) rated Fright Night (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Colin Farrell as a vampire? He would hardly be my choice as the leading man in this one, yet beneath it all you get the impression that he loved every minute.
As Jerry, the new neighbour who has moved into a quiet suburb deep in the Las Vegas desert, he has all the charm and likeability of any new dweller. That is until his true identity and ambitions are revealed.
Opposite Farrell is Charley (Yelchin), a nerd who has suddenly burst out of his shell and blended in with the upper echelons of high school society. Enough that he has bagged Imogen Poots as his girlfriend.
It’s very much a no brainer when it comes to the plot, but Yelchin does enough in the early parts to keep you hooked in. Battling with his former best friend played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who yet again does the role so well, he suddenly realises that there is more truth to the rumour that Jerry is devouring the locals.
The humour keeps the film ticking along and the introduction of David Tennant as Peter Vincent, a Vegas showman who as luck would have it, has the largest amount of vampire collectables going.
The special effects and gore elements are exciting, but its hardly frightening anyone to the core, which is a shame. If you’re going to do a remake then make sure its executed as well as it can be.
For me though the film is about Farrell, contented with playing the nice guy for the most part of his career its great to see him opening up to a new role. Even his Horrible Bosses turn showed that he had the potential for a badass, and long may it continue.
It’s not a patch on the original, and let’s be fair not a lot of remakes ever are, but its a credible effort from Gillespie. Farrell here sticks two fingers up to Twilight, and I bloody loved that!
As Jerry, the new neighbour who has moved into a quiet suburb deep in the Las Vegas desert, he has all the charm and likeability of any new dweller. That is until his true identity and ambitions are revealed.
Opposite Farrell is Charley (Yelchin), a nerd who has suddenly burst out of his shell and blended in with the upper echelons of high school society. Enough that he has bagged Imogen Poots as his girlfriend.
It’s very much a no brainer when it comes to the plot, but Yelchin does enough in the early parts to keep you hooked in. Battling with his former best friend played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who yet again does the role so well, he suddenly realises that there is more truth to the rumour that Jerry is devouring the locals.
The humour keeps the film ticking along and the introduction of David Tennant as Peter Vincent, a Vegas showman who as luck would have it, has the largest amount of vampire collectables going.
The special effects and gore elements are exciting, but its hardly frightening anyone to the core, which is a shame. If you’re going to do a remake then make sure its executed as well as it can be.
For me though the film is about Farrell, contented with playing the nice guy for the most part of his career its great to see him opening up to a new role. Even his Horrible Bosses turn showed that he had the potential for a badass, and long may it continue.
It’s not a patch on the original, and let’s be fair not a lot of remakes ever are, but its a credible effort from Gillespie. Farrell here sticks two fingers up to Twilight, and I bloody loved that!