Search
Search results
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Return of The King
The Lion King is a 2019 computer-animated musical movie directed and produced by Jon Favreau. It was written by Jeff Nathanson, and produced by Fairview Entertainment and Walt Disney Pictures and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The film stars Donald Glover, Seth Rogen, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Beyonce and James Earl Jones.
King Mufasa (James Earl Jones) and Queen Sarabi rule over the animal kingdom with their pride of lions from Pride Rock, in the African Pride Lands. Things change with the birth of their son, Simba, the new Prince. Mufasa's younger brother, and former heir to the throne, Scar, covets the throne and plots to eliminate Mufasa and Simba, so he may become king. The battle for Pride Rock is filled with betrayal, tragedy and drama and circumstances are forever changed after the events of the stampede.
This movie was really good, but of course it was. The original Lion King was one of Disney's best animated films to date. There was a lot of build up to the release of this movie, with fans every anticipating when they could finally see this story on the big screen again. Jon Favreau did not disappoint, but there was a lot of negativity and bad review scores when it first released. I think the big problem was that in all the previews/trailers leading up to the movie coming out showed how realistic the animals looked and how they were able to recreate iconic scenes in stunning state of the art CGI, but they never showed the animals talking or singing. This for me made it difficult to get fully immersed in the film when the very realistic animals began talking and singing, but eventually it went away or I got used to it a couple minutes into the movie. Also they changed very little in this remake and it was almost literally a shot for shot or scene for scene recreation of the original Lion King, which I think bothered the critics. I personally liked little changes they made that I felt made the movie just a little bit better, like the dialogue between Mufasa's and Scar implying Mufasa's gave him the scar, Zimbabwe catching up with Nala for the journey back to Pride Rock, and Nala leading the female lions in the fight against the hyenas. I also thought it was cool how they made it more clear that one of the hyenas was the leader and it was the female and the scene where Scar makes the deal with them. Overall though I feel like they could have shown more emotion in the animals if they had chosen a style that was so detailed to look so realistic. I give this movie a 7/10. It is worth watching for nostalgia and to see it in theaters is a treat, especially when getting children or younger family members to see it for the first time, but the original is still the better film.
King Mufasa (James Earl Jones) and Queen Sarabi rule over the animal kingdom with their pride of lions from Pride Rock, in the African Pride Lands. Things change with the birth of their son, Simba, the new Prince. Mufasa's younger brother, and former heir to the throne, Scar, covets the throne and plots to eliminate Mufasa and Simba, so he may become king. The battle for Pride Rock is filled with betrayal, tragedy and drama and circumstances are forever changed after the events of the stampede.
This movie was really good, but of course it was. The original Lion King was one of Disney's best animated films to date. There was a lot of build up to the release of this movie, with fans every anticipating when they could finally see this story on the big screen again. Jon Favreau did not disappoint, but there was a lot of negativity and bad review scores when it first released. I think the big problem was that in all the previews/trailers leading up to the movie coming out showed how realistic the animals looked and how they were able to recreate iconic scenes in stunning state of the art CGI, but they never showed the animals talking or singing. This for me made it difficult to get fully immersed in the film when the very realistic animals began talking and singing, but eventually it went away or I got used to it a couple minutes into the movie. Also they changed very little in this remake and it was almost literally a shot for shot or scene for scene recreation of the original Lion King, which I think bothered the critics. I personally liked little changes they made that I felt made the movie just a little bit better, like the dialogue between Mufasa's and Scar implying Mufasa's gave him the scar, Zimbabwe catching up with Nala for the journey back to Pride Rock, and Nala leading the female lions in the fight against the hyenas. I also thought it was cool how they made it more clear that one of the hyenas was the leader and it was the female and the scene where Scar makes the deal with them. Overall though I feel like they could have shown more emotion in the animals if they had chosen a style that was so detailed to look so realistic. I give this movie a 7/10. It is worth watching for nostalgia and to see it in theaters is a treat, especially when getting children or younger family members to see it for the first time, but the original is still the better film.
HerCrazyReviews (247 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Aug 27, 2019
Not As Bad As People Say
Going into this film I didn’t have high expectations. I had read some quick reviews and after watching the trailer when it was released it seemed to me like this film was not going to do well. However, it managed to surprise me. I will admit the first half of the film while being okay didn’t have my constant attention or enthusiasm. This changed when “Prince Ali” entered Agrabah and was introduced to Princess Jasmine. I loved how awkward Aladdin was and I could not stop laughing. From there on the movie just seemed to get better and better. (Maybe because the action/plot was picking up?)
One of the things I enjoyed the most was the fact that we get to see a lot more bonding happening between Jasmine and Aladdin. In the original film we get to see them connect mostly through the ‘Whole New World’ scene. What I thoroughly enjoyed about this film is that we get to see them courting and interacting more. “Prince Ali” is trying to make up for his failure of a first impression and is trying to open himself up to Jasmine. I loved that they decided it was important to include extra scenes like this because they do fall fast for one another and this makes their love seem all the more realistic.
Regarding the cast, when I first heard that Will Smith would be playing Genie I wasn’t a huge fan. When I first saw him in the trailer my initial impression was not a good one and while it took a little getting use too I now think he plays a wonderful Genie. While Robin Williams will always be my number one when it comes to Genie he (for obvious reasons) was not available for this remake and Will Smith did a wonderful job following in his footsteps. I feel like the main criticism this movie is receiving is the way Will Smith acts as the Genie and I will admit it isn’t the same but they are two different people with different directors. Of course they are going to act differently!
While it may not be one of my favorite movies I do not necessarily think it is as bad as most people are making it out to be. I do think it could have been better as the green screen in some parts wasn’t great. I feel like they definitely could have done better here but maybe the budget was limited? For the most part I felt like the CGI was standard but not standout in any way. I know some people are upset about changes made but while Disney was remaking their own movie it is good to change up some things as what is the point in watching if it is the exact same script? Overall, it was okay. Simply that. Nothing more or less.
One of the things I enjoyed the most was the fact that we get to see a lot more bonding happening between Jasmine and Aladdin. In the original film we get to see them connect mostly through the ‘Whole New World’ scene. What I thoroughly enjoyed about this film is that we get to see them courting and interacting more. “Prince Ali” is trying to make up for his failure of a first impression and is trying to open himself up to Jasmine. I loved that they decided it was important to include extra scenes like this because they do fall fast for one another and this makes their love seem all the more realistic.
Regarding the cast, when I first heard that Will Smith would be playing Genie I wasn’t a huge fan. When I first saw him in the trailer my initial impression was not a good one and while it took a little getting use too I now think he plays a wonderful Genie. While Robin Williams will always be my number one when it comes to Genie he (for obvious reasons) was not available for this remake and Will Smith did a wonderful job following in his footsteps. I feel like the main criticism this movie is receiving is the way Will Smith acts as the Genie and I will admit it isn’t the same but they are two different people with different directors. Of course they are going to act differently!
While it may not be one of my favorite movies I do not necessarily think it is as bad as most people are making it out to be. I do think it could have been better as the green screen in some parts wasn’t great. I feel like they definitely could have done better here but maybe the budget was limited? For the most part I felt like the CGI was standard but not standout in any way. I know some people are upset about changes made but while Disney was remaking their own movie it is good to change up some things as what is the point in watching if it is the exact same script? Overall, it was okay. Simply that. Nothing more or less.
Frag doch mal… die Maus!
Games and Education
App
Ein Quiz-Spiel mit der Maus! Da ist der Spaß für die ganze Familie vorprogrammiert! "Frag doch...
Troublemakers: How a Generation of Silicon Valley Upstarts Invented the Future
Book
THE GRIPPING TALE OF THE EARLY FRONTIER DAYS OF SILICON VALLEY FROM ACCLAIMED HISTORIAN LESLIE...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Toni Erdmann (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Well Now! *over exaggerated sigh of relief* After my first movie review of the year it is a suspicious coincidence as well as a welcome relief, that I have the incredibly good fortune to bring you the review of a movie that is not only good but it’s original, sometimes confusing, weird, downright funny, and German. Hey, sometimes when you are disappointed with a domestic film it’s best to look at a foreign film. That ‘strategy’ applies to any movie viewer in any country I can assure you. Today’s film for your consideration is already making waves and winning awards in Germany, Europe, and around the world. It’s making such a significant fuss that as of February 7th, its confirmed that Jack Nicholson is coming out of self-imposed retirement to portray the lead in an American remake of the movie!
‘Toni Erdmann’ is an Austrian-German dramatic comedy written, directed, and co-produced by Maren Abe. The film stars famed Austrian actor Peter Simonischek as Winfried Conradi (the character was based on the directors father a purported prankster) a divorced music teacher and father whose considered by his family, friends, and students to be a hippie. He has the reputation of being a prankster and is notorious for playing practical jokes. He is estranged from his daughter Ines (Sandra Huller). An ambitious business woman working for a company in Romania. They rarely speak except for family gatherings at which Ines is usually on her phone conducting business and actually spends little time with the family. Her father in particular. The only friendship Winfried has is with his blind and deaf dog. One night, after a family gathering and paying a visit to his mother, Winfried falls asleep in his front yard only to wake up and find that his beloved dog has passed away during the night. Feeling lost and dwelling on the past, he travels to Bucharest where his daughter currently consults for an oil company. He finds the office complex where she is based and waits in the lobby for several hours. Finally, he catches a glimpse of Ines walking through the lobby with several board members of her client’s company and sneaks up behind them wearing sunglasses and his trademarked fake teeth while pretending to read a newspaper. Ines notices but completely ignores Winfried. Despite the failure of his practical joke, Ines contacts her father and invites him to a reception at the American embassy in Bucharest where they have a chance encounter with the CEO of a German oil company Mr. Henneberg with whom Ines has been desperately trying arrange business dealings with. While paying little attention to Ines, ironically Henneberg begins a conversation with Winfried in which he casually and jokingly mentioned that he has hired a replacement daughter because Ines is always so busy. Much to the surprise of both, Henneberg invites Ines and her father to join him and his entourage for drinks at a trendy bar where he continues to brush off Ines but only after sharing Winfried’s joke with his colleagues.
Ines is so absorbed in her work she seems to only tolerate her father’s presence and after a few days, Winfried decides to leave feeling alienated as though he’s getting in the way of his daughter’s life. A few days later, Ines and two of her friends are out having drinks when Winfried appears at the bar. Wearing a wig and his trademark false teeth he chimes in on the conversation between his daughter and her friends and comically introduces himself as ‘Toni Erdmann’ a consultant and life coach. Ines two friends continue to converse with him trying their best not to laugh while Winfried continues to ‘enhance’ his character much to the dismay of Ines.
Meanwhile, Ines day-to-Day work routine becomes more frustrating as she seems to be going nowhere with her career despite her best efforts. Becoming almost amused with her father’s character, Ines decides to play along with the character and even invites ‘Erdmann’ to spend time with her at work and with her friends and later even to a business meeting. Strangely enough, the ‘Erdmann’ character created by her father has become a strange and hilarious means of bonding with her father leading to one misadventure after another in which she decides she no longer cares about her current state of being and proceeds to alienate her boss and her colleagues and a way that’s reminiscent of her father’s ‘prankster tendencies’.
This film did not disappoint. It’s funny, it’s shocking, it’s awkward at some points. Most importantly, it’s original. It flys in the face of routine and redundancy and like many great films implies that in the end, the most important thing is family. When worse comes to worse family might not always get you out of trouble but they will certainly provide the catalyst for an escape from the hum drum of whatever is eating at your life.
‘Toni Erdmann’ has already been nominated for ‘Best Film Of The Year’ by critics in several countries including France and England. It premiered at the Cannes film festival last year in the ‘Un Certain Regard’ category of the film festival but the night before its premiere, the judges and critics gave it such praise it was immediately added to the more prestigious ‘Palme d’Or’ category and went on to receive high praise at its premiere. It has already won 20 awards in serval countries with many more awards pending. I’m calling this film 4 out of 5 stars. The film clocks in at 162 minutes. A bit long on the tooth for running time but DO NOT let that discourage you from seeing the film. Do yourself a favor and check out ‘Toni Erdmann’ now and see the original in all it’s hilarious glory. As I mentioned earlier, it’s been confirmed that Jack Nicholson is coming out of retirement to portray the lead in the American remake. This film is totally something you would’ve seen Mr. Nicholson doing early in his career back when he was just getting started as an actor. Even with this in mind someone somewhere along the line could still screw it up.
‘Toni Erdmann’ is an Austrian-German dramatic comedy written, directed, and co-produced by Maren Abe. The film stars famed Austrian actor Peter Simonischek as Winfried Conradi (the character was based on the directors father a purported prankster) a divorced music teacher and father whose considered by his family, friends, and students to be a hippie. He has the reputation of being a prankster and is notorious for playing practical jokes. He is estranged from his daughter Ines (Sandra Huller). An ambitious business woman working for a company in Romania. They rarely speak except for family gatherings at which Ines is usually on her phone conducting business and actually spends little time with the family. Her father in particular. The only friendship Winfried has is with his blind and deaf dog. One night, after a family gathering and paying a visit to his mother, Winfried falls asleep in his front yard only to wake up and find that his beloved dog has passed away during the night. Feeling lost and dwelling on the past, he travels to Bucharest where his daughter currently consults for an oil company. He finds the office complex where she is based and waits in the lobby for several hours. Finally, he catches a glimpse of Ines walking through the lobby with several board members of her client’s company and sneaks up behind them wearing sunglasses and his trademarked fake teeth while pretending to read a newspaper. Ines notices but completely ignores Winfried. Despite the failure of his practical joke, Ines contacts her father and invites him to a reception at the American embassy in Bucharest where they have a chance encounter with the CEO of a German oil company Mr. Henneberg with whom Ines has been desperately trying arrange business dealings with. While paying little attention to Ines, ironically Henneberg begins a conversation with Winfried in which he casually and jokingly mentioned that he has hired a replacement daughter because Ines is always so busy. Much to the surprise of both, Henneberg invites Ines and her father to join him and his entourage for drinks at a trendy bar where he continues to brush off Ines but only after sharing Winfried’s joke with his colleagues.
Ines is so absorbed in her work she seems to only tolerate her father’s presence and after a few days, Winfried decides to leave feeling alienated as though he’s getting in the way of his daughter’s life. A few days later, Ines and two of her friends are out having drinks when Winfried appears at the bar. Wearing a wig and his trademark false teeth he chimes in on the conversation between his daughter and her friends and comically introduces himself as ‘Toni Erdmann’ a consultant and life coach. Ines two friends continue to converse with him trying their best not to laugh while Winfried continues to ‘enhance’ his character much to the dismay of Ines.
Meanwhile, Ines day-to-Day work routine becomes more frustrating as she seems to be going nowhere with her career despite her best efforts. Becoming almost amused with her father’s character, Ines decides to play along with the character and even invites ‘Erdmann’ to spend time with her at work and with her friends and later even to a business meeting. Strangely enough, the ‘Erdmann’ character created by her father has become a strange and hilarious means of bonding with her father leading to one misadventure after another in which she decides she no longer cares about her current state of being and proceeds to alienate her boss and her colleagues and a way that’s reminiscent of her father’s ‘prankster tendencies’.
This film did not disappoint. It’s funny, it’s shocking, it’s awkward at some points. Most importantly, it’s original. It flys in the face of routine and redundancy and like many great films implies that in the end, the most important thing is family. When worse comes to worse family might not always get you out of trouble but they will certainly provide the catalyst for an escape from the hum drum of whatever is eating at your life.
‘Toni Erdmann’ has already been nominated for ‘Best Film Of The Year’ by critics in several countries including France and England. It premiered at the Cannes film festival last year in the ‘Un Certain Regard’ category of the film festival but the night before its premiere, the judges and critics gave it such praise it was immediately added to the more prestigious ‘Palme d’Or’ category and went on to receive high praise at its premiere. It has already won 20 awards in serval countries with many more awards pending. I’m calling this film 4 out of 5 stars. The film clocks in at 162 minutes. A bit long on the tooth for running time but DO NOT let that discourage you from seeing the film. Do yourself a favor and check out ‘Toni Erdmann’ now and see the original in all it’s hilarious glory. As I mentioned earlier, it’s been confirmed that Jack Nicholson is coming out of retirement to portray the lead in the American remake. This film is totally something you would’ve seen Mr. Nicholson doing early in his career back when he was just getting started as an actor. Even with this in mind someone somewhere along the line could still screw it up.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Insidious (2010) in Movies
May 12, 2018
I finally have access to all the Insidious films. Because of this, I’m in the process of re-watching the first two – something I haven’t done since their initial release. I watched the first of the films yesterday and my thoughts are a bit mixed on it. Don’t get me wrong – I like the movie, but I think it’s PG-13 rating held it back a bit.
Dalton (Ty Simpkins) is, undoubtedly, the central figure of the story. His role throughout much of the movie is to lay comatose in a bed whilst demons fight for possession of his body. He’s got two siblings, a brother named Foster (I think I got that right) and a sister named Cali. His parents, Renai (Rose Byrne) and Josh (Patrick Wilson) are the supposed doting parents – Josh on the other hand could benefit from an actor that’s a bit more invested in his role. I could feel him rolling his eyes between scenes, he was so unenthused.
The plot of Insidious is fairly straightforward, though there is at least one glaring continuity issue that we encounter. For the most part it’s pretty standard haunting and possession, but somehow halfway through the movie (okay, maybe a little later than that) two characters vanish completely. Foster and Cali, the entire time we’re dealing with the Further – another plane of existence – are nowhere to be found. No one’s worried about their safety, no one’s trying to protect them. They’re just… gone. Unless I missed something critical in which they were sent off to a friend’s house or something, then we’ve got a glaring plot hole that gives this film a bit of a blemish when it comes to its polish.
PG-13 is the rating given to a horror film whose goal is to make money. The whole reason it doesn’t cross that boundary is so that all the teenagers can go to the theatre without their parents for what they hope will be a good scare. I learned this the hard way when I had to walk out of the Prom Night remake because kids wouldn’t shut up. (As a result, I rarely go to see a movie that is PG-13.) In Insidious we see the affects of this in the severity of the “hauntings.” Even the demons are downplayed – there’s a distinct lack of violence in the film that one might expect when a powerful entity is trying to take hold of a kid’s body. Sure, we’ve got a few bloody handprints, a little bit of poltergeist-like activity, but that’s it. It’s most stuff you’d expect to see in a scary movie directed at children, with the addition of a few jump-scares that rely heavily on auditory senses.
Needless to say, there are far worse movies than Insidious out there and I still intend to watch the other films. I’m a bit indecisive on how I want to rate this – I enjoyed watching it up until things get a bit silly toward the end, where the Further is involved. At the same time, I don’t dislike the movie. That said, I’ve decided to go with a three out of five.
Dalton (Ty Simpkins) is, undoubtedly, the central figure of the story. His role throughout much of the movie is to lay comatose in a bed whilst demons fight for possession of his body. He’s got two siblings, a brother named Foster (I think I got that right) and a sister named Cali. His parents, Renai (Rose Byrne) and Josh (Patrick Wilson) are the supposed doting parents – Josh on the other hand could benefit from an actor that’s a bit more invested in his role. I could feel him rolling his eyes between scenes, he was so unenthused.
The plot of Insidious is fairly straightforward, though there is at least one glaring continuity issue that we encounter. For the most part it’s pretty standard haunting and possession, but somehow halfway through the movie (okay, maybe a little later than that) two characters vanish completely. Foster and Cali, the entire time we’re dealing with the Further – another plane of existence – are nowhere to be found. No one’s worried about their safety, no one’s trying to protect them. They’re just… gone. Unless I missed something critical in which they were sent off to a friend’s house or something, then we’ve got a glaring plot hole that gives this film a bit of a blemish when it comes to its polish.
PG-13 is the rating given to a horror film whose goal is to make money. The whole reason it doesn’t cross that boundary is so that all the teenagers can go to the theatre without their parents for what they hope will be a good scare. I learned this the hard way when I had to walk out of the Prom Night remake because kids wouldn’t shut up. (As a result, I rarely go to see a movie that is PG-13.) In Insidious we see the affects of this in the severity of the “hauntings.” Even the demons are downplayed – there’s a distinct lack of violence in the film that one might expect when a powerful entity is trying to take hold of a kid’s body. Sure, we’ve got a few bloody handprints, a little bit of poltergeist-like activity, but that’s it. It’s most stuff you’d expect to see in a scary movie directed at children, with the addition of a few jump-scares that rely heavily on auditory senses.
Needless to say, there are far worse movies than Insidious out there and I still intend to watch the other films. I’m a bit indecisive on how I want to rate this – I enjoyed watching it up until things get a bit silly toward the end, where the Further is involved. At the same time, I don’t dislike the movie. That said, I’ve decided to go with a three out of five.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Fly (1958) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
As the wife (Patricia Owens) of "murdered" scientist played by Al (David) Hedison, is maniacally hunting for a fly with a white head, both the police and his brother (Vincent Price) are trying to uncover the truth behind his death, which seems by all accounts to be the work of his wife.
But as she recounts the tale of how they both ended up embroiled in the hydraulic press, one under it and one at the controls, the plot thickens and a Sci Fi classic is born. Hedison's scientist has invented the teleporter and during one of his human tests on himself, a fly enters the chamber with him and the pair are fused: The fly's head and left arm are now a part of Hedison, whilst his head and arm are buzzing around as part of a common house fly.
The film makes an effort to offer some real science, though be it toned down and simplified by today's standards, but it is easy to feel that this is a naive movie at face value, if you forget that in 1958, teleportation was a fantastical concept, but mid 60's science fiction such as Star Trek would make this much more matter of fact and play around with science more freely.
But by the time of the remake in 1986, David Cronenberg was gifted with an audience who understood these ideas and offered a more comprehensive take on what might have happened, in this case, gene splicing and DNA replication, with the cells using the corrupted hybrid DNA code as a basic every time the cells replicate, a process which would eventually turn Jeff Goldblum's man in to a man/fly hybrid monster!
But here, whilst almost all of this is present, it is simplified for an audience unprepared and unarmed with the scientific knowledge with would be more common in the 1980's, thanks to films like this. Here, Hedison's man/fly is changing mentally into a fly the longer he has the mutation, leading him to commit assisted suicide in order to prevent his work from been replicated, fearing the consequences.
This is ground breaking stuff. A Sci-Fi classic which spends most of its running time building an intriguing, intelligent suspenseful thriller, with little time given over to the eponymous Fly itself, but it is omnipresent, chilling as is the reveal of the scientist's deformation in the final act, the change in personality and loving relationship with his tragic wife.
And that penultimate scene in which the white-headed fly is revealed to us with Hedison's head and arm as it/he is about to be devoured by a spider in his web, must be one of the most chilling scene's of the genre. Simple, effective and not for the special effects or gore, but for the concept, one which leaves you thinking and considering what you have just witnessed.
What would you do if you saw a fly with a human head? A human with a fly's head? Creepy...
But as she recounts the tale of how they both ended up embroiled in the hydraulic press, one under it and one at the controls, the plot thickens and a Sci Fi classic is born. Hedison's scientist has invented the teleporter and during one of his human tests on himself, a fly enters the chamber with him and the pair are fused: The fly's head and left arm are now a part of Hedison, whilst his head and arm are buzzing around as part of a common house fly.
The film makes an effort to offer some real science, though be it toned down and simplified by today's standards, but it is easy to feel that this is a naive movie at face value, if you forget that in 1958, teleportation was a fantastical concept, but mid 60's science fiction such as Star Trek would make this much more matter of fact and play around with science more freely.
But by the time of the remake in 1986, David Cronenberg was gifted with an audience who understood these ideas and offered a more comprehensive take on what might have happened, in this case, gene splicing and DNA replication, with the cells using the corrupted hybrid DNA code as a basic every time the cells replicate, a process which would eventually turn Jeff Goldblum's man in to a man/fly hybrid monster!
But here, whilst almost all of this is present, it is simplified for an audience unprepared and unarmed with the scientific knowledge with would be more common in the 1980's, thanks to films like this. Here, Hedison's man/fly is changing mentally into a fly the longer he has the mutation, leading him to commit assisted suicide in order to prevent his work from been replicated, fearing the consequences.
This is ground breaking stuff. A Sci-Fi classic which spends most of its running time building an intriguing, intelligent suspenseful thriller, with little time given over to the eponymous Fly itself, but it is omnipresent, chilling as is the reveal of the scientist's deformation in the final act, the change in personality and loving relationship with his tragic wife.
And that penultimate scene in which the white-headed fly is revealed to us with Hedison's head and arm as it/he is about to be devoured by a spider in his web, must be one of the most chilling scene's of the genre. Simple, effective and not for the special effects or gore, but for the concept, one which leaves you thinking and considering what you have just witnessed.
What would you do if you saw a fly with a human head? A human with a fly's head? Creepy...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Mr. Holmes (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Sir Ian McKellen is magnificent
Sherlock Holmes is hot property at the moment. Robert Downey Jr has played the titular detective in two box-office behemoths and Benedict Cumberbatch is supremely popular across the globe for his take on the character.
Now, Sir Ian McKellen is giving it a go in the little-publicised BBC funded Mr Holmes. But does it continue the trend of crafting intriguing dramas from the stories of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle?
Bill Condon, director of Dreamgirls and the upcoming Beauty & the Beast live-action remake takes charge of an intriguing film that ends up having a whiff of Saturday night drama about it.
Mr Holmes follows the story of the titular character as he comes to terms with his advancing years. McKellen plays Holmes at age 93, living away from the public eye in a quiet rural location alongside his harsh housekeeper Mrs Munro (Laura Linney) and her son Roger – a wonderful Milo Parker in his first big-screen role.
Ian McKellen is simply brilliant throughout the course of the film and after years of playing Gandalf and Magneto, slows things right down in a portrayal of the detective never really seen before – he is magnificent.
Laura Linney is a good distraction from McKellen’s rather downbeat role but her character doesn’t really do enough to register and her accent wanders through numerous countries by the time the end credits roll. This is very much McKellen’s film.
Mr Holmes, much like A Little Chaos earlier this year is a slow-paced drama that would rather tackle the finer details of the script and focus on its characters then delve into unnecessary subplots and fancy special effects and there’s something charming about this simplicity.
Unfortunately though, it all just feels a little TV drama like. Because of this, you’re almost expecting a ‘To be continued…’ credit to be added at the end of the first hour – with the conclusion coming a week later.
This is a real shame as it makes Mr Holmes feel longer than it actually is. At just over 100 minutes, this is by no means a drawn-out film but the slow pace ensures things seem to take a little longer than they perhaps would in another feature.
Thankfully though, Ian McKellen’s performance is reason enough to give Mr Holmes a watch, with another being the intriguing and at times, rather unpredictable plot.
Overall, there isn’t really that much wrong with Mr Holmes but its release date is almost suicidal. Being sandwiched in between blockbusters like Jurassic World, Minions and Terminator: Genisys, it has a tough job to do and it deserves more success than I fear it will end up having.
Ian McKellen, like Meryl Streep is one of the finest living thespians and Mr Holmes only cements his position at the very top of his craft. However, it’s probably best reserved for a night-time viewing with slippers and a hot cup of cocoa.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/21/sir-ian-mckellen-is-magnificent-mr-holmes-review/
Now, Sir Ian McKellen is giving it a go in the little-publicised BBC funded Mr Holmes. But does it continue the trend of crafting intriguing dramas from the stories of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle?
Bill Condon, director of Dreamgirls and the upcoming Beauty & the Beast live-action remake takes charge of an intriguing film that ends up having a whiff of Saturday night drama about it.
Mr Holmes follows the story of the titular character as he comes to terms with his advancing years. McKellen plays Holmes at age 93, living away from the public eye in a quiet rural location alongside his harsh housekeeper Mrs Munro (Laura Linney) and her son Roger – a wonderful Milo Parker in his first big-screen role.
Ian McKellen is simply brilliant throughout the course of the film and after years of playing Gandalf and Magneto, slows things right down in a portrayal of the detective never really seen before – he is magnificent.
Laura Linney is a good distraction from McKellen’s rather downbeat role but her character doesn’t really do enough to register and her accent wanders through numerous countries by the time the end credits roll. This is very much McKellen’s film.
Mr Holmes, much like A Little Chaos earlier this year is a slow-paced drama that would rather tackle the finer details of the script and focus on its characters then delve into unnecessary subplots and fancy special effects and there’s something charming about this simplicity.
Unfortunately though, it all just feels a little TV drama like. Because of this, you’re almost expecting a ‘To be continued…’ credit to be added at the end of the first hour – with the conclusion coming a week later.
This is a real shame as it makes Mr Holmes feel longer than it actually is. At just over 100 minutes, this is by no means a drawn-out film but the slow pace ensures things seem to take a little longer than they perhaps would in another feature.
Thankfully though, Ian McKellen’s performance is reason enough to give Mr Holmes a watch, with another being the intriguing and at times, rather unpredictable plot.
Overall, there isn’t really that much wrong with Mr Holmes but its release date is almost suicidal. Being sandwiched in between blockbusters like Jurassic World, Minions and Terminator: Genisys, it has a tough job to do and it deserves more success than I fear it will end up having.
Ian McKellen, like Meryl Streep is one of the finest living thespians and Mr Holmes only cements his position at the very top of his craft. However, it’s probably best reserved for a night-time viewing with slippers and a hot cup of cocoa.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/21/sir-ian-mckellen-is-magnificent-mr-holmes-review/
MasterSolace (19 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 15, 2019
The Music(it's Disney) (4 more)
The Special Effects(it's Disney)
The Atmosphere
The Cast & Characters
One last bit... in the review
Live-Action Magic
Contains spoilers, click to show
Disney has been on a kick of redoing their animated masterpieces into live action masterpieces. It worked with Cinderella... Jungle Book was flawed, but still wild... and Beauty and the Beast was simply Beautiful. So... was this reimagining of Aladdin up to par...
You are damn right it was.
Let's get this out of the way first. Live action musicals still make me feel awkward. Granted, this is Disney... but animated musicals feel just fine. That being said, the numbers were spot on for the most part, while still being slightly altered for the cast in the present. Yes, that includes slight tweaks due to Will Smith being an actual musician(as much as I love Robin Williams, he was not). And those were made(dammit... sorry for the pun)... Fresh.
Acting on point. Because Disney. Sorry, but it's true.
Was the movie perfect? No. It does have some flaws, but nothing that hinders the movie overall. And most of them for me where solely because of the musical numbers. That being said, "Speechless"... bravo Alan Menken.
There is one part of this version that does IMPROVE over the original. The City of Agrabah. The animated version felt nothing more than a backdrop, but this City felt like it was organic. Like an ACTUAL city they were fighting for.
Other changes were proper... made it more modern. Including Jasmine motivation(instead of marrying who she wants, she is made Sultan... so she can protect and serve her people... she marries Aladdin anyway)... and Jafar's true plans(he didn't just want Agrabah, he wanted to conquer the neighboring nations, as well). Jafar in the original was DRAWN menacing... live action Jafar was devious due to his ambitions. Good job, Disney.
How about the Genie? How did Will Smith do? Well... he was great. BUT Disney did something different this time. In the original, because Robin was the star, it put extra focus on how outrageous he was. Will Smith was the billed star, but they put more focus on who the story was really about... Aladdin. Will Smith served a purpose. He might've been the bigger name, but he did NOT play the biggest part. At least, that is what I feel happened.... and it was for the better.
Was it as good as the original? No. Because there is no true comparison. If you haven't seen it... please... erase the original from your mind for a moment... go see this one... then go back and watch the original. While we KNOW the comparison... there shouldn't be one. This live-action version isn't exactly the same, and it shouldn't be. Askewed focus... different delivery... it maybe Disney's remake, but this version should be approached as if you were watching it from a different perspective......
Treat it as if it were it's own movie.
And know this... the best positive of all...
Robin would've loved it.
You are damn right it was.
Let's get this out of the way first. Live action musicals still make me feel awkward. Granted, this is Disney... but animated musicals feel just fine. That being said, the numbers were spot on for the most part, while still being slightly altered for the cast in the present. Yes, that includes slight tweaks due to Will Smith being an actual musician(as much as I love Robin Williams, he was not). And those were made(dammit... sorry for the pun)... Fresh.
Acting on point. Because Disney. Sorry, but it's true.
Was the movie perfect? No. It does have some flaws, but nothing that hinders the movie overall. And most of them for me where solely because of the musical numbers. That being said, "Speechless"... bravo Alan Menken.
There is one part of this version that does IMPROVE over the original. The City of Agrabah. The animated version felt nothing more than a backdrop, but this City felt like it was organic. Like an ACTUAL city they were fighting for.
Other changes were proper... made it more modern. Including Jasmine motivation(instead of marrying who she wants, she is made Sultan... so she can protect and serve her people... she marries Aladdin anyway)... and Jafar's true plans(he didn't just want Agrabah, he wanted to conquer the neighboring nations, as well). Jafar in the original was DRAWN menacing... live action Jafar was devious due to his ambitions. Good job, Disney.
How about the Genie? How did Will Smith do? Well... he was great. BUT Disney did something different this time. In the original, because Robin was the star, it put extra focus on how outrageous he was. Will Smith was the billed star, but they put more focus on who the story was really about... Aladdin. Will Smith served a purpose. He might've been the bigger name, but he did NOT play the biggest part. At least, that is what I feel happened.... and it was for the better.
Was it as good as the original? No. Because there is no true comparison. If you haven't seen it... please... erase the original from your mind for a moment... go see this one... then go back and watch the original. While we KNOW the comparison... there shouldn't be one. This live-action version isn't exactly the same, and it shouldn't be. Askewed focus... different delivery... it maybe Disney's remake, but this version should be approached as if you were watching it from a different perspective......
Treat it as if it were it's own movie.
And know this... the best positive of all...
Robin would've loved it.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Point Break (1991) in Movies
Jan 17, 2018
Not Bad
My buddy who recommended Point Break asked for my thoughts almost immediately after I watched it. In a word: Fun. No, it's not going to blow your mind or give you chills, but it's a great film to watch if you're just trying to have a good time. It's like Fast and the Furious before Fast and the Furious became Fast and the Furious. Oh yeah, and with surfer dudes.
Point Break can be a bit over the top at times. One scene in particular involving a chase scene where someone literally threw a dog at Keanu Reeves left me scratching my head and chuckling, but I'm pretty sure I wasn't supposed to be laughing at that point. The plot holes threw me off just as much. Spoiler Alert In the Form of a Question: After Johnny Utah's cover is blown, why the hell is he still hanging out with the bankrobbers?
After a slow start, I managed to find myself engaged in what was unfolding. Keanu Reeves got off to a slow start as well in his role as Johnny Utah, but found his way midway through. It was almost like this was the film where he learned how to act, but director Kathryn Bigelow didn't notice until they were well past the point of reshoots. It doesn't kill the movie, not by a longshot, especially considering its setting.
The ending was extremely ambiguous and, ten years ago, probably would have ruined the entire film for me. Now, it left me asking myself, "What does this mean exactly?" My answer in a sec...
For those of you like me that are new to the film, Point Break is the story of a detective trying to take down a gang of surfers that have become notorious on the bank-robbing circuit as the Ex-Presidents. The film has some fun action sequences, including a house raid midway through that I really enjoyed. I also thought Bigelow captured some powerful shots when it came to expressing the love and power of the ocean. I would love to see this film shot in IMAX today. And I said this film, not the god-awful remake. My favorite shot takes place at a gas station. Bodhi (Patrick Swayze) is burning a car (destroying evidence) to the ground using a gas pump and a lighter. For some reason, it reminded me of the one scene I enjoyed in Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice where the courtroom explodes and just Superman is left among the flames. Scenes like this, no matter how good or bad a film is, stay etched in your memory for a long time.
So what were my thoughts on the ending? I feel like the waves got the better of Utah and he succumbed to their call. He got a taste of a life that was more easygoing and peaceful. Less rules and restrictions. Ultimately, it was enough for him to throw everything else (badge included) away. And yes, I think he does end up staying with Tyler (Lori Petty).
Glad I saw this film. I give it a 77.
Point Break can be a bit over the top at times. One scene in particular involving a chase scene where someone literally threw a dog at Keanu Reeves left me scratching my head and chuckling, but I'm pretty sure I wasn't supposed to be laughing at that point. The plot holes threw me off just as much. Spoiler Alert In the Form of a Question: After Johnny Utah's cover is blown, why the hell is he still hanging out with the bankrobbers?
After a slow start, I managed to find myself engaged in what was unfolding. Keanu Reeves got off to a slow start as well in his role as Johnny Utah, but found his way midway through. It was almost like this was the film where he learned how to act, but director Kathryn Bigelow didn't notice until they were well past the point of reshoots. It doesn't kill the movie, not by a longshot, especially considering its setting.
The ending was extremely ambiguous and, ten years ago, probably would have ruined the entire film for me. Now, it left me asking myself, "What does this mean exactly?" My answer in a sec...
For those of you like me that are new to the film, Point Break is the story of a detective trying to take down a gang of surfers that have become notorious on the bank-robbing circuit as the Ex-Presidents. The film has some fun action sequences, including a house raid midway through that I really enjoyed. I also thought Bigelow captured some powerful shots when it came to expressing the love and power of the ocean. I would love to see this film shot in IMAX today. And I said this film, not the god-awful remake. My favorite shot takes place at a gas station. Bodhi (Patrick Swayze) is burning a car (destroying evidence) to the ground using a gas pump and a lighter. For some reason, it reminded me of the one scene I enjoyed in Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice where the courtroom explodes and just Superman is left among the flames. Scenes like this, no matter how good or bad a film is, stay etched in your memory for a long time.
So what were my thoughts on the ending? I feel like the waves got the better of Utah and he succumbed to their call. He got a taste of a life that was more easygoing and peaceful. Less rules and restrictions. Ultimately, it was enough for him to throw everything else (badge included) away. And yes, I think he does end up staying with Tyler (Lori Petty).
Glad I saw this film. I give it a 77.