Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 5, 2020
After the big budget train wreck that was King Arthur: Legend of the Sword in 2017, and the big budget Disney remake of Aladdin last year, Guy Ritchie has returned to the comedy gangster roots where he made his name more than two decades ago. It’s the kind of movie that I’m not really a fan of if I’m honest, and I didn’t even like the look of the trailer for The Gentlemen either, but I gave it a shot. I’m glad I did.
Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, a sharp suit wearing, self made millionaire. Mickey made his fortune by initially selling weed to students while studying with them at Oxford, before spending the next 20 years building up a nationwide marijuana empire. It’s a slick operation too - by striking up deals with British aristocrats who are struggling to maintain their large stately homes, Mickey has been able to setup 12 marijuana farms on their premises and kept them undetected. However, Mickey is now looking to sell up and retire so that he can buy himself one of those big stately homes for him and his ice queen wife (Michelle Dockery). But it’s not quite as easy as that. There are a number of interested parties who either want to screw the price down or just take the whole operation from under Mickey’s feet. And the king of the jungle isn’t having any of it.
The story plays out under the narration of sleazy reporter Fletcher (Hugh Grant), who has turned up on the doorstep of Mickey’s right hand man Raymond (Charlie Hunnam) one evening in order to try and blackmail his boss. Fletcher has been hired by a tabloid editor to dig up dirt on Mickey Pearson and has been closely following the events and players surrounding the sale of his business. Fletcher has decided that what he’s uncovered could be worth a hell of a lot more than the £150K promised by the newspaper and has turned his findings into a movie script which he then proceeds to describe to Raymond throughout the movie. Along the way, details are embellished by Fletcher to spice up certain moments that he feels are lacking in action, corrected by Raymond as we rewind to see the actual events.
The Gentlemen features a big ensemble cast, most of which give a brilliantly hilarious performance. Hugh Grant steals the show, with his campy Michael Caine. Along the way we meet Chinese rival Dry Eye (Henry Golding, redeeming himself after his wooden performance in Last Christmas recently) and Coach (another show stealer, played by Colin Farrell).
The pacing of The Gentlemen felt spot on for me, and as the story flipped back and forth in time, interspersed with Fletcher and Raymond’s comic interludes, I never felt bored. There are plenty of twists and turns, c-bombs and much more of what you’d expect from a Ritchie movie of this kind. But it also feels a lot slicker and more mainstream, with most of the violence occurring off screen - apart from the odd cocky young chav or drug addict getting the occasional well deserved slap!
Overall, I’m so glad I have this movie a chance. A great cast and a fun story with plenty of laugh out loud moments.
Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, a sharp suit wearing, self made millionaire. Mickey made his fortune by initially selling weed to students while studying with them at Oxford, before spending the next 20 years building up a nationwide marijuana empire. It’s a slick operation too - by striking up deals with British aristocrats who are struggling to maintain their large stately homes, Mickey has been able to setup 12 marijuana farms on their premises and kept them undetected. However, Mickey is now looking to sell up and retire so that he can buy himself one of those big stately homes for him and his ice queen wife (Michelle Dockery). But it’s not quite as easy as that. There are a number of interested parties who either want to screw the price down or just take the whole operation from under Mickey’s feet. And the king of the jungle isn’t having any of it.
The story plays out under the narration of sleazy reporter Fletcher (Hugh Grant), who has turned up on the doorstep of Mickey’s right hand man Raymond (Charlie Hunnam) one evening in order to try and blackmail his boss. Fletcher has been hired by a tabloid editor to dig up dirt on Mickey Pearson and has been closely following the events and players surrounding the sale of his business. Fletcher has decided that what he’s uncovered could be worth a hell of a lot more than the £150K promised by the newspaper and has turned his findings into a movie script which he then proceeds to describe to Raymond throughout the movie. Along the way, details are embellished by Fletcher to spice up certain moments that he feels are lacking in action, corrected by Raymond as we rewind to see the actual events.
The Gentlemen features a big ensemble cast, most of which give a brilliantly hilarious performance. Hugh Grant steals the show, with his campy Michael Caine. Along the way we meet Chinese rival Dry Eye (Henry Golding, redeeming himself after his wooden performance in Last Christmas recently) and Coach (another show stealer, played by Colin Farrell).
The pacing of The Gentlemen felt spot on for me, and as the story flipped back and forth in time, interspersed with Fletcher and Raymond’s comic interludes, I never felt bored. There are plenty of twists and turns, c-bombs and much more of what you’d expect from a Ritchie movie of this kind. But it also feels a lot slicker and more mainstream, with most of the violence occurring off screen - apart from the odd cocky young chav or drug addict getting the occasional well deserved slap!
Overall, I’m so glad I have this movie a chance. A great cast and a fun story with plenty of laugh out loud moments.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020
Right off the bat, this latest remake of the classic H.G. Wells story shows us just how suspenseful it can be. It’s the middle of the night and a wide-awake Cecilia (Elizabeth Moss) quietly climbs out of bed so as not to disturb her sleeping partner Adrian (Oliver Jackson-Cohen). It quickly becomes apparent that she has been waiting and planning for this moment to leave him for some time now, and she is absolutely terrified of waking him up. She creeps through their spacious modern glass home, gathering some of her belongings and occasionally checking a mobile feed of the CCTV camera that she has re-positioned in order to see Adrian asleep in bed. Already the tension is unbearable, and we’re only a few minutes into the movie!
A few weeks after her dramatic escape from Adrian and Cecilia is now in the safety of a friends house, police detective James (Aldis Hodge) and his teenage daughter Sydney (Storm Reid). It’s clear that the years of living with an abusive and controlling partner have taken their toll on Cecilia and she can barely even bring herself to leave the house, fearful of every stranger that passes her by. We don’t get to see any of what went on in her relationship with Adrian, and we barely know anything of him either, other than he is a tech billionaire and an expert in the field of ‘optics’. So, when word reaches Cecilia that Adrian has committed suicide, we’re even more in the dark about him. He becomes more of an unknown to us, making him all the more mysterious, and the events that consequently unfold throughout the movie all the more terrifying.
As Cecilia begins to settle back into some kind of normality, she slowly lets her guard down, which as we all know is a big mistake! While Cecilia is alone, we start to get different points of view of her, as if someone is watching her. We focus on areas of the house where nobody is in shot, before panning around to reveal…. nothing. Cecilia is not aware of anything, and we haven’t seen anything either, but you’re left on the edge of your seat, straining your eyes to desperately try and pick out some kind of evidence that someone or something is there with her. And then we begin to get confirmation that an invisible something is actually there – a falling knife, a kitchen fire and things being tampered with all start to put Cecilia back on edge, leading her to suspect that Adrian has found some way to continue making her life a misery. These events start off very subtle, but soon become more horrific and intense, clearly intended to gaslight Cecilia and portray her as crazy to everyone around her.
The traditional route for a movie like this would be to focus on our title character – in this case the invisible man. We might see a brilliant or tortured scientist, succeeding or failing with whatever they’re experimenting with, before following them and the consequences of their actions. By giving us very little backstory to our title character, writer and director Leigh Whannell has chosen instead to focus primarily on Cecilia and the psychological horror she endures. Elizabeth Moss gives us the full range of emotions as she endures her terrible ordeal, and you really do share in her isolation and terror throughout. She completely and brilliantly carries the movie – progressing from the lowest of lows to finally, and brilliantly, deciding it’s time to fight back!
A few weeks after her dramatic escape from Adrian and Cecilia is now in the safety of a friends house, police detective James (Aldis Hodge) and his teenage daughter Sydney (Storm Reid). It’s clear that the years of living with an abusive and controlling partner have taken their toll on Cecilia and she can barely even bring herself to leave the house, fearful of every stranger that passes her by. We don’t get to see any of what went on in her relationship with Adrian, and we barely know anything of him either, other than he is a tech billionaire and an expert in the field of ‘optics’. So, when word reaches Cecilia that Adrian has committed suicide, we’re even more in the dark about him. He becomes more of an unknown to us, making him all the more mysterious, and the events that consequently unfold throughout the movie all the more terrifying.
As Cecilia begins to settle back into some kind of normality, she slowly lets her guard down, which as we all know is a big mistake! While Cecilia is alone, we start to get different points of view of her, as if someone is watching her. We focus on areas of the house where nobody is in shot, before panning around to reveal…. nothing. Cecilia is not aware of anything, and we haven’t seen anything either, but you’re left on the edge of your seat, straining your eyes to desperately try and pick out some kind of evidence that someone or something is there with her. And then we begin to get confirmation that an invisible something is actually there – a falling knife, a kitchen fire and things being tampered with all start to put Cecilia back on edge, leading her to suspect that Adrian has found some way to continue making her life a misery. These events start off very subtle, but soon become more horrific and intense, clearly intended to gaslight Cecilia and portray her as crazy to everyone around her.
The traditional route for a movie like this would be to focus on our title character – in this case the invisible man. We might see a brilliant or tortured scientist, succeeding or failing with whatever they’re experimenting with, before following them and the consequences of their actions. By giving us very little backstory to our title character, writer and director Leigh Whannell has chosen instead to focus primarily on Cecilia and the psychological horror she endures. Elizabeth Moss gives us the full range of emotions as she endures her terrible ordeal, and you really do share in her isolation and terror throughout. She completely and brilliantly carries the movie – progressing from the lowest of lows to finally, and brilliantly, deciding it’s time to fight back!
KalJ95 (25 KP) rated Resident Evil 3 (Remake) in Video Games
Apr 10, 2020
Nemesis. Oh, Nemesis. (1 more)
An action focused plot works more for Jill's experience in Racoon City.
Unbelievably short campaign. (2 more)
Cut corners for both the narrative and Nemesis.
Feels like downloadable content for RE2.
Nemesis of their own making.
RE3 is an enigma. After last years remake for RE2, I think the bar was set very high for RE3 to be on par, if not even better due to the introduction of the ultimate weapon in Nemesis. And although the action is amped up significantly, the horror is still here in buckets. So, this is another Resident Evil classic, revamped from the ground up, a classic for the current generation, right?
No, not in the slightest.
RE3 feels rushed, as if Capcom listened to fans begging for their next slice of nostalgia, and wanted to capitalise on the success of RE2. While RE2 felt like a continuous flow of Leon/Claire's story, RE3 feels like segments, all separated within cutscenes. This is more evident when you keep flitting between Jill and Carlos, both of whom don't have as much charisma or emotional weight as Claire or Leon. The opening is a blast of adrenaline and bullets, all contained within the beautifully burning remains of Racoon City. There is just enough exploration, puzzles and zombies to keep you satisfied. That is until Nemesis enters the game. As soon as the indestructible behemoth appears for a second time, the cat and mouse chase begins. Reminiscent of Mr X but on steroids, he simply never lets up, constantly on your back, looking to kill Jill whatever it takes. It's utterly relentless, thrilling, heart-pounding. This section was everything I expected RE3 to be.
Then everything collapsed under sections of nothing more than point and shoot. I know, this is RE, but the fear feels drained from the experience. Nemesis himself becomes a background character, simply added to the story just for boss battles. His pursuit of Jill doesn't feel spontaneous, but scripted, exactly the opposite of Mr X. The realisation of how disappointed I felt towards RE3 was when I discovered sections of the game were simply reused from RE2. The creativity that went into RE2 was so meticulous, crafted and positioned for the players experience. When I entered the Police Station with Carlos, a mass onslaught of zombies gathered in one section, only meant for me to rain bullets upon them. And this is the issue with the entire experience. Its nothing more than a five hour storm of sections of shooting monsters.
I do hate this game though. RE3 is fun, and anything remotely like last years experience I will play and enjoy. The story of Jill's residency in Racoon City being turned upside down over the space of a few days is excellent, and the new sections are all well fleshed out and great to explore, especially Racoon City and the Hospital. Its extremely short, and for a full retail price I think its absolutely scandalous, but there's so much replay value here.
If I had to end the review here, I want to end it on a message solely centred at Capcom. Why, in the name of God did you focus your time on the multiplayer mode, Resistance, rather than properly making RE3 a full experience? The past tells you Resident Evil doesn't work well mixed with multiplayer. For as much fun I had within my four hours and thirty two minute playthrough, this game is nothing more than DLC for RE2. And that hurts.
No, not in the slightest.
RE3 feels rushed, as if Capcom listened to fans begging for their next slice of nostalgia, and wanted to capitalise on the success of RE2. While RE2 felt like a continuous flow of Leon/Claire's story, RE3 feels like segments, all separated within cutscenes. This is more evident when you keep flitting between Jill and Carlos, both of whom don't have as much charisma or emotional weight as Claire or Leon. The opening is a blast of adrenaline and bullets, all contained within the beautifully burning remains of Racoon City. There is just enough exploration, puzzles and zombies to keep you satisfied. That is until Nemesis enters the game. As soon as the indestructible behemoth appears for a second time, the cat and mouse chase begins. Reminiscent of Mr X but on steroids, he simply never lets up, constantly on your back, looking to kill Jill whatever it takes. It's utterly relentless, thrilling, heart-pounding. This section was everything I expected RE3 to be.
Then everything collapsed under sections of nothing more than point and shoot. I know, this is RE, but the fear feels drained from the experience. Nemesis himself becomes a background character, simply added to the story just for boss battles. His pursuit of Jill doesn't feel spontaneous, but scripted, exactly the opposite of Mr X. The realisation of how disappointed I felt towards RE3 was when I discovered sections of the game were simply reused from RE2. The creativity that went into RE2 was so meticulous, crafted and positioned for the players experience. When I entered the Police Station with Carlos, a mass onslaught of zombies gathered in one section, only meant for me to rain bullets upon them. And this is the issue with the entire experience. Its nothing more than a five hour storm of sections of shooting monsters.
I do hate this game though. RE3 is fun, and anything remotely like last years experience I will play and enjoy. The story of Jill's residency in Racoon City being turned upside down over the space of a few days is excellent, and the new sections are all well fleshed out and great to explore, especially Racoon City and the Hospital. Its extremely short, and for a full retail price I think its absolutely scandalous, but there's so much replay value here.
If I had to end the review here, I want to end it on a message solely centred at Capcom. Why, in the name of God did you focus your time on the multiplayer mode, Resistance, rather than properly making RE3 a full experience? The past tells you Resident Evil doesn't work well mixed with multiplayer. For as much fun I had within my four hours and thirty two minute playthrough, this game is nothing more than DLC for RE2. And that hurts.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Pete’s Dragon is a staple of my childhood. It was one of the three movies I would always choose to watch. So, naturally, I was a little worried when I heard about the new movie earlier this year. The teaser trailer didn’t give much to go by, but it looked promising. I trying something new this year where I do not watch anything beyond the teaser trailer (believe me, it’s killing me not to watch the new Rogue One trailer), so that’s all I had going into this. And I was pleasantly surprised.
39 years after the original, David Lowery brings us the re-invention of Pete’s Dragon. His aim was not to remake the original film, but to reinvent it. And that he did. PD opens up with a family traveling through a forest on a road trip. The young boy, Pete (Levi Alexander) is reading from a book about a lost puppy name Elliot. A tragic accident occurs, which leaves Pete by himself in the forest. As he starts to wander, a pack of wolves begins to close in on him, only to be thwarted by… you guessed it. A dragon.
Flash forward 6 years, and we now see an older Pete (Oakes Fegley) running around through the forest with Elliot, the dragon who he bonded with over the years. Pete happens upon a forest ranger, Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) as she is scouting the forest, unmarking trees that were marked for cut down. She’s not a rebel, just protecting the habitat of an owl. Turns out her fiancé, Jack (Wes Bentley), and his brother, Gavin (Karl Urban), run the company that is tearing down the forest. One day, they happen upon Pete and bring him home, but Pete misses Elliot, and Elliot misses Pete. In an effort to get back to him, Elliot is discovered by Gavin who wants to hunt down Pete and bring him in. Grace seeks assistance from her father, Meachum (Robert Redford), who was always thought of as a crazy old man with his wild story of a dragon he met so many years ago. Can they help save Elliot from Gavin and his men?
While a little darker than the original, I found that I enjoyed this movie quite a lot. There are some plot holes to consider, and a little unbelievable on how fast the story develops in time passed in the universe set up here, but you have to understand that this movie is geared toward children. And I think they did well in creating an entertaining film for children and nostalgic adults alike. In fact, this screening was the quietest family screening I have ever attended. There were plenty of kids in the audience, but they were captivated.
Keeping in mind that this is truly a children’s movie, my biggest gripe was the absence of my favorite scene from the original (scorched apples, anyone?). But all in all, it is definitely something to get out to theaters to see. Lowery had indicated that he chose the appearance for Elliot as he did because he wanted to portray a dragon you could hug. Success, Mr. Lowery. Success. Pete’s Dragon is good fun for the whole family, so what are you waiting for? Go see it, already.
39 years after the original, David Lowery brings us the re-invention of Pete’s Dragon. His aim was not to remake the original film, but to reinvent it. And that he did. PD opens up with a family traveling through a forest on a road trip. The young boy, Pete (Levi Alexander) is reading from a book about a lost puppy name Elliot. A tragic accident occurs, which leaves Pete by himself in the forest. As he starts to wander, a pack of wolves begins to close in on him, only to be thwarted by… you guessed it. A dragon.
Flash forward 6 years, and we now see an older Pete (Oakes Fegley) running around through the forest with Elliot, the dragon who he bonded with over the years. Pete happens upon a forest ranger, Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) as she is scouting the forest, unmarking trees that were marked for cut down. She’s not a rebel, just protecting the habitat of an owl. Turns out her fiancé, Jack (Wes Bentley), and his brother, Gavin (Karl Urban), run the company that is tearing down the forest. One day, they happen upon Pete and bring him home, but Pete misses Elliot, and Elliot misses Pete. In an effort to get back to him, Elliot is discovered by Gavin who wants to hunt down Pete and bring him in. Grace seeks assistance from her father, Meachum (Robert Redford), who was always thought of as a crazy old man with his wild story of a dragon he met so many years ago. Can they help save Elliot from Gavin and his men?
While a little darker than the original, I found that I enjoyed this movie quite a lot. There are some plot holes to consider, and a little unbelievable on how fast the story develops in time passed in the universe set up here, but you have to understand that this movie is geared toward children. And I think they did well in creating an entertaining film for children and nostalgic adults alike. In fact, this screening was the quietest family screening I have ever attended. There were plenty of kids in the audience, but they were captivated.
Keeping in mind that this is truly a children’s movie, my biggest gripe was the absence of my favorite scene from the original (scorched apples, anyone?). But all in all, it is definitely something to get out to theaters to see. Lowery had indicated that he chose the appearance for Elliot as he did because he wanted to portray a dragon you could hug. Success, Mr. Lowery. Success. Pete’s Dragon is good fun for the whole family, so what are you waiting for? Go see it, already.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Departed (2006) in Movies
Feb 20, 2021
The best gangster flick made to date
Film #15 on the 100 Movies List: The Departed
The Departed is Martin Scorcese’s Oscar winning Irish gangster film released in 2006, a remake of the 2002 Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs, and loosely based around the real life Boston Hill Gang led by Whitey Bulger. It’s a film I remember watching when it was first released when I was at university, and I was blown away. It centres around Irish gang boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) and his relationships with police detective mole Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) and undercover state trooper Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio), as the latter two attempt to uncover each other’s identities.
Colin Sullivan was introduced to Costello as a young boy, groomed into joining the Massachusetts State Police and soon rises to the ranks of detective in the Special Investigation Unit, led by Captain Ellerby (Alec Baldwin)and responsible for bringing down Costello and his gang. Conversely Billy Costigan suffered a troubled youth with numerous members of his family involved in Costello’s gang. He trains as a state trooper and due to his family’s criminal ties, is turned into an undercover agent by Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Staff Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg), his role to infiltrate Costello’s gang. Soon suspicions are raised and the net begins to close in on everyone involved, with dire consequences.
Personally, I think this is one of the best gangster films I’ve ever seen, if not the best. It’s everything you’d expect and more from a film in this genre, and I’m not sure anyone other than Scorcese could pull off a crime thriller that manages to feature such prominent Celtic music with such flair. It has a whip smart, often funny script that features some cracking one liners and quips, especially from Mark Wahlberg’s Dignam. Yes it is a little crude and some of the dialogue could be considered as offensive by some, but to me this just makes it more realistic as you can’t exactly expect gangsters and police to talk politely. Of course the script is brought to life by a truly phenomenal cast, and arguably one of the best ensembles in a gangster film in terms of talent. Leonardo DiCaprio is no longer the fresh faced youngster he was in the days of Titanic, although he puts in a terrific performance as Billy. This is also one of the few films I’ve seen of Matt Damon’s where he doesn’t play a nice guy, and he really fits this surprisingly well. But it’s Nicholson who steals the show as Costello and he definitely gets the biggest share of the witty script, bringing some light humour to an otherwise menacing criminal figure. You can’t keep your eyes off him whenever he’s on screen, and I don’t believe anyone else could pull this off without seeming like an over the top caricature.
However it isn’t perfect. The relationship between police psychiatrist Madolyn Madden (Vera Farmiga) and both Sullivan and Costigan is a little unnecessary and not important to the main plot, but fortunately the performances from all involved mean this isn’t a major issue. And again, the film is rather long but fortunately the tense scenes and great acting, alongside a few well placed action scenes, mean it never feels too drawn out.
This is a shining example of how to do a gangster film, and one I’d wholeheartedly recommend. It’s an intelligent, performance driven masterpiece and entirely deserving of it’s Best Picture Academy Award win.
The Departed is Martin Scorcese’s Oscar winning Irish gangster film released in 2006, a remake of the 2002 Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs, and loosely based around the real life Boston Hill Gang led by Whitey Bulger. It’s a film I remember watching when it was first released when I was at university, and I was blown away. It centres around Irish gang boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) and his relationships with police detective mole Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) and undercover state trooper Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio), as the latter two attempt to uncover each other’s identities.
Colin Sullivan was introduced to Costello as a young boy, groomed into joining the Massachusetts State Police and soon rises to the ranks of detective in the Special Investigation Unit, led by Captain Ellerby (Alec Baldwin)and responsible for bringing down Costello and his gang. Conversely Billy Costigan suffered a troubled youth with numerous members of his family involved in Costello’s gang. He trains as a state trooper and due to his family’s criminal ties, is turned into an undercover agent by Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Staff Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg), his role to infiltrate Costello’s gang. Soon suspicions are raised and the net begins to close in on everyone involved, with dire consequences.
Personally, I think this is one of the best gangster films I’ve ever seen, if not the best. It’s everything you’d expect and more from a film in this genre, and I’m not sure anyone other than Scorcese could pull off a crime thriller that manages to feature such prominent Celtic music with such flair. It has a whip smart, often funny script that features some cracking one liners and quips, especially from Mark Wahlberg’s Dignam. Yes it is a little crude and some of the dialogue could be considered as offensive by some, but to me this just makes it more realistic as you can’t exactly expect gangsters and police to talk politely. Of course the script is brought to life by a truly phenomenal cast, and arguably one of the best ensembles in a gangster film in terms of talent. Leonardo DiCaprio is no longer the fresh faced youngster he was in the days of Titanic, although he puts in a terrific performance as Billy. This is also one of the few films I’ve seen of Matt Damon’s where he doesn’t play a nice guy, and he really fits this surprisingly well. But it’s Nicholson who steals the show as Costello and he definitely gets the biggest share of the witty script, bringing some light humour to an otherwise menacing criminal figure. You can’t keep your eyes off him whenever he’s on screen, and I don’t believe anyone else could pull this off without seeming like an over the top caricature.
However it isn’t perfect. The relationship between police psychiatrist Madolyn Madden (Vera Farmiga) and both Sullivan and Costigan is a little unnecessary and not important to the main plot, but fortunately the performances from all involved mean this isn’t a major issue. And again, the film is rather long but fortunately the tense scenes and great acting, alongside a few well placed action scenes, mean it never feels too drawn out.
This is a shining example of how to do a gangster film, and one I’d wholeheartedly recommend. It’s an intelligent, performance driven masterpiece and entirely deserving of it’s Best Picture Academy Award win.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 13, 2021
Fights to find the right tone - but succeeds more than it fails
The new Disney live action film CRUELLA (telling the origin story of one of the most well known villains in Disney animation history) is one of those strange films that is trying to walk a thin line between “G” rated “kid” entertainment and an “R” rated film intended for a more “mature” audience.
An that, ultimately, is the issue with this film, it bounces around tonally - sometimes bumping up against the “G” rating and often times landing closer to the “R”, so that, in the end, it will not be a totally satisfying experience for either the “G” or the “R” crowd.
Emma Stone takes on the title role of CRUELLA and in this film you watch her become the Cruella DeVille that you see in the Disney Animated Film (and the Glenn Close live action remake). Stone is very good in this role - almost a perfect fit. However, it looks to me that she is having a much better time playing the evil “R” rated version of Cruella rather then the comic-bookish “G” rated version, so her performance is, at times, brilliant and at other times, not as brillaint.
Emma Thompson steals just about every scene she is in as Cruella’s nemesis “The Baroness”. It’s good to see this terrific actress getting a role that she can really sink her teeth in. I hope this leads to other, strong important roles for this actress “of a certain age”.
The supporting players are strong…or should I say…Mark Strong (hehehehe). He brings his usual gravitas to the role of The Baroness’ right-hand man. But the players who impressed me the most were Joel Fry (YESTERDAY) and Paul Walter Hauser (RICHARD JEWELL) as Cruella’s 2 best friends/henchmen. They both were able to flesh out these characters (who are usually portrayed as bumbling buffoons) and both were able to find the line between “G” and “R” very well - and stay on it the entire film.
Director Craig Gillespie (I, TONYA) finds the correct tone for this film more often than not, but it is in the “not” portion of this that he fails this movie. The shifts in tone (often on a dime) are often jarring and the blame for this would have to be put right at the Director’s feet, though the look of this film (sort of a 1960’s Austin Powers meets SteamPunk look) succeeds VERY well and is as much a character in this film as the performers.
One final thing, the soundtrack used in CRUELLA is an interesting touch. Gillespie and Composer Nicholas Britell eschews (for the most part) a conventional score and highlights most of the scenes with a Pop song - though here Gillespie whips us around tonally as well. For, since the film is set in 1960’s London, a good many of the tunes used are ‘60 (and early ‘70’s) rock hits. But….every now and then…he will drop in a ‘80’s number.
But…as I sit and write this review, I am finding myself falling more and more on the side of “I Liked It”, so…set aside the tonal shifts…and you will be entertained by CRUELLA much more than you would expect.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
An that, ultimately, is the issue with this film, it bounces around tonally - sometimes bumping up against the “G” rating and often times landing closer to the “R”, so that, in the end, it will not be a totally satisfying experience for either the “G” or the “R” crowd.
Emma Stone takes on the title role of CRUELLA and in this film you watch her become the Cruella DeVille that you see in the Disney Animated Film (and the Glenn Close live action remake). Stone is very good in this role - almost a perfect fit. However, it looks to me that she is having a much better time playing the evil “R” rated version of Cruella rather then the comic-bookish “G” rated version, so her performance is, at times, brilliant and at other times, not as brillaint.
Emma Thompson steals just about every scene she is in as Cruella’s nemesis “The Baroness”. It’s good to see this terrific actress getting a role that she can really sink her teeth in. I hope this leads to other, strong important roles for this actress “of a certain age”.
The supporting players are strong…or should I say…Mark Strong (hehehehe). He brings his usual gravitas to the role of The Baroness’ right-hand man. But the players who impressed me the most were Joel Fry (YESTERDAY) and Paul Walter Hauser (RICHARD JEWELL) as Cruella’s 2 best friends/henchmen. They both were able to flesh out these characters (who are usually portrayed as bumbling buffoons) and both were able to find the line between “G” and “R” very well - and stay on it the entire film.
Director Craig Gillespie (I, TONYA) finds the correct tone for this film more often than not, but it is in the “not” portion of this that he fails this movie. The shifts in tone (often on a dime) are often jarring and the blame for this would have to be put right at the Director’s feet, though the look of this film (sort of a 1960’s Austin Powers meets SteamPunk look) succeeds VERY well and is as much a character in this film as the performers.
One final thing, the soundtrack used in CRUELLA is an interesting touch. Gillespie and Composer Nicholas Britell eschews (for the most part) a conventional score and highlights most of the scenes with a Pop song - though here Gillespie whips us around tonally as well. For, since the film is set in 1960’s London, a good many of the tunes used are ‘60 (and early ‘70’s) rock hits. But….every now and then…he will drop in a ‘80’s number.
But…as I sit and write this review, I am finding myself falling more and more on the side of “I Liked It”, so…set aside the tonal shifts…and you will be entertained by CRUELLA much more than you would expect.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Naked Lunch (1991) in Movies
Sep 28, 2019
Exterminate all rational thought.
The closing line from Roger Ebert's TV review of Naked Lunch was "I love what he did, but I hate it!"
Director David Cronenberg has always been known as someone who pushes the envelope of film storytelling to its limit. This is not more on display in maybe any of his films more than it is in Naked Lunch.
In 1952 New York, pest exterminator Bill Lee has an problem in his life. His wife, Joan, has begun using and is now addicted to his "bug powder" he uses in his job. She shoots it into her veins for her narcotics addiction. She is so full of the intoxicant she can even breath on cockroaches to kill them . Bill is arrested for his involvement and begins to trip himself.
His high continues as he now believes he is a secret agent who has been told he must murder his wife. He returns home and actually accidentally does so in a case of ironic accomplishment.
His trip takes him to North Africa where he meets a slew of bizarre and unsavory characters in his attempt to complete his ongoing "mission". He writes a series of articles using a typewriter which continually morphs into a giant cockroach. He finds another man who lets him borrow his typewriter in which his living typewriter is maimed and killed by Bill's device. Another man Bill meets may actually be a giant killer centipede in disguise!
If this doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't think it is really supposed to. Cronenberg's film, according to the writer/director himself, is an amalgam of not only the source material novel by William S. Burroughs, but also other works by the author and even some aspects of Burroughs' own life including the wife shooting incident.
Pretty much right from the start you know you are in for something very unusual when Lee starts having a conversation with his bug typewriter 15 minutes into the film. Then add another conversation with a giant "mugwump" sitting at a bar, a bug that bizarrely speaks in a voice from his bulbous anus and the fore mentioned giant centipede, you have a film in which you never are fully aware of what is real or what has become a drug-filled fantasy.
Cronenberg's fascination with the "body horror" style of film goes way back to some of his earlier films including The Brood and Scanners as well as They Fly remake. All his skill at creating one of a kind images are on full display here and you can't take your eyes off the screen as a result.
The entire cast really inhabit their roles including Peter Weller (who turned down Robocop 3 for this role) as Lee. His monotone, stoic delivery and minimalist physicality is perfect for this role. Throw in supporting performances by Ian Holm, Judy Davis and even Roy Scheider and you have found a perfect ensemble for this strange acid trip of a film.
The jazz soundtrack is also legendary including saxophone maestro Ornette Coleman off a score from Howard Shore. The improvisation and inconsistent melodies are a partnership with the unusual story taking place and form a symbiosis with the film.
You definitely leave the film wondering what you have just watched; however, sometimes that s a good thing. The director makes you think about what you have watched and decide for yourself the important elements what what is actually true.
I wish more films were like this!
Director David Cronenberg has always been known as someone who pushes the envelope of film storytelling to its limit. This is not more on display in maybe any of his films more than it is in Naked Lunch.
In 1952 New York, pest exterminator Bill Lee has an problem in his life. His wife, Joan, has begun using and is now addicted to his "bug powder" he uses in his job. She shoots it into her veins for her narcotics addiction. She is so full of the intoxicant she can even breath on cockroaches to kill them . Bill is arrested for his involvement and begins to trip himself.
His high continues as he now believes he is a secret agent who has been told he must murder his wife. He returns home and actually accidentally does so in a case of ironic accomplishment.
His trip takes him to North Africa where he meets a slew of bizarre and unsavory characters in his attempt to complete his ongoing "mission". He writes a series of articles using a typewriter which continually morphs into a giant cockroach. He finds another man who lets him borrow his typewriter in which his living typewriter is maimed and killed by Bill's device. Another man Bill meets may actually be a giant killer centipede in disguise!
If this doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't think it is really supposed to. Cronenberg's film, according to the writer/director himself, is an amalgam of not only the source material novel by William S. Burroughs, but also other works by the author and even some aspects of Burroughs' own life including the wife shooting incident.
Pretty much right from the start you know you are in for something very unusual when Lee starts having a conversation with his bug typewriter 15 minutes into the film. Then add another conversation with a giant "mugwump" sitting at a bar, a bug that bizarrely speaks in a voice from his bulbous anus and the fore mentioned giant centipede, you have a film in which you never are fully aware of what is real or what has become a drug-filled fantasy.
Cronenberg's fascination with the "body horror" style of film goes way back to some of his earlier films including The Brood and Scanners as well as They Fly remake. All his skill at creating one of a kind images are on full display here and you can't take your eyes off the screen as a result.
The entire cast really inhabit their roles including Peter Weller (who turned down Robocop 3 for this role) as Lee. His monotone, stoic delivery and minimalist physicality is perfect for this role. Throw in supporting performances by Ian Holm, Judy Davis and even Roy Scheider and you have found a perfect ensemble for this strange acid trip of a film.
The jazz soundtrack is also legendary including saxophone maestro Ornette Coleman off a score from Howard Shore. The improvisation and inconsistent melodies are a partnership with the unusual story taking place and form a symbiosis with the film.
You definitely leave the film wondering what you have just watched; however, sometimes that s a good thing. The director makes you think about what you have watched and decide for yourself the important elements what what is actually true.
I wish more films were like this!
Darren (1599 KP) rated Rabid (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – Rose is the quiet assistant to a fashion designer, she has her own ideas that she does want to see made, the girls come to her to get small adjustments, but the designer treats her like a carpet. She isn’t seen in the same light as the models and often keeps to herself. She gets involved in an accident which first sees her horribly disfigured and secondly lose her job, desperate to fix this, she turns to an experimental procedure which fixes everything, giving her a new lease for life and a taste for blood. Brad is one of the co-workers that does try to help Rose come out of her shell by inviting her to the party before the accident. Chelsea is the foster sister to Rose that has been working with her too, she is the one that opens up her home after the accident, helping her get back on her feet, supporting her through the treatment, not looking away like most the others in her life would.
Performances – Laura Vandervoort does give us a strong performance throughout, being able to balance the losing her mind and determined personality. Hanneke Talbot is strong too and the supportive friend, that does get to show the pushy personality her character has around Rose. Benjamin Hollingsworth does show us a strong friend or potential love interest in the film, while big names like Stephen McHattie and C.M. Punk make entertaining supporting appearance.
Story – The story here follows a young lady that sees her life turned upside down after an accident leaves her disfigured, only for an experiment procedure bringing out a new version of herself and an unwanted side effect along the way. This is a remake and one story that can remain similar is places, while bringing the social side of the film to new heights, the fashion world does make a wonderful backdrop for the story because it reflects the world that image needs to be fix with surgery. There are certain ways the story does feel weaker, that is mostly seeing how everything is spreading, which is important, but it doesn’t follow Rose, which is the important side of the story.
Horror/Sci-Fi – The horror side of the film comes from the real world situation that Rose goes through, with the accident before hitting the graphic violence of what is happening to Rose, which is also the sci-fi side of the film, the changes Rose goes through.
Settings – The film uses the fashion world as the main settings backdrop, it shows us just how important image is to Rose and the people close to her.
Special Effects – The complete highlight of this film comes from the practical effects, which look as graphic as they can, the injury suffered by Rose is one of the worst wounds you will see in this year’s horror films. We should give a shout out to the team (According to IMDB) Graham Chivers, Jeff Derushie, Anahita Loghmanifar, Emily O’Quinn and Omar Roessler
Scene of the Movie – The first reveal from the injury.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We do move away from Rose, as the bigger problems spread around the city, we could have been given more fear from not seeing this, only hearing about it.
Final Thoughts – This is a practical effects masterclass in horror, it will use some of the best you will see this year even if the story is a modernised look at a cult classic.
Overall: Bloody graphic horror.
Performances – Laura Vandervoort does give us a strong performance throughout, being able to balance the losing her mind and determined personality. Hanneke Talbot is strong too and the supportive friend, that does get to show the pushy personality her character has around Rose. Benjamin Hollingsworth does show us a strong friend or potential love interest in the film, while big names like Stephen McHattie and C.M. Punk make entertaining supporting appearance.
Story – The story here follows a young lady that sees her life turned upside down after an accident leaves her disfigured, only for an experiment procedure bringing out a new version of herself and an unwanted side effect along the way. This is a remake and one story that can remain similar is places, while bringing the social side of the film to new heights, the fashion world does make a wonderful backdrop for the story because it reflects the world that image needs to be fix with surgery. There are certain ways the story does feel weaker, that is mostly seeing how everything is spreading, which is important, but it doesn’t follow Rose, which is the important side of the story.
Horror/Sci-Fi – The horror side of the film comes from the real world situation that Rose goes through, with the accident before hitting the graphic violence of what is happening to Rose, which is also the sci-fi side of the film, the changes Rose goes through.
Settings – The film uses the fashion world as the main settings backdrop, it shows us just how important image is to Rose and the people close to her.
Special Effects – The complete highlight of this film comes from the practical effects, which look as graphic as they can, the injury suffered by Rose is one of the worst wounds you will see in this year’s horror films. We should give a shout out to the team (According to IMDB) Graham Chivers, Jeff Derushie, Anahita Loghmanifar, Emily O’Quinn and Omar Roessler
Scene of the Movie – The first reveal from the injury.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We do move away from Rose, as the bigger problems spread around the city, we could have been given more fear from not seeing this, only hearing about it.
Final Thoughts – This is a practical effects masterclass in horror, it will use some of the best you will see this year even if the story is a modernised look at a cult classic.
Overall: Bloody graphic horror.
Fred (860 KP) rated Scoob (2020) in Movies
May 16, 2020
Enjoyable enough
The movie was enjoyable enough & I would probably watch it again, just to try to catch the little Hanna-Barbera references throughout it. The movie starts with the meeting of the gang & then, using a very cool remake of the original theme song sequence, moves ahead to when the gang are already seasoned "monster" hunters. But although I did enjoy it, it had a lot of problems.
Most notably, the voice acting. For some reason, instead of sticking with the current actors who do the character's voices, they decided to replace them with more well known actors. Problem is, most of them sound nothing like the characters, it kind of throws everything off. Will Forte may be the exception as his Shaggy is close enough & of course we do have Scooby's current voice, Frank Welker as Scooby. But then, this is where it gets silly. You have Frank Welker, the original voice of Fred in your movie, but you decide not to use him as Fred. WTF? Really? So you got Fred, Velma & Daphnie played by actors that sound nothing like the characters. Quick mention too about the voices of the main characters when they were kids. Terrible & annoying (quick enough?). The movie also features Blue Falcon & Dyno-Mutt. Since this is not supposed to be the original Blue Falcon, his voice change is acceptable. However, Ken Jeong is just a weird choice for Dyno-Mutt. The character has no personality & is nothing like the character should be. And to be honest, I didn't like the role reversal of Falcon being a coward & Dyno-Mutt not being a screw-up. The main villain of the film, Dick Dastardly, is voiced well, but just like the others, sounds nothing like the original voices, so it throws it off. In fact, if they had not said his name was Dick Dastardly, I would have no idea it was supposed to be Dick Dastardly.
So now, let's talk about Dick Dastardly. In the cartoons, it was either just he & his dog Muttley being the bad guys or he had a few others try to help him. But in this film, they instead have him with a whole slew of robot minions, who I guess were supposed to be like the Minions of Despicable Me, but these guys have no personality at all & the character & the film suffer because of this.
There is also another character in the film. She's Blue Falcon's.....something. Sidekick? Helper? I don't remember her name, nor do I care. She is utterly forgettable & useless. But she's the only person of color I can think of in the movie, so I guess that's why she's there. That's fine, but I wish she had a more prominent role, rather than just be there to fill a gap.
So, why did I like the movie then? Well, it's fun & there were many times I laughed out loud. there were jokes that kid's would definitely not get, that I did. The animation is top-notch & beautiful to watch. There is also a lot of nostalgia factor, whether you're a fan of Scooby or of the dozens of other Hanna-Barbera cartoons of the 70s. The story works well enough, for a Scooby Doo movie& the pacing is nice. There are no points where the movie gets slow or boring. Like I said, I'd probably watch it again & that's good enough.
Most notably, the voice acting. For some reason, instead of sticking with the current actors who do the character's voices, they decided to replace them with more well known actors. Problem is, most of them sound nothing like the characters, it kind of throws everything off. Will Forte may be the exception as his Shaggy is close enough & of course we do have Scooby's current voice, Frank Welker as Scooby. But then, this is where it gets silly. You have Frank Welker, the original voice of Fred in your movie, but you decide not to use him as Fred. WTF? Really? So you got Fred, Velma & Daphnie played by actors that sound nothing like the characters. Quick mention too about the voices of the main characters when they were kids. Terrible & annoying (quick enough?). The movie also features Blue Falcon & Dyno-Mutt. Since this is not supposed to be the original Blue Falcon, his voice change is acceptable. However, Ken Jeong is just a weird choice for Dyno-Mutt. The character has no personality & is nothing like the character should be. And to be honest, I didn't like the role reversal of Falcon being a coward & Dyno-Mutt not being a screw-up. The main villain of the film, Dick Dastardly, is voiced well, but just like the others, sounds nothing like the original voices, so it throws it off. In fact, if they had not said his name was Dick Dastardly, I would have no idea it was supposed to be Dick Dastardly.
So now, let's talk about Dick Dastardly. In the cartoons, it was either just he & his dog Muttley being the bad guys or he had a few others try to help him. But in this film, they instead have him with a whole slew of robot minions, who I guess were supposed to be like the Minions of Despicable Me, but these guys have no personality at all & the character & the film suffer because of this.
There is also another character in the film. She's Blue Falcon's.....something. Sidekick? Helper? I don't remember her name, nor do I care. She is utterly forgettable & useless. But she's the only person of color I can think of in the movie, so I guess that's why she's there. That's fine, but I wish she had a more prominent role, rather than just be there to fill a gap.
So, why did I like the movie then? Well, it's fun & there were many times I laughed out loud. there were jokes that kid's would definitely not get, that I did. The animation is top-notch & beautiful to watch. There is also a lot of nostalgia factor, whether you're a fan of Scooby or of the dozens of other Hanna-Barbera cartoons of the 70s. The story works well enough, for a Scooby Doo movie& the pacing is nice. There are no points where the movie gets slow or boring. Like I said, I'd probably watch it again & that's good enough.
FINAL FANTASY VI
Games and Entertainment
App
==== We have received a report that the in-game language switches to English when the device is set...
Lee (2222 KP) Jan 5, 2020
Kevin Phillipson (10072 KP) Jan 5, 2020