Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Finding your feet (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Foot tapping and Tear Jerking.
There are some films whose trailers really don’t properly represent their contents. The trailer for the new ‘grey-pound’ film “Finding Your Feet” promised a light hearted and witty foray into an elderly dance-club. And, yes, you get some laughs. But it’s very much a bitter sweet comedy, and the bitterness is ladled on by the bucketload leading to more tears than smiles through the majority of the running time.
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Nov 11, 2018
Strong performances eleveates this "Art House" film.
With not a whole lot of interest filling out the screens at the multi-plexes at this time, I thought I'd head to the "Art House" to check out Melissa McCarthy in CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME? This film is garnering strong Oscar buzz for McCarthy's performance and I figured I'd see for myself.
And...darn it all...after a slow start, it does turn into an Oscar worthy performance, after all.
Telling the true tale of writer Lee Israel (based on her memoir), CYEFM tells the story of Israel's descent into criminal behavior to make ends meet by forging literary documents from the past and selling them as the real deal.
Starring as Israel, McCarthy drops all the artifice and bluster that she usually brings to her comedic characters to bring us a "non-people" person (Israel's own words) who is down on her luck. I was a bit skeptical of this performance in the first half of the film for I thought she had fallen victim to the "comedian trying their hands at a serious role" syndrome, being WAY too serious and glum, without a hint of humor. But, in the 2nd half of the film, McCarthy really finds this character and we begin to see a fully formed 3 dimensional person emerging on the screen - warts and all. And, when Israel/McCarthy gives the speech that will be shown at her Oscar nomination, she shows that she is fully deserving of any accolades that might come her way. It is a strong, humanistic portrayal of a person trying to figure it out - and learning that the shortcut probably isn't the best way to go.
Aiding her in her journey - and in this film - is Richard E. Grant as Jack Hock, another lost soul trying to make it in this world while having a good time doing it. Grant has the "showier" of the 2 roles and he revels in his moments. I would be fine with Grant being nominated as well - it is that strong of a performance and balances McCarthy's character wonderfully.
I did have a problem with the first 1/2 of this film, mainly for I disliked the 2 main characters being portrayed, they are certainly NOT 2 people to root for and I felt the film was only showing 1 dimensional stereotypes, but once McCarthy and Grant devise the forgery scheme, the film - and the performances - get very interesting, and multi-layered, indeed.
Keep in mind that this is an "Art House" film, by that I mean "talky". There isn't a whole lot of action and a TON of atmosphere and dialogue, not the type of film for everyone, but for those of you who like this sort of thing, you'll be rewarded by strong performances that lifts this film to a higher level.
Letter Grade: B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...darn it all...after a slow start, it does turn into an Oscar worthy performance, after all.
Telling the true tale of writer Lee Israel (based on her memoir), CYEFM tells the story of Israel's descent into criminal behavior to make ends meet by forging literary documents from the past and selling them as the real deal.
Starring as Israel, McCarthy drops all the artifice and bluster that she usually brings to her comedic characters to bring us a "non-people" person (Israel's own words) who is down on her luck. I was a bit skeptical of this performance in the first half of the film for I thought she had fallen victim to the "comedian trying their hands at a serious role" syndrome, being WAY too serious and glum, without a hint of humor. But, in the 2nd half of the film, McCarthy really finds this character and we begin to see a fully formed 3 dimensional person emerging on the screen - warts and all. And, when Israel/McCarthy gives the speech that will be shown at her Oscar nomination, she shows that she is fully deserving of any accolades that might come her way. It is a strong, humanistic portrayal of a person trying to figure it out - and learning that the shortcut probably isn't the best way to go.
Aiding her in her journey - and in this film - is Richard E. Grant as Jack Hock, another lost soul trying to make it in this world while having a good time doing it. Grant has the "showier" of the 2 roles and he revels in his moments. I would be fine with Grant being nominated as well - it is that strong of a performance and balances McCarthy's character wonderfully.
I did have a problem with the first 1/2 of this film, mainly for I disliked the 2 main characters being portrayed, they are certainly NOT 2 people to root for and I felt the film was only showing 1 dimensional stereotypes, but once McCarthy and Grant devise the forgery scheme, the film - and the performances - get very interesting, and multi-layered, indeed.
Keep in mind that this is an "Art House" film, by that I mean "talky". There isn't a whole lot of action and a TON of atmosphere and dialogue, not the type of film for everyone, but for those of you who like this sort of thing, you'll be rewarded by strong performances that lifts this film to a higher level.
Letter Grade: B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Shape of Water (2017) in Movies
Mar 14, 2018
Beautiful, quirky love story
THE SHAPE OF WATER is the most romantic, beautiful, charming, weird and wonderful love story that I have seen in a long, long time.
The fact that the love story is between a mute woman and the Creature from the Black Lagoon makes it just that much more interesting.
From the fertile mind of Guillermo Del Toro (THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE, PAN'S LABYRINTH), TSOW answers a question that a young Del Toro had when he first saw the 1950's creature feature CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON. He thought, "what if the creature ended up with the girl?" In Del Toro's mind, the Creature was the leading man, not the generic hunk that was hunting him.
Wonderfully realized by Del Toro, TSOW tells the tale of mute cleaning woman, Eliza (Sally Hawkins) who works at a "secret Government agency" in Baltimore. When she is asked to mop blood up in a highly classified area, she soon realizes that a "creature" is being held there. It is her realization that this creature is not just "some creature", but an intelligent being that starts this lonely, mute woman and the "creature" on the road to a loving relationship.
Hawkins is mesmerizing as Eliza. Obviously, with her character being mute, she must express herself in other ways - and she does. Her eyes are truly the window to her soul and Hawkins' ability to "eye act" is astounding, she conveys more feeling with a look and a glance than most actors can with a mountain of work.
She is strongly aided by some really good co-stars - Richard Jenkins is marvelous (as always) as Eliza's neighbor/friend who, himself, has a handicap - he is a gay man in the 1950's. The strength of Jenkins' performance is that he is able to overcome the trap of "the sympathetic gay best friend" and bring to the screen a complete character. Michael Stuhlbarg is watchable (as always) as the main scientist that studies the creature. Here is an actor that has grown in my eyes and he is a "must watch" in anything he is in. Michael Shannon is a presence as the main "heavy" in this film and though his character is pretty one-note, Shannon hits that note strongly and holds our attention. Unfortunately, compared to these 3 (and Hawkins' lead role), Octavia Spencer's talents are not put to the test as Eliza's co-worker. She is capable of so much more and her character is severely underwritten.
But, while strong characters are a must in a successful film, it is Del Toro's direction and "sense of place" that embue this fable with the character and detail it needs. Set in a 1950's that is a bit more idealistic/stylized than is real, Del Toro steers us through a world that is fascinating to watch - and be in - and makes it seem almost plausible that such a creature could exist and that a woman could fall in love with him.
Much like how I fell in love with this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The fact that the love story is between a mute woman and the Creature from the Black Lagoon makes it just that much more interesting.
From the fertile mind of Guillermo Del Toro (THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE, PAN'S LABYRINTH), TSOW answers a question that a young Del Toro had when he first saw the 1950's creature feature CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON. He thought, "what if the creature ended up with the girl?" In Del Toro's mind, the Creature was the leading man, not the generic hunk that was hunting him.
Wonderfully realized by Del Toro, TSOW tells the tale of mute cleaning woman, Eliza (Sally Hawkins) who works at a "secret Government agency" in Baltimore. When she is asked to mop blood up in a highly classified area, she soon realizes that a "creature" is being held there. It is her realization that this creature is not just "some creature", but an intelligent being that starts this lonely, mute woman and the "creature" on the road to a loving relationship.
Hawkins is mesmerizing as Eliza. Obviously, with her character being mute, she must express herself in other ways - and she does. Her eyes are truly the window to her soul and Hawkins' ability to "eye act" is astounding, she conveys more feeling with a look and a glance than most actors can with a mountain of work.
She is strongly aided by some really good co-stars - Richard Jenkins is marvelous (as always) as Eliza's neighbor/friend who, himself, has a handicap - he is a gay man in the 1950's. The strength of Jenkins' performance is that he is able to overcome the trap of "the sympathetic gay best friend" and bring to the screen a complete character. Michael Stuhlbarg is watchable (as always) as the main scientist that studies the creature. Here is an actor that has grown in my eyes and he is a "must watch" in anything he is in. Michael Shannon is a presence as the main "heavy" in this film and though his character is pretty one-note, Shannon hits that note strongly and holds our attention. Unfortunately, compared to these 3 (and Hawkins' lead role), Octavia Spencer's talents are not put to the test as Eliza's co-worker. She is capable of so much more and her character is severely underwritten.
But, while strong characters are a must in a successful film, it is Del Toro's direction and "sense of place" that embue this fable with the character and detail it needs. Set in a 1950's that is a bit more idealistic/stylized than is real, Del Toro steers us through a world that is fascinating to watch - and be in - and makes it seem almost plausible that such a creature could exist and that a woman could fall in love with him.
Much like how I fell in love with this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated Fun With Dick and Jane (2005) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Fun with Dick and Jane starts as we meet Dick (Carrey) who is about to get a promotion to vice president of the company he has worked for, for year. The problem comes that this promotion is designed to put the blame on the company’s problems on him instead of the men who really are involved, Jack (Baldwin) and Frank (Jenkins).
Dick loses his job and his wife Jane (Leoni) has quit her job, the two struggle to find new jobs and before long they are facing being evicted, which turns them to a life of crime to save their home.
Thoughts on Fun with Dick and Jane
Characters – Dick has been working for a company for his whole working career, he has been waiting for a chance to get to the next step which he gets only to see himself become the fall guy, making him unemployable in the field. He can’t get a job anywhere and out of pure desperation he turns to a life a crime to support his family. Jane is the wife of Dick who quits her job with his new promotion and can’t get a new job, she believes in Dick and ends up teaming up with Dick to commit crime. Jack and Frank are the CEOs that have taken advantage of Dick to get away clean after their illegal trading.
Performances – Jim Carrey gets to play into the full energy comedy that he is known for here, this isn’t the best he has given, but his fans will enjoy what he does, Tea Leoni does struggle with comedy and it is clear to see because she just doesn’t work with Carrey’s comedy. Alec Baldwin and Richard Jenkins get to enjoy their roles in the film playing into what they could be for these real people.
Story – The story follows a couple that are forced into a life of crime after losing everything when a business they are employed with gets closed down with the CEOs leaving the employees broke. This is a remake which has been bought into the modern era of greedy businessman who have taken advantage of their employees only to be left nothing. The story does seem to be going in fast forward with the crime montage flashing over what is happening. This does have a good outcome for everyone involved, but just doesn’t engage for the audience.
Comedy/Crime – The comedy in the film mostly revolves around Jim Carrey bringing in his routine which is enjoyed by people who are fans of his work, the crime side of the film shows just how CEOs can try and get away with things and how one couple looks to crime to survive.
Settings – The film doesn’t give us any settings which feel overly iconic which the film could have had to make us become more invested in what is happening.
Scene of the Movie – The first robbery.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Crime montage.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the book crime comedy that skips over too much of the interesting material only to leave us feeling like we blinked and missed too much.
Overall: Basic crime comedy.
Dick loses his job and his wife Jane (Leoni) has quit her job, the two struggle to find new jobs and before long they are facing being evicted, which turns them to a life of crime to save their home.
Thoughts on Fun with Dick and Jane
Characters – Dick has been working for a company for his whole working career, he has been waiting for a chance to get to the next step which he gets only to see himself become the fall guy, making him unemployable in the field. He can’t get a job anywhere and out of pure desperation he turns to a life a crime to support his family. Jane is the wife of Dick who quits her job with his new promotion and can’t get a new job, she believes in Dick and ends up teaming up with Dick to commit crime. Jack and Frank are the CEOs that have taken advantage of Dick to get away clean after their illegal trading.
Performances – Jim Carrey gets to play into the full energy comedy that he is known for here, this isn’t the best he has given, but his fans will enjoy what he does, Tea Leoni does struggle with comedy and it is clear to see because she just doesn’t work with Carrey’s comedy. Alec Baldwin and Richard Jenkins get to enjoy their roles in the film playing into what they could be for these real people.
Story – The story follows a couple that are forced into a life of crime after losing everything when a business they are employed with gets closed down with the CEOs leaving the employees broke. This is a remake which has been bought into the modern era of greedy businessman who have taken advantage of their employees only to be left nothing. The story does seem to be going in fast forward with the crime montage flashing over what is happening. This does have a good outcome for everyone involved, but just doesn’t engage for the audience.
Comedy/Crime – The comedy in the film mostly revolves around Jim Carrey bringing in his routine which is enjoyed by people who are fans of his work, the crime side of the film shows just how CEOs can try and get away with things and how one couple looks to crime to survive.
Settings – The film doesn’t give us any settings which feel overly iconic which the film could have had to make us become more invested in what is happening.
Scene of the Movie – The first robbery.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Crime montage.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the book crime comedy that skips over too much of the interesting material only to leave us feeling like we blinked and missed too much.
Overall: Basic crime comedy.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated 4 Minute Mile (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Once again, Skewed & Reviewed has granted me the good fortune to screen another film for
you. An ‘underdog story’ that gives most others a ‘run for their money’ but keeps us, the
viewers’ glued to our seats with it’s drama and intensity. What makes the film more unqiue
is that not only does it take place in the city of Seattle but was also film in the great
city!
‘4 Minute Mile’ premiered at the Seattle International Film Festival on June 5th and is
set for a theatrical release on August 1st. ‘4 Minute Mile’ stars Kelly Blatz, Richard Jenkins,
Analeigh Tipton, Cam Gigandet, Rhys Coiro, and Kim Basinger. Directed by Charles-Oliver
Michaud, ‘4 Minute Mile’ tells the story of Drew (Blatz). An smart teenager from the wrong
side of the tracks doing his best to help his mother (Basinger) while doing everything
possible to avoid the fate of his older brother, an ex-con out on parole who pressures
Drew into running ‘errands’ which are presumably illegal in nature. Drew also happens
to be a fast runner. He runs like hell. The very same day he quits his school’s track team,
a reclusive track coach (Jenkins) scouts him and agrees to train him. The two soon form a
‘Rocky/Mickey’- like bond. However, tragedy soon strikes and Drew finds himself facing
the fear of losing everything hes’ worked and fought for.
I honestly don’t think I can describe how amazing I thoughtnthis movie was. I really can’t
see myself writing anything that would do it justice. It’s like ‘Good Will Hunting’ meets
‘Rocky 1′. This is no major hollywood production. This film is an intense drama with A LOT
of heart in it. These folks obviously believed in the film and it shows in every aspect from
the story, to the acting, and the way it was filmed. Theres’ also ‘realism’ to it. It doesn’t
have a ‘perfect ending’. Drew, the main character, overcomes tragedy after defeat after tragedy
and in the end … he succeeds but at great cost. It’s like with an quest or journey. You’re
not going to succeed without lose. Being from the Pacific Northwest, I also have to give
the film mad props for actually shooting the film in Seattle where the movie takes place
rather than saying it takes place here and then going to shoot it in Canada which has
sadly become ‘standard procedure’ for Hollywood to the dismay of many.
My recommendation? If you like a down-to-earth movie with heart, go see this one.
See it in the theater, see it at home, but go see it. It’s worth seeing and its worth
spending your hard-earned money in my opinion. I personally give the movie 4 out of 5 stars.
The film is PG-13 and it clocks in at about an hour and 36 minutes.
On behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed, this is your fellow movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’
thanks for reading, and i’ll see you folks at the movies ….
you. An ‘underdog story’ that gives most others a ‘run for their money’ but keeps us, the
viewers’ glued to our seats with it’s drama and intensity. What makes the film more unqiue
is that not only does it take place in the city of Seattle but was also film in the great
city!
‘4 Minute Mile’ premiered at the Seattle International Film Festival on June 5th and is
set for a theatrical release on August 1st. ‘4 Minute Mile’ stars Kelly Blatz, Richard Jenkins,
Analeigh Tipton, Cam Gigandet, Rhys Coiro, and Kim Basinger. Directed by Charles-Oliver
Michaud, ‘4 Minute Mile’ tells the story of Drew (Blatz). An smart teenager from the wrong
side of the tracks doing his best to help his mother (Basinger) while doing everything
possible to avoid the fate of his older brother, an ex-con out on parole who pressures
Drew into running ‘errands’ which are presumably illegal in nature. Drew also happens
to be a fast runner. He runs like hell. The very same day he quits his school’s track team,
a reclusive track coach (Jenkins) scouts him and agrees to train him. The two soon form a
‘Rocky/Mickey’- like bond. However, tragedy soon strikes and Drew finds himself facing
the fear of losing everything hes’ worked and fought for.
I honestly don’t think I can describe how amazing I thoughtnthis movie was. I really can’t
see myself writing anything that would do it justice. It’s like ‘Good Will Hunting’ meets
‘Rocky 1′. This is no major hollywood production. This film is an intense drama with A LOT
of heart in it. These folks obviously believed in the film and it shows in every aspect from
the story, to the acting, and the way it was filmed. Theres’ also ‘realism’ to it. It doesn’t
have a ‘perfect ending’. Drew, the main character, overcomes tragedy after defeat after tragedy
and in the end … he succeeds but at great cost. It’s like with an quest or journey. You’re
not going to succeed without lose. Being from the Pacific Northwest, I also have to give
the film mad props for actually shooting the film in Seattle where the movie takes place
rather than saying it takes place here and then going to shoot it in Canada which has
sadly become ‘standard procedure’ for Hollywood to the dismay of many.
My recommendation? If you like a down-to-earth movie with heart, go see this one.
See it in the theater, see it at home, but go see it. It’s worth seeing and its worth
spending your hard-earned money in my opinion. I personally give the movie 4 out of 5 stars.
The film is PG-13 and it clocks in at about an hour and 36 minutes.
On behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed, this is your fellow movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’
thanks for reading, and i’ll see you folks at the movies ….
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Equalizer 2 (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Ex-government assassin Robert McCall (Denzel Washington) takes it upon himself to right the wrongs of those who have been exploited. He spends his days driving a Lyft around making chance encounters with people. When one of those people is in need he will go to any length to dispense justice. His brand of justice is brutal and swift but he always give the oppressors the chance to redeem themselves. He does this for people passing though his life but when his best friend, and one of the only former colleges to know his alive, Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) is killed while on an investigation he sets out to dispatch vengeance rather than justice. He will stop at nothing to find out why his friend was murdered and eliminate those responsible. Robert must first reveal that he is still alive to his former partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal) so he can have access to the investigation. Once he has access the pair will try and find the killers and exact revenge. That is before the killers find them.
This film is the follow up to 2014’s The Equalizer. It returns both Washington and Leo as well as Director Antoine Fuqua (Shooter, South Paw) and Writer Richard Wenk (Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, 16 Blocks) and Bill Pullman, as Brian Plummer. The action scenes in the beginning of the film are really well done. Maybe a spoiler here so caution, the climatic fight scene at the end is less well done and because it is set in a hurricane a lot of it is blurry and hard to follow. It puts you in the setting of the weather but because the action is hand to hand you can really miss a lot of what is going on. It didn’t really work for me personally. The story started out really how I expected and followed the first films story of McCall helping out those who had no other options. This part felt very much like the first film but not redundant. However, it really slowed down when it got into the main story of the film. This part really seemed overly predictable and unoriginal. You, or rather I, could see how the entire movie was laid out and the inevitable conclusion with very few plot twist. This made pace of the film is tough for me. Really action packed at the beginning and then really slow drawn out drama in the middle.
On its own this film is an okay movie. One of many action/crime/mystery films that are made each year. It didn’t really do a good job of distinguishing itself from the rest of the genre. But fans of this type of movie can enjoy how it is heartfelt and warm at times and bloody and action packed at others. The end I discussed above I was not a fan of. Also there is the issue of when you compare it to the original film it really is lacking some key things that the made the first film a success. The villain in this film really leaves something to be desired while the first film had a pretty good antagonist. The pace of the first film was much better and the story flowed more naturally. Sometimes it is really hard to recreate something and I think this film falls way short.
This film is the follow up to 2014’s The Equalizer. It returns both Washington and Leo as well as Director Antoine Fuqua (Shooter, South Paw) and Writer Richard Wenk (Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, 16 Blocks) and Bill Pullman, as Brian Plummer. The action scenes in the beginning of the film are really well done. Maybe a spoiler here so caution, the climatic fight scene at the end is less well done and because it is set in a hurricane a lot of it is blurry and hard to follow. It puts you in the setting of the weather but because the action is hand to hand you can really miss a lot of what is going on. It didn’t really work for me personally. The story started out really how I expected and followed the first films story of McCall helping out those who had no other options. This part felt very much like the first film but not redundant. However, it really slowed down when it got into the main story of the film. This part really seemed overly predictable and unoriginal. You, or rather I, could see how the entire movie was laid out and the inevitable conclusion with very few plot twist. This made pace of the film is tough for me. Really action packed at the beginning and then really slow drawn out drama in the middle.
On its own this film is an okay movie. One of many action/crime/mystery films that are made each year. It didn’t really do a good job of distinguishing itself from the rest of the genre. But fans of this type of movie can enjoy how it is heartfelt and warm at times and bloody and action packed at others. The end I discussed above I was not a fan of. Also there is the issue of when you compare it to the original film it really is lacking some key things that the made the first film a success. The villain in this film really leaves something to be desired while the first film had a pretty good antagonist. The pace of the first film was much better and the story flowed more naturally. Sometimes it is really hard to recreate something and I think this film falls way short.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Watch (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
On the surface, life for Evan (Ben Stiller), appears to be ideal. He has a very nice home, a loving wife, a solid job as in upper management for Costco, and is very active in his suburban Ohio community. But Evan’s life is about to take an unexpected change when the night watchman for the store is found brutally murdered, leaving Evan distraught. Unhappy with the efforts of the local police force, Evan decides to form a community watch to solve the crime and to protect his beloved community.
In the new comedy The Watch, Stiller teams with comedy veterans Vince Vaughn, Jonah Hill, and relative newcomer Richard Ayoade, who has had audience in stitches for the past three years on the phenomenally popular and funny British comedy The I.T. Crowd.
Vaughn plays Bob, a successful contractor who sees the neighborhood watch as an opportunity for some much needed guys’-nights-out. Bob’s wife travels often for work leaving him to watch over their teenage daughter who hs driven Bob to hysterical fits of extreme measures as he attempts to divert any unwanted male attention from her.
Hill plays Franklin, a unstable individual who still lives at home with his mother after flunking out of high school and failing every evaluation the police department entrance exam offered, especially the part concerning mental stability. Franklin views the watch as his opportunity to get back at the police force and to clean up the streets. Ayoade rounds out the group as Jamarcus who sees the group as his chance to get back into the social network and envisions calls from lonely women looking for protection as his golden opportunity.
As the group begins to bond, Evan becomes agitated as he is, by nature, an insecure individual who finds Bob’s growing popularity within the group to be a threat to him and his plan to solve the murder. Despite their initial awkwardness the team begins to make progress and discovers a much larger threat to the community in the form of a hostile alien force which is capable of assuming human identity. In a desperate race against time the watch must not only battle the alien threat but each other and their own insecurities and issues to come together and save the day.
The film was directed by Akiva Schaffer who made a name for himself as part of the Lonely Island Boys who’ve done some outrageously funny song parodies on Saturday Night Live as well as the film Superbad.
While there are some very funny moments in the film as well as some fun sci-fi action sequences, the talented cast appears to be playing it safe rather than going all out. Time and time again the cast appears to be holding back. This is not to say that they don’t have great moments. Unfortunately, the best parts of the film were ruined by the trailers. I spent the whole time waiting for things to be kicked to the next level which sadly never arrived.
There were some pacing issues with film as it dragged at times. There were also some plot holes but naturally with films of this type, a deep and complicated plot is not to be expected. In the end, while entertaining, the film was disappointing. It could’ve been so much more, especially with so much talent attached to it. Sadly pacing issues and a fairly generic plot lacking any real surprises keeps the film from reaching its potential.
In the new comedy The Watch, Stiller teams with comedy veterans Vince Vaughn, Jonah Hill, and relative newcomer Richard Ayoade, who has had audience in stitches for the past three years on the phenomenally popular and funny British comedy The I.T. Crowd.
Vaughn plays Bob, a successful contractor who sees the neighborhood watch as an opportunity for some much needed guys’-nights-out. Bob’s wife travels often for work leaving him to watch over their teenage daughter who hs driven Bob to hysterical fits of extreme measures as he attempts to divert any unwanted male attention from her.
Hill plays Franklin, a unstable individual who still lives at home with his mother after flunking out of high school and failing every evaluation the police department entrance exam offered, especially the part concerning mental stability. Franklin views the watch as his opportunity to get back at the police force and to clean up the streets. Ayoade rounds out the group as Jamarcus who sees the group as his chance to get back into the social network and envisions calls from lonely women looking for protection as his golden opportunity.
As the group begins to bond, Evan becomes agitated as he is, by nature, an insecure individual who finds Bob’s growing popularity within the group to be a threat to him and his plan to solve the murder. Despite their initial awkwardness the team begins to make progress and discovers a much larger threat to the community in the form of a hostile alien force which is capable of assuming human identity. In a desperate race against time the watch must not only battle the alien threat but each other and their own insecurities and issues to come together and save the day.
The film was directed by Akiva Schaffer who made a name for himself as part of the Lonely Island Boys who’ve done some outrageously funny song parodies on Saturday Night Live as well as the film Superbad.
While there are some very funny moments in the film as well as some fun sci-fi action sequences, the talented cast appears to be playing it safe rather than going all out. Time and time again the cast appears to be holding back. This is not to say that they don’t have great moments. Unfortunately, the best parts of the film were ruined by the trailers. I spent the whole time waiting for things to be kicked to the next level which sadly never arrived.
There were some pacing issues with film as it dragged at times. There were also some plot holes but naturally with films of this type, a deep and complicated plot is not to be expected. In the end, while entertaining, the film was disappointing. It could’ve been so much more, especially with so much talent attached to it. Sadly pacing issues and a fairly generic plot lacking any real surprises keeps the film from reaching its potential.
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)
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) in Movies
Nov 25, 2020
Gloriously kitsch
Film #4 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: The Rocky Horror Picture Show
The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a bonafide cult classic and I doubt there is anyone who would disagree with this. It flopped on first release at the cinema but soon after gained a massive cult following and became a hugely interactive musical experience. For me, I became part of this cult following at university and have attended a fair few parties and shows over the years (in fancy dress of course). However it’s been quite some time since I watched this and seeing it again now makes for a rather interesting watch.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a 1975 musical directed by Jim Sharman, spanning a multitude of genres. It follows newly engaged (and rather wholesome) couple Brad (Barry Bostwick) and Janet (Susan Sarandon) as a flat tyre leaves them stranded and they’re left to seek shelter in a nearby castle owned by Dr Frank-N-Furter (Tim Curry).
This film is undoubtedly bats**t crazy. The plot is absolutely bonkers – a group of aliens from the planet Transexual led by a mad scientist in his quest to make the perfect man. It spans so many genres from comic horror to glam-rock musical and everything in between. It’s aim to spoof old school science fiction films is spot on, and there isn’t many films that can pull off cannibalism, murder and erotic sexual experimentation in the same 2 hour run time.
Admittedly there are some aspects of the plot that haven’t quite stood the test of time. 45 years ago the freedom exhibited around gender and sexuality was unlike anything anyone had ever seen and is still a rather wonderful thing to watch. However, there are other sides to this (such as lack of consent) which have become more apparent as society evolves and maybe aren’t quite acceptable now as they were back then. Fortunately this doesn’t spoil the overall feel of the film and it’s still as camp and cheesy and kitsch as it ever was.
One of the reasons for this films success is Richard O Brien’s script and music, and his performance as Riff Raff is pretty creepy and fun too. It’s clever and smart, and the music is top notch. The songs are some of the most catchy I’ve ever heard and they make you forget how crazy the plot is as soon as the music starts. From the legendary Time Warp to the wonderful Meat Loaf cameo on Hot Patootie, to the incredibly moving and inspirational Don’t Dream It, Be It, the songs are hugely memorable.
And then you have Tim Curry as Frank-N-Furter, in an absolute standout performance. He is perfect in Frank (I’ve yet to see anyone do it better) and it’s probably the best role he’s ever had. He looks like he’s having so much fun and steals every scene, you can’t take your eyes off him and that’s not just because he’s in stockings and suspenders. He makes you feel fascinated by Frank, disgusted and then ultimately sorry for him and this is no mean feat. No disrespect to the rest of the cast, but when Curry isn’t on screen the film does suffer ever so slightly.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a wacky, campy riot of a musical with a message that is heartwarming and inclusive. It may have aged a little over the years and certain topics don’t scrub up quite as well, but it’s still a hugely entertaining and unique musical experience.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a bonafide cult classic and I doubt there is anyone who would disagree with this. It flopped on first release at the cinema but soon after gained a massive cult following and became a hugely interactive musical experience. For me, I became part of this cult following at university and have attended a fair few parties and shows over the years (in fancy dress of course). However it’s been quite some time since I watched this and seeing it again now makes for a rather interesting watch.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a 1975 musical directed by Jim Sharman, spanning a multitude of genres. It follows newly engaged (and rather wholesome) couple Brad (Barry Bostwick) and Janet (Susan Sarandon) as a flat tyre leaves them stranded and they’re left to seek shelter in a nearby castle owned by Dr Frank-N-Furter (Tim Curry).
This film is undoubtedly bats**t crazy. The plot is absolutely bonkers – a group of aliens from the planet Transexual led by a mad scientist in his quest to make the perfect man. It spans so many genres from comic horror to glam-rock musical and everything in between. It’s aim to spoof old school science fiction films is spot on, and there isn’t many films that can pull off cannibalism, murder and erotic sexual experimentation in the same 2 hour run time.
Admittedly there are some aspects of the plot that haven’t quite stood the test of time. 45 years ago the freedom exhibited around gender and sexuality was unlike anything anyone had ever seen and is still a rather wonderful thing to watch. However, there are other sides to this (such as lack of consent) which have become more apparent as society evolves and maybe aren’t quite acceptable now as they were back then. Fortunately this doesn’t spoil the overall feel of the film and it’s still as camp and cheesy and kitsch as it ever was.
One of the reasons for this films success is Richard O Brien’s script and music, and his performance as Riff Raff is pretty creepy and fun too. It’s clever and smart, and the music is top notch. The songs are some of the most catchy I’ve ever heard and they make you forget how crazy the plot is as soon as the music starts. From the legendary Time Warp to the wonderful Meat Loaf cameo on Hot Patootie, to the incredibly moving and inspirational Don’t Dream It, Be It, the songs are hugely memorable.
And then you have Tim Curry as Frank-N-Furter, in an absolute standout performance. He is perfect in Frank (I’ve yet to see anyone do it better) and it’s probably the best role he’s ever had. He looks like he’s having so much fun and steals every scene, you can’t take your eyes off him and that’s not just because he’s in stockings and suspenders. He makes you feel fascinated by Frank, disgusted and then ultimately sorry for him and this is no mean feat. No disrespect to the rest of the cast, but when Curry isn’t on screen the film does suffer ever so slightly.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a wacky, campy riot of a musical with a message that is heartwarming and inclusive. It may have aged a little over the years and certain topics don’t scrub up quite as well, but it’s still a hugely entertaining and unique musical experience.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Soul (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
When Disney Pixar launches a big new title it comes with a lot of expectation – there are just so many titles in the back catalogue now that will forever be considered classics. Movies that raised and re-raised the bar of what animation and family film storytelling can be at the very, very best.
So, when it was announced that Soul would be shown worldwide on the excellent Disney plus channel on Christmas Day, it was something of a coup that made it The movie event of the year, as many of us would now have the shared memory of watching it post lunch, as we struggled to keep our own cosy souls and eyelids awake enough to properly enjoy it.
I must admit that my opinion of it after one watch is tinted by being very close to a complete food coma shutdown. I will need to watch it again to fully appreciate it, I think. The main thing about doing it at all was how perfect and special it felt to be doing it on Christmas Day – nothing has felt more Christmassy to me film-wise since they first aired Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade on BBC1 in 1992. Such a treat with quality assured is rare indeed. The question was how good would it be in comparison to our favourites?
There were rumours from early reviews that it was more mature and adult themed than usual, and this seemed entirely true from the get go. Jazz music, a mellow vibe not racing headlong after easy laughs and the themes of existential angst and, well, death… it is quite grown up, to an extent. Not that young ones won’t enjoy it at all. It is as colourful and busy and joyous as any of them. Even if they can’t take in the concepts of the story in a deeper way, there is plenty to enjoy.
What it seems like Pixar were going for here is a film families of many generations can enjoy together; the older parents and grandparents explaining and reassuring in the deeper moments, and the young ones reminding the older ones to laugh at the silly bits! It was ever thus, but now the ambition to make it really about something significant seems achievable.
The theme of separation, loss and yes, even death is all over Pixar if you look for it. Especially with the recent Coco, which I thought was their best effort for several years. What they did with the theme of death in that one and here also is view it without fear, but as a celebration of the life that came before it, and the people that were touched by that life. It is the perennial Pixar message, that something which at first seems scary and sad is actually beautiful and wonderful if you look closer and choose to see it that way. And to their work in educating kids with that message I can only applaud in awe.
The animation itself is surprising. The “real” world being almost photo real to a jaw dropping degree, whilst the characters remain stylised. But it is the choices of simpler, somehow old fashioned styles in the before and after life sections that are striking. The semi luminous colours are also breath-taking: all calm aquamarine and soft pink, for every bright red and orange of Coco, but just as vibrant.
Pete Doctor who was responsible on this scale for Monster’s Inc, Up and Inside Out, holds the dual reigns of directing and writing expertly yet again, making things that are very hard to achieve look like cracking eggs! The voice talents of Jamie Foxx and Tina Fey do exactly what is needed in the roles without ever standing out as spectacular, as do minor roles for the likes of Graham Norton and Richard Ayoade. Spectacular is not what Soul is about, it is much more about solid qualities with deeper resonance. Personally, I never arrived at the tears in the eyes revelation moment. But that might be more about how warm and full and content I was than any criticism of something missing. There is every chance it is me that missed it.
Look, I don’t think anyone is going to be putting this amongst their top 5 Pixars any time soon, but I also can’t see anyone saying they didn’t enjoy it. The consensus seems to be “hmm, interesting, I need to think about that a while and see it again a few times”. So, for now, that is exactly what I am saying too. It may well be a classic that grows in appreciation over the years, or it may be one where you go, “nah, let’s watch Monster’s Inc. again instead”. Not sure. I’ll add a postscript right here when I have seen it a second time…
So, when it was announced that Soul would be shown worldwide on the excellent Disney plus channel on Christmas Day, it was something of a coup that made it The movie event of the year, as many of us would now have the shared memory of watching it post lunch, as we struggled to keep our own cosy souls and eyelids awake enough to properly enjoy it.
I must admit that my opinion of it after one watch is tinted by being very close to a complete food coma shutdown. I will need to watch it again to fully appreciate it, I think. The main thing about doing it at all was how perfect and special it felt to be doing it on Christmas Day – nothing has felt more Christmassy to me film-wise since they first aired Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade on BBC1 in 1992. Such a treat with quality assured is rare indeed. The question was how good would it be in comparison to our favourites?
There were rumours from early reviews that it was more mature and adult themed than usual, and this seemed entirely true from the get go. Jazz music, a mellow vibe not racing headlong after easy laughs and the themes of existential angst and, well, death… it is quite grown up, to an extent. Not that young ones won’t enjoy it at all. It is as colourful and busy and joyous as any of them. Even if they can’t take in the concepts of the story in a deeper way, there is plenty to enjoy.
What it seems like Pixar were going for here is a film families of many generations can enjoy together; the older parents and grandparents explaining and reassuring in the deeper moments, and the young ones reminding the older ones to laugh at the silly bits! It was ever thus, but now the ambition to make it really about something significant seems achievable.
The theme of separation, loss and yes, even death is all over Pixar if you look for it. Especially with the recent Coco, which I thought was their best effort for several years. What they did with the theme of death in that one and here also is view it without fear, but as a celebration of the life that came before it, and the people that were touched by that life. It is the perennial Pixar message, that something which at first seems scary and sad is actually beautiful and wonderful if you look closer and choose to see it that way. And to their work in educating kids with that message I can only applaud in awe.
The animation itself is surprising. The “real” world being almost photo real to a jaw dropping degree, whilst the characters remain stylised. But it is the choices of simpler, somehow old fashioned styles in the before and after life sections that are striking. The semi luminous colours are also breath-taking: all calm aquamarine and soft pink, for every bright red and orange of Coco, but just as vibrant.
Pete Doctor who was responsible on this scale for Monster’s Inc, Up and Inside Out, holds the dual reigns of directing and writing expertly yet again, making things that are very hard to achieve look like cracking eggs! The voice talents of Jamie Foxx and Tina Fey do exactly what is needed in the roles without ever standing out as spectacular, as do minor roles for the likes of Graham Norton and Richard Ayoade. Spectacular is not what Soul is about, it is much more about solid qualities with deeper resonance. Personally, I never arrived at the tears in the eyes revelation moment. But that might be more about how warm and full and content I was than any criticism of something missing. There is every chance it is me that missed it.
Look, I don’t think anyone is going to be putting this amongst their top 5 Pixars any time soon, but I also can’t see anyone saying they didn’t enjoy it. The consensus seems to be “hmm, interesting, I need to think about that a while and see it again a few times”. So, for now, that is exactly what I am saying too. It may well be a classic that grows in appreciation over the years, or it may be one where you go, “nah, let’s watch Monster’s Inc. again instead”. Not sure. I’ll add a postscript right here when I have seen it a second time…