Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated the Playstation 5 version of Gotham Knights in Video Games
Nov 4, 2022
Gotham Knights Delivers Dark Action For DC Fans
Following the success of the Arkham series of games would be a daunting
task for any developer and when WB Games Montreal announced Gotham Knights
and that it would not benefit from the inclusion of Batman; fans of the
series were curious about what the new game would hold.
Taking place shortly after the death of Batman which is depicted in an
the amazing animated sequence that sets the tone for the game well; Nightwing,
The Red Hood, Robin, and Batgirl are tasked to pick up where Batman left
off and protect the city but also deal with a murder mystery and even
darker threat than they could have imagined facing the city.
Players will select a character and as they gain experience, new costumes,
abilities and moves will become available as well as the ability to Fast
Travel between locales on the map. This is essential as the city is a
sprawling and cluttered urban setting filled with dangers around every
corner.
Playing as Nightwing I was able to summon a cycle and speed to locales and
setting waypoints on the map allowed my path to be displayed which was
much better than driving in a general direction. I also had the option to
fire a Zipline and pull myself all over the city and up very tall
buildings which allowed me to get around when driving was not always the
ideal option.
The game is filled with side quests as well as appearances by classic
Batman Universe characters both good and bad and always added a nice
element to the game.
The combat in the game is nimble and at times brutal as there is no end
of gangs, enemies, and thugs to battle and using hit and run tactics to
dodge and attack often work well but require some patience as some
enemies take a good amount of damage before they fall and when your health
packs run low, players often have to adjust on the fly to survive.
There are also puzzles to solve along the way that help provide clues to
the ongoing threat and players will be able to return to the Belfry to get
a break, update the narrative, check the clues, and update their costume
and skills.
The game does provide an extensive amount of gameplay and even upon
completion there are side quests that can be undertaken as well as
patrols.
Multiplay is an option as players can form a team or drop in. The few
times I tried this I was paired with individuals who were busy doing their
own thing as having someone to watch my back during the more challenging
missions would have been ideal.
The game did have a few frustrations like having to align near objects at
times just right for them to allow me to manipulate them and the mission
pathfinding was a bit confusing early on as were some elements of the
crafting menu.
As I spent more time with the game and updates became available, I became
engrossed in the story which was constantly evolving and the darker tones
were very appealing to me. It was great to be able to explore the
highly-detailed city but at times the travel did seem a bit tedious
especially missions where I had to patrol and beat information out of
random street thugs in order to progress.
That being said, the game was entertaining and I am curious about playing
as some of the other characters as well as seeing what future missions
will be made available while it does not reach the level of Arkham
Asylum, Gotham Knights was for me a very enjoyable adventure despite some
flaws and one that I think DC fans will enjoy if they are patient and
willing to overlook some of the shortcomings of the game to focus on the
things it does well.
3.5 stars out of 5
task for any developer and when WB Games Montreal announced Gotham Knights
and that it would not benefit from the inclusion of Batman; fans of the
series were curious about what the new game would hold.
Taking place shortly after the death of Batman which is depicted in an
the amazing animated sequence that sets the tone for the game well; Nightwing,
The Red Hood, Robin, and Batgirl are tasked to pick up where Batman left
off and protect the city but also deal with a murder mystery and even
darker threat than they could have imagined facing the city.
Players will select a character and as they gain experience, new costumes,
abilities and moves will become available as well as the ability to Fast
Travel between locales on the map. This is essential as the city is a
sprawling and cluttered urban setting filled with dangers around every
corner.
Playing as Nightwing I was able to summon a cycle and speed to locales and
setting waypoints on the map allowed my path to be displayed which was
much better than driving in a general direction. I also had the option to
fire a Zipline and pull myself all over the city and up very tall
buildings which allowed me to get around when driving was not always the
ideal option.
The game is filled with side quests as well as appearances by classic
Batman Universe characters both good and bad and always added a nice
element to the game.
The combat in the game is nimble and at times brutal as there is no end
of gangs, enemies, and thugs to battle and using hit and run tactics to
dodge and attack often work well but require some patience as some
enemies take a good amount of damage before they fall and when your health
packs run low, players often have to adjust on the fly to survive.
There are also puzzles to solve along the way that help provide clues to
the ongoing threat and players will be able to return to the Belfry to get
a break, update the narrative, check the clues, and update their costume
and skills.
The game does provide an extensive amount of gameplay and even upon
completion there are side quests that can be undertaken as well as
patrols.
Multiplay is an option as players can form a team or drop in. The few
times I tried this I was paired with individuals who were busy doing their
own thing as having someone to watch my back during the more challenging
missions would have been ideal.
The game did have a few frustrations like having to align near objects at
times just right for them to allow me to manipulate them and the mission
pathfinding was a bit confusing early on as were some elements of the
crafting menu.
As I spent more time with the game and updates became available, I became
engrossed in the story which was constantly evolving and the darker tones
were very appealing to me. It was great to be able to explore the
highly-detailed city but at times the travel did seem a bit tedious
especially missions where I had to patrol and beat information out of
random street thugs in order to progress.
That being said, the game was entertaining and I am curious about playing
as some of the other characters as well as seeing what future missions
will be made available while it does not reach the level of Arkham
Asylum, Gotham Knights was for me a very enjoyable adventure despite some
flaws and one that I think DC fans will enjoy if they are patient and
willing to overlook some of the shortcomings of the game to focus on the
things it does well.
3.5 stars out of 5
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Oct 9, 2017 (Updated Oct 13, 2017)
One of the most visually stunning movies I have ever seen. (8 more)
Awesome production design.
Brilliant direction.
Beautiful cinematography.
Solid performances.
Incredible SFX.
Great score.
Good use of lighting.
Well written script and dialogue.
Villeneuve Strikes Gold Yet Again
Wow, this movie is a feast for your eyeballs. I won't go on about the visuals too much, as I'm sure that you have already heard how good looking this movie is, all I'll say is this; the movie deserves to be seen in the biggest screen possible. What is even better though, is unlike a Zack Snyder film, Blade Runner 2049 has more to it than just surface level, pretty visuals.
Somehow, Denis Villeneuve has achieved the impossible. He has directed a movie every year for the last five years and they have all been absolutely incredible, also he has managed to pull off a fantastic sequel to a 35 year old classic.
I loved almost every part of this movie. The direction was masterful to watch, with the movie being moved along at a deliberate, purposeful pace, rather than rushing through from action scene to action scene. The sets in this were out of this world, some props were really cool to look at and the use of mostly practical backdrops made a huge difference as opposed to using an abundance of green screen. Rodger Deakins' cinematography was astonishing, you could honestly screen grab an image from any time stamp in this movie and it would work perfectly as a beautiful desktop background.
I also thought that the performances were fantastic and everyone did a great job. Although Ford doesn't appear until the movie's third act, when he does he is great. Gosling commands his leading man role as we've come to expect him to. Robin Wright and Dave Bautista were the other standouts for me in terms of their performances.
The more technical elements of the movie worked perfectly in tandem with the story being told as well. The special effects were beautifully implemented and the lighting in the movie added a whole other layer of visual depth as well. The score also worked for the tone that the movie was aiming to achieve. The script was also solid and tightly woven.
The only thing I will say is; if you are going into the film expecting a sci-fi action blockbuster, you will come out disappointed. This is a slow paced, sci-fi noir, detective story. There are a few sparse moments of action and it does feel impactful when it occurs, but it is not the focus of the movie at all.
The one small element that bothered me was Jared Leto's performance. He took me out of the movie and was the only cast member who didn't feel like a real character within this world. Maybe I'm just being biased, as Jared Leto has always annoyed me in general, but for me he was the one bad part of this near masterpiece. Thankfully he doesn't get that much screen time, so it could have been worse. Also, the fact that David Bowie was originally cast in that role adds an extra sprinkle of salt in the wound.
Unfortunately, much like the original movie, this hasn't done great at the box office on its opening weekend. If like me, you are sick of mindless sequel cash cows that are total garbage such as Jurassic World, go and see this movie and vote with your wallet. If you don't, we are telling Hollywood that as a collective, we don't want sequels with depth and integrity, we want dumb, rushed, forgettable nonsense and that is what we will end up getting. Support this movie for the betterment of filmmaking and cinema, even if you haven't seen the original.
Overall I loved the movie, but I can see why people are finding it divisive. For me though, the vast majority of this movie's parts were absolutely fantastic and come together to form a journey that you must experience for yourself.
Somehow, Denis Villeneuve has achieved the impossible. He has directed a movie every year for the last five years and they have all been absolutely incredible, also he has managed to pull off a fantastic sequel to a 35 year old classic.
I loved almost every part of this movie. The direction was masterful to watch, with the movie being moved along at a deliberate, purposeful pace, rather than rushing through from action scene to action scene. The sets in this were out of this world, some props were really cool to look at and the use of mostly practical backdrops made a huge difference as opposed to using an abundance of green screen. Rodger Deakins' cinematography was astonishing, you could honestly screen grab an image from any time stamp in this movie and it would work perfectly as a beautiful desktop background.
I also thought that the performances were fantastic and everyone did a great job. Although Ford doesn't appear until the movie's third act, when he does he is great. Gosling commands his leading man role as we've come to expect him to. Robin Wright and Dave Bautista were the other standouts for me in terms of their performances.
The more technical elements of the movie worked perfectly in tandem with the story being told as well. The special effects were beautifully implemented and the lighting in the movie added a whole other layer of visual depth as well. The score also worked for the tone that the movie was aiming to achieve. The script was also solid and tightly woven.
The only thing I will say is; if you are going into the film expecting a sci-fi action blockbuster, you will come out disappointed. This is a slow paced, sci-fi noir, detective story. There are a few sparse moments of action and it does feel impactful when it occurs, but it is not the focus of the movie at all.
The one small element that bothered me was Jared Leto's performance. He took me out of the movie and was the only cast member who didn't feel like a real character within this world. Maybe I'm just being biased, as Jared Leto has always annoyed me in general, but for me he was the one bad part of this near masterpiece. Thankfully he doesn't get that much screen time, so it could have been worse. Also, the fact that David Bowie was originally cast in that role adds an extra sprinkle of salt in the wound.
Unfortunately, much like the original movie, this hasn't done great at the box office on its opening weekend. If like me, you are sick of mindless sequel cash cows that are total garbage such as Jurassic World, go and see this movie and vote with your wallet. If you don't, we are telling Hollywood that as a collective, we don't want sequels with depth and integrity, we want dumb, rushed, forgettable nonsense and that is what we will end up getting. Support this movie for the betterment of filmmaking and cinema, even if you haven't seen the original.
Overall I loved the movie, but I can see why people are finding it divisive. For me though, the vast majority of this movie's parts were absolutely fantastic and come together to form a journey that you must experience for yourself.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Don't let us down Guy Ritchie
Along with Beauty & The Beast and The Lion King, Aladdin is one of Disney’s most-loved animated films. With Disney’s penchant for remaking their classic cartoons over the last few years, it was always going to be the case that Aladdin was going to be on the cards.
Director Bill Condon’s Beauty & The Beast was an enchanting ride that just fell short of living up to its predecessor and The Jungle Book director Jon Favreau has been tasked with bringing The Lion King back to life in live-action. We’ll find out how he gets on in July.
After Dumbo’s less than stellar performance with both critics and audiences in March, dark clouds were circling around the House of Mouse’s live-action arm. Hoping to inject a shot of hope to this ambitious release schedule was Guy Ritchie’s remake of Aladdin. Things didn’t look good from the marketing with poor CGI and seemingly wooden acting, so what does the finished film end up like?
Young Aladdin (Mena Massoud) embarks on a magical adventure after finding a lamp that releases a wisecracking genie (Will Smith). In his efforts to impress the wonderful Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott), Aladdin embarks on a battle between good and evil against the wicked Jafar (Marwan Kenzari).
To look at, this live-action remake is absolutely packed full of colour and excitement, helped in part by Guy Ritchie’s frenetic filming style. Like Tim Burton before him, I was concerned about Ritchie’s appointment as director of this universally adored film, but unlike Burton, Ritchie gets it absolutely spot on. There are some absolutely stunning shot choices dotted throughout and the action is filmed with typical aplomb by a film-maker who has proven himself to be adept in this area.
The music, with original songs and updates of old classics is superb. Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good and will have you wanting to dance around the aisles, while A Whole New World really takes flight in this new, CGI-enhanced environment. Brand-new song, Speechless, written by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and sang by Naomi Scott is Let It Go levels of awesome with Scott singing it exquisitely.
Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good
The special effects are on the whole very good and not as jarring as those in Dumbo. It’s unfortunate then that there are instances in which the green-screen is all too obvious and the CGI all too artificial. This is a shame, as the rest of the picture is extraordinarily well-filmed and feels, for want of a better word, incredibly opulent, dripping in gold hues. Again, Disney tests the limits of CGI and these limits are becoming more and more obvious as film-makers pursue more extravagant sequences.
Elsewhere, the cast is both a highlight and a hindrance. Mena Massoud plays the titular character with a cocky charm that makes this Aladdin very likeable indeed, while Naomi Scott is so much better than the trailers made her look. The film however belongs to Will Smith. He’s a brave man taking on a role that has become synonymous with Robin Williams but he brings depth, charisma and some of that old-fashioned Will Smith charm to the role – it’s the best we’ve seen him in years, even if he is doused in blue CGI for the majority of the film’s runtime.
Unfortunately, this modern reimagining hasn’t got everything right. Marwan Kenzari is severely miscast as Jafar. Bringing absolutely no menace to the role whatsoever, he proves to be a disappointing antagonist and the film’s only major black mark. The clunky CGI can be forgiven but this unfortunate characterisation can’t. Jafar is one of Disney’s best villains and for him to fall flat here is unacceptable.
Nevertheless, poor marketing aside, Aladdin is an absolute blast from start to finish. Well-paced, nicely acted (for the most part) and packed full of stunning music, this live-action remake has proven that Dumbo may have just been a disappointing sidestep in Disney’s ambitious live-action schedule.
That’s two out of the three. Don’t let us down Jon Favreau!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/22/aladdin-review-dont-let-us-down-guy-ritchie/
Director Bill Condon’s Beauty & The Beast was an enchanting ride that just fell short of living up to its predecessor and The Jungle Book director Jon Favreau has been tasked with bringing The Lion King back to life in live-action. We’ll find out how he gets on in July.
After Dumbo’s less than stellar performance with both critics and audiences in March, dark clouds were circling around the House of Mouse’s live-action arm. Hoping to inject a shot of hope to this ambitious release schedule was Guy Ritchie’s remake of Aladdin. Things didn’t look good from the marketing with poor CGI and seemingly wooden acting, so what does the finished film end up like?
Young Aladdin (Mena Massoud) embarks on a magical adventure after finding a lamp that releases a wisecracking genie (Will Smith). In his efforts to impress the wonderful Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott), Aladdin embarks on a battle between good and evil against the wicked Jafar (Marwan Kenzari).
To look at, this live-action remake is absolutely packed full of colour and excitement, helped in part by Guy Ritchie’s frenetic filming style. Like Tim Burton before him, I was concerned about Ritchie’s appointment as director of this universally adored film, but unlike Burton, Ritchie gets it absolutely spot on. There are some absolutely stunning shot choices dotted throughout and the action is filmed with typical aplomb by a film-maker who has proven himself to be adept in this area.
The music, with original songs and updates of old classics is superb. Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good and will have you wanting to dance around the aisles, while A Whole New World really takes flight in this new, CGI-enhanced environment. Brand-new song, Speechless, written by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and sang by Naomi Scott is Let It Go levels of awesome with Scott singing it exquisitely.
Will Smith’s take on Friend Like Me is lip-smackingly good
The special effects are on the whole very good and not as jarring as those in Dumbo. It’s unfortunate then that there are instances in which the green-screen is all too obvious and the CGI all too artificial. This is a shame, as the rest of the picture is extraordinarily well-filmed and feels, for want of a better word, incredibly opulent, dripping in gold hues. Again, Disney tests the limits of CGI and these limits are becoming more and more obvious as film-makers pursue more extravagant sequences.
Elsewhere, the cast is both a highlight and a hindrance. Mena Massoud plays the titular character with a cocky charm that makes this Aladdin very likeable indeed, while Naomi Scott is so much better than the trailers made her look. The film however belongs to Will Smith. He’s a brave man taking on a role that has become synonymous with Robin Williams but he brings depth, charisma and some of that old-fashioned Will Smith charm to the role – it’s the best we’ve seen him in years, even if he is doused in blue CGI for the majority of the film’s runtime.
Unfortunately, this modern reimagining hasn’t got everything right. Marwan Kenzari is severely miscast as Jafar. Bringing absolutely no menace to the role whatsoever, he proves to be a disappointing antagonist and the film’s only major black mark. The clunky CGI can be forgiven but this unfortunate characterisation can’t. Jafar is one of Disney’s best villains and for him to fall flat here is unacceptable.
Nevertheless, poor marketing aside, Aladdin is an absolute blast from start to finish. Well-paced, nicely acted (for the most part) and packed full of stunning music, this live-action remake has proven that Dumbo may have just been a disappointing sidestep in Disney’s ambitious live-action schedule.
That’s two out of the three. Don’t let us down Jon Favreau!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/22/aladdin-review-dont-let-us-down-guy-ritchie/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated As I Descended in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review</i>
With this retelling of the famous bard’s tragedy <i>Macbeth</i>, Robin Talley takes steps to add another genre under her belt. Talley is fairly new to the young adult literature scene with <i>As I Descended</i> being her third publication. Many avid readers may already be aware that the author likes to tackle homosexuality and the surrounding stigma, whilst also encompassing other issues, i.e. black civil rights and long distance relationships. This novel is no different, however the other “issue” is on a paranormal level and follows the key themes in the Scottish play.
The story is set in a Virginian private school full of rich adolescents full of high expectations and the desire to be the best. Maria is always coming second best despite all her hard work, and Lily, her girlfriend, thinks this is entirely unfair. The student in first position, and set to win the Kingsley Prize, is Delilah, a popular girl who bullies and manipulates people to get what she wants. Determined to get Maria to see she should be the winner, Lily arranges a séance where she plans to pretend a spirit has contacted her telling Maria to beat Delilah. However the plan falls through when a real spirit begins communicating with them.
Lily is almost as manipulative as Delilah and convinces Maria to cheat her way to the top. Keeping in mind this is a retelling of <i>Macbeth</i>, a play that contains several deaths; you can guess the direction events are going to take. With Delilah out of the picture, Maria’s best friend Brandon and his boyfriend Matteo begin to suspect Maria of foul play.
Due to their initials it is easy to work out which of the original cast each character is representing. Maria, Lily, Delilah, Brandon, Matteo… Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, Duncan, Banquo, McDuff… As a result, the fate of the characters has already been predetermined, causing readers to jump to conclusions about each individual. However the introduction of a supernatural theme gives the storyline an entirely new outlook.
Initially I felt sorry for Maria and Lily, two lovely girls hiding their romantic relationship from the rest of the world. Maria never put a foot wrong, and Lily gets sympathy on account of being disabled. I related a lot to Lily at the beginning as I have also experienced severe leg pain and suffering around on a pair of crutches. However once the actual retelling of <i>Macbeth</i> began I took an instant dislike to the pair. I have never liked people who sabotage other’s lives and successes in order to be the best. This put a damper on the entire novel, making it a lot less interesting as there were no longer any characters I fully respected.
What I did enjoy was they way Talley managed to produce a modern retelling of the play. <i>Macbeth</i> is not the easiest story to bring into a contemporary setting, especially as it is about a King and set in a castle. Talley successfully created a narrative that no one else would have thought of – a particularly clever feat.
Those familiar with the play, especially those who had the opportunity to study it at school, will recognize a lot of the chapter headings as direct quotes from Shakespeare’s writing. It is exciting to find all the references to <i>Macbeth</i> and use your own knowledge to understand where the story is going.
Do not worry if you are unfamiliar with Shakespeare’s works, <i>As I Descended</i> is not reliant on prior knowledge in order to work. Ignoring <i>Macbeth</i>, the book is about greed and perfectionism as well as homosexual relationships and the worries about how others will perceive them, especially homophobic parents.
Overall, <i>As I Descended</i> was not as great as I hoped it would be due to the nature of the characters’ personalities. The risk Talley took in undertaking a retelling of <i>Macbeth</i> however has been an extremely successful accomplishment. It may even be beneficial for students struggling to understand <i>Macbeth</i>. If schools can get over their fear of homosexual content, it would be lovely to see this book being read as part of the curriculum.
With this retelling of the famous bard’s tragedy <i>Macbeth</i>, Robin Talley takes steps to add another genre under her belt. Talley is fairly new to the young adult literature scene with <i>As I Descended</i> being her third publication. Many avid readers may already be aware that the author likes to tackle homosexuality and the surrounding stigma, whilst also encompassing other issues, i.e. black civil rights and long distance relationships. This novel is no different, however the other “issue” is on a paranormal level and follows the key themes in the Scottish play.
The story is set in a Virginian private school full of rich adolescents full of high expectations and the desire to be the best. Maria is always coming second best despite all her hard work, and Lily, her girlfriend, thinks this is entirely unfair. The student in first position, and set to win the Kingsley Prize, is Delilah, a popular girl who bullies and manipulates people to get what she wants. Determined to get Maria to see she should be the winner, Lily arranges a séance where she plans to pretend a spirit has contacted her telling Maria to beat Delilah. However the plan falls through when a real spirit begins communicating with them.
Lily is almost as manipulative as Delilah and convinces Maria to cheat her way to the top. Keeping in mind this is a retelling of <i>Macbeth</i>, a play that contains several deaths; you can guess the direction events are going to take. With Delilah out of the picture, Maria’s best friend Brandon and his boyfriend Matteo begin to suspect Maria of foul play.
Due to their initials it is easy to work out which of the original cast each character is representing. Maria, Lily, Delilah, Brandon, Matteo… Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, Duncan, Banquo, McDuff… As a result, the fate of the characters has already been predetermined, causing readers to jump to conclusions about each individual. However the introduction of a supernatural theme gives the storyline an entirely new outlook.
Initially I felt sorry for Maria and Lily, two lovely girls hiding their romantic relationship from the rest of the world. Maria never put a foot wrong, and Lily gets sympathy on account of being disabled. I related a lot to Lily at the beginning as I have also experienced severe leg pain and suffering around on a pair of crutches. However once the actual retelling of <i>Macbeth</i> began I took an instant dislike to the pair. I have never liked people who sabotage other’s lives and successes in order to be the best. This put a damper on the entire novel, making it a lot less interesting as there were no longer any characters I fully respected.
What I did enjoy was they way Talley managed to produce a modern retelling of the play. <i>Macbeth</i> is not the easiest story to bring into a contemporary setting, especially as it is about a King and set in a castle. Talley successfully created a narrative that no one else would have thought of – a particularly clever feat.
Those familiar with the play, especially those who had the opportunity to study it at school, will recognize a lot of the chapter headings as direct quotes from Shakespeare’s writing. It is exciting to find all the references to <i>Macbeth</i> and use your own knowledge to understand where the story is going.
Do not worry if you are unfamiliar with Shakespeare’s works, <i>As I Descended</i> is not reliant on prior knowledge in order to work. Ignoring <i>Macbeth</i>, the book is about greed and perfectionism as well as homosexual relationships and the worries about how others will perceive them, especially homophobic parents.
Overall, <i>As I Descended</i> was not as great as I hoped it would be due to the nature of the characters’ personalities. The risk Talley took in undertaking a retelling of <i>Macbeth</i> however has been an extremely successful accomplishment. It may even be beneficial for students struggling to understand <i>Macbeth</i>. If schools can get over their fear of homosexual content, it would be lovely to see this book being read as part of the curriculum.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 21, 2019
Middle of the Road
I have to give the Walt Disney Company credit, with their Live Action remakes of their classic animated movies, they have developed a very lucrative profit stream with properties that they already own - and are well known to audiences. Some are successful (THE JUNGLE BOOK, ALADDIN), some are not quite so successful (DUMBO, ALICE IN WONDERLAND).
And...somewhere in the middle...is the LION KING.
Directed by Jon Favreau (THE JUNGLE BOOK, IRON MAN), this Lion King is a fairly faithful reproduction of the animated movie - and that is a blessing and a curse - and it, ultimately, keeps this remake squarely in the middle in terms of quality, interest and achievement.
What works: the CGI animation of the animals and scenery. Favreau shot CGI-fest films like THE JUNGLE BOOK and IRON MAN, so he knows how to do these things and they work here in a very workmanlike way. The are all professionally done - there's not a bad shot in the film. But the "wow" moments are few and far between in this film as well
The story is a timeless classic (kind of an "animal adventure Hamlet") and that works as do OME of the voice cast (more on that later)...and...of course...the songs - especially the faithful recreation of the CIRCLE OF LIFE opening - one of the best opening musical numbers in movie history.
What doesn't work: The first 1/2 of the film's pacing. It drags pretty badly early on and the songs in that part of the film (like I CAN'T WAIT TO BE KING) just don't have the energy and pizzazz that is needed. And SOME of the voice work is just plain bland and boring and (in one case) I found irritating.
So...let's talk about the voice cast. James Earl Jones (reprising Mufasa) is terrific (of course) as is John Oliver's Zazu (a much bigger presence in this film than the animated film), Chiwetel Ejiofor's Scar is appropriately menacing, if a bit bland, but "good enough" as is Beyonce's grown up Nala. I would have liked to see/feel a bit more of her "presence" in this character's voice, but that might be a Director choice and not an actress choice. John Kani's Rafiki is quite good as is the always steady/credible Alfre Woodward as Sarabi.
What doesn't work is the two voice actors cast to play Simba. Donald Glover (TV's ATLANTA) is just too bland and boring as the adult Simba. He doesn't really bring anything interesting to his voice work of this character (but does hold his own in the musical duet "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" opposite the great Beyonce).
I usually don't comment on child performances that I don't like (they are kids after all), so I won't really comment much on JD McCrary's voice performance as the young Simba except to say I didn't really how much MORE the young Simba is in this film as opposed to the older Simba - or at least it felt to me that the weakest voice performance in this film was on screen for far longer than I remembered from the animated film.
As for the best voice performances in this film - that is easy - Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan's performance as Simba's pals Timon and Pumbaa. They had big shoes to fill in comparison to the voice work in the animated film from Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella, so they did the smart thing - they didn't even try. Much like Will Smith not trying to imitate Robin Williams in the live action ALADDIN earlier this year (another voice performance that worked well) Eichner and Rogan make these characters their own and succeeded well - these two characters/performances are the high point in the film and bring much needed life and energy to a movie that was sagging under it's own weight by the time they show up.
This Lion King will be THE Lion King for this generation - and that is "fine" - if the youngsters in my life want to watch this, I won't complain. But... I will try to steer them towards the much better animated version of this film from the 1990's.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And...somewhere in the middle...is the LION KING.
Directed by Jon Favreau (THE JUNGLE BOOK, IRON MAN), this Lion King is a fairly faithful reproduction of the animated movie - and that is a blessing and a curse - and it, ultimately, keeps this remake squarely in the middle in terms of quality, interest and achievement.
What works: the CGI animation of the animals and scenery. Favreau shot CGI-fest films like THE JUNGLE BOOK and IRON MAN, so he knows how to do these things and they work here in a very workmanlike way. The are all professionally done - there's not a bad shot in the film. But the "wow" moments are few and far between in this film as well
The story is a timeless classic (kind of an "animal adventure Hamlet") and that works as do OME of the voice cast (more on that later)...and...of course...the songs - especially the faithful recreation of the CIRCLE OF LIFE opening - one of the best opening musical numbers in movie history.
What doesn't work: The first 1/2 of the film's pacing. It drags pretty badly early on and the songs in that part of the film (like I CAN'T WAIT TO BE KING) just don't have the energy and pizzazz that is needed. And SOME of the voice work is just plain bland and boring and (in one case) I found irritating.
So...let's talk about the voice cast. James Earl Jones (reprising Mufasa) is terrific (of course) as is John Oliver's Zazu (a much bigger presence in this film than the animated film), Chiwetel Ejiofor's Scar is appropriately menacing, if a bit bland, but "good enough" as is Beyonce's grown up Nala. I would have liked to see/feel a bit more of her "presence" in this character's voice, but that might be a Director choice and not an actress choice. John Kani's Rafiki is quite good as is the always steady/credible Alfre Woodward as Sarabi.
What doesn't work is the two voice actors cast to play Simba. Donald Glover (TV's ATLANTA) is just too bland and boring as the adult Simba. He doesn't really bring anything interesting to his voice work of this character (but does hold his own in the musical duet "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" opposite the great Beyonce).
I usually don't comment on child performances that I don't like (they are kids after all), so I won't really comment much on JD McCrary's voice performance as the young Simba except to say I didn't really how much MORE the young Simba is in this film as opposed to the older Simba - or at least it felt to me that the weakest voice performance in this film was on screen for far longer than I remembered from the animated film.
As for the best voice performances in this film - that is easy - Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan's performance as Simba's pals Timon and Pumbaa. They had big shoes to fill in comparison to the voice work in the animated film from Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella, so they did the smart thing - they didn't even try. Much like Will Smith not trying to imitate Robin Williams in the live action ALADDIN earlier this year (another voice performance that worked well) Eichner and Rogan make these characters their own and succeeded well - these two characters/performances are the high point in the film and bring much needed life and energy to a movie that was sagging under it's own weight by the time they show up.
This Lion King will be THE Lion King for this generation - and that is "fine" - if the youngsters in my life want to watch this, I won't complain. But... I will try to steer them towards the much better animated version of this film from the 1990's.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Dec 19, 2018 (Updated Dec 19, 2018)
A wonderful movie
I have been really looking forward to seeing this movie. I, along with countless millions around the world, have fond memories of watching regular re-runs of Laurel & Hardy movies on TV, and they hold a very special place in so many people's hearts. Timeless legends that deserve to be remembered for generations to come. That being said, the preview screening I attended last night was probably only a quarter full, so I fear that this story detailing the latter part of their career isn't really going to appeal to mainstream audiences. I kind of hope it reignites interest in their work though as this truly is a wonderful film.
The movie begins in 1937, where Stan and Ollie are currently riding high as the most successful comedy performers in Hollywood. They're at Hal Roach studios, making their way to the set of Way Out West in order to shoot another scene. They're just chatting away together as we follow them - about their wives, about money. Stan's contract with Hal Roach is due to end shortly, while Ollie's isn't, and Stan is conscious of the fact that they don't actually own the rights to their own movies, so don't make as much money as performers such as Charlie Chaplin. He argues a bit with Hal Roach about it, before he and Ollie perform a song and dance number for the movie (the original clip of this scene is shown at the end of this movie, highlighting just how perfectly they nailed the recreation of it here). That short conversation, and the differing viewpoints regarding money and their film rights, lays the foundations for the rest of the movie, and we then jump forward 16 years.
The boys arrive in Newcastle, England in 1953. They're here to perform a tour of the UK, recreating classic scenes from their movies in an attempt to generate enough interest in them to get a movie made. A retelling of Robin Hood, which is being written by Stan. Age is clearly catching up with them though, particularly with Ollie, while Stan remains the driving force of the pair, constantly performing classic gags and coming up with new ideas. Unfortunately for them, they barely manage to fill half the seats of the theatres they perform in, with concern growing as to whether or not their eventual London dates will even go ahead. Their wives are due to join them on tour in a couple of weeks time, and they're also concerned as to what they'll make of it all when they arrive, especially as the boys are currently only staying in small, simple guest houses. Promoter Bernard Delfont (one of the movies funniest supporting roles) is keen to get them out and about promoting themselves, attending events and meeting dignitaries. His interests initially seem focused elsewhere in the theatre business, particularly with upcoming British comedy performer Norman Wisdom, so it's hard work generating interest in Laurel & Hardy once more. Luckily though, the effort pays off, and they eventually upgrade their London show to a bigger theatre, selling it out.
John C Reilly and Steve Coogan are just perfect as Stan and Ollie. I struggled a little at times with Steve Coogan, as I've been a big fan of his varied comedy work for nearly 30 years now, so found it a bit distracting. But he definitely pulls this off, and it's incredible to see so many mannerisms and iconic scenes from their movies so perfectly reproduced by both leads. The other outstanding and hilarious double act in this movie are the wives, who arrive in London to support their husbands and mix things up a little. They are clearly very caring and protective of their husbands though, supporting them through ill health, and an unfortunate falling out between Stan and Ollie related to events that occurred 16 years ago. A pivotal moment in their careers which was alluded to in the opening scenes of the movie, and further elaborated on in a number of flashbacks later on. It's a bit of an emotional roller-coaster, but overall this is a wonderfully heartwarming and moving love story about two of Hollywoods greatest. And it succeeded in making me want to watch every single one of their movies again.
The movie begins in 1937, where Stan and Ollie are currently riding high as the most successful comedy performers in Hollywood. They're at Hal Roach studios, making their way to the set of Way Out West in order to shoot another scene. They're just chatting away together as we follow them - about their wives, about money. Stan's contract with Hal Roach is due to end shortly, while Ollie's isn't, and Stan is conscious of the fact that they don't actually own the rights to their own movies, so don't make as much money as performers such as Charlie Chaplin. He argues a bit with Hal Roach about it, before he and Ollie perform a song and dance number for the movie (the original clip of this scene is shown at the end of this movie, highlighting just how perfectly they nailed the recreation of it here). That short conversation, and the differing viewpoints regarding money and their film rights, lays the foundations for the rest of the movie, and we then jump forward 16 years.
The boys arrive in Newcastle, England in 1953. They're here to perform a tour of the UK, recreating classic scenes from their movies in an attempt to generate enough interest in them to get a movie made. A retelling of Robin Hood, which is being written by Stan. Age is clearly catching up with them though, particularly with Ollie, while Stan remains the driving force of the pair, constantly performing classic gags and coming up with new ideas. Unfortunately for them, they barely manage to fill half the seats of the theatres they perform in, with concern growing as to whether or not their eventual London dates will even go ahead. Their wives are due to join them on tour in a couple of weeks time, and they're also concerned as to what they'll make of it all when they arrive, especially as the boys are currently only staying in small, simple guest houses. Promoter Bernard Delfont (one of the movies funniest supporting roles) is keen to get them out and about promoting themselves, attending events and meeting dignitaries. His interests initially seem focused elsewhere in the theatre business, particularly with upcoming British comedy performer Norman Wisdom, so it's hard work generating interest in Laurel & Hardy once more. Luckily though, the effort pays off, and they eventually upgrade their London show to a bigger theatre, selling it out.
John C Reilly and Steve Coogan are just perfect as Stan and Ollie. I struggled a little at times with Steve Coogan, as I've been a big fan of his varied comedy work for nearly 30 years now, so found it a bit distracting. But he definitely pulls this off, and it's incredible to see so many mannerisms and iconic scenes from their movies so perfectly reproduced by both leads. The other outstanding and hilarious double act in this movie are the wives, who arrive in London to support their husbands and mix things up a little. They are clearly very caring and protective of their husbands though, supporting them through ill health, and an unfortunate falling out between Stan and Ollie related to events that occurred 16 years ago. A pivotal moment in their careers which was alluded to in the opening scenes of the movie, and further elaborated on in a number of flashbacks later on. It's a bit of an emotional roller-coaster, but overall this is a wonderfully heartwarming and moving love story about two of Hollywoods greatest. And it succeeded in making me want to watch every single one of their movies again.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Teen Titans Go! To the Movies (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
This summer has brought us many of the best and highest rated superhero movies of all time. After seeing big blockbusters such as Avengers: Infinity War and Deadpool 2 and even Disney Pixar’s animated superhero hit Incredibles 2, folks may have a bit of superhero overload. With so many genre-defining films one right after the other it would be easy to miss the newest contender, Teen Titans Go! To the Movies, but it’s absolutely a movie you should make a point to see.
Robin (Scott Menville), the leader of the Teen Titans dreams of nothing more than having a movie made about him. It seems like there is a movie about every other major superhero (even if it wasn’t a particularly good one as Green Lantern reluctantly admits too), so why not him? When he and his team Beast Boy (Greg Cipes), Cyborg (Khary Payton), Raven (Tara Strong) and Starfire (Hynden Walch) inquire why a movie has yet to be made about them, they are laughed at. After all, who would ever make a movie dedicated to the lowly sidekicks?
The Titans realize that there is one thing that all superheroes have that they are missing…an archnemesis, someone they could prove their heroic talents defeating and ultimately earn them a place among the stars. The Titans, due the other major superheroes being unavailable, come across Slade (Will Arnett) attempting to steal a precious crystal. Jumping quickly into action, the team realizes that this may be the archnemesis they are searching for.
Teen Titans is a movie that certainly does not take itself seriously, even their first battle is against a giant balloon man who steals safes by stuffing them inside helium filled balloons. There are also the occasional fart jokes and the expected waffles references, which are all the things that young kids have grown to love about the series. Even though those jokes and references were very funny, they are really only surface level jokes, ones to make the kids in the audience laugh. To get to the real genius of this movie you have to look a little deeper. Teen Titans is full of 80’s and pop culture references, so many that it’d be easy to overlook them the first time you see it. The movie includes subtle nods to everything from Back to the Future to superhero origin stories and every one of them is pure genius. The references were clearly made for the adults to catch, yet you’ll still see the younger audience members laughing (although they may not know why). One of my absolute favorite parts in the movie involves Aquaman, and 3 days later I’m still laughing about it. The joy this movie brings will stay with you for a very long time.
Teen Titans! Go to the Movies has my vote for best superhero movie of the year. It’s a bright shining star in the otherwise dismal DC Universe. It’s a movie that is made for young and old alike, but for entirely different reasons. It is both nostalgic and new, something that is incredibly difficult for most movies to accomplish these days. It will have you laughing throughout, but deep down teaches an incredibly important lesson about friendship, and what it means to be a true hero. For fans of the television series this is an absolute must see movie, in fact you should already have your tickets and know exactly when you are going. For those who have never seen a single episode but love superhero movies, don’t just sit there, fly/swim/portal your way over to the theater. If you have a fondness for the 80s, you’ll be in for a serious treat, in many, many ways. As cliché as this may seem, it’s the must-see movie of the summer and in my opinion the entire year. Oh, and make sure you stay for the credits…the genius lasts until the very end.
What I liked: Incredibly clever 80s and pop culture references, vivid and amazing animation, the superhero origin stories (you’ll understand when you watch it)
What I liked less: I couldn’t immediately go see it again
Robin (Scott Menville), the leader of the Teen Titans dreams of nothing more than having a movie made about him. It seems like there is a movie about every other major superhero (even if it wasn’t a particularly good one as Green Lantern reluctantly admits too), so why not him? When he and his team Beast Boy (Greg Cipes), Cyborg (Khary Payton), Raven (Tara Strong) and Starfire (Hynden Walch) inquire why a movie has yet to be made about them, they are laughed at. After all, who would ever make a movie dedicated to the lowly sidekicks?
The Titans realize that there is one thing that all superheroes have that they are missing…an archnemesis, someone they could prove their heroic talents defeating and ultimately earn them a place among the stars. The Titans, due the other major superheroes being unavailable, come across Slade (Will Arnett) attempting to steal a precious crystal. Jumping quickly into action, the team realizes that this may be the archnemesis they are searching for.
Teen Titans is a movie that certainly does not take itself seriously, even their first battle is against a giant balloon man who steals safes by stuffing them inside helium filled balloons. There are also the occasional fart jokes and the expected waffles references, which are all the things that young kids have grown to love about the series. Even though those jokes and references were very funny, they are really only surface level jokes, ones to make the kids in the audience laugh. To get to the real genius of this movie you have to look a little deeper. Teen Titans is full of 80’s and pop culture references, so many that it’d be easy to overlook them the first time you see it. The movie includes subtle nods to everything from Back to the Future to superhero origin stories and every one of them is pure genius. The references were clearly made for the adults to catch, yet you’ll still see the younger audience members laughing (although they may not know why). One of my absolute favorite parts in the movie involves Aquaman, and 3 days later I’m still laughing about it. The joy this movie brings will stay with you for a very long time.
Teen Titans! Go to the Movies has my vote for best superhero movie of the year. It’s a bright shining star in the otherwise dismal DC Universe. It’s a movie that is made for young and old alike, but for entirely different reasons. It is both nostalgic and new, something that is incredibly difficult for most movies to accomplish these days. It will have you laughing throughout, but deep down teaches an incredibly important lesson about friendship, and what it means to be a true hero. For fans of the television series this is an absolute must see movie, in fact you should already have your tickets and know exactly when you are going. For those who have never seen a single episode but love superhero movies, don’t just sit there, fly/swim/portal your way over to the theater. If you have a fondness for the 80s, you’ll be in for a serious treat, in many, many ways. As cliché as this may seem, it’s the must-see movie of the summer and in my opinion the entire year. Oh, and make sure you stay for the credits…the genius lasts until the very end.
What I liked: Incredibly clever 80s and pop culture references, vivid and amazing animation, the superhero origin stories (you’ll understand when you watch it)
What I liked less: I couldn’t immediately go see it again
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jungle Cruise (2021) in Movies
Aug 2, 2021
Star power from Johnson and Blunt (1 more)
Direction, cinematography, special effects and score all top notch
An Amazon-based blockbuster that delivers!
Dating from 1955, Jungle Cruise was one of the key attractions at Disneyland when it first opened. Full of corny spiel from the lovable boat captains, the experience is nicely evoked in the new Disney movie: a true summer blockbuster that delights.
Positives:
- Cut the movie open and it reads "summer blockbuster pleaser" through the middle. This is largely down to the charisma of its two stars, Blunt and Johnson, who prove why they are both such bankable commodities. It's clearly based on the "will they/won't they" simmering sexual chemistry between two polar-opposites, as featured in movies such as "Romancing the Stone" and "The African Queen". (Since the theme park ride was heavily influenced by the latter, this is no surprise). But there's also a heavy dose of tongue-in-cheek ridiculousness as featured in other great B-movie homages such as "The Mummy" and (most notably) "Raiders of the Lost Ark". (A few scenes directly mimic the Indiana Jones movies.)
- The supporting cast also have fun with their roles. Jack Whitehouse, doing almost a like-for-like copy of John Hannah's character in "The Mummy", could have been extremely annoying. But although he's the comic relief in the piece, he steers it just the right side of farcical, avoiding Jar-Jar Binks territory. ("When in Rome" he declares, swallowing a flagon of fermented spit. "God - I wish I was in Rome"!) Jesse Plemons, one of my favourite actors, who proved his comic chops in "Game Night", here delivers one of the most over-the-top Nazis since Ronald Lacey's Toht in "Raiders". Rounding things off is Paul Giamatti with a bizarrely comic performance as Nilo, a competing riverboat owner.
- Special effects, cinematography (Flavio Martínez Labiano, of "The Shallows") and James Newton-Howard's score all add to the lush blockbuster feel of the movie. And director Jaume Collet-Serra (who did the clever shark B-movie "The Shallows") keeps the movie clipping along at a fine rate, with only a few sections of character-building dialogue to get the kids fidgety.
Negatives:
- I mean, it's popcorn nonsense of course. The Amazonian 'McGuffin' is a tree that only comes to life under very specific conditions. And isn't it amazing that watery machinery (developed by who?) still works after at least 400 years, when my dishwasher gives up after ten? (But it's done with verve and style, so who cares?)
- Although the screenplay is actually very slick for a movie of this type, it feels like a script by committee at times. A single writer might have been tempted to duck the Hollywood ending and leave things on a more thoughtful, albeit downbeat, note.
Summary Thoughts on "Jungle Cruise": This was a pleasant surprise for me. A fun and light-hearted movie that ticks all the boxes as a summer blockbuster. It nicely evokes the cheesiness of the theme park ride operator (past alumni have included Robin Williams and Kevin Costner), especially with Johnson's opening scenes. But then rounds it out as a spectacular and appealing tongue-in-cheek adventure.
And, by the way, in case you fancy sitting through the interminable end titles to watch a post-credits scene.... there isn't one.
(#takenonefortheteam).
Parental Guidance: One question might be whether, with a "12A" certificate, this summer blockbuster is one that your kids might enjoy or be freaked out by. A comparison with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is perhaps useful here. There are quite a number of "jolts" involving snakes and bees but probably not as bad as the ones you get in an uncut version of "Raiders" (think the spiked Satipo; the mummies/snakes when escaping the 'Well of Souls'; and the melting Nazi bad-guys). So if you have kids that lapped up that stuff then I don't think they would have any issues with this one.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
Positives:
- Cut the movie open and it reads "summer blockbuster pleaser" through the middle. This is largely down to the charisma of its two stars, Blunt and Johnson, who prove why they are both such bankable commodities. It's clearly based on the "will they/won't they" simmering sexual chemistry between two polar-opposites, as featured in movies such as "Romancing the Stone" and "The African Queen". (Since the theme park ride was heavily influenced by the latter, this is no surprise). But there's also a heavy dose of tongue-in-cheek ridiculousness as featured in other great B-movie homages such as "The Mummy" and (most notably) "Raiders of the Lost Ark". (A few scenes directly mimic the Indiana Jones movies.)
- The supporting cast also have fun with their roles. Jack Whitehouse, doing almost a like-for-like copy of John Hannah's character in "The Mummy", could have been extremely annoying. But although he's the comic relief in the piece, he steers it just the right side of farcical, avoiding Jar-Jar Binks territory. ("When in Rome" he declares, swallowing a flagon of fermented spit. "God - I wish I was in Rome"!) Jesse Plemons, one of my favourite actors, who proved his comic chops in "Game Night", here delivers one of the most over-the-top Nazis since Ronald Lacey's Toht in "Raiders". Rounding things off is Paul Giamatti with a bizarrely comic performance as Nilo, a competing riverboat owner.
- Special effects, cinematography (Flavio Martínez Labiano, of "The Shallows") and James Newton-Howard's score all add to the lush blockbuster feel of the movie. And director Jaume Collet-Serra (who did the clever shark B-movie "The Shallows") keeps the movie clipping along at a fine rate, with only a few sections of character-building dialogue to get the kids fidgety.
Negatives:
- I mean, it's popcorn nonsense of course. The Amazonian 'McGuffin' is a tree that only comes to life under very specific conditions. And isn't it amazing that watery machinery (developed by who?) still works after at least 400 years, when my dishwasher gives up after ten? (But it's done with verve and style, so who cares?)
- Although the screenplay is actually very slick for a movie of this type, it feels like a script by committee at times. A single writer might have been tempted to duck the Hollywood ending and leave things on a more thoughtful, albeit downbeat, note.
Summary Thoughts on "Jungle Cruise": This was a pleasant surprise for me. A fun and light-hearted movie that ticks all the boxes as a summer blockbuster. It nicely evokes the cheesiness of the theme park ride operator (past alumni have included Robin Williams and Kevin Costner), especially with Johnson's opening scenes. But then rounds it out as a spectacular and appealing tongue-in-cheek adventure.
And, by the way, in case you fancy sitting through the interminable end titles to watch a post-credits scene.... there isn't one.
(#takenonefortheteam).
Parental Guidance: One question might be whether, with a "12A" certificate, this summer blockbuster is one that your kids might enjoy or be freaked out by. A comparison with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is perhaps useful here. There are quite a number of "jolts" involving snakes and bees but probably not as bad as the ones you get in an uncut version of "Raiders" (think the spiked Satipo; the mummies/snakes when escaping the 'Well of Souls'; and the melting Nazi bad-guys). So if you have kids that lapped up that stuff then I don't think they would have any issues with this one.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Sep 19, 2019
Bland and boring DESPITE J-Lo's performance
When I first saw the trailer for the Jennifer Lopez "strippers get back at scummy Wall Street-types" film, HUSTLERS, I wasn't at all interested in seeing it But then I got wind of strong early reviews with some (very faint) Oscar talk about J-Lo's performance in this film, so I thought I'd check it out.
I should have trusted my instincts.
What a lame disappointment this film is. It starts out flat and then flattens out even further to produce a movie that starts at one (fairly low) level and then stays there the entire time.
HUSTLERS stars Constance Wu (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as a a young stripper who is taught the ropes of the stripping game by uber-stripper Jennifer Lopez (if you don't know who this is, then go ahead and skip to the rating of this film at the bottom of this review and move on). When J-Lo's character, Ramona, comes up with an idea to get back at the scummy Wall Street types AND make some money along the way, Wu's character, Destiny (of course) is a reluctant participant becoming - over time - the leader.
A potentially interesting, "based on True Events" story (this film is based on the real life exploits of Ramona as described in a New York Magazine story), this film just falls flat and I put the blame for this in 2 places.
Lets start with Director and Writer of the screenplay, Lorene Scafaria (SEEKING A FRIEND AT THE END OF THE WORLD). She wrote - and directed - this film like it is a modest-scaled, low-key independent film (much like the very good SEEKING A FRIEND...), but the second that this film cast Jennifer Lopez as the flashy leader Ramona, words like modest and low-key should have been thrown out the window but Scafaria chose not to do this, she downplays the best asset in her movie and plunks most of her effort on a lead who could not match Lopez star power wattage.
And that lead is Constance Wu - the other weak link in this chain. I thought she was "just fine" in CRAZY RICH ASIANS, blending into the scenery when more flamboyant personalities were on the screen (in CRA it was Michelle Yeoh's "tiger mom") and she blends into the scenery whenever J-Lo is on the screen in this film - and that just doesn't work here. She needed to step up and step out and match J-Lo blow for blow, but she backs up and backs away in these crucial moments, so when her character is on the screen alone - trying to get the audience's sympathies - I just didn't care.
What I did care about is Jennifer Lopez's performance as Ramona. She is the brightest spot in this film and brings her star power and natural charisma to the screen. The ultimate problem with this performance (and NO, it is NOT Oscar-worthy) is it feels that she is fighting the "low-key" headwinds of writer/director Scafaria the entire time.
Former Disney star Keke Palmer and current RIVERDALE star Lili Reinhart bring some fun and energy to the screen as the 3rd and 4th partners in this quartet of stripper Robin Hoods, but they are all too often sentenced to strut around in the background in tight outfits. I would have loved to see a movie with Lopez, Palmer and Reinhart that was more "out there" and less restrained.
Finally, two very good actresses - Julia Styles and Mercedes Ruehl - are in this film in "what-the-heck-are they-doing-in-this-film" roles that are underwritten and underutilized the talents of these actresses - another missed opportunity by Writer/Director Scafaria.
I've heard this film called a "female empowerment" film or "the stripper version of Goodfellas" and I couldn't disagree more. The only "empowering" part of this film is when the credits rolled and I could leave.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
I should have trusted my instincts.
What a lame disappointment this film is. It starts out flat and then flattens out even further to produce a movie that starts at one (fairly low) level and then stays there the entire time.
HUSTLERS stars Constance Wu (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as a a young stripper who is taught the ropes of the stripping game by uber-stripper Jennifer Lopez (if you don't know who this is, then go ahead and skip to the rating of this film at the bottom of this review and move on). When J-Lo's character, Ramona, comes up with an idea to get back at the scummy Wall Street types AND make some money along the way, Wu's character, Destiny (of course) is a reluctant participant becoming - over time - the leader.
A potentially interesting, "based on True Events" story (this film is based on the real life exploits of Ramona as described in a New York Magazine story), this film just falls flat and I put the blame for this in 2 places.
Lets start with Director and Writer of the screenplay, Lorene Scafaria (SEEKING A FRIEND AT THE END OF THE WORLD). She wrote - and directed - this film like it is a modest-scaled, low-key independent film (much like the very good SEEKING A FRIEND...), but the second that this film cast Jennifer Lopez as the flashy leader Ramona, words like modest and low-key should have been thrown out the window but Scafaria chose not to do this, she downplays the best asset in her movie and plunks most of her effort on a lead who could not match Lopez star power wattage.
And that lead is Constance Wu - the other weak link in this chain. I thought she was "just fine" in CRAZY RICH ASIANS, blending into the scenery when more flamboyant personalities were on the screen (in CRA it was Michelle Yeoh's "tiger mom") and she blends into the scenery whenever J-Lo is on the screen in this film - and that just doesn't work here. She needed to step up and step out and match J-Lo blow for blow, but she backs up and backs away in these crucial moments, so when her character is on the screen alone - trying to get the audience's sympathies - I just didn't care.
What I did care about is Jennifer Lopez's performance as Ramona. She is the brightest spot in this film and brings her star power and natural charisma to the screen. The ultimate problem with this performance (and NO, it is NOT Oscar-worthy) is it feels that she is fighting the "low-key" headwinds of writer/director Scafaria the entire time.
Former Disney star Keke Palmer and current RIVERDALE star Lili Reinhart bring some fun and energy to the screen as the 3rd and 4th partners in this quartet of stripper Robin Hoods, but they are all too often sentenced to strut around in the background in tight outfits. I would have loved to see a movie with Lopez, Palmer and Reinhart that was more "out there" and less restrained.
Finally, two very good actresses - Julia Styles and Mercedes Ruehl - are in this film in "what-the-heck-are they-doing-in-this-film" roles that are underwritten and underutilized the talents of these actresses - another missed opportunity by Writer/Director Scafaria.
I've heard this film called a "female empowerment" film or "the stripper version of Goodfellas" and I couldn't disagree more. The only "empowering" part of this film is when the credits rolled and I could leave.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Book Club (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A book club without a spine.
Let’s be clear before we start; I am NOT in the demographic that this film is aimed at. And judging from the general reactions of the cinema audience I shared this with – 90%+ of who were women aged over 50 – my views are NOT going to necessarily reflect the general view, since there seemed to be quite a few satisfied customers in the audience. But my personal view would be, if you’re going to make a light-hearted comedy aimed at the lucrative silver pound, then at least make it a good one. For this – for me – felt like 50 shades of lame.
The action – if we can stretch the use of English that far – revolves around the four middle-class white ladies (this film challenges neither class nor racial divides) who meet periodically with copious quantities of wine and goat-cheese stuffed tomatoes to discuss a book. Hotel owner Vivian (Jane Fonda, “Klute”, “On Golden Pond”) is making lots of love but is reluctant to commit to it herself; Diane (Diane Keaton, “”Annie Hall”, “Something’s Gotta Give”) is recently widowed and struggling against being pigeon-holed as an ‘old duffer’ by her two daughters; Sharon (Candice Bergen, “Soldier Blue”, “Miss Congeniality”) has devoted her life to her career as a high court judge at the expense of a physical relationship (“What happens to a vagina that hasn’t been used in 18 years?!”); and Carol (Mary Steenburgen (“Back to the Future Part III”) is in a sexless marriage with her recently retired husband Bruce (Craig T Nelson, “Get Hard“, “Poltergeist”).
Vivian introduces the book club to “50 Shades of Grey” and the book influences everyone’s lives in different ways.
What ensues is 100 minutes of double entendres (“You have a lethargic pussy” says a veterinarian… you get the level) as the four separate stories (bump and) grind towards their separate conclusions. There are one or too laugh-out-loud moments but the majority of the screenplay is merely smile-worthy: “Mostly harmless” as Douglas Adams would have said.
What IS good, which is the reason my rating won’t have a “1” in it, is that it does give a reason to see some of our more senior actors and actresses strut their stuff again on the main stage.
In terms of the lead performances, while Steenburgen is good, it is Candice Bergen who impresses most as a fine comic actress. More please! Fonda and Don Johnson (“Miami Vice”) were supposed to be a hot couple, but their acting to me appeared false and their chemistry non-existent: did they have a fight outside the trailer every morning? And Diane Keaton was… well… Diane Keaton: the ditzy old hippy shtick wore a bit thin for me by the end.
We also have appearances from the great Andy Garcia (“The Godfather Part III”, “Oceans 11”), Wallace Shawn (just SOOooo good as the sleazy mob lawyer in “The Good Wife/Fight”) and (best of all) Richard Dreyfuss (“Jaws”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”). Dreyfuss has merely a cameo, but I was just longing for more of his character.
Alicia Silverstone (“Clueless”, “Batman & Robin”) even turns up, but her character (together with her sister played by Katie Aselton) is so annoying and vacuous that it’s not easy to warm to her.
A standout – but not in a good way – is the special effects, with some of the dodgiest green screen work I’ve seen in many a year. Think “North by Northwest” quality….. but that’s nearly 60 years old!
So, it’s not a film I would run to see again, but I’m not going to pan it completely, since if you are of the demographic that enjoys such films, you may really enjoy this one. It reminds me somewhat of “It’s Complicated” – and that’s one of my wife’s personal favourites! It also addresses some key topics that will be of relevance to a senior audience, not normally addressed by movies: male impotence resulting from self-doubt; the need to keep a young and ever-inquiring mind; and the good times to be had by getting out and back in the game again after bereavement (yes, you know who you are and you know I’m addressing YOU here!).
The action – if we can stretch the use of English that far – revolves around the four middle-class white ladies (this film challenges neither class nor racial divides) who meet periodically with copious quantities of wine and goat-cheese stuffed tomatoes to discuss a book. Hotel owner Vivian (Jane Fonda, “Klute”, “On Golden Pond”) is making lots of love but is reluctant to commit to it herself; Diane (Diane Keaton, “”Annie Hall”, “Something’s Gotta Give”) is recently widowed and struggling against being pigeon-holed as an ‘old duffer’ by her two daughters; Sharon (Candice Bergen, “Soldier Blue”, “Miss Congeniality”) has devoted her life to her career as a high court judge at the expense of a physical relationship (“What happens to a vagina that hasn’t been used in 18 years?!”); and Carol (Mary Steenburgen (“Back to the Future Part III”) is in a sexless marriage with her recently retired husband Bruce (Craig T Nelson, “Get Hard“, “Poltergeist”).
Vivian introduces the book club to “50 Shades of Grey” and the book influences everyone’s lives in different ways.
What ensues is 100 minutes of double entendres (“You have a lethargic pussy” says a veterinarian… you get the level) as the four separate stories (bump and) grind towards their separate conclusions. There are one or too laugh-out-loud moments but the majority of the screenplay is merely smile-worthy: “Mostly harmless” as Douglas Adams would have said.
What IS good, which is the reason my rating won’t have a “1” in it, is that it does give a reason to see some of our more senior actors and actresses strut their stuff again on the main stage.
In terms of the lead performances, while Steenburgen is good, it is Candice Bergen who impresses most as a fine comic actress. More please! Fonda and Don Johnson (“Miami Vice”) were supposed to be a hot couple, but their acting to me appeared false and their chemistry non-existent: did they have a fight outside the trailer every morning? And Diane Keaton was… well… Diane Keaton: the ditzy old hippy shtick wore a bit thin for me by the end.
We also have appearances from the great Andy Garcia (“The Godfather Part III”, “Oceans 11”), Wallace Shawn (just SOOooo good as the sleazy mob lawyer in “The Good Wife/Fight”) and (best of all) Richard Dreyfuss (“Jaws”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”). Dreyfuss has merely a cameo, but I was just longing for more of his character.
Alicia Silverstone (“Clueless”, “Batman & Robin”) even turns up, but her character (together with her sister played by Katie Aselton) is so annoying and vacuous that it’s not easy to warm to her.
A standout – but not in a good way – is the special effects, with some of the dodgiest green screen work I’ve seen in many a year. Think “North by Northwest” quality….. but that’s nearly 60 years old!
So, it’s not a film I would run to see again, but I’m not going to pan it completely, since if you are of the demographic that enjoys such films, you may really enjoy this one. It reminds me somewhat of “It’s Complicated” – and that’s one of my wife’s personal favourites! It also addresses some key topics that will be of relevance to a senior audience, not normally addressed by movies: male impotence resulting from self-doubt; the need to keep a young and ever-inquiring mind; and the good times to be had by getting out and back in the game again after bereavement (yes, you know who you are and you know I’m addressing YOU here!).