Search
Search results
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated In the Heart of the Sea (2015) in Movies
Apr 9, 2021 (Updated Jul 4, 2021)
If this story was handled with a bit more bite, a little less austere loyalty to formula than Ron Howard's PG-13 cleanliness then honestly this could have been the solid adventure movie it so clearly wants to be. It's already got the right look for it - with these pretty much perfect sea-faring nautical visuals: rich blues, greens, and yellows smoothly coat dutch angles of people looking wide-eyed into the sky with the wind flowing through their hair and whatnot... it's beautiful until it directly clashes with this indefensible CGI. The whales look like shit and the horrendous green screen work makes everyone constantly look like that last scene from đđŠđźđȘđŻđȘ đđąđŻ. The framing device with Whishaw and Gleeson - both of whom are award-worthy in this (particularly Gleeson, giving some of the best work of his career painting a deeply effective complex portrait of this clearly haunted man) - is more exciting and emotive than the actual story, which shambles at such a laborious pace that one can even stop laughing at Hemsworth's piss-poor accent. Just feels manufactured, cuts a bit too much to simulate fun rather than actually having it. Has its moments but you're better off just re-reading "Moby Dick".
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Anchorman - The Legend Of Ron Burgundy (2004) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
How in the world do you review a film like Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy? The film is meant to be as ridiculous as possible with outrageous performances and a paper thin storyline; half of its charm is its overuse of improvisation. You either found its absurd nature hilarious and consider it one of the funniest films ever (and completely ignore the horrid sequel) or hate it for being a nonsensical comedy filled with a cast of immature people who canât hold a straight face for a single take. Itâs honestly difficult to argue either perspective, but the 20-year-old version of this critic who saw this film and adored it would drop dead if he found out that it doesnât hold up as well nearly 15 years later.
Itâs 1974 and on the local San Diego news station KVWN channel 4 newscaster Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) is king since channel 4 is always number one in the ratings. His news team consists of sports newscaster Champ Kind (David Koechner), investigative news reporter Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), and weatherman Brick Tamland (Steve Carell). Up until this point, only men were allowed to read the news but a new female co-anchor named Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) is hired by channel 4 and has bigger plans. Veronica is ambitious, has a ton of experience, and envisions herself as one day becoming a lead network anchor. Tensions rise and feuds flare up, but times are changing and itâs something everyone, including Ron Burgundy, is going to have to deal with.
Anchorman is a tricky comedy because it throws all of its success into this random formula. There is a plot, but it takes a backseat to the memorable and hysterical one-liners from the film. These one-liners are phrases that youâll be saying for years to come as a few will likely become household favorites if you or your family has any sort of taste whatsoever. With the absolute blessing of owning so many cats, a common phrase from Anchorman that gets repeated around here on a regular basis is, âYou will eat that cat poop!â With a comedy this spontaneous, itâs difficult to comment on aspects such as the story since it shouldnât be taken as seriously as a film where the story actually matters. Anchorman isnât trying to win any awards. This is a film that is only trying to make its audience laugh and if it does that then it has to be successful in some sort of capacity. The cast absolutely embodies these characters to a fairly flawless extent. Being so absorbed in these roles makes the absurdity more believable and slightly easier to swallow.
Before Will Ferrell became unbearable, the holy trinity of Will Ferrell comedies were Step Brothers, Anchorman, and Talladega Nights; in that order (unless his cameo in Wedding Crashers counts). This was the early and late 2000s before Farrellâs on-screen antics had grown stale. Most of Farrellâs films follow the same generic formula; a nonexistent plot followed by a series of aimless one-liners and spitfire jokes that come out of nowhere. Ferrellâs career is well past the redundant stage as his more serious roles show more promise these days than his exasperating comedies. That formula was still working with Anchorman and it seems to have worked for many other who saw it as the film garnered a cult status over time.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy isnât going to be for everyone and itâs totally understandable if you or someone you know downright hates the film. It is absolutely moronic in its execution, but for those who love it that is why itâs as funny as it is. There isnât a riveting story, impressive character development, or a steady buildup towards anything worthwhile (unless Jack Black dropkicking a fake dog off of an overpass counts as a proper climax). Anchorman has the attention span of a Family Guy cutaway gag. If you enjoy Family Guy, then Anchorman is probably one of your favorite movies.
This is like getting together with a bunch of friends and laughing at stupid stuff because youâre loaded on sugar, but Anchorman stretches out that feeling for an hour and a half; itâs a 90-minute sugar rush with no breaks. Itâs like snorting Pixie Stix and laughing like an idiot for an hour straight or chugging a two-liter Coke and inhaling seven packets of Pop Rocks and laughing at your stomach not exploding. You donât watch Anchorman to ponder your life choices or be amazed at technical achievements in filmmaking. This is a paper thin comedy that only wants to make you laugh and forget about how hard it is to make adult decisions in the overly intimidating modern world for a short hour and a half time period. If Anchorman can accomplish all of that and you quote it like a giggling idiot, then the two of us have something in common and Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy should be considered as a masterwork in hilarious idiocy.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is currently available to rent via Amazon Video, Youtube, Vudu, and Google Play for $2.99 and through iTunes for $3.99. The Unrated DVD is available as an add-on item through Amazon for $3.99, multi-format Blu-ray for $6.98, and the unrated Rich Mahogany Blu-ray for $5.99. Itâs also available on DVD ($2.45) and Blu-ray ($3.65) through eBay with free shipping.
Itâs 1974 and on the local San Diego news station KVWN channel 4 newscaster Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) is king since channel 4 is always number one in the ratings. His news team consists of sports newscaster Champ Kind (David Koechner), investigative news reporter Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), and weatherman Brick Tamland (Steve Carell). Up until this point, only men were allowed to read the news but a new female co-anchor named Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) is hired by channel 4 and has bigger plans. Veronica is ambitious, has a ton of experience, and envisions herself as one day becoming a lead network anchor. Tensions rise and feuds flare up, but times are changing and itâs something everyone, including Ron Burgundy, is going to have to deal with.
Anchorman is a tricky comedy because it throws all of its success into this random formula. There is a plot, but it takes a backseat to the memorable and hysterical one-liners from the film. These one-liners are phrases that youâll be saying for years to come as a few will likely become household favorites if you or your family has any sort of taste whatsoever. With the absolute blessing of owning so many cats, a common phrase from Anchorman that gets repeated around here on a regular basis is, âYou will eat that cat poop!â With a comedy this spontaneous, itâs difficult to comment on aspects such as the story since it shouldnât be taken as seriously as a film where the story actually matters. Anchorman isnât trying to win any awards. This is a film that is only trying to make its audience laugh and if it does that then it has to be successful in some sort of capacity. The cast absolutely embodies these characters to a fairly flawless extent. Being so absorbed in these roles makes the absurdity more believable and slightly easier to swallow.
Before Will Ferrell became unbearable, the holy trinity of Will Ferrell comedies were Step Brothers, Anchorman, and Talladega Nights; in that order (unless his cameo in Wedding Crashers counts). This was the early and late 2000s before Farrellâs on-screen antics had grown stale. Most of Farrellâs films follow the same generic formula; a nonexistent plot followed by a series of aimless one-liners and spitfire jokes that come out of nowhere. Ferrellâs career is well past the redundant stage as his more serious roles show more promise these days than his exasperating comedies. That formula was still working with Anchorman and it seems to have worked for many other who saw it as the film garnered a cult status over time.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy isnât going to be for everyone and itâs totally understandable if you or someone you know downright hates the film. It is absolutely moronic in its execution, but for those who love it that is why itâs as funny as it is. There isnât a riveting story, impressive character development, or a steady buildup towards anything worthwhile (unless Jack Black dropkicking a fake dog off of an overpass counts as a proper climax). Anchorman has the attention span of a Family Guy cutaway gag. If you enjoy Family Guy, then Anchorman is probably one of your favorite movies.
This is like getting together with a bunch of friends and laughing at stupid stuff because youâre loaded on sugar, but Anchorman stretches out that feeling for an hour and a half; itâs a 90-minute sugar rush with no breaks. Itâs like snorting Pixie Stix and laughing like an idiot for an hour straight or chugging a two-liter Coke and inhaling seven packets of Pop Rocks and laughing at your stomach not exploding. You donât watch Anchorman to ponder your life choices or be amazed at technical achievements in filmmaking. This is a paper thin comedy that only wants to make you laugh and forget about how hard it is to make adult decisions in the overly intimidating modern world for a short hour and a half time period. If Anchorman can accomplish all of that and you quote it like a giggling idiot, then the two of us have something in common and Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy should be considered as a masterwork in hilarious idiocy.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is currently available to rent via Amazon Video, Youtube, Vudu, and Google Play for $2.99 and through iTunes for $3.99. The Unrated DVD is available as an add-on item through Amazon for $3.99, multi-format Blu-ray for $6.98, and the unrated Rich Mahogany Blu-ray for $5.99. Itâs also available on DVD ($2.45) and Blu-ray ($3.65) through eBay with free shipping.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Beatles: Eight Days A Week - The Touring Years (2016) in Movies
Oct 24, 2017
Four Lads Who Shook The World
Last night the Ron Howard directed Beatles documentary, Eight Days A Week: The Touring Years, premiered in London. As much as I would have loved to attend the premier, I have just started a new year at university and couldnât afford to go both financially and educationally. Therefore I had to settle for going to see it in my local cinema, but it was still an awesome experience. From six oâclock, the cinema streamed the premier in London, hosted by John Bishop and Edith Bowman and featuring interviews from Ron Howard, Paul and Ringo. Then the cinema auctioned off a poster for the film for charity, (which went for ÂŁ100 if you are curious,) then finally the film started.
It is a fantastic insight into what went on during the years of Beatlemania while the Beatles were on tour and what they were like as people in those more innocent days. The music is of course fantastic, but even for someone who isnât a massive Beatles fan I think that this documentary is still relevant and tells of an important piece of recent history in an exciting, stylish way.
There are some gripes I have with the movie though, the first one being a case of some revisionist history. The only talk about the group taking any form of drugs was a blink and youâll miss it mention of them smoking dope on the set of Help, there was no mention of them smoking a joint in the toilets in Buckingham Palace while waiting to receive their MBEâs, there was also no mention of the fact that John returned his MBE and they didnât even mention the amount of acid they took whilst in India and in the later days. Also, all of Johnâs more offensive behaviour has been vastly censored and toned down. There is footage of the Beatles first American concert at the Coliseum in Washington D.C, where Paul introduces the band and asks the audience to âclap their hands and stomp their feet,â as Paul is saying this John appears to be impersonating a handicapped person doing exaggerated clapping and stomping movements, which is something he did repeatedly during their first American tour, but in the film they cut away to the audience during this to avoid showing John being offensive. We also never see the footage from their Royal Variety performance, when John told the people in the poor seats to clap their hands and the rich people, including the Royal family, to just rattle their jewellery. I donât know why they are trying to make John look like an innocent saint when he was never like that, he was always rebellious and cheeky and was never afraid to say what was on his mind. The second gripe I have is more of a personal one in that us hardcore Beatles fans were promised a story that had never been told and while there was some footage that I hadnât seen before, I wasnât exactly mind blown by the story that the footage told as there was very little in the film that I didnât already know about. However despite these minor gripes the movie is fantastic, an immense story told by a master filmmaker about the greatest band in history, whatâs not to love?
It is a fantastic insight into what went on during the years of Beatlemania while the Beatles were on tour and what they were like as people in those more innocent days. The music is of course fantastic, but even for someone who isnât a massive Beatles fan I think that this documentary is still relevant and tells of an important piece of recent history in an exciting, stylish way.
There are some gripes I have with the movie though, the first one being a case of some revisionist history. The only talk about the group taking any form of drugs was a blink and youâll miss it mention of them smoking dope on the set of Help, there was no mention of them smoking a joint in the toilets in Buckingham Palace while waiting to receive their MBEâs, there was also no mention of the fact that John returned his MBE and they didnât even mention the amount of acid they took whilst in India and in the later days. Also, all of Johnâs more offensive behaviour has been vastly censored and toned down. There is footage of the Beatles first American concert at the Coliseum in Washington D.C, where Paul introduces the band and asks the audience to âclap their hands and stomp their feet,â as Paul is saying this John appears to be impersonating a handicapped person doing exaggerated clapping and stomping movements, which is something he did repeatedly during their first American tour, but in the film they cut away to the audience during this to avoid showing John being offensive. We also never see the footage from their Royal Variety performance, when John told the people in the poor seats to clap their hands and the rich people, including the Royal family, to just rattle their jewellery. I donât know why they are trying to make John look like an innocent saint when he was never like that, he was always rebellious and cheeky and was never afraid to say what was on his mind. The second gripe I have is more of a personal one in that us hardcore Beatles fans were promised a story that had never been told and while there was some footage that I hadnât seen before, I wasnât exactly mind blown by the story that the footage told as there was very little in the film that I didnât already know about. However despite these minor gripes the movie is fantastic, an immense story told by a master filmmaker about the greatest band in history, whatâs not to love?
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Conan the Barbarian (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Conan.
The name either evokes pictures of half naked body builders, and topless wenches, or a very tall man with red, quaffed hair. Well, hopefully the former is what you are all thinking about, because that is what you are going to get. Nobody goes to a Conan movie for the tall, red haired guy. Right?
Jason Momoa, who is not awful to look at for a couple of hours, plays Conan. Physically, he is much truer to the character in the original source material, than the former governor of California. He also has this interesting gravity that makes you sit up and pay attention. Or maybe that was because he was shirtless for most of the movie.
Conanâs story begins as a baby, who is âbattle bornâ and whose first taste, a familiar narrator states, âis not his motherâs milk, but her blood.â He is better then many of his villageâs best warrior candidates and joins in a test that ends up being a battle against savages. While the other candidates run back to camp; Conan stay and fights. Not only does he return to the camp having passed the test, but he carries three of the savageâs heads with him. His father (Ron Pearlman) decides it is time to forge a sword and begin to train, with the father imparting sage words like, âYou cannot yield the sword until you understand it.â
Conanâs training is interrupted by the arrival of Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang), a ruthless warlord who brings death and destruction to Conanâs village. Zymâs on a a quest to to claim the final piece of a mask that will give him control of the magic of Asheron. Conan is left the sole survivor of his Cimmarian people, growing up to become a fierce warrior intent on avenging his fatherâs death. All the while, Zym and his daughter Marique continue on Zymâs quest to become a powerful god, in search of a âpurebloodâ â the one person whose blood will make the mask work. Inevitably, Zym and Conanâs paths cross again and swordfights ensue.
The best thing about this movie, for me, were the female leads. Rose McGowan as Marique and Rachel Nichols as Tamara (the pureblood) are both warriors. It was also excellent to have Conan acknowledge this in Tamara; even saying, âCimmarian women are warriors, give her the leather and armor.â We would have never heard 1982âs Conan say anything like this.
Listening to people while leaving the movie I heard grumblings about how the Conan character never really had an origin story. This movie provides that, and because of this it also provides something that the original movies lacked: plot. Not that the plot is very rich, but again, nobody goes to a Conan movie for the story or the plot. Right?
The name either evokes pictures of half naked body builders, and topless wenches, or a very tall man with red, quaffed hair. Well, hopefully the former is what you are all thinking about, because that is what you are going to get. Nobody goes to a Conan movie for the tall, red haired guy. Right?
Jason Momoa, who is not awful to look at for a couple of hours, plays Conan. Physically, he is much truer to the character in the original source material, than the former governor of California. He also has this interesting gravity that makes you sit up and pay attention. Or maybe that was because he was shirtless for most of the movie.
Conanâs story begins as a baby, who is âbattle bornâ and whose first taste, a familiar narrator states, âis not his motherâs milk, but her blood.â He is better then many of his villageâs best warrior candidates and joins in a test that ends up being a battle against savages. While the other candidates run back to camp; Conan stay and fights. Not only does he return to the camp having passed the test, but he carries three of the savageâs heads with him. His father (Ron Pearlman) decides it is time to forge a sword and begin to train, with the father imparting sage words like, âYou cannot yield the sword until you understand it.â
Conanâs training is interrupted by the arrival of Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang), a ruthless warlord who brings death and destruction to Conanâs village. Zymâs on a a quest to to claim the final piece of a mask that will give him control of the magic of Asheron. Conan is left the sole survivor of his Cimmarian people, growing up to become a fierce warrior intent on avenging his fatherâs death. All the while, Zym and his daughter Marique continue on Zymâs quest to become a powerful god, in search of a âpurebloodâ â the one person whose blood will make the mask work. Inevitably, Zym and Conanâs paths cross again and swordfights ensue.
The best thing about this movie, for me, were the female leads. Rose McGowan as Marique and Rachel Nichols as Tamara (the pureblood) are both warriors. It was also excellent to have Conan acknowledge this in Tamara; even saying, âCimmarian women are warriors, give her the leather and armor.â We would have never heard 1982âs Conan say anything like this.
Listening to people while leaving the movie I heard grumblings about how the Conan character never really had an origin story. This movie provides that, and because of this it also provides something that the original movies lacked: plot. Not that the plot is very rich, but again, nobody goes to a Conan movie for the story or the plot. Right?
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Da Vinci Code (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
No film since âThe Last Temptation of Christâ has invoked as much controversy as The Da Vinci Code based on the book of the same name by Dan Brown. Prior to the film even being screened for the press, cries ran out to ban the film and its message that some find blasphemous. Fortunately calmer heads have prevailed and the film by Director Ron Howard has arrived in a wash of media frenzy not seen since Mel Gibsonâs The Passion of the Christ.
If you are seeing a pattern forming, you would be correct as it seems that few topics can raise ire and wrath more than the topic of religion, especially if the film proposes a viewpoint that differs from the traditional beliefs that are given by the church, bible, and history.
In the film, a monk appears to murder an elderly man who with his last ounces of strength, manages to leave a cryptic riddle on his body. The bizarre nature of the crime prompts French police inspector Fache (Jean Reno) to travel to the Louvre to investigate the crime. A clue at the crime scene causes the police to summer Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) from a lecture hall where he is signing his latest book on symbols. Since the deceased was supposed to meet Langdon earlier in the day Langdon has fallen under suspicion for the crime.
As he attempts to decipher the message at the crime scene, Langdon encounters a police cryptologists named Sophie (Audrey Tautou), who informs Robert that he is in danger and soon the duo are fleeing from the police after deciphering some hidden clues at the crime scene.
Before either Robert or Audrey knows what is happening, they are being accused of multiple murders and on the run. As the clues begin to mount, the mystery takes an even stranger turn by the discovery of an artifact that when unlocked, should contain a map.
Seeking refuge and help, the duo arrive at the estate of Sir Leigh Teabing (Sir Ian Mc Kellen), who proceeds to tell Robert and Sophie that the clues they have uncovered are part of a cover-up that segments of the church will stop at nothing to keep secret. The nature of this secret is such that should it become public knowledge, then they very foundations of history, faith, and the church could be shaken to their core.
As the mystery becomes clearer, the group are attacked by a Monk named Silas (Paul Bettany), who has been doing the violent work of someone know as The Teacher in an effort to discover the location of artifacts and those attempting to uncover the mystery.
What follows is a frantic race that travels from Paris to London in an effort to get to the bottom of the mystery and unravel the true nature of the mystery and the secret that people are willing to kill for in order to protect.
While some may find the mystery, the players, and their motivations confusing, the film does grab hold and moves along at a solid pace. Ron Howard once again shows his skill by directing a film that is different from his other works, yet rich in its visuals and complexity. The scenic locales of the film enhance the mystery (For those who have not read the book), as they attempt to decipher the clues along with the characters.
The work from the cast was solid as Hanks gives a very good if restrained performance in his portrayal. Mc Kellen is a very nice blend of elegance and old world charm that lifts up every scene in which he is in.
While there are those who will lambaste the film for the message it provides, I chose to look at it as a film that does what movies should, entertain and make you think. The film is not saying its assertions are hard and cold facts, what it is doing is providing a vehicle for debate.
In college I was told that through debate comes knowledge and growth for a society. This was common in ancient Greek and Roman society where issues of the day would be debated in open forums. It seems that we as a society have become too insistent to take things at face value and have forgotten that the very nature of the human experience is to question, grow, and seek our own answers. As such the film is a great example of how Hollywood at times gets it right and provides solid entertainment that will stimulate as well as entertain.
If you are seeing a pattern forming, you would be correct as it seems that few topics can raise ire and wrath more than the topic of religion, especially if the film proposes a viewpoint that differs from the traditional beliefs that are given by the church, bible, and history.
In the film, a monk appears to murder an elderly man who with his last ounces of strength, manages to leave a cryptic riddle on his body. The bizarre nature of the crime prompts French police inspector Fache (Jean Reno) to travel to the Louvre to investigate the crime. A clue at the crime scene causes the police to summer Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) from a lecture hall where he is signing his latest book on symbols. Since the deceased was supposed to meet Langdon earlier in the day Langdon has fallen under suspicion for the crime.
As he attempts to decipher the message at the crime scene, Langdon encounters a police cryptologists named Sophie (Audrey Tautou), who informs Robert that he is in danger and soon the duo are fleeing from the police after deciphering some hidden clues at the crime scene.
Before either Robert or Audrey knows what is happening, they are being accused of multiple murders and on the run. As the clues begin to mount, the mystery takes an even stranger turn by the discovery of an artifact that when unlocked, should contain a map.
Seeking refuge and help, the duo arrive at the estate of Sir Leigh Teabing (Sir Ian Mc Kellen), who proceeds to tell Robert and Sophie that the clues they have uncovered are part of a cover-up that segments of the church will stop at nothing to keep secret. The nature of this secret is such that should it become public knowledge, then they very foundations of history, faith, and the church could be shaken to their core.
As the mystery becomes clearer, the group are attacked by a Monk named Silas (Paul Bettany), who has been doing the violent work of someone know as The Teacher in an effort to discover the location of artifacts and those attempting to uncover the mystery.
What follows is a frantic race that travels from Paris to London in an effort to get to the bottom of the mystery and unravel the true nature of the mystery and the secret that people are willing to kill for in order to protect.
While some may find the mystery, the players, and their motivations confusing, the film does grab hold and moves along at a solid pace. Ron Howard once again shows his skill by directing a film that is different from his other works, yet rich in its visuals and complexity. The scenic locales of the film enhance the mystery (For those who have not read the book), as they attempt to decipher the clues along with the characters.
The work from the cast was solid as Hanks gives a very good if restrained performance in his portrayal. Mc Kellen is a very nice blend of elegance and old world charm that lifts up every scene in which he is in.
While there are those who will lambaste the film for the message it provides, I chose to look at it as a film that does what movies should, entertain and make you think. The film is not saying its assertions are hard and cold facts, what it is doing is providing a vehicle for debate.
In college I was told that through debate comes knowledge and growth for a society. This was common in ancient Greek and Roman society where issues of the day would be debated in open forums. It seems that we as a society have become too insistent to take things at face value and have forgotten that the very nature of the human experience is to question, grow, and seek our own answers. As such the film is a great example of how Hollywood at times gets it right and provides solid entertainment that will stimulate as well as entertain.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011) in Movies
Dec 14, 2020
Great Performances, Even Better Film
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is one of the most gratifying ways to end a series. After such a long series, youâre hoping that the end does the rest of the series justice and thIS movie doesnât disappoint in the slightest. Itâs the harrowing conclusion to Harry Potterâs journey as he tries to put a stop to the evil Voldemort once and for all.
Acting: 10
Itâs not surprise that the acting is so stellar as these wonderful actors/actresses have had years to grow comfortable in the skin of their characters. Daniel Radcliffe continues to be sensational in his role as Harry Potter as he embraces Potterâs ascension into manhood. Rupert Grint (Ron) and Emma Watson (Hermione) shine yet again playing his dedicated friends and sidekicks. You can tell that the three of them have formed such a strong bond over the eight movies as their synergy is extremely on point.
Beginning: 4
Characters: 10
This final film pulls out all the stops as itâs an all-out good vs. evil war. Teeming with amazing characters, I was hardpressed trying to uncover who exactly my favorite was. Potter is wonderful, yes, but so are dozens of others literally. I was really impressed with the maturation of Ronâs character. It can be hard at times developing a sidekick but in some ways, Ronâs journey to completion is just as satisfying as Harryâs.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
This one is for all the marbles so they hold nothing back when it comes to amazing action sequences. The battles sprawl all across Hogwarts filled with dope magic and wonder. Sparks fly in abundance of blacks, greens and reds across a dark backdrop, a spectacular display. Sometimes you have no idea whoâs even winning, but it looks damn cool.
Entertainment Value: 10
Potter vs. Voldemort alone is worth the price of admission. The battle definitely lives up to the hype. Even moreso to see closure happen on every level is a welcome treat. Outside of a slow(ish) start, the movie is enjoyable from beginning to end.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
The beauty of the final book being done in two parts for the movie is they definitely saved the best for last. All the best battles and memorable scenes are jam-packed into Part 2, causing things to fly by at a breakneck pace. Just over two hours, the final installment just flies by.
Plot: 10
JK Rowling wraps up this beautiful adventure quite nicely. The thing I keep going back to and have an immense amount of respect for: No loose ends. The stakes are higher than ever in this story that succeeds with a few cool twists along the way.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 94
The magical battles alone are enough to make Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 worth a watch. With the combination of rich characters who each get a proper sendoff, a speedy pace, and a chunk of memorable moments, this is a movie to remember.
Acting: 10
Itâs not surprise that the acting is so stellar as these wonderful actors/actresses have had years to grow comfortable in the skin of their characters. Daniel Radcliffe continues to be sensational in his role as Harry Potter as he embraces Potterâs ascension into manhood. Rupert Grint (Ron) and Emma Watson (Hermione) shine yet again playing his dedicated friends and sidekicks. You can tell that the three of them have formed such a strong bond over the eight movies as their synergy is extremely on point.
Beginning: 4
Characters: 10
This final film pulls out all the stops as itâs an all-out good vs. evil war. Teeming with amazing characters, I was hardpressed trying to uncover who exactly my favorite was. Potter is wonderful, yes, but so are dozens of others literally. I was really impressed with the maturation of Ronâs character. It can be hard at times developing a sidekick but in some ways, Ronâs journey to completion is just as satisfying as Harryâs.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
This one is for all the marbles so they hold nothing back when it comes to amazing action sequences. The battles sprawl all across Hogwarts filled with dope magic and wonder. Sparks fly in abundance of blacks, greens and reds across a dark backdrop, a spectacular display. Sometimes you have no idea whoâs even winning, but it looks damn cool.
Entertainment Value: 10
Potter vs. Voldemort alone is worth the price of admission. The battle definitely lives up to the hype. Even moreso to see closure happen on every level is a welcome treat. Outside of a slow(ish) start, the movie is enjoyable from beginning to end.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
The beauty of the final book being done in two parts for the movie is they definitely saved the best for last. All the best battles and memorable scenes are jam-packed into Part 2, causing things to fly by at a breakneck pace. Just over two hours, the final installment just flies by.
Plot: 10
JK Rowling wraps up this beautiful adventure quite nicely. The thing I keep going back to and have an immense amount of respect for: No loose ends. The stakes are higher than ever in this story that succeeds with a few cool twists along the way.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 94
The magical battles alone are enough to make Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 worth a watch. With the combination of rich characters who each get a proper sendoff, a speedy pace, and a chunk of memorable moments, this is a movie to remember.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Solo? So-so.
When the whole Disney âbroaden out the Star Wars universeâ thing was first mooted I was NOT enthusiastic about the prospect. Then, in Christmas 2016 âRogue Oneâ burst onto our screens as a breath of fresh air, and I thought âOK, I can be wrong!â. But even jolted by that pleasant surprise, I always thought that the second proposed diversion off the main hyperspace highway into âRadiator Springsâ â a Han Solo back-story flick â might fall short. It just didnât float my boat.
Add into that proposition the decision to give the film initially to âThe Lego Movieâ directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (why Disney? why?); them trying to forge it as a âcomedyâ; them falling horribly short and being fired by Disney; Disney bringing Ron Howard (âInfernoâ, âRushâ) in to try to salvage the project; and Howard reportedly re-shooting 75% of the film and you have the makings of a turkey of galactic proportions.
With all that being said, I was surprised I enjoyed it as much as I did. But thatâs off a very low base of expectation.
As you might guess, we go back to see Han⊠just Han⊠as a delinquent youth trying to keep his head above water under the thrall of the Fagin-like Lady Proxima (who â no pun intended â keeps her head under the water for most of the time). He is desperate to pull off a con thatâs lucrative enough that it will get him and his girlfriend Qiâra (Emilia Clarke, âMe Before Youâ; âTerminator: Genisysâ; âGame of Thronesâ) off-planet and into a free life. Things donât go to plan though and Han â now Han Solo â finds himself a trooper of the Galactic Empire. He links up with fellow rogues Beckett (Woody Harrelson, âWar for the Planet of the Apesâ; âThree Billboards in Ebbing, Missouriâ), Val (Thandie Newton, âWestworldâ, â2012â), Rio (voiced by Jon Favreau, âSpider-Man: Homecomingâ; âIron Man Threeâ) and their assertive and rebellious droid L3-37 (voiced by Phoebe Waller-Bridge) in a get-rich-or-die mission for vicious gang-boss Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany, âAvengers: Infinity Warâ).
The film has its moments for sure:
There are some nice background touches: an army recruitment video plays to the sound of John Williamâs empire march (played I am assured by my more musical wife in a major key to sound more uplifting and positive!);
Hanâs first meeting with that famous walking carpet (played by Joonas Suotamo) is memorable, as is the introduction to that âcard player, gambler and scoundrelâ Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover, âThe Martianâ, âSpider-Man: Homecomingâ): all flamboyance, self-regard and well-dressed ego;
solo2
Never count your money while youâre sitting at the table. Lando Calrissian played by Donald Glover putting his ship (you probably havenât heard of it) on the line. (Source: Lucasfilm).
the character of L3-37 is an excellent addition to the saga, forcefully demanding equality for droids: I would have liked to have seen much more of her;
there is a nice twist on the Greedo/Han âwho shot firstâ debate;
production design and special effects are up to standard for a Star Wars film, and I enjoyed John Powellâs score, incorporating a new âyoung Hanâ theme from John Williams himself;
and Erin Kellyman (in here movie debut) is just breathtaking and strikingly brilliant as the be-freckled renegade Enfys Nest.
But overall itâs all a bit disjointed and jumbled, probably as befits its growing pains. We are introduced to Solo within five seconds of the filmâs openingâŠ.. BAM! No exquisite ârevealâ as we saw with River Phoenix in âIndiana Jones and the Last Crusadeâ. I found this disconcerting and it took me ten minutes to get into the film as a result.
When it gets going it rather tries too hard to join up more Star Wars dots than it needs to. âRogue Oneâ did that exceedingly well, but that was because it needed to as âEpisode 3.5â. Here there are visual and verbal references everywhere as the screenwriters (Lawrence and Jonathan Kasdan) desperately try to knit their story into the canon. As an example, the action moves to the mines of Kessel at one point. Kessel? Kessel? Wasnât that a throwaway C3PO line from the âA New Hopeâ about being âsmashed to who knows whatâ in said mines?. So obviously, in the WHOLE GALAXY thatâs where the story leads us, with the local lingo for the hyperspace fuel McGuffin at the heart of the plot being âspiceâ! Itâs all a bit too trite for my liking.
And while a key protagonist appearing near the end of the film (no spoilers) is both a startling surprise and great fun, donât get me started on the timeline implicationsâŠ. (see the spoiler section below the trailer for more).
Alden Ehrenreich, who was just brilliant in âHail Caesarâ (âWas that it tâWERRRE so simpleâ) for me barely makes it past bland in the lead role. One of the defining characteristics of Harrison Fordâs Solo was his swagger and bravado and unfortunately Ehrenreich barely rates a three out of ten on the scale. I also found the chemistry with Emelia Clarke to be lukewarm. Clarke still seems to be struggling to make a significant breakthrough to the big screenâŠ. âMe Before Youâ still seems to be her high water mark so far. Here she has a key and complex role, but comes over as just plain unconvincing and âmehâ.
Ron Howard has clearly done a good job in buffing up a poisoned chalice so it can at least share space on the Star Wars shelf without being laughed out of the Cantina. Perhaps with a more coordinated and thought-through run-up to a Solo sequel (more Enfys Nest please!) this offshoot might have legs.
Add into that proposition the decision to give the film initially to âThe Lego Movieâ directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (why Disney? why?); them trying to forge it as a âcomedyâ; them falling horribly short and being fired by Disney; Disney bringing Ron Howard (âInfernoâ, âRushâ) in to try to salvage the project; and Howard reportedly re-shooting 75% of the film and you have the makings of a turkey of galactic proportions.
With all that being said, I was surprised I enjoyed it as much as I did. But thatâs off a very low base of expectation.
As you might guess, we go back to see Han⊠just Han⊠as a delinquent youth trying to keep his head above water under the thrall of the Fagin-like Lady Proxima (who â no pun intended â keeps her head under the water for most of the time). He is desperate to pull off a con thatâs lucrative enough that it will get him and his girlfriend Qiâra (Emilia Clarke, âMe Before Youâ; âTerminator: Genisysâ; âGame of Thronesâ) off-planet and into a free life. Things donât go to plan though and Han â now Han Solo â finds himself a trooper of the Galactic Empire. He links up with fellow rogues Beckett (Woody Harrelson, âWar for the Planet of the Apesâ; âThree Billboards in Ebbing, Missouriâ), Val (Thandie Newton, âWestworldâ, â2012â), Rio (voiced by Jon Favreau, âSpider-Man: Homecomingâ; âIron Man Threeâ) and their assertive and rebellious droid L3-37 (voiced by Phoebe Waller-Bridge) in a get-rich-or-die mission for vicious gang-boss Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany, âAvengers: Infinity Warâ).
The film has its moments for sure:
There are some nice background touches: an army recruitment video plays to the sound of John Williamâs empire march (played I am assured by my more musical wife in a major key to sound more uplifting and positive!);
Hanâs first meeting with that famous walking carpet (played by Joonas Suotamo) is memorable, as is the introduction to that âcard player, gambler and scoundrelâ Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover, âThe Martianâ, âSpider-Man: Homecomingâ): all flamboyance, self-regard and well-dressed ego;
solo2
Never count your money while youâre sitting at the table. Lando Calrissian played by Donald Glover putting his ship (you probably havenât heard of it) on the line. (Source: Lucasfilm).
the character of L3-37 is an excellent addition to the saga, forcefully demanding equality for droids: I would have liked to have seen much more of her;
there is a nice twist on the Greedo/Han âwho shot firstâ debate;
production design and special effects are up to standard for a Star Wars film, and I enjoyed John Powellâs score, incorporating a new âyoung Hanâ theme from John Williams himself;
and Erin Kellyman (in here movie debut) is just breathtaking and strikingly brilliant as the be-freckled renegade Enfys Nest.
But overall itâs all a bit disjointed and jumbled, probably as befits its growing pains. We are introduced to Solo within five seconds of the filmâs openingâŠ.. BAM! No exquisite ârevealâ as we saw with River Phoenix in âIndiana Jones and the Last Crusadeâ. I found this disconcerting and it took me ten minutes to get into the film as a result.
When it gets going it rather tries too hard to join up more Star Wars dots than it needs to. âRogue Oneâ did that exceedingly well, but that was because it needed to as âEpisode 3.5â. Here there are visual and verbal references everywhere as the screenwriters (Lawrence and Jonathan Kasdan) desperately try to knit their story into the canon. As an example, the action moves to the mines of Kessel at one point. Kessel? Kessel? Wasnât that a throwaway C3PO line from the âA New Hopeâ about being âsmashed to who knows whatâ in said mines?. So obviously, in the WHOLE GALAXY thatâs where the story leads us, with the local lingo for the hyperspace fuel McGuffin at the heart of the plot being âspiceâ! Itâs all a bit too trite for my liking.
And while a key protagonist appearing near the end of the film (no spoilers) is both a startling surprise and great fun, donât get me started on the timeline implicationsâŠ. (see the spoiler section below the trailer for more).
Alden Ehrenreich, who was just brilliant in âHail Caesarâ (âWas that it tâWERRRE so simpleâ) for me barely makes it past bland in the lead role. One of the defining characteristics of Harrison Fordâs Solo was his swagger and bravado and unfortunately Ehrenreich barely rates a three out of ten on the scale. I also found the chemistry with Emelia Clarke to be lukewarm. Clarke still seems to be struggling to make a significant breakthrough to the big screenâŠ. âMe Before Youâ still seems to be her high water mark so far. Here she has a key and complex role, but comes over as just plain unconvincing and âmehâ.
Ron Howard has clearly done a good job in buffing up a poisoned chalice so it can at least share space on the Star Wars shelf without being laughed out of the Cantina. Perhaps with a more coordinated and thought-through run-up to a Solo sequel (more Enfys Nest please!) this offshoot might have legs.