Search
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated I Am Mother (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Intriguing and Intense
I Am Mother is a 2019 sci-fi/thriller movie directed by Grant Sputore, with screenplay written by Michael Lloyd Green. It was produced by Penguin Empire, Southern Light Films, Mister Smith Entertainment and Endeavor Content and distributed by Netflix and Studio Canal. The film stars Luke Hawker, Clara Ruggard, Rose Byrne, and Hilary Swank.
A robot named "Mother" grows a human embryo and cares for her over several years when after an extinction event, an automated bunker activates to repopulate humanity. Mother teaches a teenage girl named "Daughter" complex moral and ethical lessons advising her that she needs practice being a good parent. Daughter captures a mouse but Mother disposes of it and explains that surface contamination with the outside world makes contact potentially lethal. Their bond is tested when Daughter becomes increasingly curious about the outside world and opens the bunker's airlock to let in a wounded woman begging for help and claims all is not as Mother claims.
This movie was awesome, classic sci-fi but with great acting and special effects. I like how suspenseful it was and how it told such a compelling story. It had me paying attention to every detail and trying to predict how it was going to unravel plot wise and though some parts I could see coming, it threw a couple of curve balls here and there. There wasn't a lot to complain about other than some people saying it revealed too much a little too soon and that it was a slow paced film. I just really like the way it played out, with one of those classic, sci-fi, artificial intelligence concepts. I give this movie a 8/10. And I also give it my "Must See Seal of Approval".
A robot named "Mother" grows a human embryo and cares for her over several years when after an extinction event, an automated bunker activates to repopulate humanity. Mother teaches a teenage girl named "Daughter" complex moral and ethical lessons advising her that she needs practice being a good parent. Daughter captures a mouse but Mother disposes of it and explains that surface contamination with the outside world makes contact potentially lethal. Their bond is tested when Daughter becomes increasingly curious about the outside world and opens the bunker's airlock to let in a wounded woman begging for help and claims all is not as Mother claims.
This movie was awesome, classic sci-fi but with great acting and special effects. I like how suspenseful it was and how it told such a compelling story. It had me paying attention to every detail and trying to predict how it was going to unravel plot wise and though some parts I could see coming, it threw a couple of curve balls here and there. There wasn't a lot to complain about other than some people saying it revealed too much a little too soon and that it was a slow paced film. I just really like the way it played out, with one of those classic, sci-fi, artificial intelligence concepts. I give this movie a 8/10. And I also give it my "Must See Seal of Approval".
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Going in to Instant Family I had some reservations. I'm a big fan of Rose Byrne, her performance in last year's Juliet, Naked was a delight to watch, but on the flipside Mark Wahlberg and comedy don't come high on my must see list. Thankfully those thoughts were quickly dismissed as the times I laughed out loud soared into the double digits.
This is a genuinely good film with just a couple of things that made me pause a little, I'll mention those later. The moments where I laughed it was out loud, like almost everyone else at the screening, and when I wasn't laughing I was probably crying, sometimes ugly crying.
Byrne and Wahlberg worked so well together and with Isabela Moner in the mix too we were treated to some great on screen chemistry. I'm hoping we'll see a lot more of Moner on our screens as she was able to pull her weight really well with all the fantastic actors in this.
A lot is obviously focused around Ellie, Pete and the kids, but outside of that dynamic I've got to give some love to Karen and Sharon. Octavia Spencer and Tig Notaro are such a fun double act, although for me Spencer will always steal the show. Their dynamic running the fostering program brought a smile to my face and while the reactionary humour may be predictable it lands so well that I couldn't care less that I knew it was coming.
My negatives about the films are so minute that they hardly seem worth mentioning. Pete (Wahlberg) has a tendency to be blunt and externalise what most of us would keep as inner dialogue. His script gives you those moments where you take a sharp breath and say "you shouldn't say that!" Ellie counteracts this by being the slight voice of reason so while you're taken aback by Pete's honesty you quickly come back to the normal flow of the film.
Out of my two quibbles this one caused me the most issues. Joan Cusack. She's great, I enjoy her work, but I really don't understand her inclusion in this. She pops up as a sort of cameo role near the end and it feels a little invasive on the dramatic moment we're witnessing, it just seems awkward and forced. It does at least lead to an amusing moment for Spencer so I think that probably gets it the pass.
Instant Family is definitely chock full of laughs and feels, despite my grumbles I still feel it deserves these five stars.
What you should do
It's a very entertaining film and perhaps surprisingly based on a true story, it's well worth a watch. I really think that everyone will get some entertainment out of this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If you could send Pete and Ellie round with their renovation skills it would be much appreciated.
This is a genuinely good film with just a couple of things that made me pause a little, I'll mention those later. The moments where I laughed it was out loud, like almost everyone else at the screening, and when I wasn't laughing I was probably crying, sometimes ugly crying.
Byrne and Wahlberg worked so well together and with Isabela Moner in the mix too we were treated to some great on screen chemistry. I'm hoping we'll see a lot more of Moner on our screens as she was able to pull her weight really well with all the fantastic actors in this.
A lot is obviously focused around Ellie, Pete and the kids, but outside of that dynamic I've got to give some love to Karen and Sharon. Octavia Spencer and Tig Notaro are such a fun double act, although for me Spencer will always steal the show. Their dynamic running the fostering program brought a smile to my face and while the reactionary humour may be predictable it lands so well that I couldn't care less that I knew it was coming.
My negatives about the films are so minute that they hardly seem worth mentioning. Pete (Wahlberg) has a tendency to be blunt and externalise what most of us would keep as inner dialogue. His script gives you those moments where you take a sharp breath and say "you shouldn't say that!" Ellie counteracts this by being the slight voice of reason so while you're taken aback by Pete's honesty you quickly come back to the normal flow of the film.
Out of my two quibbles this one caused me the most issues. Joan Cusack. She's great, I enjoy her work, but I really don't understand her inclusion in this. She pops up as a sort of cameo role near the end and it feels a little invasive on the dramatic moment we're witnessing, it just seems awkward and forced. It does at least lead to an amusing moment for Spencer so I think that probably gets it the pass.
Instant Family is definitely chock full of laughs and feels, despite my grumbles I still feel it deserves these five stars.
What you should do
It's a very entertaining film and perhaps surprisingly based on a true story, it's well worth a watch. I really think that everyone will get some entertainment out of this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If you could send Pete and Ellie round with their renovation skills it would be much appreciated.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Get Him to the Greek (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Russell Brand created one of the more memorable characters of 2008 in Forgetting Sarah Marshall with his role as Aldous Snow. Get Him to the Greek is by and large an extension of his role in that movie, but ramped up in the “crazy rock star” department. Jonah Hill, playing the ambitious record company intern Aaron Green tries to bring Aldous Snow from London to Los Angeles to play a show at the Greek Theater. The problem with this simplistic plot is that it doesn’t lead to any character development, and only leads to more jokes. While surprisingly funny in some parts, the characters don’t really make a splash unless they’re doing something ridiculous, which happens quite often.
The main characters, drunk on absinthe in one scene, deliver truly cringe-worthy performances, and I’m not talking about funny cringes. Later on in the film, another scene with another drug is sure to be remembered as one of the funniest bits in the entire film. Unfortunately, this is representative of the entire film. There are hits and misses on nearly every metric you can think of. Rose Byrne and Sean Combs are fantastic in their respective supporting roles, Russell Brand is charmingly hilarious with his rock star attitude, and while Jonah Hill does a good job of showing the anxiety of a responsible guy just trying to handle an irresponsible rock star, he’s still miles away from his scene-stealing performance in Superbad.
In the end, however, Get Him to the Greek just had no closure. The ending was forced, like the director ran out of time, and the lack of character growth really forced the film to rely on a “moral of the story” type of ending, which ended up muddling the film’s ending further. Still, the ending doesn’t detract wholly from the movie. Much like watching a lesser version of Spinal Tap, this movie is still amusing to watch.
The main characters, drunk on absinthe in one scene, deliver truly cringe-worthy performances, and I’m not talking about funny cringes. Later on in the film, another scene with another drug is sure to be remembered as one of the funniest bits in the entire film. Unfortunately, this is representative of the entire film. There are hits and misses on nearly every metric you can think of. Rose Byrne and Sean Combs are fantastic in their respective supporting roles, Russell Brand is charmingly hilarious with his rock star attitude, and while Jonah Hill does a good job of showing the anxiety of a responsible guy just trying to handle an irresponsible rock star, he’s still miles away from his scene-stealing performance in Superbad.
In the end, however, Get Him to the Greek just had no closure. The ending was forced, like the director ran out of time, and the lack of character growth really forced the film to rely on a “moral of the story” type of ending, which ended up muddling the film’s ending further. Still, the ending doesn’t detract wholly from the movie. Much like watching a lesser version of Spinal Tap, this movie is still amusing to watch.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 28 Weeks Later... (2007) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 28 Weeks Later starts by having a group of survivors in a boarded up farm house with tension rising a shock visit from a young boy leads to the infected attack the house and lone survivor Don (Carlyle) escaping leaving his wife behind. We are then lead into a flash-forward telling us how Britain is attempting to rebuild after the rage virus 28 Weeks Later. With Britain still being rebuilt Don’s children Tammy (Poots) and Andy (Muggleton) are the first children to return, even though the safety zone is still run by the military.
We find out that bringing kids back was a bad idea as the two go running off into the city outside the safety zone which leads to them discovering their infected but not turned mother. The mother locked up in quarantine Don goes to visit but this only leads to the virus taking over the safety zone and all hell letting lose. We follow solider Doyle (Renner) and scientist Scarlet (Byrne) as they try to save the children from the infected.
28 Weeks Later does what many sequels fail to do, creates a fresh look at the aftermath of the epidemic without dragging our characters from the original back even though their story is complete. It also takes the idea that the outbreak is over and focusing on the rebuilding works really well too. On its down side it does fall into the same old survivors running from infected because of a stupid mistake. It doesn’t manage to bring the characters into the interesting zone because it goes into the idea of the children needing saving which takes away what was created. It is enjoy action horror but not to the same level as the original. (7/10)
Actor Review
Robert Carlyle: Don the husband who abandons his wife then brings his kids to London to help rebuild the city from within the safe zone. Robert does a solid job and everyone will remember that opening sequence. (7/10)
don
Rose Byrne: Scarlet scientist who is trying to help figure out the virus, she isn’t happy they have bought kids back because they don’t fully understand the virus and once the outbreak happens again she goes out her way to save them. Rose gives a solid performance but doesn’t shine as much as she could. (6/10)
Jeremy Renner: Doyle slick sniper who is one of the protectors of the city but once the outbreak happens he joins in the rescue attempts while the virus ends up with a shoot on site policy that orders demand. Jeremy does a good job and we get early ideas of what he will be like as Hawkeye. (7/10)
renner
Imogen Poots: Tammy daughter of Don who keeps looking after her brother and together they go into the restricted zone which ends up causing all the problems. Imogen does a good job in the early role. (7/10)
poots
Support Cast: 28 Weeks Later has a bigger supporting cast but in the end they all make the typical errors in an infected outbreak.
Director Review: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo – Juan does take the film in a slightly different direction which is good but he loses the suspense the first one had. (7/10)
Horror: 28 Weeks Later continues to use infected as its horror using survivor horror elements. (9/10)
Settings: 28 Weeks Later uses London as its setting well using the more iconic locations for the audience. (8/10)
Special Effects: 28 Weeks Later does take the effects to the next level with the helicopter scene showing how far they have come. (9/10)
Suggestion: 28 Weeks Later is one for all the horror fans to enjoy, it doesn’t quite reach the same levels as its predecessor but is still a good watch. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Opening sequences is very intense.
Worst Part: typical supporting characters.
Action Scene Of The Film: Opening sequences
Kill Of The Film: Helicopter
Scariest Scene: Locked in the basement.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Left open for one but we haven’t had one yet.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $64 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 40 Minutes
Tagline: The Threat Is Everywhere
Overall: Solid Sequel
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/15/28-weeks-later-2007/
We find out that bringing kids back was a bad idea as the two go running off into the city outside the safety zone which leads to them discovering their infected but not turned mother. The mother locked up in quarantine Don goes to visit but this only leads to the virus taking over the safety zone and all hell letting lose. We follow solider Doyle (Renner) and scientist Scarlet (Byrne) as they try to save the children from the infected.
28 Weeks Later does what many sequels fail to do, creates a fresh look at the aftermath of the epidemic without dragging our characters from the original back even though their story is complete. It also takes the idea that the outbreak is over and focusing on the rebuilding works really well too. On its down side it does fall into the same old survivors running from infected because of a stupid mistake. It doesn’t manage to bring the characters into the interesting zone because it goes into the idea of the children needing saving which takes away what was created. It is enjoy action horror but not to the same level as the original. (7/10)
Actor Review
Robert Carlyle: Don the husband who abandons his wife then brings his kids to London to help rebuild the city from within the safe zone. Robert does a solid job and everyone will remember that opening sequence. (7/10)
don
Rose Byrne: Scarlet scientist who is trying to help figure out the virus, she isn’t happy they have bought kids back because they don’t fully understand the virus and once the outbreak happens again she goes out her way to save them. Rose gives a solid performance but doesn’t shine as much as she could. (6/10)
Jeremy Renner: Doyle slick sniper who is one of the protectors of the city but once the outbreak happens he joins in the rescue attempts while the virus ends up with a shoot on site policy that orders demand. Jeremy does a good job and we get early ideas of what he will be like as Hawkeye. (7/10)
renner
Imogen Poots: Tammy daughter of Don who keeps looking after her brother and together they go into the restricted zone which ends up causing all the problems. Imogen does a good job in the early role. (7/10)
poots
Support Cast: 28 Weeks Later has a bigger supporting cast but in the end they all make the typical errors in an infected outbreak.
Director Review: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo – Juan does take the film in a slightly different direction which is good but he loses the suspense the first one had. (7/10)
Horror: 28 Weeks Later continues to use infected as its horror using survivor horror elements. (9/10)
Settings: 28 Weeks Later uses London as its setting well using the more iconic locations for the audience. (8/10)
Special Effects: 28 Weeks Later does take the effects to the next level with the helicopter scene showing how far they have come. (9/10)
Suggestion: 28 Weeks Later is one for all the horror fans to enjoy, it doesn’t quite reach the same levels as its predecessor but is still a good watch. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Opening sequences is very intense.
Worst Part: typical supporting characters.
Action Scene Of The Film: Opening sequences
Kill Of The Film: Helicopter
Scariest Scene: Locked in the basement.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Left open for one but we haven’t had one yet.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $64 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 40 Minutes
Tagline: The Threat Is Everywhere
Overall: Solid Sequel
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/15/28-weeks-later-2007/
Ross (3282 KP) rated Insidious: Chapter 3 (2015) in Movies
Dec 4, 2017
No attempt to explain the background of ... anyone really (1 more)
No Rose Byrne
"Chapter 3" is a prequel to the first 2 Insidious films and follows a young girl, Quinn attempting to contact her dead mother, who eventually calls in the help of Elise Rainier (a former psychic who since her husband passed away has become a weird cat lady, played by the weird dog lady from There's Something About Mary), a key character of the first 2 films.
Quinn thinks her mother is attempting to respond to her and wants help breaking through, but after she is hit by a car, breaking both legs, she starts to realise it isn't her mother trying to contact her.
The demon in the film clearly has a backstory (tar footprints, breathing apparatus in his mouth, hospital gown) but there is no attempt to explain this at all. One of the best bits of the second film was the exposition of the demon haunting Josh his whole life and what he had been in life. That is completely absent here. Fan theories abound on the internet but these all seem like nonsense and clutching at straws.
This in itself is a half-decent horror film, there is enough atmosphere and the acting is (in places) decent, but for me was quite a disappointment based on the first film (and to a lesser extent the second chapter). It just be me being grumpy having paid for this film (despite having Sky Cinema, Netflix and Amazon Prime) and didn't feel like I got my £3.49 worth, but I felt a little disappointed at the end.
There was an annoying little teaser at the end of the film where the main demon from the first film appears. This was a bit "Prometheus" as it kind of felt like a prequel but didn't really make sense, and Elise seeing this demon should have meant she was expecting it in the first movie, which didn't quite sit right.
There was a similar teaser at the end of the second film which bore no relation to this film, so plenty of pressure on 2018's conclusion to tie up the loose ends!
Quinn thinks her mother is attempting to respond to her and wants help breaking through, but after she is hit by a car, breaking both legs, she starts to realise it isn't her mother trying to contact her.
The demon in the film clearly has a backstory (tar footprints, breathing apparatus in his mouth, hospital gown) but there is no attempt to explain this at all. One of the best bits of the second film was the exposition of the demon haunting Josh his whole life and what he had been in life. That is completely absent here. Fan theories abound on the internet but these all seem like nonsense and clutching at straws.
This in itself is a half-decent horror film, there is enough atmosphere and the acting is (in places) decent, but for me was quite a disappointment based on the first film (and to a lesser extent the second chapter). It just be me being grumpy having paid for this film (despite having Sky Cinema, Netflix and Amazon Prime) and didn't feel like I got my £3.49 worth, but I felt a little disappointed at the end.
There was an annoying little teaser at the end of the film where the main demon from the first film appears. This was a bit "Prometheus" as it kind of felt like a prequel but didn't really make sense, and Elise seeing this demon should have meant she was expecting it in the first movie, which didn't quite sit right.
There was a similar teaser at the end of the second film which bore no relation to this film, so plenty of pressure on 2018's conclusion to tie up the loose ends!
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Spy (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Ever since Bridesmaids Melissa McCarthy’s film career and popularity has been growing. The success of The Heat made McCarthy the “hot” new Hollywood comic. Though this success has McCarthy in danger of oversaturation with films that feel like mostly unfunny adlib session connected around loosely uninteresting plots like Identity Theft or Tammy. Luckily, Spy is not one of these films.
McCarthy once again teams up with Director/Writer Paul Feig (Bridesmaids/The Heat) and the chemistry of their previous success shows.
To be clear, this film is not the greatest comedy ever, but the fact that there is a clear script and the story knows where it is headed helps keep the experience enjoyable throughout at it progresses. McCarthy is on point as a support agent who becomes field agent to find a nuclear weapon and catch the person responsible for the death of her agent/partner. This film makes fun of all the typical spy film tropes through the fact that our best agent is a large unassuming woman who keeps finding herself in the typical spy situations. She solves each of these situations in her own way which is nice and often hilarious to see.
Additionally, the rest of the cast offer up hilarious delivery across the board, including but not limited to Jason Statham. There are several scenes where Statham steals the show. It is great to see him play a super spy, a character we always see him play, but in a ridiculous over the top hilarious way. It was fun to watch and his chemistry with McCarthy is great. Additionally, Rose Byrne (Neighbors) plays well across from McCarthy as a villain who is sexy, dangerous bitch, who we cannot help like none the less. Her comedy timing works well with McCarthy and the two are great together on screen.
If you are looking to escape the summer heat and you are looking for a laugh, don’t skip out on Spy. So far it is the best of the comedy of the year and it is worth checking out, if not in the theater, then when it is out for home distribution.
McCarthy once again teams up with Director/Writer Paul Feig (Bridesmaids/The Heat) and the chemistry of their previous success shows.
To be clear, this film is not the greatest comedy ever, but the fact that there is a clear script and the story knows where it is headed helps keep the experience enjoyable throughout at it progresses. McCarthy is on point as a support agent who becomes field agent to find a nuclear weapon and catch the person responsible for the death of her agent/partner. This film makes fun of all the typical spy film tropes through the fact that our best agent is a large unassuming woman who keeps finding herself in the typical spy situations. She solves each of these situations in her own way which is nice and often hilarious to see.
Additionally, the rest of the cast offer up hilarious delivery across the board, including but not limited to Jason Statham. There are several scenes where Statham steals the show. It is great to see him play a super spy, a character we always see him play, but in a ridiculous over the top hilarious way. It was fun to watch and his chemistry with McCarthy is great. Additionally, Rose Byrne (Neighbors) plays well across from McCarthy as a villain who is sexy, dangerous bitch, who we cannot help like none the less. Her comedy timing works well with McCarthy and the two are great together on screen.
If you are looking to escape the summer heat and you are looking for a laugh, don’t skip out on Spy. So far it is the best of the comedy of the year and it is worth checking out, if not in the theater, then when it is out for home distribution.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Juliet, Naked (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
If there's one thing you can guarantee it's that Nick Hornby can write a good book that turns into a good movie. While they never usually hit my favourites list they're always consistent.
This year has seen the romcom take a step back to something more traditional, and I'm loving it. So many have been more about the comedy, but while this one is funny it's very much focused on the relationships.
The movie opens with Duncan's video that sets up part of the background really well and goes a long way to explaining his life's obsession. What follows is a really well implemented flow with the voice overs mixed in.
I went off and read some comments people had been writing about some of my thoughts on Juliet, Naked. It made me remember that a film like this is only ever as good as your own personal experience. It depicts mild obsession in such a realistic way. Watching Chris O'Dowd reactions to Annie and then later Tucker was really on point, and as his behaviour starts to really cause the split between him and Annie her reaction too was just right. In fact I felt the three of them were brilliant on screen throughout.
As a focus for the film, Annie is a wonderful character. Rose Byrne really brings an honesty out of her. You can feel her exacerbation with Duncan's behaviour, her nervousness around Tucker as well as her joy and sadness. That accompanied with the way Tucker changes around her is really beautiful to watch.
Overall there wasn't much to grumble about in this film... but... there's always a but! I didn't feel that the supporting cast were quite as essential. Annie's sister was a little over the top for me, and the diversion around Duncan's affair didn't really match up to the calibre of the rest of the film either.
What you should do
It's definitely one to watch, and remember to watching into the credits!
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I actually wouldn't mind taking home my own Tucker Crowe.
This year has seen the romcom take a step back to something more traditional, and I'm loving it. So many have been more about the comedy, but while this one is funny it's very much focused on the relationships.
The movie opens with Duncan's video that sets up part of the background really well and goes a long way to explaining his life's obsession. What follows is a really well implemented flow with the voice overs mixed in.
I went off and read some comments people had been writing about some of my thoughts on Juliet, Naked. It made me remember that a film like this is only ever as good as your own personal experience. It depicts mild obsession in such a realistic way. Watching Chris O'Dowd reactions to Annie and then later Tucker was really on point, and as his behaviour starts to really cause the split between him and Annie her reaction too was just right. In fact I felt the three of them were brilliant on screen throughout.
As a focus for the film, Annie is a wonderful character. Rose Byrne really brings an honesty out of her. You can feel her exacerbation with Duncan's behaviour, her nervousness around Tucker as well as her joy and sadness. That accompanied with the way Tucker changes around her is really beautiful to watch.
Overall there wasn't much to grumble about in this film... but... there's always a but! I didn't feel that the supporting cast were quite as essential. Annie's sister was a little over the top for me, and the diversion around Duncan's affair didn't really match up to the calibre of the rest of the film either.
What you should do
It's definitely one to watch, and remember to watching into the credits!
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I actually wouldn't mind taking home my own Tucker Crowe.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
More of the same
After the phenomenal success of Captain America: Civil War, the multiplexes have calmed down a little; that is until the release of X-Men: Apocalypse next week.
Sandwiched in between these two box-office behemoths is the sequel to Universal Studio’s surprise comedy hit, Bad Neighbours. But does another helping of Seth Rogen and Zac Efron’s adult humour hit the spot?
It’s fair to say that these films have a target audience firmly in mind. The first film was received best by University students and younger men according to box-office analysts and managed to gross a whopping $270m on an $18m budget – a sequel whilst completely unnecessary was as likely as an April shower.
Bad Neighbours 2 follows a very well-worn path, so well-worn in fact that it shoehorns the exact same premise from its predecessor into another 90 minute comedy, with just a few new twists and turns to stop it from being a carbon copy.
So, what are these twists and turns I hear you cry? Well, for one, Zac Efron’s Teddy Sanders is all grown up for one, returning to help Seth Rogen’s Mac, and Rose Byrne’s Kelly face-off against a sorority (instead of a fraternity) – headed by the excellent Chloe Grace Moretz.
Plot wise, that’s about it; in fact there is no plot to speak off and the real highlight in this simple film are the reams and reams of adult gags. The majority of them hit the spot; a brilliantly shot sequence at a college ‘festival’ is absolutely hilarious, and then a few of them don’t – but that’s to be expected in any comedy.
When it comes to the acting, it’s a by-the-numbers affair. Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne are dependable with the latter’s credentials in the genre expanding by the day. From Bridesmaids to Spy, she’s fast becoming a new comedy star, and there’s no complaint from me there.
Zac Efron is now utterly typecast but I doubt he’ll care if his movies keep packing out cinemas across the world. Despite his usual reliable performances, he’s starting to look a little older than his ‘frat boy’ characters would have you believe and if he can’t shake off that tag, he’ll end up in the bargain bins alongside Tobey Maguire. That’s a shame, as his more serious roles prove he has the acting chops to go with his good looks.
Elsewhere, Chloe Grace Moretz is the only sorority girl to make an impact and her sweet, if predictable backstory provide Bad Neighbours 2 with its only real sense of emotion.
Overall, Bad Neighbours 2 is a very funny adult comedy despite its lack of plot and the by-the-numbers casting. Returning director Nicholas Stoller has introduced a more female-orientated film that will no doubt pay dividends at the box-office. It definitely wasn’t needed, but as is the case in the film world, money talks.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/14/more-of-the-same-bad-neighbours-2-review/
Sandwiched in between these two box-office behemoths is the sequel to Universal Studio’s surprise comedy hit, Bad Neighbours. But does another helping of Seth Rogen and Zac Efron’s adult humour hit the spot?
It’s fair to say that these films have a target audience firmly in mind. The first film was received best by University students and younger men according to box-office analysts and managed to gross a whopping $270m on an $18m budget – a sequel whilst completely unnecessary was as likely as an April shower.
Bad Neighbours 2 follows a very well-worn path, so well-worn in fact that it shoehorns the exact same premise from its predecessor into another 90 minute comedy, with just a few new twists and turns to stop it from being a carbon copy.
So, what are these twists and turns I hear you cry? Well, for one, Zac Efron’s Teddy Sanders is all grown up for one, returning to help Seth Rogen’s Mac, and Rose Byrne’s Kelly face-off against a sorority (instead of a fraternity) – headed by the excellent Chloe Grace Moretz.
Plot wise, that’s about it; in fact there is no plot to speak off and the real highlight in this simple film are the reams and reams of adult gags. The majority of them hit the spot; a brilliantly shot sequence at a college ‘festival’ is absolutely hilarious, and then a few of them don’t – but that’s to be expected in any comedy.
When it comes to the acting, it’s a by-the-numbers affair. Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne are dependable with the latter’s credentials in the genre expanding by the day. From Bridesmaids to Spy, she’s fast becoming a new comedy star, and there’s no complaint from me there.
Zac Efron is now utterly typecast but I doubt he’ll care if his movies keep packing out cinemas across the world. Despite his usual reliable performances, he’s starting to look a little older than his ‘frat boy’ characters would have you believe and if he can’t shake off that tag, he’ll end up in the bargain bins alongside Tobey Maguire. That’s a shame, as his more serious roles prove he has the acting chops to go with his good looks.
Elsewhere, Chloe Grace Moretz is the only sorority girl to make an impact and her sweet, if predictable backstory provide Bad Neighbours 2 with its only real sense of emotion.
Overall, Bad Neighbours 2 is a very funny adult comedy despite its lack of plot and the by-the-numbers casting. Returning director Nicholas Stoller has introduced a more female-orientated film that will no doubt pay dividends at the box-office. It definitely wasn’t needed, but as is the case in the film world, money talks.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/14/more-of-the-same-bad-neighbours-2-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated This Is Where I Leave You (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
This is Where I Leave You focuses on Judd Altman (Jason Bateman) and his relationships with the many personalities in his family. We open the film with Judd walking in on his wife in bed with his boss. We flash forward about 3 months to find Judd feeling pretty miserable still, only to find out that his father passed away. And his father’s last wish is that his family sit Shiva (a Jewish tradition of mourning where the close relatives of the deceased sit for 7-days in the same house, as friends and family come by to offer their condolences. (There’s more to it than this, but it’s the general idea). Over the 7-days following the funeral, a rollercoaster of emotions, excitement and tragedy pass.
This film, in my opinion, is very smartly written. It has the qualities in a film that will attract men and women alike. They also create an atmosphere that most people can relate to. It’s simplistic formula really, there are enough siblings to exhibit the different personalities you can find in most families and no matter who you are, you will find someone to relate to in the cast. And, oh boy, what a cast. Judd’s siblings include Corey Stoll, Adam Driver and Tina Fey. Rounding out the close friends and family include Jane Fonda as mama Altman, Rose Byrne as Penny Moore, Connie Britton as girlfriend of Philip Altman (Driver), Timothy Olyphant as Horry, a man with brain damage who has a secret shared with one of the Altmans, and the list goes on and on (go look it up on IMdB already).
The premise is old, cliché jokes are used, and we all know how it ends. However, we don’t really know how it ends. The cast delivers so well that you can see past the recycled items to the true genius that this film is, and how great an adaptation it is from the book. While I haven’t read the book myself, I have been told it’s quite good. And if it’s half as good as this film, I’m definitely going to enjoy reading it.
Bottom line: if you’re looking for a great date movie this weekend, this is the one to see. You will not regret it, and will probably learn a little something about yourself too! This is another to add to my collection upon release.
This film, in my opinion, is very smartly written. It has the qualities in a film that will attract men and women alike. They also create an atmosphere that most people can relate to. It’s simplistic formula really, there are enough siblings to exhibit the different personalities you can find in most families and no matter who you are, you will find someone to relate to in the cast. And, oh boy, what a cast. Judd’s siblings include Corey Stoll, Adam Driver and Tina Fey. Rounding out the close friends and family include Jane Fonda as mama Altman, Rose Byrne as Penny Moore, Connie Britton as girlfriend of Philip Altman (Driver), Timothy Olyphant as Horry, a man with brain damage who has a secret shared with one of the Altmans, and the list goes on and on (go look it up on IMdB already).
The premise is old, cliché jokes are used, and we all know how it ends. However, we don’t really know how it ends. The cast delivers so well that you can see past the recycled items to the true genius that this film is, and how great an adaptation it is from the book. While I haven’t read the book myself, I have been told it’s quite good. And if it’s half as good as this film, I’m definitely going to enjoy reading it.
Bottom line: if you’re looking for a great date movie this weekend, this is the one to see. You will not regret it, and will probably learn a little something about yourself too! This is another to add to my collection upon release.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Enjoyable and harmless comedy laced with a degree of sentimentality.
The Plot
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.