Search
Search results
David McK (3219 KP) rated Until the Sea Shall Give Up Her Dead in Books
Jan 30, 2019
The fourth entry in [a:Sean Thomas Russell|1516977|Sean Thomas Russell|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1325549086p2/1516977.jpg]'s entry in the 'modern Hornblower' stakes this, I felt, was a return to form after the previous ([b:A Ship of War|23021070|A Ship of War|Sean Russell|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1420793769s/23021070.jpg|42590012] also known as [b:Take Burn or Destroy|16158534|Take, Burn or Destroy|Sean Thomas Russell|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1355961598s/16158534.jpg|21998950]).
Perhaps a large part of the reason for that is that this, I felt, does not require as much knowledge of previous events as before: although those events are referenced (particularly in relation to Captain Hayden's private life), it is never in such a way that it is absolutely essential that you know the particular ins and outs.
Also, like seems to be becoming the norm in this series, while the novel itself is not split into separate parts, there are three very distinct sections within: the first part dealing with the Themis's cruise to the Caribbean (and the events along the way), the second with cruising those waters as part of a navy squadron, and the final part with a stern chase after someone very dear to Hayden is kidnapped - I have to say, though, that the end is a bit abrupt!
Perhaps a large part of the reason for that is that this, I felt, does not require as much knowledge of previous events as before: although those events are referenced (particularly in relation to Captain Hayden's private life), it is never in such a way that it is absolutely essential that you know the particular ins and outs.
Also, like seems to be becoming the norm in this series, while the novel itself is not split into separate parts, there are three very distinct sections within: the first part dealing with the Themis's cruise to the Caribbean (and the events along the way), the second with cruising those waters as part of a navy squadron, and the final part with a stern chase after someone very dear to Hayden is kidnapped - I have to say, though, that the end is a bit abrupt!
David McK (3219 KP) rated A Battle Won (Adventures of Charles Hayden, #2) in Books
Jan 30, 2019
Sequel to Sean Thomas Russels' "Under Enemy Colours", again following the adventures of Captain Charles Hayden aboard the frigate Themis
As before, a large portion of the novel details one particular mission, 'bookended' by events in England. Most - not all - of the characters from the first novel reappear, alongside some new faces and historical personages as Russell continues to build on his previous work. While the novel does occasionally flounder, this is syill an enjoyable read and a worthy successor to that earlier work.
As before, a large portion of the novel details one particular mission, 'bookended' by events in England. Most - not all - of the characters from the first novel reappear, alongside some new faces and historical personages as Russell continues to build on his previous work. While the novel does occasionally flounder, this is syill an enjoyable read and a worthy successor to that earlier work.
David McK (3219 KP) rated A Ship of War (Charles Hayden, #3) in Books
Jan 30, 2019
The third novel in Sean Thomas Russell's <i>Charles Hayden</i> series (after [b:Under Enemy Colours] and [b:A Battle Won|7977384|A Battle Won (Charles Hayden, #2)|S. Thomas Russell|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1348601989s/7977384.jpg|12314972]) which, I have to say, I did not enjoy as much as either of the previous two.
A large reason for that, perhaps, is that I spent roughly about the first half of the book trying to remember what had happened previously, particularly in relation to Hayden's private life! As such, I wouldn't recommend this as the first novel to read in the series: although it is (eventually) cleared up over the course of the events, having some clear idea of just why the characters are acting the way they are/even who they are does help immeasurably.
While it largely alternates between events at home and on the sea, this novel can also be split into several distinct sections: the first section dealing with Hayden (aboard his ship <i>Themis</i>) blockade of France, and his attempts to get back to England with news of vital import, the next section with shipwreck and recovery in France and the final section with the battle of 'The Glorious First of June'.
And yes, some of that has been covered before (and, IMO, better) in CS Forester's famous <i>Hornblower</i> series.
A large reason for that, perhaps, is that I spent roughly about the first half of the book trying to remember what had happened previously, particularly in relation to Hayden's private life! As such, I wouldn't recommend this as the first novel to read in the series: although it is (eventually) cleared up over the course of the events, having some clear idea of just why the characters are acting the way they are/even who they are does help immeasurably.
While it largely alternates between events at home and on the sea, this novel can also be split into several distinct sections: the first section dealing with Hayden (aboard his ship <i>Themis</i>) blockade of France, and his attempts to get back to England with news of vital import, the next section with shipwreck and recovery in France and the final section with the battle of 'The Glorious First of June'.
And yes, some of that has been covered before (and, IMO, better) in CS Forester's famous <i>Hornblower</i> series.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Escape Room: Tournament of Champions (2021) in Movies
Jul 21, 2021
Taylor Russell - as in the first film, very watchable (1 more)
Production design of the "games"
The script is lazy, lame and insulting to the audience (1 more)
There are a load of plot holes
Totally clueless
I only gave Adam Robitel's original "Escape Room" 5/10. It was perhaps hoping for too much that his sequel - "Escape Room: Tournament of Champions" - would be better.
Positives:
- As in the first film, Taylor Russell again stands out as a personable, attractive and convincing actress. She deserves a role in something a lot better.
- The production design on the "game sets" is certainly very impressive.
Negatives:
- The fact that SIX people are down with writing credits for this astonishes me. The whole thing comes across as lazily plotted, with virtually no character development of the players. (Yes, even less than the first film.) You might think Nathan (Thomas Cocquerel) as an athletic priest might be an interesting character. I was expecting him at one point to channel the dramatic demise of Gene Hackman's similar character in "The Poseidon Adventure". But no. Nothing much is done with this.
- It's a movie where the more you think about it afterwards, the less sense it makes. Some examples:
-- People are dead, but then again - when inconvenient for the plot - dead no longer.
-- There's some bizarre "daughter kidnap" sub-plot at one point, but that's never referred to again.
-- Acid rain has no effect on a lock... until that is, the rainwater is captured and poured on the lock! Bonkers!
- There's a tragic amount of inane running around and wailing that gets mentally tiresome. You can imagine this written in the script as "Now run down the corridor and adlib some 'teenagers in peril' noises". (This is a best case guess: I'd hate to think that some of the "Quick!"s and "Hurreeeee!"'s had actually been scripted).
Summary Thoughts on "Escape Room: Tournament of Champions": I found this one to be tragically bad. A lame attempt to cash in on the bizarre $155M success of the first B-movie. My personal recommendation: Avoid!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
Positives:
- As in the first film, Taylor Russell again stands out as a personable, attractive and convincing actress. She deserves a role in something a lot better.
- The production design on the "game sets" is certainly very impressive.
Negatives:
- The fact that SIX people are down with writing credits for this astonishes me. The whole thing comes across as lazily plotted, with virtually no character development of the players. (Yes, even less than the first film.) You might think Nathan (Thomas Cocquerel) as an athletic priest might be an interesting character. I was expecting him at one point to channel the dramatic demise of Gene Hackman's similar character in "The Poseidon Adventure". But no. Nothing much is done with this.
- It's a movie where the more you think about it afterwards, the less sense it makes. Some examples:
-- People are dead, but then again - when inconvenient for the plot - dead no longer.
-- There's some bizarre "daughter kidnap" sub-plot at one point, but that's never referred to again.
-- Acid rain has no effect on a lock... until that is, the rainwater is captured and poured on the lock! Bonkers!
- There's a tragic amount of inane running around and wailing that gets mentally tiresome. You can imagine this written in the script as "Now run down the corridor and adlib some 'teenagers in peril' noises". (This is a best case guess: I'd hate to think that some of the "Quick!"s and "Hurreeeee!"'s had actually been scripted).
Summary Thoughts on "Escape Room: Tournament of Champions": I found this one to be tragically bad. A lame attempt to cash in on the bizarre $155M success of the first B-movie. My personal recommendation: Avoid!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Hate U Give (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
It’s a turf war on a global scale.
I saw this as part of a “Secret Cinema” event by Cineworld cinemas in the UK. That’s where you go to see a pre-release movie without knowing what it is going to be. It’s an interesting litmus test for a) a movie’s upfront marketing appeal (how many people get up and walk out when the BBFC title appears) and b) the “grab ’em early” appeal of the movie itself (how many people get up and walk out during the first 20 minutes of so).
I’m afraid this movie didn’t do very well on either a) or b) at my showing: about 20 people left immediately, and more tellingly about another 20 people left in the first half hour. There’s a reason for that: the first half hour of this film is goddamn awful!
Starr Carter (Amandla Stenberg) is a sixteen year-old resident of Garden Heights, a black neighbourhood in a US city, where she lives with her younger brother and step-brother. Their parents Maverick (Russell Hornsby, “Fences“) and Lisa (Regina Hall) are devoting all of their energies to “break the cycle” and get their kids out of the neighbourhood and off to college and better futures. As such, the kids attend not the rough-house local school but a much more upper-class establishment: there Starr has to play a different role, with links to her origins being kept hidden even from her white boyfriend Chris (K.J. Apa).
But all that changes when her boyhood friend Khalil (Algee Smith) is shot and killed in a police stop-and-search. As the only witness, and with Khalil linked to local gang lord King (Anthony Mackie), Starr’s anonymous world is about to get a national focus shone onto it.
Man… I hate voiceovers in films and always have. So I really hated the start of this film which has Starr narrating ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING (“Blah, blah, blah..”): no audience discovery is required. It also starts with a sort of highschool romance vibe, but not one that’s well done with kissing (“Blah, blah, blah..”) while the local Mean Girls look on (“Blah, blah”) then with Starr’s friends trying to act street (“blah, blah”) while Starr tries not to be street, all to the constant droning of Starr’s voiceover (“Blah, blah, blah..”). (I never walk out of movies…. but I can kind of understand the rationale of those who did).
Fortunately the voiceover then largely recedes (it only pops up with occasional staccato “thoughts”, before storming back for a “blah, blah” finale). And with the shooting, the film takes on a much more interesting slant, giving Amandla Stenberg a chance to really shine.
I have commented on Ms Stenberg before: she was the only really good thing in the recent “The Darkest Minds“. Here she exhibits a tremendous range from the delighted (her smile is radiant and seems astonishingly unforced) to the heartbroken and furious. There’s also a really strong supporting cast with great turns from Hornsby, Hall, Mackie and Smith. Hornsby in particular I found great as the Dad desperately tutoring his kids in military (but loving) fashion to avoid his mistakes.
For me, this seemed to be a surprisingly atypical view of a black ghetto-living family. A scene set in a diner is genuinely touching at emphasising the loving and close-knit nature of the Carter family.
Where I will struggle here is in trying to interpret my overall feelings about the film. As a white, older male person I have three degrees of separation from Starr’s perspective. And these are undoubtedly difficult issues to juggle with. The riots that happened recently in towns like Ferguson ape the activities on screen uncomfortably. Your sympathies might lie to some degree with the unfortunate white police officer (Drew Starkey); sympathies supported by the views of Starr’s police officer uncle Carlos (Common): until Starr points out via a punchy question that you REALLY shouldn’t feel like that… and your views are brought up with a jolt.
Aside from the rights and wrongs of the incident, there’s a frustrating dichotomy at play in the film with black and white communities wanting to be treated equally but never wanting to be treated the same. “You don’t SEE me” wails Starr. “I see you” replies Chris (as if James Cameron was directing!) But does he really? Without colour, I do not consider myself to be remotely capable of fully understanding Starr’s perspective on life. It made me want to read the source novel by Angie Thomas to try to get better insight.
Directed by George Tillman Jr., it’s undoubtedly a mixed bag, but I came down in the end on the side of it being good rather than bad… it has certainly had me thinking for a couple of days. The clumsy voiceovers and story elements in the opening and closing scenes mask a number of parallel and interesting story strands that generate conflicting thoughts about the state of race relations in today’s America. Jackson sang “It doesn’t matter if you’re black or white”: and it really shouldn’t, but actually in some quarters, it clearly still does.
I’m afraid this movie didn’t do very well on either a) or b) at my showing: about 20 people left immediately, and more tellingly about another 20 people left in the first half hour. There’s a reason for that: the first half hour of this film is goddamn awful!
Starr Carter (Amandla Stenberg) is a sixteen year-old resident of Garden Heights, a black neighbourhood in a US city, where she lives with her younger brother and step-brother. Their parents Maverick (Russell Hornsby, “Fences“) and Lisa (Regina Hall) are devoting all of their energies to “break the cycle” and get their kids out of the neighbourhood and off to college and better futures. As such, the kids attend not the rough-house local school but a much more upper-class establishment: there Starr has to play a different role, with links to her origins being kept hidden even from her white boyfriend Chris (K.J. Apa).
But all that changes when her boyhood friend Khalil (Algee Smith) is shot and killed in a police stop-and-search. As the only witness, and with Khalil linked to local gang lord King (Anthony Mackie), Starr’s anonymous world is about to get a national focus shone onto it.
Man… I hate voiceovers in films and always have. So I really hated the start of this film which has Starr narrating ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING (“Blah, blah, blah..”): no audience discovery is required. It also starts with a sort of highschool romance vibe, but not one that’s well done with kissing (“Blah, blah, blah..”) while the local Mean Girls look on (“Blah, blah”) then with Starr’s friends trying to act street (“blah, blah”) while Starr tries not to be street, all to the constant droning of Starr’s voiceover (“Blah, blah, blah..”). (I never walk out of movies…. but I can kind of understand the rationale of those who did).
Fortunately the voiceover then largely recedes (it only pops up with occasional staccato “thoughts”, before storming back for a “blah, blah” finale). And with the shooting, the film takes on a much more interesting slant, giving Amandla Stenberg a chance to really shine.
I have commented on Ms Stenberg before: she was the only really good thing in the recent “The Darkest Minds“. Here she exhibits a tremendous range from the delighted (her smile is radiant and seems astonishingly unforced) to the heartbroken and furious. There’s also a really strong supporting cast with great turns from Hornsby, Hall, Mackie and Smith. Hornsby in particular I found great as the Dad desperately tutoring his kids in military (but loving) fashion to avoid his mistakes.
For me, this seemed to be a surprisingly atypical view of a black ghetto-living family. A scene set in a diner is genuinely touching at emphasising the loving and close-knit nature of the Carter family.
Where I will struggle here is in trying to interpret my overall feelings about the film. As a white, older male person I have three degrees of separation from Starr’s perspective. And these are undoubtedly difficult issues to juggle with. The riots that happened recently in towns like Ferguson ape the activities on screen uncomfortably. Your sympathies might lie to some degree with the unfortunate white police officer (Drew Starkey); sympathies supported by the views of Starr’s police officer uncle Carlos (Common): until Starr points out via a punchy question that you REALLY shouldn’t feel like that… and your views are brought up with a jolt.
Aside from the rights and wrongs of the incident, there’s a frustrating dichotomy at play in the film with black and white communities wanting to be treated equally but never wanting to be treated the same. “You don’t SEE me” wails Starr. “I see you” replies Chris (as if James Cameron was directing!) But does he really? Without colour, I do not consider myself to be remotely capable of fully understanding Starr’s perspective on life. It made me want to read the source novel by Angie Thomas to try to get better insight.
Directed by George Tillman Jr., it’s undoubtedly a mixed bag, but I came down in the end on the side of it being good rather than bad… it has certainly had me thinking for a couple of days. The clumsy voiceovers and story elements in the opening and closing scenes mask a number of parallel and interesting story strands that generate conflicting thoughts about the state of race relations in today’s America. Jackson sang “It doesn’t matter if you’re black or white”: and it really shouldn’t, but actually in some quarters, it clearly still does.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Feb 23, 2020
A complete mess, but kids will probably love it.
With the words of Mark Kermode's review ringing in my ears ("It's shockingly poor... and that's the same in any language") I was bracing myself when I went to see this latest incarnation of Hugh Lofting's famous animal-chatting character. And I have to agree that it is a shocking mess of a film, given $175 million was poured into this thing. But, and I say this cautiously without first-hand empirical evidence, I *think* this is a movie that kids in the 6 to 10 age range might fall in love with.
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
