Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated Aftermath (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Aftermath starts by showing us a man struggling to walk through an abandoned landscape. We then flash back to one month earlier where we learn about an ongoing war between America and Israel. We meet or protagonist Hunter (Thomason) as he listens to the ongoing war before nuclear explosion hit leading him to rescue a young family. The group also meet another survivor in the road but find a place to stay underground in a farmhouse with another small group of survivors. Hunter explains they will need to spend at least a month underground while the fall out of the nuclear attack settles. We follow the group through the month as tension rise over time.
When I saw this and the title I was actually looking to settle down and watch a horror like film, but what we got was so much more. First off there is no horror involved, it is all tension building character development. We see the group over 30 days and how their situation gets worse as each day goes by, with only the radio to update them. We get to see how the radiation slowly changes and infects them while others try to get in. it plays on a range of emotions and comes off very bleak. This is a great story of the struggle to survive after a nuclear attack from the point of view of the innocent victims. (7/10)
Actor Review
C.J. Thomason: Hunter doctor and survivalist who leads the group of survivors as they try to make it through the attack in a farm basement. He tries to treat everyone who has issues but even with his skills he can’t save everyone from the situation. C.J. gives a good performance as a reluctant leader. (7/10)
hunter
Monica Keena: Elizabeth stranger picked up on the side of the road, she stays with the group and sometimes looks out for younger members by her calm nature. Monica gives a solid performance but sometimes struggles in the action scenes. (6/10)
monica
Edward Furlong: Brad over protective redneck who doesn’t want to let the group in and is always against the decision to let them in. he is a hot head but as the time goes by he wants to look after the group as much as the rest. Edward gives a good performance and does a good job with the only character that shows full emotion. (7/10)
ed
Support Cast: Aftermath’s supporting cast is mainly extra people in the basement who go through the struggles but also includes the people outside who are too far gone to let in.
Director Review: Peter Engert – Peter does a good job directing Aftermath creating genuine tension throughout. (8/10)
Action: Aftermath only has a few action scenes and they are quick, but each comes off desperate like the situation the people are in. (7/10)
Thriller: Aftermath really pulls you in as you want to know what happens to the group and feel for them when things start to get worse. (8/10)
Settings: Aftermath uses its isolation setting that the group creates for themselves to survive really well, as it keeps us unaware of what is going on outside. (9/10)
Suggestion: Aftermath is worth watching, but I do feel like the casual fan might not enjoy this, it really will appeal to those who enjoy a solid drama about survival. (Try It)
Best Part: The bleakness that surrounds the story.
Worst Part: Aftermath can come off feeling a little bit slow.
Believability: Aftermath tackles a potential real problem the world could face. (7/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 32 Minutes
Overall: A Great Unwatched Thriller
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/24/aftermath-2012/
When I saw this and the title I was actually looking to settle down and watch a horror like film, but what we got was so much more. First off there is no horror involved, it is all tension building character development. We see the group over 30 days and how their situation gets worse as each day goes by, with only the radio to update them. We get to see how the radiation slowly changes and infects them while others try to get in. it plays on a range of emotions and comes off very bleak. This is a great story of the struggle to survive after a nuclear attack from the point of view of the innocent victims. (7/10)
Actor Review
C.J. Thomason: Hunter doctor and survivalist who leads the group of survivors as they try to make it through the attack in a farm basement. He tries to treat everyone who has issues but even with his skills he can’t save everyone from the situation. C.J. gives a good performance as a reluctant leader. (7/10)
hunter
Monica Keena: Elizabeth stranger picked up on the side of the road, she stays with the group and sometimes looks out for younger members by her calm nature. Monica gives a solid performance but sometimes struggles in the action scenes. (6/10)
monica
Edward Furlong: Brad over protective redneck who doesn’t want to let the group in and is always against the decision to let them in. he is a hot head but as the time goes by he wants to look after the group as much as the rest. Edward gives a good performance and does a good job with the only character that shows full emotion. (7/10)
ed
Support Cast: Aftermath’s supporting cast is mainly extra people in the basement who go through the struggles but also includes the people outside who are too far gone to let in.
Director Review: Peter Engert – Peter does a good job directing Aftermath creating genuine tension throughout. (8/10)
Action: Aftermath only has a few action scenes and they are quick, but each comes off desperate like the situation the people are in. (7/10)
Thriller: Aftermath really pulls you in as you want to know what happens to the group and feel for them when things start to get worse. (8/10)
Settings: Aftermath uses its isolation setting that the group creates for themselves to survive really well, as it keeps us unaware of what is going on outside. (9/10)
Suggestion: Aftermath is worth watching, but I do feel like the casual fan might not enjoy this, it really will appeal to those who enjoy a solid drama about survival. (Try It)
Best Part: The bleakness that surrounds the story.
Worst Part: Aftermath can come off feeling a little bit slow.
Believability: Aftermath tackles a potential real problem the world could face. (7/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 32 Minutes
Overall: A Great Unwatched Thriller
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/24/aftermath-2012/
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Robin Hood (2018) in Movies
Jan 28, 2019 (Updated Jan 28, 2019)
A Middling Reboot
This is another movie from late 2018 that I am only just getting a chance to see. After my girlfriend and I sat through this one, she turned to me and asked what I thought of it. In response, I just shrugged my shoulders and went, "It was alright." That is genuinely the best way that I can think of to sum up my feeling on this film.
It's a mediocre action movie based around the basic concept of the old tale of Robin Hood. It is extremely cheesy and has bags of whatever the opposite of subtle is. It tries to tell a gritty, 'Year One,' type of story for the character and treats the Robin Hood moniker as a dual identity for Robin Loxley, which draws heavy comparisons to the Batman/Bruce Wayne dynamic. Unfortunately, not much of it lands due to the lack of risk-taking involved.
The movie also feels weirdly dated, especially considering that it's only a few months old. There are an abundance of overindulgent slow motion shots in the style of 300; a movie that was 12 years old at the time of this movie's release. The use of green-screen in this film is actually pretty atrocious judging by today's standards and actually might be some of the worst out of any 2018 movie I saw. This is noticeable throughout the whole movie, but is especially rough-looking during a carriage chase that happens around two thirds into the film.
The cast are all phoning it in as well. Taron Egerton does nothing special with the lead role and Ben Mendlesohn hams it up as the Sheriff Of Nottingham, doing pretty much the same villainous shlock that he did in Ready Player One and Star Wars: Rogue One, way to not get typecast Mendo!
That's the other weird thing about this movie, is that it's not sure what era it wants to be set in. Some of the accents, language and costumes are suitable for the period that the movie is set in, but other elements and other lines and costumes etc feel like they are from 2018, the year that this movie was made. The end result that they were aiming for may have been a sort of rolling timeline that transcends the days of the Crusades that the movie is set in but what we get is just a scattered mess.
There were a few positives in this thing. Some cool shots, Some of the stunt archery is, (while super unrealistic,) pretty cool to watch. I know that 'Real Life Legolas,' Lars Andersen was hired to teach the cast some archery and I believe he helped out with the action choreography as well, which is pretty cool. There are also some glimpses of creativity in some of the shots. One in particular that stood out to me was a shot that gradually panned out from behind a solitary soldiers shield to show the intensity and scale of the battle that was taking place. It's just unfortunate that in so many other places in the movie, all we get is lazy, generic camera angles that add nothing to the scene taking place.
Overall, this is an okay action romp. Don't go in expecting anything of substance or you will most definitely come away disappointed. Though, if all that you are looking for is something to stick on in the background while you do other things or if you are just after an easy, straightforward action adventure popcorn flick, then you could probably do worse than this.
It's a mediocre action movie based around the basic concept of the old tale of Robin Hood. It is extremely cheesy and has bags of whatever the opposite of subtle is. It tries to tell a gritty, 'Year One,' type of story for the character and treats the Robin Hood moniker as a dual identity for Robin Loxley, which draws heavy comparisons to the Batman/Bruce Wayne dynamic. Unfortunately, not much of it lands due to the lack of risk-taking involved.
The movie also feels weirdly dated, especially considering that it's only a few months old. There are an abundance of overindulgent slow motion shots in the style of 300; a movie that was 12 years old at the time of this movie's release. The use of green-screen in this film is actually pretty atrocious judging by today's standards and actually might be some of the worst out of any 2018 movie I saw. This is noticeable throughout the whole movie, but is especially rough-looking during a carriage chase that happens around two thirds into the film.
The cast are all phoning it in as well. Taron Egerton does nothing special with the lead role and Ben Mendlesohn hams it up as the Sheriff Of Nottingham, doing pretty much the same villainous shlock that he did in Ready Player One and Star Wars: Rogue One, way to not get typecast Mendo!
That's the other weird thing about this movie, is that it's not sure what era it wants to be set in. Some of the accents, language and costumes are suitable for the period that the movie is set in, but other elements and other lines and costumes etc feel like they are from 2018, the year that this movie was made. The end result that they were aiming for may have been a sort of rolling timeline that transcends the days of the Crusades that the movie is set in but what we get is just a scattered mess.
There were a few positives in this thing. Some cool shots, Some of the stunt archery is, (while super unrealistic,) pretty cool to watch. I know that 'Real Life Legolas,' Lars Andersen was hired to teach the cast some archery and I believe he helped out with the action choreography as well, which is pretty cool. There are also some glimpses of creativity in some of the shots. One in particular that stood out to me was a shot that gradually panned out from behind a solitary soldiers shield to show the intensity and scale of the battle that was taking place. It's just unfortunate that in so many other places in the movie, all we get is lazy, generic camera angles that add nothing to the scene taking place.
Overall, this is an okay action romp. Don't go in expecting anything of substance or you will most definitely come away disappointed. Though, if all that you are looking for is something to stick on in the background while you do other things or if you are just after an easy, straightforward action adventure popcorn flick, then you could probably do worse than this.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
It seems of late that every month Hollywood either releases or plans to release a remake of a classic film. This summer has spawned no less than 5 remakes of classic films or televisions shows and with box office receipts in decline, it would seem that the public is craving for something fresh.
Thankfully the Tim Burton remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is not only a winner, but injects a much needed jolt of camp, charm, and wit into a late summer season that desperately needed it.
The film stars Johnny Depp as the mysterious candy maker Willie Wonka. Wonka has become a reclusive for two decades in order to protect his secret recipes from corporate spies and thieves.
As the film opens, a young boy named Charlie Bucket, (Freddie Highmore), returns home to his family shack, which he shares with his parents and four grandparents. As told via narration, that despite the poverty of his family, Charlie is a very lucky boy. Over their meager dinner of cabbage soup, Charlie’s grandfather (David Kelly) regales the family with tales of Willie Wonka and his exploits which he saw first hand while working in the factory decades earlier.
When Wonka resumed candy shipments after a hiatus the world was delighted, but many wondered who was making the candy as aside from shipping trucks, nobody was ever seen coming or going from the factory.
Such secrecy only added to the legend of Wonka as amazing candy creations continued to arrive in shops to the delight of customer’s world wide.
When it is announced that five golden tickets have been hidden inside candy bars world wide, and that the winners will be given a full day tour of the factory by Wonka himself, frenzy erupts across the globe as Wonka Bars are snatched up by a rabid public. Charlie dreams of getting one of the precious tickets, but his family’s meager income limits him to one bar a year on his birthday. Undaunted Charlie counts the days until his coming birthday, undaunted by the discovery of tickets around the globe.
When his efforts to get a ticket are daunted, and the fifth ticket is reported to be found, Charlie consoles himself by finding money in the street and purchases a Wonka Bar from the corner store. In the blink of an eye Charlie finds himself holding the last ticket when he learns that the last one reported found was a hoax.
Soon Charlie and his Grandfather are touring the magical factory complete with rivers of chocolate and edible candy forests in the company of the quirky Wonka and the fellow contest winners. What follows next is not going to be much of a surprise for those who have seen the 1971 version starring Gene Wilder or those who have read the novel by Roald Dahl, what is a surprise is how fresh and spirited this new version is. I was utterly charmed by the story and the effective pacing of the film.
Burton is a master of mixing visuals and fantasy and this time he not only excels, but he adds an effective touch of humanity to the fantasy which keeps the film from being lost in a see of color and effects.
Depp is brilliant as the eccentric Wonka as his mirth and camp, is underscored by equal amounts of fear and mistrust. The film is essentially a morality tale, but it never losses its focus or the charm by becoming preachy or drawn out. In a role that could easily have been mishandled, Depp soars and shows that he is one of the greatest actors of our generation.
Parents should note that there are a few moments in the film that may be a bit intense for the youngest of viewers, but that being said, the film is a true delight full of magic and fantasy that will delight young and old.
Thankfully the Tim Burton remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is not only a winner, but injects a much needed jolt of camp, charm, and wit into a late summer season that desperately needed it.
The film stars Johnny Depp as the mysterious candy maker Willie Wonka. Wonka has become a reclusive for two decades in order to protect his secret recipes from corporate spies and thieves.
As the film opens, a young boy named Charlie Bucket, (Freddie Highmore), returns home to his family shack, which he shares with his parents and four grandparents. As told via narration, that despite the poverty of his family, Charlie is a very lucky boy. Over their meager dinner of cabbage soup, Charlie’s grandfather (David Kelly) regales the family with tales of Willie Wonka and his exploits which he saw first hand while working in the factory decades earlier.
When Wonka resumed candy shipments after a hiatus the world was delighted, but many wondered who was making the candy as aside from shipping trucks, nobody was ever seen coming or going from the factory.
Such secrecy only added to the legend of Wonka as amazing candy creations continued to arrive in shops to the delight of customer’s world wide.
When it is announced that five golden tickets have been hidden inside candy bars world wide, and that the winners will be given a full day tour of the factory by Wonka himself, frenzy erupts across the globe as Wonka Bars are snatched up by a rabid public. Charlie dreams of getting one of the precious tickets, but his family’s meager income limits him to one bar a year on his birthday. Undaunted Charlie counts the days until his coming birthday, undaunted by the discovery of tickets around the globe.
When his efforts to get a ticket are daunted, and the fifth ticket is reported to be found, Charlie consoles himself by finding money in the street and purchases a Wonka Bar from the corner store. In the blink of an eye Charlie finds himself holding the last ticket when he learns that the last one reported found was a hoax.
Soon Charlie and his Grandfather are touring the magical factory complete with rivers of chocolate and edible candy forests in the company of the quirky Wonka and the fellow contest winners. What follows next is not going to be much of a surprise for those who have seen the 1971 version starring Gene Wilder or those who have read the novel by Roald Dahl, what is a surprise is how fresh and spirited this new version is. I was utterly charmed by the story and the effective pacing of the film.
Burton is a master of mixing visuals and fantasy and this time he not only excels, but he adds an effective touch of humanity to the fantasy which keeps the film from being lost in a see of color and effects.
Depp is brilliant as the eccentric Wonka as his mirth and camp, is underscored by equal amounts of fear and mistrust. The film is essentially a morality tale, but it never losses its focus or the charm by becoming preachy or drawn out. In a role that could easily have been mishandled, Depp soars and shows that he is one of the greatest actors of our generation.
Parents should note that there are a few moments in the film that may be a bit intense for the youngest of viewers, but that being said, the film is a true delight full of magic and fantasy that will delight young and old.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Fred Flarksy is a controversial journalist who likes to uncover the evil and corrupt in the world, when his paper is brought by a company that they themselves have uncovered as the "bad guy" he quits on the spot. Lance, his best friend, knows exactly what he needs to feel better, drink, steak, and a fundraiser with Boyz II Men.
It's fair to say that Fred didn't expect leaving his job to lead him to a chance reunion and such a wild ride.
It's fair to say that I wasn't too sure what this one was going to be like. I've never been a massive fan of Seth Rogen, a lot of his roles seem pointlessly crude. I don't mind that particularly, but too much of it just isn't my cup of tea. The line-up of him and Theron seemed a little mad, and a bit off balance, but the trailers looked like they had something to them so I was willing to have my mind changed... and oh boy did I change my mind.
At this point I've seen the movie twice and it really is great fun, and surprisingly heartwarming.
The odd headlining duo actually work wonderfully together, they bounce off each other so well throughout and that chemistry has shot this up into my favourite rom-coms.
Seth Rogen seems to have a knack for the outraged outbursts in films and we get a few of those at the beginning of the film. We quickly see Fred become a loveable character when he first sees Charlotte across the room at the fundraiser. He's sweet, he's vulnerable and he's funny. That's when you really start rooting for him.
Had you asked me to sum up Charlize Theron's previous acting roles I'd have said they were all of the dramatic and action persuasion, and mostly they are, I'd completely forgotten things like Gringo and A Million Ways To Die In The West. I hope we'll see more of her doing this sort of comedy, she's obviously well suited for it.
It's not just the lead roles though, the support cast are brilliant. June Diane Raphael as Charlotte's right-hand woman was so snippy with Fred to great effect, and O'Shea Jackson Jr. as Lance was the sort of supportive friend we all need. The highlight though was Tristan D. Lalla as secret service Agent M, he takes adorable to a whole new level.
My only negative on the casting was Alexander Skarsgård, but that's not because of his acting, it's because of what they did to him... that slurping, that laugh... why would you do that?! Why!!? After the wonder of him in The Aftermath this has ruined the image of him for me.
Long Shot's plot is entirely predictable. Two people are reunited after years, they catch feelings, something gets in the way, they split up, then they get back together. The fact you know where it's leading just means that you can sit back and enjoy it more. I was expecting the funny, but I really wasn't expecting to cry... yes, I know I'm a wreck. There are some surprisingly touching moments involved and the way they brought the film together at the end was perfect.
This probably deserves 5 stars, and I would give it that extra half star in a heartbeat if it wasn't for the Skarsgård thing and the fact that there's no way I could watch this with my parents even though I know dad would find it hilarious.
What you should do
It's definitely one to see, it doesn't need the big screen but you certainly won't be wasting your money if you went and saw it at the cinema.
It's fair to say that Fred didn't expect leaving his job to lead him to a chance reunion and such a wild ride.
It's fair to say that I wasn't too sure what this one was going to be like. I've never been a massive fan of Seth Rogen, a lot of his roles seem pointlessly crude. I don't mind that particularly, but too much of it just isn't my cup of tea. The line-up of him and Theron seemed a little mad, and a bit off balance, but the trailers looked like they had something to them so I was willing to have my mind changed... and oh boy did I change my mind.
At this point I've seen the movie twice and it really is great fun, and surprisingly heartwarming.
The odd headlining duo actually work wonderfully together, they bounce off each other so well throughout and that chemistry has shot this up into my favourite rom-coms.
Seth Rogen seems to have a knack for the outraged outbursts in films and we get a few of those at the beginning of the film. We quickly see Fred become a loveable character when he first sees Charlotte across the room at the fundraiser. He's sweet, he's vulnerable and he's funny. That's when you really start rooting for him.
Had you asked me to sum up Charlize Theron's previous acting roles I'd have said they were all of the dramatic and action persuasion, and mostly they are, I'd completely forgotten things like Gringo and A Million Ways To Die In The West. I hope we'll see more of her doing this sort of comedy, she's obviously well suited for it.
It's not just the lead roles though, the support cast are brilliant. June Diane Raphael as Charlotte's right-hand woman was so snippy with Fred to great effect, and O'Shea Jackson Jr. as Lance was the sort of supportive friend we all need. The highlight though was Tristan D. Lalla as secret service Agent M, he takes adorable to a whole new level.
My only negative on the casting was Alexander Skarsgård, but that's not because of his acting, it's because of what they did to him... that slurping, that laugh... why would you do that?! Why!!? After the wonder of him in The Aftermath this has ruined the image of him for me.
Long Shot's plot is entirely predictable. Two people are reunited after years, they catch feelings, something gets in the way, they split up, then they get back together. The fact you know where it's leading just means that you can sit back and enjoy it more. I was expecting the funny, but I really wasn't expecting to cry... yes, I know I'm a wreck. There are some surprisingly touching moments involved and the way they brought the film together at the end was perfect.
This probably deserves 5 stars, and I would give it that extra half star in a heartbeat if it wasn't for the Skarsgård thing and the fact that there's no way I could watch this with my parents even though I know dad would find it hilarious.
What you should do
It's definitely one to see, it doesn't need the big screen but you certainly won't be wasting your money if you went and saw it at the cinema.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Oct 20, 2019
The cast is an impressive selection and I'll talk about some of them in a bit but first I want to mention the advertising related to the cast. Almost every poster I saw had the main cast's names plastered on it, and rightly so, but that all included Cardi B and Lizzo. I would imagine that a significant amount of people, like me, had expected to see both of their characters in a larger chunk of the film than we actually got. They were very much bit parts and giving them this poster billing seemed more like cashing in on their current success, sensible from an advertising point of view but you already had a massive cast and it really wasn't needed.
Jennifer Lopez is great. I've always enjoyed her acting, are you even watching a decent rom-com if it doesn't have her as the lead? She is so versatile and really made the contrast between Ramona's different sides work. As I mentioned at the top she is stunning, she's 50, so beautiful and can do all that twirling... excuse me while I crying into some profiteroles for a bit, won't you?
Constance Wu as Destiny gave what I thought was a fairly average performance. She nails a lot of it but her character failed to jump out at me to be remembered and being up next to Lopez didn't help that much. The partnership between Destiny and Ramona came across so well though and that bond between them was crafted particularly well by both actresses.
Elizabeth's (Julia Stiles) inclusion makes sense considering the film is based off a magazine article but all of her pieces seemed out of place and it didn't have much impact on everything for me. We cut out to her and Destiny talking during their interview but as a story it stands on its own without this and Stiles was rather wasted.
The pacing also felt a little iffy. At the beginning we get a very quick piece of the girls getting to business, I liked that we didn't have to dwell on the ins and outs of it all for too long. This wasn't the case all the way through and later there are pieces that could have benefitted from a bit of editing for length. The general feel of everything was consistent and made sense moving from the story to the interview style. One of the things that bugged me though happened when we see Elizabeth interviewing Destiny, they say the full name of one of their marks and his surname gets bleeped. It's not subtle at all, it was enough to be jarring in the scene. It could easily have been done by pixelating their mouths and using a softer bleep, it still would have been strange but it would have been better. Although I'm not sure why they included it at all.
There were some fairly good points in Hustlers but as a whole I feel like the only bits I'm likely to remember is Jennifer Lopez, Destiny and Ramona cooking, and the girls dancing the dog. We've got a story that was condensed into a magazine article that's been reformed into a larger story, some of it was probably lost in translation somewhere and we're left with a film that doesn't quite nail the landing. I am impressed that it was kept from being an excuse for half naked women on screen, it never felt like it was made sexy just to get a rise out of the audience, considering the subject matter it was definitely a possibility.
Full review posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/hustlers-movie-review.html
Jennifer Lopez is great. I've always enjoyed her acting, are you even watching a decent rom-com if it doesn't have her as the lead? She is so versatile and really made the contrast between Ramona's different sides work. As I mentioned at the top she is stunning, she's 50, so beautiful and can do all that twirling... excuse me while I crying into some profiteroles for a bit, won't you?
Constance Wu as Destiny gave what I thought was a fairly average performance. She nails a lot of it but her character failed to jump out at me to be remembered and being up next to Lopez didn't help that much. The partnership between Destiny and Ramona came across so well though and that bond between them was crafted particularly well by both actresses.
Elizabeth's (Julia Stiles) inclusion makes sense considering the film is based off a magazine article but all of her pieces seemed out of place and it didn't have much impact on everything for me. We cut out to her and Destiny talking during their interview but as a story it stands on its own without this and Stiles was rather wasted.
The pacing also felt a little iffy. At the beginning we get a very quick piece of the girls getting to business, I liked that we didn't have to dwell on the ins and outs of it all for too long. This wasn't the case all the way through and later there are pieces that could have benefitted from a bit of editing for length. The general feel of everything was consistent and made sense moving from the story to the interview style. One of the things that bugged me though happened when we see Elizabeth interviewing Destiny, they say the full name of one of their marks and his surname gets bleeped. It's not subtle at all, it was enough to be jarring in the scene. It could easily have been done by pixelating their mouths and using a softer bleep, it still would have been strange but it would have been better. Although I'm not sure why they included it at all.
There were some fairly good points in Hustlers but as a whole I feel like the only bits I'm likely to remember is Jennifer Lopez, Destiny and Ramona cooking, and the girls dancing the dog. We've got a story that was condensed into a magazine article that's been reformed into a larger story, some of it was probably lost in translation somewhere and we're left with a film that doesn't quite nail the landing. I am impressed that it was kept from being an excuse for half naked women on screen, it never felt like it was made sexy just to get a rise out of the audience, considering the subject matter it was definitely a possibility.
Full review posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/hustlers-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
The top billing cast on IMDb read like my top list of reasons not to see a film. Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh and Timothée Chalamet... all are raved about by various people but all have their own quirks that I can't stand to watch on screen. Chalamet did redeem himself with The King earlier this year for Netflix but none of the others have done anything recently to sway me.
Of course here's where I have to eat my words... Saoirse Ronan as Jo gave a very solid performance in Little Women and I enjoyed her throughout the whole thing. Her scenes with Laurie (Chalamet) we particularly entertaining, if a little rollercoastery, but overall she had the right balance of forthright and funny that really helped the story progress.
We all know my feelings about Emma Watson (#notmyDisneyPrincess) and the trailer wasn't helping her case, her accent seemed to be on the dubious side in the few moments we saw. Thankfully in the full film it rounded out quite well. I still can't say I'm a fan though, while moments of her performance amused me when they should and help some power in them I couldn't help but think she still hasn't found a genre of film that suits her.
Florence Pugh's overly dramatic and divaish Amy was by far my favourite of all the sisters. While bratty and a little spoilt every piece fit together perfectly and Pugh managed to add just the right amount of childish behaviour when it was needed.
Marmee was a wonderful character to watch and Laura Dern was an excellent choice. I feel like she's having a mainstream resurgence recently and it's well deserved.
The only other cast member I want to mention is Meryl Streep, we can't ignore her in a cast list! I love Meryl (who doesn't!?) and the light humour in Aunt March's sternness is delightful, but I don't think I like seeing her play old characters. I know she's 70 but she isn't 70 in my head and that's the way she must stay.
The palette of this whole film feels very much like a vintage filter, the colours and hues all sit well with the historical setting and in the March house give a wonderful sense of homeliness. Locations, sets and costumes all back this up and it comes together for an excellent visual retelling of the classic novel.
Emotion throughout the film was always very well matched to the scenes and when that thing happens that we won't talk about... because spoilers... I found myself wanting to do a Joey and put the film in the freezer while I cried my eyes out, the scene was set up incredibly well and the symmetry was beautiful as well as heartbreaking.
With all this great stuff going on in Little Women it bugs me that I had something to quibble about. A few times during the film we get a character doing a voiceover that then transitions to them speaking at the camera... eh, no. It was so out of place with the rest of the perfectly balanced film that I looked on with a furrowed brow and wrote a grumbly comment in my notes.
Given that last issue I'm forced to make a deduction. It was difficult trying to work out what to score this, there were so many wonderful pieces and I will be seeing it again soon, but, period dramas don't tend to make it into my home rewatch list so it should have got a 4... but it really deserved the extra half.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/little-women-movie-review.html
Of course here's where I have to eat my words... Saoirse Ronan as Jo gave a very solid performance in Little Women and I enjoyed her throughout the whole thing. Her scenes with Laurie (Chalamet) we particularly entertaining, if a little rollercoastery, but overall she had the right balance of forthright and funny that really helped the story progress.
We all know my feelings about Emma Watson (#notmyDisneyPrincess) and the trailer wasn't helping her case, her accent seemed to be on the dubious side in the few moments we saw. Thankfully in the full film it rounded out quite well. I still can't say I'm a fan though, while moments of her performance amused me when they should and help some power in them I couldn't help but think she still hasn't found a genre of film that suits her.
Florence Pugh's overly dramatic and divaish Amy was by far my favourite of all the sisters. While bratty and a little spoilt every piece fit together perfectly and Pugh managed to add just the right amount of childish behaviour when it was needed.
Marmee was a wonderful character to watch and Laura Dern was an excellent choice. I feel like she's having a mainstream resurgence recently and it's well deserved.
The only other cast member I want to mention is Meryl Streep, we can't ignore her in a cast list! I love Meryl (who doesn't!?) and the light humour in Aunt March's sternness is delightful, but I don't think I like seeing her play old characters. I know she's 70 but she isn't 70 in my head and that's the way she must stay.
The palette of this whole film feels very much like a vintage filter, the colours and hues all sit well with the historical setting and in the March house give a wonderful sense of homeliness. Locations, sets and costumes all back this up and it comes together for an excellent visual retelling of the classic novel.
Emotion throughout the film was always very well matched to the scenes and when that thing happens that we won't talk about... because spoilers... I found myself wanting to do a Joey and put the film in the freezer while I cried my eyes out, the scene was set up incredibly well and the symmetry was beautiful as well as heartbreaking.
With all this great stuff going on in Little Women it bugs me that I had something to quibble about. A few times during the film we get a character doing a voiceover that then transitions to them speaking at the camera... eh, no. It was so out of place with the rest of the perfectly balanced film that I looked on with a furrowed brow and wrote a grumbly comment in my notes.
Given that last issue I'm forced to make a deduction. It was difficult trying to work out what to score this, there were so many wonderful pieces and I will be seeing it again soon, but, period dramas don't tend to make it into my home rewatch list so it should have got a 4... but it really deserved the extra half.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/little-women-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Splice (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
I consider myself a pretty well educated horror-movie buff. As a child, my brother lovingly showed me movies like Critters” and Ghoulies, along with the Halloween and Friday the 13th series. Freddy Krueger scared me no more than Ronald McDonald did (and no, I don’t have a fear of clowns). I have pretty much grown immune to horror films and their ilk, so it takes a lot to get a rise out of me. Sadly, like many many others, Splice failed miserably in doing so.
Meet Clive (Adrian Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley), two very cliché, defiant scientists who lead their industry by creating a prototype of the first ever genetically engineered creature. These two creatures, dubbed “Fred” and “Ginger”, claim a genetic code that they hope to someday use for veterinary and medicinal advances. In light of their success, Elsa conveys her desire to start working with human genes, a desire her supervisors immediately shoot down. Ever rebellious, Elsa and Clive begin splicing human genomes on their own, hoping to create a creature that will be unequaled in its genetic capabilities and advances. Yet their result turns out to be something far more humanoid than previously hoped. Soon they find themselves with a creature, lovingly named “Dren”, that’s startlingly human and yet embodies the abilities of amphibian and bird, a creature that’s capable of employing human emotion and intelligence while reveling in its animalistic tendencies. Even with Elsa's nurturing, their experiment takes a turn for the worse.
At first I had high hopes for this film. It was an independent film that premiered at Sundance (it's also being shown currently at the Seattle Independent Film Festival), had Adrian Brody as its lead, and one of my favorite directors, Guillermo Del Toro as one of its executive producers. All in all, I thought this might prove to be one of those rare horror-movie exceptions. But I was wrong.
Remember that time when you first watched Saw in the movie theater, and how comical that scene was where Cary Elwes' character is sawing off his leg to break free to save his family, only to have the game end less than an hour or so later? It was supposed to be one of those "dramatic" moments but everyone ends up laughing instead. Yeah, that's kind of what happens in Splice. Numerous times throughout the movie, the audience ended up laughing at the more dramatic moments. Sadly, the plot in and of itself was decent.
Perhaps if there had been a bigger budget or if more attention had been paid to the acting and the movie's resolution it might have turned out in much better form. It's my understanding that the original Sundance film had been edited and altered, thus resulting in what we see. Whether this was for better or worse, I've no clue. Given the ridiculous ending and the generic horror-movie allure, it flopped terribly and the ending just seemed thrown together more than anything else. Plus, if the plot didn't get under your skin, Dren's chirps and warbles would.
The opening credits were amazing (I have to give credit where credit is due) and the beginning scenes weren't terribly bad. Overall, the movie is more comical than terrifying and the plot weaker than watered-down instant coffee. There are far too many holes in the storyline and Adrian Brody's character wasn't strong enough to carry a cast as obscure as this. I would wait to see what the DVD would hold for this one. Maybe the extras will help fill in the gaps or the unedited film will present itself in a different light?
Meet Clive (Adrian Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley), two very cliché, defiant scientists who lead their industry by creating a prototype of the first ever genetically engineered creature. These two creatures, dubbed “Fred” and “Ginger”, claim a genetic code that they hope to someday use for veterinary and medicinal advances. In light of their success, Elsa conveys her desire to start working with human genes, a desire her supervisors immediately shoot down. Ever rebellious, Elsa and Clive begin splicing human genomes on their own, hoping to create a creature that will be unequaled in its genetic capabilities and advances. Yet their result turns out to be something far more humanoid than previously hoped. Soon they find themselves with a creature, lovingly named “Dren”, that’s startlingly human and yet embodies the abilities of amphibian and bird, a creature that’s capable of employing human emotion and intelligence while reveling in its animalistic tendencies. Even with Elsa's nurturing, their experiment takes a turn for the worse.
At first I had high hopes for this film. It was an independent film that premiered at Sundance (it's also being shown currently at the Seattle Independent Film Festival), had Adrian Brody as its lead, and one of my favorite directors, Guillermo Del Toro as one of its executive producers. All in all, I thought this might prove to be one of those rare horror-movie exceptions. But I was wrong.
Remember that time when you first watched Saw in the movie theater, and how comical that scene was where Cary Elwes' character is sawing off his leg to break free to save his family, only to have the game end less than an hour or so later? It was supposed to be one of those "dramatic" moments but everyone ends up laughing instead. Yeah, that's kind of what happens in Splice. Numerous times throughout the movie, the audience ended up laughing at the more dramatic moments. Sadly, the plot in and of itself was decent.
Perhaps if there had been a bigger budget or if more attention had been paid to the acting and the movie's resolution it might have turned out in much better form. It's my understanding that the original Sundance film had been edited and altered, thus resulting in what we see. Whether this was for better or worse, I've no clue. Given the ridiculous ending and the generic horror-movie allure, it flopped terribly and the ending just seemed thrown together more than anything else. Plus, if the plot didn't get under your skin, Dren's chirps and warbles would.
The opening credits were amazing (I have to give credit where credit is due) and the beginning scenes weren't terribly bad. Overall, the movie is more comical than terrifying and the plot weaker than watered-down instant coffee. There are far too many holes in the storyline and Adrian Brody's character wasn't strong enough to carry a cast as obscure as this. I would wait to see what the DVD would hold for this one. Maybe the extras will help fill in the gaps or the unedited film will present itself in a different light?
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated A Kiss of Madness in Books
Jan 14, 2019
Too much smut (3 more)
Unbelievable plot
Underdeveloped and unlikable characters
Book is confused about the plot
Reads More Like a Rough Draft
I love reading books about mental illness, and even more so if they take place inside an asylum. When I saw A Kiss of Madness by K.B. Everly and Stacy Jones, it seemed like the perfect read for me. Unfortunately, I was left very disappointed.
The synopsis for A Kiss of Madness sounded very interesting. It could have been a very interesting book except there's too much going on in the story. Lydia gets sent to Brocker's Center for the Criminally Insane after having a vision and throwing a chair through a window as well as attacking an innocent bystander. She could have chose jail time or to voluntarily commit herself to Brocker's. She chose the latter. While there, she gets feelings about people and doesn't feel like she belongs. She meets three guys who are patients with their own issues. However, she ends up thinking they're hot, and they also think she's hot. The guys all agree to be her boyfriends and end up following her everywhere. When one of the other female patients goes missing, Lydia tries to uncover what really happened putting herself in grave danger. I was confused if A Kiss of Madness was trying to be more of a romance novel, a mystery/crime novel, or a paranormal novel. I got the insane asylum vibe for a few chapters, but soon this book lost its whole mental illness vibe. I felt like the insane asylum setting was just thrown in there to make this book sound more interesting than it actually was. It soon turned more into an erotic novel which made me like the book even less. There was just too much pointless fairly graphic sex for my liking. I feel like all the fairly graphic sex and sexual references really took away from the story. I also didn't like the ending. It just felt too rushed. Actually, the whole story just felt really rushed. I also didn't understand how one character who had a violent past could have such a great job. I won't go into further details because it's a spoiler.
I started out liking Lydia and was on her side for the first few chapters or so. However, I found myself losing the connection I felt with her the more I read. She just came across as being very irresponsible and immature. I didn't really care for Pierce, Emmett, or Mason/Jason either. None of the characters in A Kiss of Madness were fleshed out enough to be likable or believable.
The pacing starts out great in A Kiss of Madness. However, it soon slows down once the sex scenes come into play. Then it slows down and becomes more of a smut novel instead of a decent read. Luckily this is a short read or I would have given up on it when I got to the sex parts.
Trigger warnings for A Kiss of Madness include violence, murder, mental illness, attempted sexual assault, fairly graphic sex scenes, sexual references, and profanities.
Overall, A Kiss of Madness started out great. However, it soon went downhill close to halfway through the book. I feel like this book feels more like a rough draft on what could be a decent read. It just needs a lot more work to be good. Get rid of a lot of the pointless sex scenes and references, bulk up the story and characters a bit, decide on what angle to go with, and give this book some guts! At this time, I would not recommend A Kiss of Madness by K.B. Everly and Stacy Jones.
The synopsis for A Kiss of Madness sounded very interesting. It could have been a very interesting book except there's too much going on in the story. Lydia gets sent to Brocker's Center for the Criminally Insane after having a vision and throwing a chair through a window as well as attacking an innocent bystander. She could have chose jail time or to voluntarily commit herself to Brocker's. She chose the latter. While there, she gets feelings about people and doesn't feel like she belongs. She meets three guys who are patients with their own issues. However, she ends up thinking they're hot, and they also think she's hot. The guys all agree to be her boyfriends and end up following her everywhere. When one of the other female patients goes missing, Lydia tries to uncover what really happened putting herself in grave danger. I was confused if A Kiss of Madness was trying to be more of a romance novel, a mystery/crime novel, or a paranormal novel. I got the insane asylum vibe for a few chapters, but soon this book lost its whole mental illness vibe. I felt like the insane asylum setting was just thrown in there to make this book sound more interesting than it actually was. It soon turned more into an erotic novel which made me like the book even less. There was just too much pointless fairly graphic sex for my liking. I feel like all the fairly graphic sex and sexual references really took away from the story. I also didn't like the ending. It just felt too rushed. Actually, the whole story just felt really rushed. I also didn't understand how one character who had a violent past could have such a great job. I won't go into further details because it's a spoiler.
I started out liking Lydia and was on her side for the first few chapters or so. However, I found myself losing the connection I felt with her the more I read. She just came across as being very irresponsible and immature. I didn't really care for Pierce, Emmett, or Mason/Jason either. None of the characters in A Kiss of Madness were fleshed out enough to be likable or believable.
The pacing starts out great in A Kiss of Madness. However, it soon slows down once the sex scenes come into play. Then it slows down and becomes more of a smut novel instead of a decent read. Luckily this is a short read or I would have given up on it when I got to the sex parts.
Trigger warnings for A Kiss of Madness include violence, murder, mental illness, attempted sexual assault, fairly graphic sex scenes, sexual references, and profanities.
Overall, A Kiss of Madness started out great. However, it soon went downhill close to halfway through the book. I feel like this book feels more like a rough draft on what could be a decent read. It just needs a lot more work to be good. Get rid of a lot of the pointless sex scenes and references, bulk up the story and characters a bit, decide on what angle to go with, and give this book some guts! At this time, I would not recommend A Kiss of Madness by K.B. Everly and Stacy Jones.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 22 Bullets (2013) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Story: 22 Bullets starts when retired Mafia godfather Charly Mattei (Reno) is ambushed by multiply gun man who riddle his body with bullets, 22 in his body and somehow, he survives the attack. The man behind the attack Tony Zacchia (Merad) wants the job finished so he can take the control he wants over the business, while detective Marie Goldman (Fois) has her own scores to settle with Mafia who were behind her husband’s and fellow cops’ death.
Charly brings his trusted friends back together to go into a full-blown war with Tony which see the bodies piling up, until he can get his hands-on Tony himself.
Characters – Charly Mattei is the retired Mafia godfather that walked away from the business with strict rules on how it will continue, he gets left for dead by the new boss who wants to play by his own rules. Now the bear has been poked he will seek revenge on everyone who tried to eliminate him, no matter how many bodies get left in his way, he knows this is the only way to keep his family safe. Tony Zacchia has taken over the business, he doesn’t want to play by the same rules though, he needs to take care of Charly before changing the rules and after that attempts fails, he starts to throw waves of men as Charly to finish the job. Martin is the closest friend to Charly, he will help make the connections to who else was involved in the assassination attempt. Marie Goldman is a cop that lost her husband to the Mafia, she has wanted to take them down for years now and this will be her best chance after she get put in the middle of the blood war.
Performances – Jean Reno is fantastic in the leading role of the film, he brings back the type of performance we saw in Leon where he is the cold-hearted killer with the heart of gold. Kad Merad, Jean-Pierre Darroussin are both good in the supporting role, though it can be easy to mix the two up. Marina Fios is good as the detective trying to get to the bottom of everything with her own tragic back past.
Story – The story here follows a former Mafia Godfather that goes on a revenge mission against the new godfather after he failed to have his assassinated bring France into a battle for power between the two leading sides in the war. This does play out like a revenge thriller with plenty of bullets, we have seen this done most recently with John Wick and this follows the same tone and body numbers you would be seeing in this one. The added side story of the cop wanting to final takedown the person who killed her husband adds to everything making this feel like a three-way war between the sides. The does play out how you would imagine which is great to see and the story doesn’t hold back either.
Action/Crime – The action is brutal when it comes to the bullet wound, even if certain moments can become overkill when it comes to the bullets flying. The crime world shown gives us an insight into the world in and out of the world with people wanting out or control.
Settings – The film is set in Marseille which shows us a new type of city for a crime film to take place in, we have all the locations you would imagine for a Mafia film.
Scene of the Movie – Dinner meeting.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Sometimes overkill.
Final Thoughts – This is an enjoyable action revenge thriller, that puts Jean Reno front and centre on a bloody rampage, one well worth watching for the action fans.
Overall: Enjoyable Action Film.
Charly brings his trusted friends back together to go into a full-blown war with Tony which see the bodies piling up, until he can get his hands-on Tony himself.
Characters – Charly Mattei is the retired Mafia godfather that walked away from the business with strict rules on how it will continue, he gets left for dead by the new boss who wants to play by his own rules. Now the bear has been poked he will seek revenge on everyone who tried to eliminate him, no matter how many bodies get left in his way, he knows this is the only way to keep his family safe. Tony Zacchia has taken over the business, he doesn’t want to play by the same rules though, he needs to take care of Charly before changing the rules and after that attempts fails, he starts to throw waves of men as Charly to finish the job. Martin is the closest friend to Charly, he will help make the connections to who else was involved in the assassination attempt. Marie Goldman is a cop that lost her husband to the Mafia, she has wanted to take them down for years now and this will be her best chance after she get put in the middle of the blood war.
Performances – Jean Reno is fantastic in the leading role of the film, he brings back the type of performance we saw in Leon where he is the cold-hearted killer with the heart of gold. Kad Merad, Jean-Pierre Darroussin are both good in the supporting role, though it can be easy to mix the two up. Marina Fios is good as the detective trying to get to the bottom of everything with her own tragic back past.
Story – The story here follows a former Mafia Godfather that goes on a revenge mission against the new godfather after he failed to have his assassinated bring France into a battle for power between the two leading sides in the war. This does play out like a revenge thriller with plenty of bullets, we have seen this done most recently with John Wick and this follows the same tone and body numbers you would be seeing in this one. The added side story of the cop wanting to final takedown the person who killed her husband adds to everything making this feel like a three-way war between the sides. The does play out how you would imagine which is great to see and the story doesn’t hold back either.
Action/Crime – The action is brutal when it comes to the bullet wound, even if certain moments can become overkill when it comes to the bullets flying. The crime world shown gives us an insight into the world in and out of the world with people wanting out or control.
Settings – The film is set in Marseille which shows us a new type of city for a crime film to take place in, we have all the locations you would imagine for a Mafia film.
Scene of the Movie – Dinner meeting.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Sometimes overkill.
Final Thoughts – This is an enjoyable action revenge thriller, that puts Jean Reno front and centre on a bloody rampage, one well worth watching for the action fans.
Overall: Enjoyable Action Film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Johnny English Strikes Again (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
My very first experience with the incredibly talented Rowan Atkinson was when I saw a silly Mr. Bean short that was played before the Beauty and the Beast movie. This was way back in 1991 and yet you wouldn’t believe that he’s aged at all during that time. Johnny English Strikes Again is the third movie in the Johnny English franchise, and is another James Bond inspired spoof where our never aging super spy once again tries to outwit a maniacal super genius hell bent on taking over the world.
The movie starts with Johnny English as a geography teacher at a private school in the heart of England. What makes this a light-hearted and perfect entrance to the movie is that instead of teaching geography lessons, he’s teaching the kids how to become spies. Not only does this result in some very chuckle worthy scenes but it also shows us that Johnny still yearns to be back in the field even though he’s an exceptional teacher to the young spies-in-training. As fate would have it, a hacker has released the identities of all MI-7 agents around the world, so the only hope that England has is to call back retired agents. Reluctantly, Johnny is given the job and of course the hijinks start before he even heads out on his mission. In a very cute and refreshing twist on the usual high-tech spy movies, Johnny prefers his spy gear old school, so he turns down the smart phone and hybrid vehicle and instead requests a gun and picks out an old gas-guzzling Aston Martin V8. It was a very clever way to show that his mission wasn’t going to be anything like how Ethan Hunt would handle things.
This leads us to the plot of the movie. Johnny’s mission, with the help of his faithful sidekick Bough (Ben Miller), is to track down the signal where the hacker has been carrying out his attacks and thwart them before the G12 summit takes place. His first stop is to the south of France, where he encounters an alluring Russian spy named Ophelia (Olga Kurylenko) who is clearly working against him. What follows is a slapstick tale of numerous follies as the unlikely trio dance, drive, and crash their way to saving the world.
As you might expect Johnny English forgoes the crudeness and lewd jokes that are popular in comedic films these days and brings back a much more wholesome family friendly comedy. There is no cursing to speak of, no real violence, and except for the last scene it barely rates in the PG category at all. It harkens back to the late 80’s and early 90’s with similar spoof movies like The Naked Gun, where silly dialog and accident-prone heroes are what leads to the laughter. It’s a film that certainly does not take itself seriously and expects the same from the viewing audience. Some of the humor in the movie may elicit a groan from being that bad…but it’s usually so bad that it becomes funny. I found myself laughing a lot more than I expected to and I wasn’t the only one in the theater laughing.
To truly enjoy Johnny English, you have to know what to expect going into it. I can’t imagine there will be many (particularly those who have seen the previous films) that will have particularly high expectations, and that’s where it shines. It may not win any comedy film awards or be the best movie you’ve ever seen but you’ll go away happy. If you enjoyed the previous films, you will certainly enjoy this film as it’s not a huge diversion from the formula and provides the same sort of silly gags throughout. It certainly won’t appeal to everyone and that’s okay, but if you think you might enjoy it even a little, it’s definitely worth a look.
The movie starts with Johnny English as a geography teacher at a private school in the heart of England. What makes this a light-hearted and perfect entrance to the movie is that instead of teaching geography lessons, he’s teaching the kids how to become spies. Not only does this result in some very chuckle worthy scenes but it also shows us that Johnny still yearns to be back in the field even though he’s an exceptional teacher to the young spies-in-training. As fate would have it, a hacker has released the identities of all MI-7 agents around the world, so the only hope that England has is to call back retired agents. Reluctantly, Johnny is given the job and of course the hijinks start before he even heads out on his mission. In a very cute and refreshing twist on the usual high-tech spy movies, Johnny prefers his spy gear old school, so he turns down the smart phone and hybrid vehicle and instead requests a gun and picks out an old gas-guzzling Aston Martin V8. It was a very clever way to show that his mission wasn’t going to be anything like how Ethan Hunt would handle things.
This leads us to the plot of the movie. Johnny’s mission, with the help of his faithful sidekick Bough (Ben Miller), is to track down the signal where the hacker has been carrying out his attacks and thwart them before the G12 summit takes place. His first stop is to the south of France, where he encounters an alluring Russian spy named Ophelia (Olga Kurylenko) who is clearly working against him. What follows is a slapstick tale of numerous follies as the unlikely trio dance, drive, and crash their way to saving the world.
As you might expect Johnny English forgoes the crudeness and lewd jokes that are popular in comedic films these days and brings back a much more wholesome family friendly comedy. There is no cursing to speak of, no real violence, and except for the last scene it barely rates in the PG category at all. It harkens back to the late 80’s and early 90’s with similar spoof movies like The Naked Gun, where silly dialog and accident-prone heroes are what leads to the laughter. It’s a film that certainly does not take itself seriously and expects the same from the viewing audience. Some of the humor in the movie may elicit a groan from being that bad…but it’s usually so bad that it becomes funny. I found myself laughing a lot more than I expected to and I wasn’t the only one in the theater laughing.
To truly enjoy Johnny English, you have to know what to expect going into it. I can’t imagine there will be many (particularly those who have seen the previous films) that will have particularly high expectations, and that’s where it shines. It may not win any comedy film awards or be the best movie you’ve ever seen but you’ll go away happy. If you enjoyed the previous films, you will certainly enjoy this film as it’s not a huge diversion from the formula and provides the same sort of silly gags throughout. It certainly won’t appeal to everyone and that’s okay, but if you think you might enjoy it even a little, it’s definitely worth a look.