Search
Search results
Erika (17788 KP) rated Peter Rabbit 2: The Runaway (2021) in Movies
Jun 15, 2021
Full disclosure, I absolutely loved the first Peter Rabbit film. I found it completely hilarious and cackled numerous times. The sequel did not make me laugh.
I typically don’t watch straight-up kid movies anymore, because they’re not funny, and they are as annoying as the kids in the audience. This movie completely reminded me of that.
The film begins with the wedding of Bea and Thomas, the rabbits and other members of McGregor’s Garden are all present. The animals are mixed in with the humans, and it looked very odd. I can’t figure out why. Bea and Thomas enter married bliss (?), running a shop in town, and tending the garden. Bea’s first Peter Rabbit book has been published by Thomas himself. Bea receives an offer from a publisher, Nigel Basil-Jones, played by David Oyelowo, to have her book republished so it can reach a wider audience. Bea begins to compromise her integrity to please Nigel and make the rabbits hipper to boost sales. Meanwhile, Peter embraces his bad boy/ mischievous image and makes friends with this super creepy rabbit from the city, participating in food heists.
The two main plotlines really didn’t make sense together and seemed to only be related because they were both about family. Yawn.
James Corden, who I can tolerate most of the time, was so completely annoying. His performance killed any motivation I had to see a possible third movie. This movie was just dumb, but I guess it probably entertained children.
There were a few positives. Oyelowo was hilarious, and one of the best parts of the film. He is the only reason I’m giving this film two-stars His comedy skills are on point and his interactions with Domhnall Gleeson were the best source of adult laughs. I also loved the voice acting of Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail. Though, I was a little bummed that Daisy Ridley did not return as Cottontail.
The recent marketing stated, “In Theaters. Finally”. I’m not sure this film should have been released in theaters, they should have released it on VOD at Easter-time either in 2020, or 2021.
I typically don’t watch straight-up kid movies anymore, because they’re not funny, and they are as annoying as the kids in the audience. This movie completely reminded me of that.
The film begins with the wedding of Bea and Thomas, the rabbits and other members of McGregor’s Garden are all present. The animals are mixed in with the humans, and it looked very odd. I can’t figure out why. Bea and Thomas enter married bliss (?), running a shop in town, and tending the garden. Bea’s first Peter Rabbit book has been published by Thomas himself. Bea receives an offer from a publisher, Nigel Basil-Jones, played by David Oyelowo, to have her book republished so it can reach a wider audience. Bea begins to compromise her integrity to please Nigel and make the rabbits hipper to boost sales. Meanwhile, Peter embraces his bad boy/ mischievous image and makes friends with this super creepy rabbit from the city, participating in food heists.
The two main plotlines really didn’t make sense together and seemed to only be related because they were both about family. Yawn.
James Corden, who I can tolerate most of the time, was so completely annoying. His performance killed any motivation I had to see a possible third movie. This movie was just dumb, but I guess it probably entertained children.
There were a few positives. Oyelowo was hilarious, and one of the best parts of the film. He is the only reason I’m giving this film two-stars His comedy skills are on point and his interactions with Domhnall Gleeson were the best source of adult laughs. I also loved the voice acting of Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail. Though, I was a little bummed that Daisy Ridley did not return as Cottontail.
The recent marketing stated, “In Theaters. Finally”. I’m not sure this film should have been released in theaters, they should have released it on VOD at Easter-time either in 2020, or 2021.
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).
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Spider-Man 3 (2007) in Movies
Sep 24, 2020 (Updated Sep 24, 2020)
The third and final entry in the Sam Raimi trilogy of Spider-Man films is arguably the most well known, unfortunately for all the wrong reasons, and it's a real shame as there are flashes of greatness, but the finished product is a hot mess.
One of the main issues is of course the three big villains all battling for screentime. Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) is a great villain to add to the series, but his story is executed poorly, and includes a dumb retcon in a half arsed attempt to link him to the original film. It's just unnecessary and soils something that could have been good. And then there's Venom - A huge fan favourite villain who Sam Raimi apparently doesn't like, and it's evident. Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) is rushed into the narrative, and his reasons for hating Peter Parker feel forced as a result. Venoms inclusion feels a bit tacked on, and unfortunately reaks of studio meddling.
Other than that, there's also the issue of over confidence - the assumption that an audience wants to watch an edgy version of Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker swanning and dancing down a street is bold to say the least - I could even forgive the infamous scene if it wasn't immediately followed up with a second dance number in a jazz bar. I get that it's designed to portray the symbiote suits hold over Peter and his deteriorating character attributes, buts it's a massive shitty swing and a miss (much like the whole movie in general) that makes me want to scream.
It's not all bad though. All of the cast, new and familiar, are good. I think Bryce Dallas Howard is a great Gwen Stacy. It has some decent set pieces as well - the scene where Sandman is discovering his new powers is brilliant, as is the fight between him and black suit Spider-Man in the underground. I also quite enjoy the final showdown when we (finally) get to see Venom properly.
It's not enough though, and Spider-Man 3 ultimately is a flawed if ambitious comic book sequel.
One of the main issues is of course the three big villains all battling for screentime. Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) is a great villain to add to the series, but his story is executed poorly, and includes a dumb retcon in a half arsed attempt to link him to the original film. It's just unnecessary and soils something that could have been good. And then there's Venom - A huge fan favourite villain who Sam Raimi apparently doesn't like, and it's evident. Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) is rushed into the narrative, and his reasons for hating Peter Parker feel forced as a result. Venoms inclusion feels a bit tacked on, and unfortunately reaks of studio meddling.
Other than that, there's also the issue of over confidence - the assumption that an audience wants to watch an edgy version of Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker swanning and dancing down a street is bold to say the least - I could even forgive the infamous scene if it wasn't immediately followed up with a second dance number in a jazz bar. I get that it's designed to portray the symbiote suits hold over Peter and his deteriorating character attributes, buts it's a massive shitty swing and a miss (much like the whole movie in general) that makes me want to scream.
It's not all bad though. All of the cast, new and familiar, are good. I think Bryce Dallas Howard is a great Gwen Stacy. It has some decent set pieces as well - the scene where Sandman is discovering his new powers is brilliant, as is the fight between him and black suit Spider-Man in the underground. I also quite enjoy the final showdown when we (finally) get to see Venom properly.
It's not enough though, and Spider-Man 3 ultimately is a flawed if ambitious comic book sequel.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019 (Updated Jun 27, 2019)
This one's for 2Pac
Contains spoilers, click to show
Child's Play is really a film of two halves - the first being the better half and here's why:
The film starts off introducing us to Buddi (this remakes version of the originals Good Guys), and briefly explains that what will eventually end up as Chucky, is a defective product - a robot that connect to any device to your home, with all his safety protocols switched off.
This is the first thing that I imagine will piss off Chucky purists but it's a change that I thought was fine.
When the plot gets going and 13-year old Andy is acquainted with his new toy, is where the movie really shines. Chucky learns from Andy and just wants to make his new best friend happy, to the point that it paints Chucky as sympathetic. It's actually quite upsetting when he begs not to be shut in a dark closet, after not understanding why his violent tendencies have upset his friend.
The design of the doll itself, I thought was pretty good. He looks creepy as hell, and the way his eyes change colour just add to the whole set up... Plus Mark Hamill is clearly having a ball voicing Chucky - inspired casting right there.
The main problem I have with the cast was Aubrey Plaza, who's great in Parks and Rec, Scott Pilgrim, Legion etc, but here usual wide eye, psycho, sarcastic act doesn't really fit in with her role as mother to Andy.
Then there's the second half of the film, which to me felt very rushed, where Chucky goes full blown crazy, and starts controlling other Buddi dolls - an idea which is absolutely fine (and probably what will happen in the sequel), but the movie skirts by it pretty quickly. After building up for over an hour, a lot of explanations are left out, to make way for a violent show down finale between Chucky and Andy, that almost feels a bit unearned.
Overall though, Child's Play is a pretty fun horror trip, that sets itself apart from the original pretty nicely. I sincerely hope it's not just a one off, and we get more in the future.
The film starts off introducing us to Buddi (this remakes version of the originals Good Guys), and briefly explains that what will eventually end up as Chucky, is a defective product - a robot that connect to any device to your home, with all his safety protocols switched off.
This is the first thing that I imagine will piss off Chucky purists but it's a change that I thought was fine.
When the plot gets going and 13-year old Andy is acquainted with his new toy, is where the movie really shines. Chucky learns from Andy and just wants to make his new best friend happy, to the point that it paints Chucky as sympathetic. It's actually quite upsetting when he begs not to be shut in a dark closet, after not understanding why his violent tendencies have upset his friend.
The design of the doll itself, I thought was pretty good. He looks creepy as hell, and the way his eyes change colour just add to the whole set up... Plus Mark Hamill is clearly having a ball voicing Chucky - inspired casting right there.
The main problem I have with the cast was Aubrey Plaza, who's great in Parks and Rec, Scott Pilgrim, Legion etc, but here usual wide eye, psycho, sarcastic act doesn't really fit in with her role as mother to Andy.
Then there's the second half of the film, which to me felt very rushed, where Chucky goes full blown crazy, and starts controlling other Buddi dolls - an idea which is absolutely fine (and probably what will happen in the sequel), but the movie skirts by it pretty quickly. After building up for over an hour, a lot of explanations are left out, to make way for a violent show down finale between Chucky and Andy, that almost feels a bit unearned.
Overall though, Child's Play is a pretty fun horror trip, that sets itself apart from the original pretty nicely. I sincerely hope it's not just a one off, and we get more in the future.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Dark Tower (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
The last Gunslinger, Roland Deschain, has been locked in an eternal battle with Walter Padick, also known as the Man in Black, determined to prevent him from toppling the Dark Tower, which holds the universe together. With the fate of the worlds at stake, good and evil will collide in the ultimate battle as only Roland can defend the Tower from the Man in Black.
Jack Chambers is labelled as a troubled child, the visions he sees are just his way of coping with his father's death. But when he's confronted with the monsters that he's drawn he knows he needs to find the truth. Even if that truth lands him in the middle of the battle.
Yet another book that I haven't read. I know, I know. I'll sort myself out at some point. But if I'm truly honest, I've never really enjoyed Stephen King stuff. I think I mentioned before when I listened to Under The Dome, everything I've come across feels like it ends rather abruptly, and fairly often with a "Boom! Aliens!"
Knowing this was a series of books I wanted to know exactly what this film entailed... I'm not sure I'm any closer to understanding. Evidently this films has elements of several novels in the series. According to Wikipedia it "also serves as a canonical sequel to the novel series..." Honestly, the only way I'm going to understand it is to read all eight books, but with roughly 100 books in my TBR pile that's a fairly remote happening. I'll just have to convince my mum to see it so she can explain it all to me.
For something that crosses into multiple genres I was pleasantly surprised that it was easy to follow. It was an enjoyable watch. And although there were no aliens thrown in at the end, the film did feel like it ended too abruptly.
I'm not sure what the buzz is about this at the moment, but for a while there were certainly talks of another film, and/or a TV series. I really with all my heart don't want a series. Not after Under The Dome. But another film wouldn't be objectionable.
Jack Chambers is labelled as a troubled child, the visions he sees are just his way of coping with his father's death. But when he's confronted with the monsters that he's drawn he knows he needs to find the truth. Even if that truth lands him in the middle of the battle.
Yet another book that I haven't read. I know, I know. I'll sort myself out at some point. But if I'm truly honest, I've never really enjoyed Stephen King stuff. I think I mentioned before when I listened to Under The Dome, everything I've come across feels like it ends rather abruptly, and fairly often with a "Boom! Aliens!"
Knowing this was a series of books I wanted to know exactly what this film entailed... I'm not sure I'm any closer to understanding. Evidently this films has elements of several novels in the series. According to Wikipedia it "also serves as a canonical sequel to the novel series..." Honestly, the only way I'm going to understand it is to read all eight books, but with roughly 100 books in my TBR pile that's a fairly remote happening. I'll just have to convince my mum to see it so she can explain it all to me.
For something that crosses into multiple genres I was pleasantly surprised that it was easy to follow. It was an enjoyable watch. And although there were no aliens thrown in at the end, the film did feel like it ended too abruptly.
I'm not sure what the buzz is about this at the moment, but for a while there were certainly talks of another film, and/or a TV series. I really with all my heart don't want a series. Not after Under The Dome. But another film wouldn't be objectionable.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Aug 21, 2019
It is hard to believe that it has been six years since Gerard Butler introduced audiences to Special Agent Mike Banning. Over the course of the film and its sequel; Banning kept the President safe against a never-ending barrage of threats both home and abroad.
For the new film “Angel Has Fallen”; Banning must protect a new President (Morgan Freeman) and clear his name when he is framed after a devastating attack on the President.
When he is suddenly the most wanted man in the country; Banning must use all his skills when he is abducted and subsequently escapes while be transported to a detention facility.
The movie takes a bit of time getting up to speed but wisely has some good action along the way to setup the film and increase the tension levels. Once the action revs up, it is full on pedal to the floor action with Butler throwing himself into the fray against heavy odds no matter the cost.
What makes this film stand out from the others is that narrative is more plausible than other action films and you do see Butler dealing with the results of his profession. This is not a Teflon Super Hero who has bullets bounce off his chest. This is a man who bears his physical and psychological scars from his years in service and has a hard time letting go of the work even though it is what he believes he is best suited for.
Morgan Freeman gives a very strong performance as does Nick Nolte who stole many of the scenes in which he was in and provided some real Wild Card comic relief and action to the film.
In the end it is Gerard’s picture and he throws himself into the part without becoming repetitive of his past films and giving Banning a relatable and sympathetic quality that is often lacking in films of this type.
In a summer of many films Over Promising and Under-Delivering: “Angel Has Fallen” is a refreshing exception as it was an enjoyable thrill ride from start to finish and I sure hope we have not seen the last of Agent Banning.
4 stars out of 5
http://sknr.net/2019/08/21/angel-has-fallen/
For the new film “Angel Has Fallen”; Banning must protect a new President (Morgan Freeman) and clear his name when he is framed after a devastating attack on the President.
When he is suddenly the most wanted man in the country; Banning must use all his skills when he is abducted and subsequently escapes while be transported to a detention facility.
The movie takes a bit of time getting up to speed but wisely has some good action along the way to setup the film and increase the tension levels. Once the action revs up, it is full on pedal to the floor action with Butler throwing himself into the fray against heavy odds no matter the cost.
What makes this film stand out from the others is that narrative is more plausible than other action films and you do see Butler dealing with the results of his profession. This is not a Teflon Super Hero who has bullets bounce off his chest. This is a man who bears his physical and psychological scars from his years in service and has a hard time letting go of the work even though it is what he believes he is best suited for.
Morgan Freeman gives a very strong performance as does Nick Nolte who stole many of the scenes in which he was in and provided some real Wild Card comic relief and action to the film.
In the end it is Gerard’s picture and he throws himself into the part without becoming repetitive of his past films and giving Banning a relatable and sympathetic quality that is often lacking in films of this type.
In a summer of many films Over Promising and Under-Delivering: “Angel Has Fallen” is a refreshing exception as it was an enjoyable thrill ride from start to finish and I sure hope we have not seen the last of Agent Banning.
4 stars out of 5
http://sknr.net/2019/08/21/angel-has-fallen/
WildLife - America: Your own wildlife park
Games and Entertainment
App
Look after wild animals and nurse them back to health: in WildLife - America you can care for...
TaoMix 2 - Relax, Sleep, Focus
Health & Fitness and Music
App
Whether you want to relax, sleep better or focus, TaoMix 2 helps you create and explore immersive,...
Sunny ~ Calm wave & ocean sounds to Sleep Relax Meditate on the beach with rain and sea birds
Health & Fitness and Medical
App
Join over 5 million extraordinary people who enjoy some of the highest quality wellness apps in the...
Squids Wild West
Games and Entertainment
App
SQUIDS Wild West has a unique mix of action strategy and RPG: build your team of heroes for...