Search
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Dora and the Lost City of Gold (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
The trailer for Dora looked like fun but I went in cautious, luckily I came out having really enjoyed myself. Dora is the step before the new Jumanji films, it's packed with fun daft stuff and it's difficult to hold anything against it.
Dora and her parents live in the jungle where they can explore and learn about everything around them. When her best friend Diego leaves for the city she's left with only Boots, a cheeky monkey, to go on a daily adventure with.
Years later after a breakthrough with their research Dora's parents send her to stay with Diego and his family in the city as they go off looking for their lost Inca civilisation. High school is a bit like a jungle, but not like the one Dora is used to, she muddles through the best she can trying to stay positive.
When the school goes on a field trip to the museum Dora and her friends get cornered by a strange group of people and trapped in a packing crate headed back to the jungle. Dora isn't the only one wanting to know where her parents are, this group of mercenaries are after them too, and the treasure.
Something great about Dora And The Lost City Of Gold is that it doesn't take itself too seriously. The TV series was after my time but it's one of those things you still know about. I was pre-worried about the terrible animation on Boots, it didn't exactly look ground-breaking in the trailer, but once the cute little thing got going I didn't really care. Obviously there are lots of things that happen in the cartoon that don't really lend themselves to the big screen. Possibly the most amusing one is Dora breaking the fourth wall to ask if we can say "delicioso", the reaction from everyone in the scene is hilarious and I'm impressed they decided to do it that way.
Isabela Moner made an excellent impression earlier this year in Instant Family and seeing her name on this was brilliant. The age difference to the show makes sense and I love the way they handled it. There's infectious enthusiasm that it was difficult not to succumb to. Having to act with things that aren't there is incredibly difficult to do realistically but you wouldn't know it to watch her in this.
Dora's parents are played by Michael Peña and Eva Longoria, it seems like an odd pairing but they were really fun together. You know I love Michael Peña, and he's so goofy and fun in this that it made me very happy. His extended rave music piece was thankfully better than the short clip in the trailer. Eva Longoria was much more down to earth and sensible and the dynamic between them worked really well.
The film managed to incorporate the cartoon in quite a fun way. I'm not sure how they expect parents to explain what happened but that's not my problem so I'm purely entertained by it all. I briefly mentioned the animation of Boots, it's not good but the character is amusing, Swiper the fox has a similar animation issue. He's more annoying to watch and see other characters interact with him, but a fox that talks and walks on his hind legs isn't going to be great in this style of film whatever way you try.
Dora And The Lost City Of Gold really feels like it brings together all the values that the show tries to put across, friendship, learning and good behaviour. It has captured it all in a bright and engaging format while keeping the content amusing and suitable for everyone. I'm very pleased I got to see this it's one of the more amusing releases this year.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/dora-and-lost-city-of-gold-movie-review.html
Dora and her parents live in the jungle where they can explore and learn about everything around them. When her best friend Diego leaves for the city she's left with only Boots, a cheeky monkey, to go on a daily adventure with.
Years later after a breakthrough with their research Dora's parents send her to stay with Diego and his family in the city as they go off looking for their lost Inca civilisation. High school is a bit like a jungle, but not like the one Dora is used to, she muddles through the best she can trying to stay positive.
When the school goes on a field trip to the museum Dora and her friends get cornered by a strange group of people and trapped in a packing crate headed back to the jungle. Dora isn't the only one wanting to know where her parents are, this group of mercenaries are after them too, and the treasure.
Something great about Dora And The Lost City Of Gold is that it doesn't take itself too seriously. The TV series was after my time but it's one of those things you still know about. I was pre-worried about the terrible animation on Boots, it didn't exactly look ground-breaking in the trailer, but once the cute little thing got going I didn't really care. Obviously there are lots of things that happen in the cartoon that don't really lend themselves to the big screen. Possibly the most amusing one is Dora breaking the fourth wall to ask if we can say "delicioso", the reaction from everyone in the scene is hilarious and I'm impressed they decided to do it that way.
Isabela Moner made an excellent impression earlier this year in Instant Family and seeing her name on this was brilliant. The age difference to the show makes sense and I love the way they handled it. There's infectious enthusiasm that it was difficult not to succumb to. Having to act with things that aren't there is incredibly difficult to do realistically but you wouldn't know it to watch her in this.
Dora's parents are played by Michael Peña and Eva Longoria, it seems like an odd pairing but they were really fun together. You know I love Michael Peña, and he's so goofy and fun in this that it made me very happy. His extended rave music piece was thankfully better than the short clip in the trailer. Eva Longoria was much more down to earth and sensible and the dynamic between them worked really well.
The film managed to incorporate the cartoon in quite a fun way. I'm not sure how they expect parents to explain what happened but that's not my problem so I'm purely entertained by it all. I briefly mentioned the animation of Boots, it's not good but the character is amusing, Swiper the fox has a similar animation issue. He's more annoying to watch and see other characters interact with him, but a fox that talks and walks on his hind legs isn't going to be great in this style of film whatever way you try.
Dora And The Lost City Of Gold really feels like it brings together all the values that the show tries to put across, friendship, learning and good behaviour. It has captured it all in a bright and engaging format while keeping the content amusing and suitable for everyone. I'm very pleased I got to see this it's one of the more amusing releases this year.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/dora-and-lost-city-of-gold-movie-review.html
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Willy's Wonderland (2021) in Movies
Mar 20, 2021
Could’ve been so much better
If you’ve seen the trailer for Willy’s Wonderland, you were no doubt wondering what on earth your eyes had just been witness to, and I’m afraid the full film doesn’t get any less demented. Willy’s Wonderland is a 2021 horror comedy from director Kevin Lewis that is every bit a modern day B-movie, complete with cheesy script and questionable acting. On paper it sounds like it should be entertainingly bad but silly, but unfortunately in reality it’s just bad.
Willy’s Wonderland follows a drifter (Nicolas Cage) who experiences car troubles on his way cross country, and is tricked into becoming a janitor overnight for the condemned Willy’s Wonderland to pay off his car repairs. Willy’s is a kids restaurant slash indoor play area themed around Willy the weasel and his animatronic friends, including a crocodile, chameleon, gorilla and ostrich. However Willy’s isn’t just your ordinary run down restaurant as it has a dark and horrific history involving murderers, criminals and satanic rituals. Now the friendly animatronic creatures have taken on a murderous life of their own and in a bid to appease them, the town elders (including the sheriff played by Beth Grant) have turned to tricking people travelling through into Willy’s to act as human sacrifices. Unfortunately the townsfolk don’t get quite what they expected with Cage’s unnamed drifter, who alongside local girl Liv (Emily Tosta), gives the demonic creatures a lot more than they bargained for.
I have been dying to watch this film since seeing the trailer. It looked like it’d be absolutely crazy silliness from start to finish and one of those films that are so bad they’re good. But as much as I wanted to like this, I feel like it fell short from what was promised. The first major problem is that it’s meant to be a horror comedy, but there was little humour on offer and the only time I really found myself laughing was at the sheer bizarreness of this entire film. Horror-wise there is a decent amount of blood and gore, but some of it looks badly done and unrealistic and there’s little to be scared of here either. Towards the start of the film there are a few creepy scenes with the animatronic animals, but as the story progresses the scares are lost and this is where the film suffers. It is possible to make a film that’s scary, funny and good (Cabin in the Woods is a shining example), but sadly Willy’s Wonderland doesn’t pull it off.
The fight scenes are lost due to the crazy artistic and surreal style of camera work, meaning you barely have a clue what’s going on and the backing music to accompany these fight scenes doesn’t always work either. And then there’s Nicolas Cage. For some unknown reason, they’ve decided to make his character completely mute with absolutely no dialogue whatsoever. This works in the first few scenes, but as the story unfolds you find yourself crying out for him to say something, anything. If any film was suitable for Cage’s signature crazy eyed overacting, it’s this one and not utilising this is criminal. What were they thinking?! The script isn’t great and the majority of characters are entirely wasted and one dimensional, even for a horror film, with only Emily Tosta coming out of this relatively unscathed, so a bit of Cage’s acting could’ve really helped make this a lot more entertaining.
Willy’s Wonderland had a lot of promise, with an interesting and crazy B-movie horror storyline. However it’s the execution which has let it down, as it’s severely lacking in horror or comedy and doesn’t make use of the cast or promising story. It’s a shame as it’s semi enjoyable as is, but could’ve been so much better!
Willy’s Wonderland follows a drifter (Nicolas Cage) who experiences car troubles on his way cross country, and is tricked into becoming a janitor overnight for the condemned Willy’s Wonderland to pay off his car repairs. Willy’s is a kids restaurant slash indoor play area themed around Willy the weasel and his animatronic friends, including a crocodile, chameleon, gorilla and ostrich. However Willy’s isn’t just your ordinary run down restaurant as it has a dark and horrific history involving murderers, criminals and satanic rituals. Now the friendly animatronic creatures have taken on a murderous life of their own and in a bid to appease them, the town elders (including the sheriff played by Beth Grant) have turned to tricking people travelling through into Willy’s to act as human sacrifices. Unfortunately the townsfolk don’t get quite what they expected with Cage’s unnamed drifter, who alongside local girl Liv (Emily Tosta), gives the demonic creatures a lot more than they bargained for.
I have been dying to watch this film since seeing the trailer. It looked like it’d be absolutely crazy silliness from start to finish and one of those films that are so bad they’re good. But as much as I wanted to like this, I feel like it fell short from what was promised. The first major problem is that it’s meant to be a horror comedy, but there was little humour on offer and the only time I really found myself laughing was at the sheer bizarreness of this entire film. Horror-wise there is a decent amount of blood and gore, but some of it looks badly done and unrealistic and there’s little to be scared of here either. Towards the start of the film there are a few creepy scenes with the animatronic animals, but as the story progresses the scares are lost and this is where the film suffers. It is possible to make a film that’s scary, funny and good (Cabin in the Woods is a shining example), but sadly Willy’s Wonderland doesn’t pull it off.
The fight scenes are lost due to the crazy artistic and surreal style of camera work, meaning you barely have a clue what’s going on and the backing music to accompany these fight scenes doesn’t always work either. And then there’s Nicolas Cage. For some unknown reason, they’ve decided to make his character completely mute with absolutely no dialogue whatsoever. This works in the first few scenes, but as the story unfolds you find yourself crying out for him to say something, anything. If any film was suitable for Cage’s signature crazy eyed overacting, it’s this one and not utilising this is criminal. What were they thinking?! The script isn’t great and the majority of characters are entirely wasted and one dimensional, even for a horror film, with only Emily Tosta coming out of this relatively unscathed, so a bit of Cage’s acting could’ve really helped make this a lot more entertaining.
Willy’s Wonderland had a lot of promise, with an interesting and crazy B-movie horror storyline. However it’s the execution which has let it down, as it’s severely lacking in horror or comedy and doesn’t make use of the cast or promising story. It’s a shame as it’s semi enjoyable as is, but could’ve been so much better!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The New Mutants (2020) in Movies
Sep 9, 2020
Character-driven storyline rather than wham-bam Marvel action (1 more)
Illyana Rasputin - great character
"Glass" - Half Full.
So, I've heard a lot of bad word-of-mouth about this X-Men flick, but otherwise knew very little about it. As such, I went in with low expectations. And although there is nothing remotely novel about the movie, I didn't think it was too bad at all.
The plot: So, my review title suggests that the plot is very closely aligned to M Night Shymalan's "Glass" - his "Split" sequel from last year. A Victorian-style hospital-cum-prison similarly forms the claustrophobic setting for the majority of the movie. This is where the troubled teen Dani Moonstar (Blu Hunt) is taken after being suddenly orphaned in dramatic and mysterious circumstances. The only doctor present, Dr Reyes (Alice Braga), says she is being held there for her own - and society's safety - while her puberty-driven mutant tendencies emerge.
Locked away with her is Rahne (Maisie Williams), Charlie (Sam Guthrie), 'hot' Brazilian hunk Roberto (Henry Zaga) and the gloriously named Illyana Rasputin (Anya-Taylor Joy). Danni's arrival sparks a serious of escalating events that literally lead to all hell breaking loose.
Blu is the warmest colour: What made this Marvel movie stand-out for me, from the normal glass-shattering standard, is that it is predominantly a character-led piece. We spend quite a bit of time (for a Marvel movie) in building relationships between the teens, including a sweet lesbian-coming-out 'will they/won't they' tension between Rahne and Danni.
I was also very much attracted to the performance of Blu Hunt. I admit that this might not just be due to her interesting performance (the indigenous / LBGT angle is intriguing) but because she reminded me strongly of a girl at school who I had a mad crush on and completely failed to get off with! Blu is actually native American (from the Lakota tribe). Given she is the lead and has to carry the movie, it's a surprise that she is only about 5th in the billing: I'd have been upset with the director (Josh "A Fault in our Stars" Boone) about that.
Maisie Williams is also effective in this, and gets top billing, although arguably Anya-Taylor-Joy has emerged - with her wonderful "Emma" - as the bigger star since filming.
But it's Taylor-Joy's Rasputin that really stands out as the most interesting of the characters on show. There's a scene where she goes into action - eyes blazing and 'daemon' hovering - that would make a splendid PC screensaver! Stuff the "Black Widow" standalone movie: I'd go watch Illyana Rasputin kicking ass in her own follow-up movie! (Of course, Anya Taylor-Joy was also prominent in "Glass", which unfortunately cements the similarities between the films.)
The movie has had a long and tortuous path to its final release, being made waaaaaayyyyy back in 2017. As an X-Men movie, it's appeared after the X-Men universe finally imploded (with the disappointing whimper of "Dark Phoenix"). So in that sense it's a bit of a ghost of a flick.
Overall, it's a mixed bag. There's a sense of great familiarity with the contents - particularly with the strong echoes of "Glass", actually filmed after this one (but with 'inversion', who knows anymore?). Even the "Indian legend" that runs through the movie swaps a bear for a wolf but ends with a familiar, rather groan-inducing, motto. (It was used in "Tomorrowland" I think?)
But the young cast are attractive and entertained me for the (pleasantly short) running time. It's not going to win any prizes for originality, or indeed anything else. But it really wasn't the X-Men bust I expected it to be.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/09/08/x-men-the-new-mutants-2020-glass-half-full/ . Thanks.)
The plot: So, my review title suggests that the plot is very closely aligned to M Night Shymalan's "Glass" - his "Split" sequel from last year. A Victorian-style hospital-cum-prison similarly forms the claustrophobic setting for the majority of the movie. This is where the troubled teen Dani Moonstar (Blu Hunt) is taken after being suddenly orphaned in dramatic and mysterious circumstances. The only doctor present, Dr Reyes (Alice Braga), says she is being held there for her own - and society's safety - while her puberty-driven mutant tendencies emerge.
Locked away with her is Rahne (Maisie Williams), Charlie (Sam Guthrie), 'hot' Brazilian hunk Roberto (Henry Zaga) and the gloriously named Illyana Rasputin (Anya-Taylor Joy). Danni's arrival sparks a serious of escalating events that literally lead to all hell breaking loose.
Blu is the warmest colour: What made this Marvel movie stand-out for me, from the normal glass-shattering standard, is that it is predominantly a character-led piece. We spend quite a bit of time (for a Marvel movie) in building relationships between the teens, including a sweet lesbian-coming-out 'will they/won't they' tension between Rahne and Danni.
I was also very much attracted to the performance of Blu Hunt. I admit that this might not just be due to her interesting performance (the indigenous / LBGT angle is intriguing) but because she reminded me strongly of a girl at school who I had a mad crush on and completely failed to get off with! Blu is actually native American (from the Lakota tribe). Given she is the lead and has to carry the movie, it's a surprise that she is only about 5th in the billing: I'd have been upset with the director (Josh "A Fault in our Stars" Boone) about that.
Maisie Williams is also effective in this, and gets top billing, although arguably Anya-Taylor-Joy has emerged - with her wonderful "Emma" - as the bigger star since filming.
But it's Taylor-Joy's Rasputin that really stands out as the most interesting of the characters on show. There's a scene where she goes into action - eyes blazing and 'daemon' hovering - that would make a splendid PC screensaver! Stuff the "Black Widow" standalone movie: I'd go watch Illyana Rasputin kicking ass in her own follow-up movie! (Of course, Anya Taylor-Joy was also prominent in "Glass", which unfortunately cements the similarities between the films.)
The movie has had a long and tortuous path to its final release, being made waaaaaayyyyy back in 2017. As an X-Men movie, it's appeared after the X-Men universe finally imploded (with the disappointing whimper of "Dark Phoenix"). So in that sense it's a bit of a ghost of a flick.
Overall, it's a mixed bag. There's a sense of great familiarity with the contents - particularly with the strong echoes of "Glass", actually filmed after this one (but with 'inversion', who knows anymore?). Even the "Indian legend" that runs through the movie swaps a bear for a wolf but ends with a familiar, rather groan-inducing, motto. (It was used in "Tomorrowland" I think?)
But the young cast are attractive and entertained me for the (pleasantly short) running time. It's not going to win any prizes for originality, or indeed anything else. But it really wasn't the X-Men bust I expected it to be.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/09/08/x-men-the-new-mutants-2020-glass-half-full/ . Thanks.)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
My relationship with Laurel & Hardy is a tentative one. I do enjoy their short films, full of ingenuity and genuinely funny moments. But, they’d be down the list a bit for me on the greatest black and white comedy stars – Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, then the Marx Brothers maybe, then the slapstick duo next, maybe. It’s not that I don’t think they are great! They are, they definitely are. I just can’t sit down and take to much of them at once. Maybe because their schtick is very stagey, vaudevillian even, rather than cinematic. And that is because they were primary stage actors and clowns. Not necessarily in that order.
So, my anticipation of a movie about them in 2018 was not huge. I was happy to wait, and it was consigned deep down the watchlist for a while. Until one Sunday evening in October, when it suddenly felt like exactly what I wanted to see that day – a nice, calm biopic that probably had a few laughs and a soppy ending. And that is pretty much what this is. Except that it also has two very very impressive performances from the eponymous leads, the consumately talented John C. Reilly and Steve Coogan.
When I say impressive I mean that at times it feels like you are magically watching the real Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel. So detailed and well observed are their characterisations that nothing whatsoever (other than maybe the makeup on Reilly’s double chin) strikes you as false. Which helps you invest in their story entirely; told in professional if unspectacular style by Jon S. Baird, who demonstrates an understanding of the people, if not a full understanding of how to make a scene truly fly.
The story here is not a full biopic, but rather a snapshot of the end of their careers, when, amazingly, they embarked on a tour of UK theatres in an attempt to keep working once their film career had lost its shine and popularity. What we see are two older men, once treated as superstars, who are now brought down to earth by all things fading, including their youth. They are bitter and argumentative with each other, and their long suffering wives (played satisfyingly by Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda). Long stewed resentments come to the surface and the smiles of the clowns are seen at their lowest ebb as things begin to fall apart.
What rings true are the observations of a love / hate friendship that has lasted a full lifetime, and how that affects a working relationship and a public legacy. Jeff Pope, who also worked with Coogan on Philomena, gives us a stoic but often deeply meaningful screenplay here, that isn’t bothered by showing off, in favour of colouring the relationship accurately, which is commendably, and feels quite anti-Hollywood and a bit more British.
The physical gags and set-pieces are also beautifully staged, and look gorgeous, evoking the period superbly. My face was almost permanently smiling, although I can’t remember laughing out loud once. And that is what this film feels like, ultimately – a nice, gentle, Sunday afternoon drive into the past. Your grandparents will love it! Personally, I felt it was fine and dandy, but lacked a spark or two to make it properly come to life.
Watch this if you enjoy great acting that doesn’t need to wave its arms around to get attention. Both Reilly and Coogan are extraordinary! Interestingly, the American was nominated for a Golden Globe over there, and the Brit was nominated for a Bafta over here. Neither won, but they were never going to, as this production is almost embarrassed to announce itself as being good. It is good. Just not amazing. Give it a go when a nice cosy, sleepy mood takes you one day.
So, my anticipation of a movie about them in 2018 was not huge. I was happy to wait, and it was consigned deep down the watchlist for a while. Until one Sunday evening in October, when it suddenly felt like exactly what I wanted to see that day – a nice, calm biopic that probably had a few laughs and a soppy ending. And that is pretty much what this is. Except that it also has two very very impressive performances from the eponymous leads, the consumately talented John C. Reilly and Steve Coogan.
When I say impressive I mean that at times it feels like you are magically watching the real Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel. So detailed and well observed are their characterisations that nothing whatsoever (other than maybe the makeup on Reilly’s double chin) strikes you as false. Which helps you invest in their story entirely; told in professional if unspectacular style by Jon S. Baird, who demonstrates an understanding of the people, if not a full understanding of how to make a scene truly fly.
The story here is not a full biopic, but rather a snapshot of the end of their careers, when, amazingly, they embarked on a tour of UK theatres in an attempt to keep working once their film career had lost its shine and popularity. What we see are two older men, once treated as superstars, who are now brought down to earth by all things fading, including their youth. They are bitter and argumentative with each other, and their long suffering wives (played satisfyingly by Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda). Long stewed resentments come to the surface and the smiles of the clowns are seen at their lowest ebb as things begin to fall apart.
What rings true are the observations of a love / hate friendship that has lasted a full lifetime, and how that affects a working relationship and a public legacy. Jeff Pope, who also worked with Coogan on Philomena, gives us a stoic but often deeply meaningful screenplay here, that isn’t bothered by showing off, in favour of colouring the relationship accurately, which is commendably, and feels quite anti-Hollywood and a bit more British.
The physical gags and set-pieces are also beautifully staged, and look gorgeous, evoking the period superbly. My face was almost permanently smiling, although I can’t remember laughing out loud once. And that is what this film feels like, ultimately – a nice, gentle, Sunday afternoon drive into the past. Your grandparents will love it! Personally, I felt it was fine and dandy, but lacked a spark or two to make it properly come to life.
Watch this if you enjoy great acting that doesn’t need to wave its arms around to get attention. Both Reilly and Coogan are extraordinary! Interestingly, the American was nominated for a Golden Globe over there, and the Brit was nominated for a Bafta over here. Neither won, but they were never going to, as this production is almost embarrassed to announce itself as being good. It is good. Just not amazing. Give it a go when a nice cosy, sleepy mood takes you one day.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Electric Dreams (1984) in Movies
Oct 13, 2019
Let me start off by saying I recently purchased a region free DVD/Blu Ray player for myself when I discovered there were films I have not seen in 20+ years because they have never had a DVD/Blu Ray release in the US, but are actually available overseas! When I discovered this fact, among the first movies I purchased is this 1980s classic which has been mostly forgotten due to its unavailability.
Miles is an unorganized, nerdy architect who is delighted to discover a young, beautiful cellist moving in to the apartment above his sparse decorated pad in San Francisco. At the same time, a work colleague tells Miles he should get himself organized so he doesn't miss meetings spending all his time working on a new earthquake=proof brick, his dream pet project. Miles heads to his local electronic store (80s version) and gets talked into buying one of these "new" personal computers which everyone seems to be getting.
After some initial difficulty during set up, Miles decides to fully jump in to the PC world and not only sets up his new toy, but decides to have it fully integrated into his apartment including running his lights, door locks and appliances. He then thinks it would be a good idea to do a mass download of information for his work servers to beef up his own unit's capacity. He quickly realizes this is an overload to his machine when it starts to buzz and flash. In a panic, he douses the machine with some champagne to cool it off inadvertently giving it the spark of "life".
His new machine works quickly to understand its new world around including listening and harmonizing music with the beautiful neighbor upstairs. This leads to the two town house cohabitants developing a relationship. This does not sit well with the PC eventually as "he" has now also evolved to the point where he wants to understand love. Tensions escalate and there is a confrontation for the ultimate fate of the relationships and who will ultimately get the girl.
Since it had been probably 30 years since I had seen Electric Dreams, one of those guilty pleasures from the 80s, I was extremely anxious to rewatch; however, was also worried a new viewing in my adulthood would ruin the magic I had remembered from my youth. I couldn't have been more wrong.
The first thing I had forgotten was all the humor of the film including those awkward moments when Miles and the computer where getting to know each other and the goofy dialogue. Also, it's funny how I read a lot of the functions the computer performed had to be simulated at the time since home PCs were still pretty new to everyone at that point, but now those functions are fairly commonplace including the aforementioned "Smart Home" features among other things.
Yes fine, there are plenty of 80s staples present almost immediately like music montages, bad hairdos, leg warmers and boom boxes, but that still gives the movie charm. After thinking about it, there were elements from other 80s classics like Weird Science, WarGames, and a lot of Short Circuit where an AI was learning about itself. Who remembers Max Headroom?
The soundtrack for the film is also front and center with much of it playing a key role in the budding relationship between Miles and his musical love interest, but it works well and still holds up.
I also have to mention Virginia Madsen. I looked up she was 23 when she made this film (she looked like she was 18), but still looks as remarkable as she did then (80s crush speaking here).
I'm sure I probably still revere this movie more than the people who actually made it, but I can handle that.
Miles is an unorganized, nerdy architect who is delighted to discover a young, beautiful cellist moving in to the apartment above his sparse decorated pad in San Francisco. At the same time, a work colleague tells Miles he should get himself organized so he doesn't miss meetings spending all his time working on a new earthquake=proof brick, his dream pet project. Miles heads to his local electronic store (80s version) and gets talked into buying one of these "new" personal computers which everyone seems to be getting.
After some initial difficulty during set up, Miles decides to fully jump in to the PC world and not only sets up his new toy, but decides to have it fully integrated into his apartment including running his lights, door locks and appliances. He then thinks it would be a good idea to do a mass download of information for his work servers to beef up his own unit's capacity. He quickly realizes this is an overload to his machine when it starts to buzz and flash. In a panic, he douses the machine with some champagne to cool it off inadvertently giving it the spark of "life".
His new machine works quickly to understand its new world around including listening and harmonizing music with the beautiful neighbor upstairs. This leads to the two town house cohabitants developing a relationship. This does not sit well with the PC eventually as "he" has now also evolved to the point where he wants to understand love. Tensions escalate and there is a confrontation for the ultimate fate of the relationships and who will ultimately get the girl.
Since it had been probably 30 years since I had seen Electric Dreams, one of those guilty pleasures from the 80s, I was extremely anxious to rewatch; however, was also worried a new viewing in my adulthood would ruin the magic I had remembered from my youth. I couldn't have been more wrong.
The first thing I had forgotten was all the humor of the film including those awkward moments when Miles and the computer where getting to know each other and the goofy dialogue. Also, it's funny how I read a lot of the functions the computer performed had to be simulated at the time since home PCs were still pretty new to everyone at that point, but now those functions are fairly commonplace including the aforementioned "Smart Home" features among other things.
Yes fine, there are plenty of 80s staples present almost immediately like music montages, bad hairdos, leg warmers and boom boxes, but that still gives the movie charm. After thinking about it, there were elements from other 80s classics like Weird Science, WarGames, and a lot of Short Circuit where an AI was learning about itself. Who remembers Max Headroom?
The soundtrack for the film is also front and center with much of it playing a key role in the budding relationship between Miles and his musical love interest, but it works well and still holds up.
I also have to mention Virginia Madsen. I looked up she was 23 when she made this film (she looked like she was 18), but still looks as remarkable as she did then (80s crush speaking here).
I'm sure I probably still revere this movie more than the people who actually made it, but I can handle that.
SonyLIV–LIVE Cricket TV Movies
Entertainment and Photo & Video
App
Watch India Tour of West Indies and Sri Lanka exclusively on SonyLIV. Welcome to the world of...
SonyLIV-LIVE Cricket TV Movies
Entertainment and Photo & Video
App
Watch India Tour of West Indies and Sri Lanka exclusively on SonyLIV. Welcome to the world of...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Game Night (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021 (Updated Sep 29, 2021)
Miss Scarlett at the Airport with the Jet Engine.
“Game Night” is an American comedy film starring Jason Bateman (“Horrible Bosses”, “Central Intelligence“) as Max and Rachel McAdams (“Spotlight“, “Doctor Strange“) as Annie: two hyper-competitive professionals who invite other couples around to their house for a weekly night of charades and board games. The regulars are long-term couple Kevin and Michelle (Lamorne Morris and Kylie Bunbury) and complete buffoon Ryan (Billy Magnussen, “The Big Short“) and his revolving door of generally vacant girlfriends. Estranged from the group, after his divorce, is the creepy police officer Gary (Jesse Plemons, “The Post“, “American Made“) who lives next door.
Auditions for the next Spiderman movie were not going well.
But Max is not content (affecting the mobility of his fishes!) as he has a severe inferiority complex about his enormously successful and cocky older brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler, “Manchester by the Sea“) who beats him at EVERYTHING. When Brooks barges into their game night things get heated and after he organises the next game night as “something different” things take a sharp left into The Twilight Zone.
Bateman, McAdams and Chandler, with game night about to go in an odd direction.
As befits the quality of most modern American comedy films, its all complete nonsense of course. But actually, this is quite good nonsense. The script by Mark Perez (his first movie script in 12 years!) while following a fairly predictable path early in the film is littered with some good one-liners and funny scenes (a bullet-removal is a high-spot) and includes a memorable twist in the final real that I didn’t see coming.
Ryan and Sarah (Billy Magnussen and Sharon Horgan) about to get egged on. (There is a certain lack of logic in the action that follows).
Much of this is powered by the chemistry between Bateman and McAdams. McAdams in particular should do more comedy, as she is very adept at it. Playing the one bright spark in a parade of vacuousness, English comedienne Sharon Horgan also adds a butt to Magnussen’s one-tone joke very effectively. The surprising comedy player though is Jesse Plemons who I thought was just uncomfortably hilarious.
Jesse Plemons and his very white hairy friend.
It is normally unusual to find special effects in a film like this, but here the team (headed up by Dean Tyrrell) should be congratulated for some very subtle but effective effects. Most of the long shots in the film of the neighbourhood/streets etc. are of models which only fade to live action as you zoom in. In the opening drone-fly-over of Max and Annie driving home I thought all the housing looked model-like but as we zoomed into them arriving home I thought I must have imagined in. Only in the subsequent scenes did I realise I was right after all! But it’s so very subtle. I suspect many of the audience were similarly fooled (and many who’ve seen the film and are reading this will be still going “what??”)! There’s a kind of explanation for the randomness of these effects during the (very entertaining) end-titles.
Bullet removal with squeaky toy gag… very funny.
It’s unusual for me to laugh at a comedy so much, but this one I really did. Every comedy film is allowed a little latitude to get the odd strand wrong, and this one is no exception (I didn’t think the spat between Kevin and Michelle really worked)… so it’s not perfect, but novice directors John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein (who’s only previous film project was 2015’s clearly missable “Vacation”) have pulled off a really entertaining watch here.
Auditions for the next Spiderman movie were not going well.
But Max is not content (affecting the mobility of his fishes!) as he has a severe inferiority complex about his enormously successful and cocky older brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler, “Manchester by the Sea“) who beats him at EVERYTHING. When Brooks barges into their game night things get heated and after he organises the next game night as “something different” things take a sharp left into The Twilight Zone.
Bateman, McAdams and Chandler, with game night about to go in an odd direction.
As befits the quality of most modern American comedy films, its all complete nonsense of course. But actually, this is quite good nonsense. The script by Mark Perez (his first movie script in 12 years!) while following a fairly predictable path early in the film is littered with some good one-liners and funny scenes (a bullet-removal is a high-spot) and includes a memorable twist in the final real that I didn’t see coming.
Ryan and Sarah (Billy Magnussen and Sharon Horgan) about to get egged on. (There is a certain lack of logic in the action that follows).
Much of this is powered by the chemistry between Bateman and McAdams. McAdams in particular should do more comedy, as she is very adept at it. Playing the one bright spark in a parade of vacuousness, English comedienne Sharon Horgan also adds a butt to Magnussen’s one-tone joke very effectively. The surprising comedy player though is Jesse Plemons who I thought was just uncomfortably hilarious.
Jesse Plemons and his very white hairy friend.
It is normally unusual to find special effects in a film like this, but here the team (headed up by Dean Tyrrell) should be congratulated for some very subtle but effective effects. Most of the long shots in the film of the neighbourhood/streets etc. are of models which only fade to live action as you zoom in. In the opening drone-fly-over of Max and Annie driving home I thought all the housing looked model-like but as we zoomed into them arriving home I thought I must have imagined in. Only in the subsequent scenes did I realise I was right after all! But it’s so very subtle. I suspect many of the audience were similarly fooled (and many who’ve seen the film and are reading this will be still going “what??”)! There’s a kind of explanation for the randomness of these effects during the (very entertaining) end-titles.
Bullet removal with squeaky toy gag… very funny.
It’s unusual for me to laugh at a comedy so much, but this one I really did. Every comedy film is allowed a little latitude to get the odd strand wrong, and this one is no exception (I didn’t think the spat between Kevin and Michelle really worked)… so it’s not perfect, but novice directors John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein (who’s only previous film project was 2015’s clearly missable “Vacation”) have pulled off a really entertaining watch here.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Army of Thieves (2021) in Movies
Nov 4, 2021
“Did He Just Say Gulp?”
I have Covid-19, and am confined to quarters. So time to catch up on some streaming films. New on Netflix is “Army of Thieves”, a quirky prequel, of sorts, to Zac Snyder’s “Army of the Dead“.
Plot Summary:
Sebastian Schlencht-Wöhnert (Matthias Schweighöfer) is a geek obsessed with the work of legendary safe-manufacturer Hans Wagner whose magnum opus was a series of four intricate safes named after the four parts of his namesake’s Ring cycle: The Rhinegold, The Valkyrie, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung.
Seeking more the glory of cracking the legendary safes (rather than the riches within), high-class jewel-thief Gwendoline (Nathalie Emmanuel) teams with Sebastian to crack the three known safes (in Paris, Prague and St Moritz) before they are officially ‘retired’. Together with Korina (Ruby O. Fee), muscle-man Brad (Stuart Martin) and getaway driver Rolph (Guz Khan) the gang try to stay one step ahead of obsessed Interpol agent Delacroix (Jonathan Cohen).
Certification:
US: TV-MA. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Matthias Schweighöfer, Nathalie Emmanuel, Ruby O. Fee, Stuart Martin, Guz Khan, Jonathan Cohen.
Directed by: Matthias Schweighöfer.
Written by: Shay Hatten (from a story by Shay Hatten and Zack Snyder).
“Army of Thieves” Review: Positives:
I really wasn’t expecting much from this offering. For me, the character of Dieter in “Army of the Dead” was an annoyingly quirky comedy character in a zombie-actioner that you just wanted to punch in the face…. repeatedly. But in contrast, this Dieter-centric film is deliberately quirky throughout and it just all worked for me. Under his own direction, Schweighöfer’s Sebastian/Dieter becomes a genuinely quirky, lovelorn and loveable loser that you want to root for.
The look and feel of the film is utterly glorious. The wonderful cinematography by Bernhard Jasper makes the introduction to the European locations feel Bond-like and the combination of Production Design and Special Effects make the safe-cracking scenes tense, dynamic and beautiful to watch. It’s all nicely rounded off by a quirky Steve Mazzaro / Hans Zimmer score.
Shay Hatten’s script delivers a nice balance of action and exposition. It actually – shock horror – takes time to flesh out some character behind the generic heist-movie stereotypes. Setting the movie in the same timeline as the emerging Nevada zombie-apocalypse as “Army of the Dead” is neat: (although those expecting extensive zombie-action will feel short-changed). And having the Las Vegas safe as the mythical Götterdämmerung is a nice touch. Above all – “SURPRISE!!!” – the script surpassed the essential six-laughs test.
The acting is above par, with Schweighöfer putting in a fabulous turn and the stunningly beautiful Nathalie Emmanuel (best known for being Ramsey in the Fast and Furious series) gets to be a lot more than mere window-dressing here. Stuart Martin is notable here for looking astonishingly like Hugh Jackman…. I mean, really, they could be twins.
Negatives:
I mean, honestly, there are more holes in this story than a St Moritz swiss-cheese. Why would all of the safes, owned by different private institutions, be being “decommissioned” due to a Zombie outbreak on the other side of the world? Can the Interpol team really be that incompetent? And however clever he is, I don’t buy that you can open safes like that!
Although I liked the balance of the script overall, the story is pretty simplistic and linear.
Summary Thoughts on “Army of Thieves”
Sometimes a little movie appears that surprises and delights you, and this was one of those for me. It’s not big and it’s not clever. But it is very nicely made, thoroughly entertained me and was – for me – way better than its source movie. A recommended watch on Netflix.
Plot Summary:
Sebastian Schlencht-Wöhnert (Matthias Schweighöfer) is a geek obsessed with the work of legendary safe-manufacturer Hans Wagner whose magnum opus was a series of four intricate safes named after the four parts of his namesake’s Ring cycle: The Rhinegold, The Valkyrie, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung.
Seeking more the glory of cracking the legendary safes (rather than the riches within), high-class jewel-thief Gwendoline (Nathalie Emmanuel) teams with Sebastian to crack the three known safes (in Paris, Prague and St Moritz) before they are officially ‘retired’. Together with Korina (Ruby O. Fee), muscle-man Brad (Stuart Martin) and getaway driver Rolph (Guz Khan) the gang try to stay one step ahead of obsessed Interpol agent Delacroix (Jonathan Cohen).
Certification:
US: TV-MA. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Matthias Schweighöfer, Nathalie Emmanuel, Ruby O. Fee, Stuart Martin, Guz Khan, Jonathan Cohen.
Directed by: Matthias Schweighöfer.
Written by: Shay Hatten (from a story by Shay Hatten and Zack Snyder).
“Army of Thieves” Review: Positives:
I really wasn’t expecting much from this offering. For me, the character of Dieter in “Army of the Dead” was an annoyingly quirky comedy character in a zombie-actioner that you just wanted to punch in the face…. repeatedly. But in contrast, this Dieter-centric film is deliberately quirky throughout and it just all worked for me. Under his own direction, Schweighöfer’s Sebastian/Dieter becomes a genuinely quirky, lovelorn and loveable loser that you want to root for.
The look and feel of the film is utterly glorious. The wonderful cinematography by Bernhard Jasper makes the introduction to the European locations feel Bond-like and the combination of Production Design and Special Effects make the safe-cracking scenes tense, dynamic and beautiful to watch. It’s all nicely rounded off by a quirky Steve Mazzaro / Hans Zimmer score.
Shay Hatten’s script delivers a nice balance of action and exposition. It actually – shock horror – takes time to flesh out some character behind the generic heist-movie stereotypes. Setting the movie in the same timeline as the emerging Nevada zombie-apocalypse as “Army of the Dead” is neat: (although those expecting extensive zombie-action will feel short-changed). And having the Las Vegas safe as the mythical Götterdämmerung is a nice touch. Above all – “SURPRISE!!!” – the script surpassed the essential six-laughs test.
The acting is above par, with Schweighöfer putting in a fabulous turn and the stunningly beautiful Nathalie Emmanuel (best known for being Ramsey in the Fast and Furious series) gets to be a lot more than mere window-dressing here. Stuart Martin is notable here for looking astonishingly like Hugh Jackman…. I mean, really, they could be twins.
Negatives:
I mean, honestly, there are more holes in this story than a St Moritz swiss-cheese. Why would all of the safes, owned by different private institutions, be being “decommissioned” due to a Zombie outbreak on the other side of the world? Can the Interpol team really be that incompetent? And however clever he is, I don’t buy that you can open safes like that!
Although I liked the balance of the script overall, the story is pretty simplistic and linear.
Summary Thoughts on “Army of Thieves”
Sometimes a little movie appears that surprises and delights you, and this was one of those for me. It’s not big and it’s not clever. But it is very nicely made, thoroughly entertained me and was – for me – way better than its source movie. A recommended watch on Netflix.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The French Dispatch (2021) in Movies
Jan 4, 2022
Weak Stories Can't Support the STUNNING Visuals
Filmmaker Wes Anderson is an acquired taste. He is one of the most visually stunning filmmakers working today, but his films are often time difficult to grasp and can get lost in their own weirdness.
Such is the case with his latest effort THE FRENCH DISPATCH. It is a visually STUNNING film that you can turn the sound off and just drink in the images depicted on screen with your eyes - but the story these pictures tell was, unfortunately, not all that compelling.
Starring Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, Jeffrey Wright and a whole bundle of known stars, THE FRENCH DISPATCH tells the story of a Sunday Newspaper insert called THE FRENCH DISPATCH (think PARADE MAGAZINE). The quirk of the FRENCH DISPATCH is that this insert in the Liberty, Kansas paper in the 1930’s(or so) focuses solely on the goings-on of the French town of Enui. Stories told in the flavor of the New Yorker.
So…this setup is just, really, an excuse to tell 3 different short stories and tie them together with an overarching theme - getting the French Dispatch ready to publish. A good enough excuse for a movie - provided that the 3 stories being told are interesting enough - which they are not (and therein lies the issue with this film).
Bill Murray is a congenial enough host of this party as the Editor of The French Dispatch. His character is the “through line” of this film and if you are going to anchor an anthology film with a character/actor, then Bill Murray is a pretty good anchor.
The first story, telling of a life-imprisoned person (Benicio Del Toro) who finds a muse (Lea Seydoux) and becomes a world famous artist, thanks to the efforts of his patron (Adrian Brody) is the best of the bunch. This story is written/narrated by a character played by Tilda Swinton and it is her performance that is the highlight of the film for me. Because of this narration - and because this is the best written/most interesting and best acted of the 3 stories (by Del Toro, Seydoux and Brody), I was excited as to where this film was going to go from here.
Unfortunately, that direction was down.
The 3rd story - narrated by a character played by Jeffrey Wright about a Police Commissioner’s son who is kidnapped is absurb - and almost succeeds when Anderson decides to animate the car chase - but ultimately isn’t quite as good as the first piece.
And then there is the middle part that stars Timothee Chalamet as a student that starts a rebellion. This part is written/narrated by a character played by Frances McDormand and while these 2 are “game” for what is given to them, the story is not compelling and, to be honest, a bit boring. This middle story (the longest of the 3 tales) is where the movie loses it’s footing.
And that’s too bad for Anderson - as is his custom - fills every frame with interesting pictures/visuals that are a marvel to look at and fills almost every minor role with some sort of major star looking to work with him. Almost the best part of this film was to spot the star in a cameo role. Willem DaFoe, Saoirse Ronan, Liev Schrieber, the “Fonz” himself, Henry Winkler, Cristoph Walz and Anderson “regulars” Jason Schwartman, Edward Norton and Owen Wilson (amongst others) all show up - briefly - to lend their talents to this absurdity.
Well worth checking out for the visuals, just don’t look for much in the way of plot or drama.
Letter Grade: B (did I mention that the visuals are STUNNING?)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with his latest effort THE FRENCH DISPATCH. It is a visually STUNNING film that you can turn the sound off and just drink in the images depicted on screen with your eyes - but the story these pictures tell was, unfortunately, not all that compelling.
Starring Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, Jeffrey Wright and a whole bundle of known stars, THE FRENCH DISPATCH tells the story of a Sunday Newspaper insert called THE FRENCH DISPATCH (think PARADE MAGAZINE). The quirk of the FRENCH DISPATCH is that this insert in the Liberty, Kansas paper in the 1930’s(or so) focuses solely on the goings-on of the French town of Enui. Stories told in the flavor of the New Yorker.
So…this setup is just, really, an excuse to tell 3 different short stories and tie them together with an overarching theme - getting the French Dispatch ready to publish. A good enough excuse for a movie - provided that the 3 stories being told are interesting enough - which they are not (and therein lies the issue with this film).
Bill Murray is a congenial enough host of this party as the Editor of The French Dispatch. His character is the “through line” of this film and if you are going to anchor an anthology film with a character/actor, then Bill Murray is a pretty good anchor.
The first story, telling of a life-imprisoned person (Benicio Del Toro) who finds a muse (Lea Seydoux) and becomes a world famous artist, thanks to the efforts of his patron (Adrian Brody) is the best of the bunch. This story is written/narrated by a character played by Tilda Swinton and it is her performance that is the highlight of the film for me. Because of this narration - and because this is the best written/most interesting and best acted of the 3 stories (by Del Toro, Seydoux and Brody), I was excited as to where this film was going to go from here.
Unfortunately, that direction was down.
The 3rd story - narrated by a character played by Jeffrey Wright about a Police Commissioner’s son who is kidnapped is absurb - and almost succeeds when Anderson decides to animate the car chase - but ultimately isn’t quite as good as the first piece.
And then there is the middle part that stars Timothee Chalamet as a student that starts a rebellion. This part is written/narrated by a character played by Frances McDormand and while these 2 are “game” for what is given to them, the story is not compelling and, to be honest, a bit boring. This middle story (the longest of the 3 tales) is where the movie loses it’s footing.
And that’s too bad for Anderson - as is his custom - fills every frame with interesting pictures/visuals that are a marvel to look at and fills almost every minor role with some sort of major star looking to work with him. Almost the best part of this film was to spot the star in a cameo role. Willem DaFoe, Saoirse Ronan, Liev Schrieber, the “Fonz” himself, Henry Winkler, Cristoph Walz and Anderson “regulars” Jason Schwartman, Edward Norton and Owen Wilson (amongst others) all show up - briefly - to lend their talents to this absurdity.
Well worth checking out for the visuals, just don’t look for much in the way of plot or drama.
Letter Grade: B (did I mention that the visuals are STUNNING?)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)