Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Nice Guys (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
This is how it’s supposed to be done. Though it’s not the most original flick to grace the silver screen, Shane Black’s follow-up to his instant cult classic Kiss Kiss Bang Bang has everything you could want in an action/comedy romp. A solid dynamic between its two charming yet flawed leads, a strong plot that has enough twists and turns to keep you thrilled but not lost, and plenty of quotably razor-sharp dialogue. Imagine the Lethal Weapon type meets a less obtuse Inherent Vice. Besides the return of Jason Bourne in July, it will undoubtedly be the most entertaining thing you’ll see in another summer season of mediocrity. Is anybody really that interested in a ninth X-Men film?
Russell Crowe is the muscle-for-hire opposite Ryan Gosling as the P.I. referred to by his daughter as “the worst detective in the world”. They are thrust together by circumstance and, after a couple of amusing altercations, come to find out they are both involved in a larger case of conspiracy and cover-up as they race to find the girl at the center of it all. Crowe and Gosling make a winning team with chemistry in spades and, though the dialogue they’re given may not feel as fresh as what Val Kilmer and Robert Downey Jr. had to work with in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang; they still pull it off marvelously. Between Gosling’s unfortunate directorial debut, Lost River, and Crowe’s string of misfires since 2010’s Robin Hood, these were the type of roles their fading stars were in dire need of and they both certainly look at home in a 70’s-era Hollywood detective story. For Gosling especially, this is probably the most likable he’s ever been. Well done also to the casting department for finding Angourie Rice. As Gosling’s daughter, she’s does an admirably fine job of playing a girl who can stand up to an incredibly hostile world and give some back. Here’s hoping she’s got a decent agent that will keep her in rich, multi-dimensional characters.
Shane Black, already having proved that he knows his way around a screenplay or two, is firmly coming into his own as a director (though the Christmas thing has got to stop), and I’ll be eagerly anticipating his next foray behind the camera. It’s also another excellent job from Warner’s marketing team, with a trailer that gave just enough of the one-liners and snippets of action without spoiling too many of the fun and twisty plot points. The action beats and moments of violence themselves, due to a tightly-structured script, feel earned and well-placed. Not once did I get that overwhelming feeling of action fatigue I’ve been experiencing so much in film lately (I’m looking at you, Marvel). The Nice Guys is all-around great filmmaking and one I can’t wait to revisit. I wouldn’t doubt it’ll be a day-one buy for me when it hits the home video market.
Russell Crowe is the muscle-for-hire opposite Ryan Gosling as the P.I. referred to by his daughter as “the worst detective in the world”. They are thrust together by circumstance and, after a couple of amusing altercations, come to find out they are both involved in a larger case of conspiracy and cover-up as they race to find the girl at the center of it all. Crowe and Gosling make a winning team with chemistry in spades and, though the dialogue they’re given may not feel as fresh as what Val Kilmer and Robert Downey Jr. had to work with in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang; they still pull it off marvelously. Between Gosling’s unfortunate directorial debut, Lost River, and Crowe’s string of misfires since 2010’s Robin Hood, these were the type of roles their fading stars were in dire need of and they both certainly look at home in a 70’s-era Hollywood detective story. For Gosling especially, this is probably the most likable he’s ever been. Well done also to the casting department for finding Angourie Rice. As Gosling’s daughter, she’s does an admirably fine job of playing a girl who can stand up to an incredibly hostile world and give some back. Here’s hoping she’s got a decent agent that will keep her in rich, multi-dimensional characters.
Shane Black, already having proved that he knows his way around a screenplay or two, is firmly coming into his own as a director (though the Christmas thing has got to stop), and I’ll be eagerly anticipating his next foray behind the camera. It’s also another excellent job from Warner’s marketing team, with a trailer that gave just enough of the one-liners and snippets of action without spoiling too many of the fun and twisty plot points. The action beats and moments of violence themselves, due to a tightly-structured script, feel earned and well-placed. Not once did I get that overwhelming feeling of action fatigue I’ve been experiencing so much in film lately (I’m looking at you, Marvel). The Nice Guys is all-around great filmmaking and one I can’t wait to revisit. I wouldn’t doubt it’ll be a day-one buy for me when it hits the home video market.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Funny People (2009) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
We all have our favorite Adam Sandler movies. There are the fans of The Wedding Singer and 50 First Dates and there’s the loyal camp who can quote Happy Gilmore or Big Daddy verbatim. You hear the name Adam Sandler’s and you think goofy, lovable guy. Dependably funny and quotable, from the mid-90’s on, he was the go-to comedian when we looked for an easy laugh. Of late, with the growing list of popular movies under his belt, when you think goofy, lovable funny guy, another name comes up: Seth Rogan. In “Funny People” you get them both.
Sandler plays George Simmons, a popular comedian who’s diagnosed with a fatal disease. Playing a comedian is hardly a stretch for Sandler, but for one whose dramatic turns can be counted on one hand, he plays the stricken man who’s suddenly face to face with his immortality quite convincingly. Rogan is Ira Wright, a desperate young comic who’s still vying for stage time at the local comedy club. George, perhaps recognizing a bit of himself or seeing a glimmer of comedic genius in Ira after catching his act, hires Ira to write for him.
Ira goes from writer and personal assistant/confidante to opening act as he helps George deal with his illness. He encourages the veteran comedian to reconnect with his compatriots in the business, opening the film to a parade of old faces from the stand-up circuit. George’s reflections on his life eventually lead him back to a lost love, Laura, played by Leslie Mann. Amidst the funny, laugh-out-loud scenes, are some believably tender moments, not just between Mann and Sandler but also, oddly enough, Sandler and Rogan.
Directing the comedic duo is writer/director Judd Apatow, who gave Rogan that growing list of successful movies after first casting him in The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Sandler could certainly use some of Apatow’s Midas-like touch after his recent string of marginal films. With a strong supporting cast of Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman who play Ira’s roommates Leo and Mark and Eric Bana, Laura’s husband, the movie is in turns hilarious and puzzling. The strong storyline of a veteran comedian taking a novice comic under his wings gets lost when George pursues a second chance with an unhappily married Laura. What could’ve been a touching passing of the torch tale is confused by an annoying love triangle. When the movie returns its focus to George and Ira, it’s saved, just barely, by the fact that we’re still watching two of comedy’s goofy, lovable funny guys.
Sandler plays George Simmons, a popular comedian who’s diagnosed with a fatal disease. Playing a comedian is hardly a stretch for Sandler, but for one whose dramatic turns can be counted on one hand, he plays the stricken man who’s suddenly face to face with his immortality quite convincingly. Rogan is Ira Wright, a desperate young comic who’s still vying for stage time at the local comedy club. George, perhaps recognizing a bit of himself or seeing a glimmer of comedic genius in Ira after catching his act, hires Ira to write for him.
Ira goes from writer and personal assistant/confidante to opening act as he helps George deal with his illness. He encourages the veteran comedian to reconnect with his compatriots in the business, opening the film to a parade of old faces from the stand-up circuit. George’s reflections on his life eventually lead him back to a lost love, Laura, played by Leslie Mann. Amidst the funny, laugh-out-loud scenes, are some believably tender moments, not just between Mann and Sandler but also, oddly enough, Sandler and Rogan.
Directing the comedic duo is writer/director Judd Apatow, who gave Rogan that growing list of successful movies after first casting him in The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Sandler could certainly use some of Apatow’s Midas-like touch after his recent string of marginal films. With a strong supporting cast of Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman who play Ira’s roommates Leo and Mark and Eric Bana, Laura’s husband, the movie is in turns hilarious and puzzling. The strong storyline of a veteran comedian taking a novice comic under his wings gets lost when George pursues a second chance with an unhappily married Laura. What could’ve been a touching passing of the torch tale is confused by an annoying love triangle. When the movie returns its focus to George and Ira, it’s saved, just barely, by the fact that we’re still watching two of comedy’s goofy, lovable funny guys.
Radio y Podcast iVoox
News and Music
3.0
Rate It
App
With iVoox you can listen, share and download podcasts, radio shows and much more for free, whenever...
Darren (1599 KP) rated Killer Sofa (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
Characters – Francesca is a dancer that has had problems in the past with the men in her life, most have become stalkers, with her needing to put restraining orders on them, she is left a recliner from one, as the police look into her past to see if she has a connection to the murder of one of them. Maxi is the best friend of Francesca, she supports her on a daily basis and will stand with her in her fight against the sofa. Inspector Gravy is leading the investigation into the crimes which sees him spending time with Francesca learning about her past. Rabbi Jack is Maxi’s grandfather that gets an uneasy vision from the sofa and starts trying to figure out how he could stop the evil behind it.
Performances – The lead in the film is Piimio Mei and she does well in the leading role, as the one being haunted by the soda, seeing her friends taken from around her. The rest of the cast are strong with what they are doing, they do know this does have elements of cheesy horror, which does work for the film.
Story – The story here follows the unusual event surrounding a sofa that starts killing people at the woman that finds herself the main target of the evil needing to stop it before their friends get taken. This is a film that knows exactly what it wants to be, a wildly over the top story that isn’t afraid to go into the full cheesy area, which will get the story over to the level it needs to. For a horror it is a film that follows the traditions when it comes to picking off the victims one at a time, with an element of the story behind the having a supernatural feel.
Horror – The horror side of the film does pick up like most serial killer style slashers, with one victim being alone getting picked off by the killer, in this case, the sofa, which does it look creepy throughout.
Settings – The film uses the apartment settings to show how the sofa can move around without looking completely out of place, using the environment to help with its kills.
Special Effects – The effects are mixed with the fact they make the sofa look terrifying being a huge plus, it is the CGI moments that look like the weakest part of the film.
Scene of the Movie – The sofa look.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The CGI moments.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror comedy that understands completely what it wants to be, it will get laughable kills from a sofa that uses its how frame as a weapon.
Overall: Funny horror comedy.
Performances – The lead in the film is Piimio Mei and she does well in the leading role, as the one being haunted by the soda, seeing her friends taken from around her. The rest of the cast are strong with what they are doing, they do know this does have elements of cheesy horror, which does work for the film.
Story – The story here follows the unusual event surrounding a sofa that starts killing people at the woman that finds herself the main target of the evil needing to stop it before their friends get taken. This is a film that knows exactly what it wants to be, a wildly over the top story that isn’t afraid to go into the full cheesy area, which will get the story over to the level it needs to. For a horror it is a film that follows the traditions when it comes to picking off the victims one at a time, with an element of the story behind the having a supernatural feel.
Horror – The horror side of the film does pick up like most serial killer style slashers, with one victim being alone getting picked off by the killer, in this case, the sofa, which does it look creepy throughout.
Settings – The film uses the apartment settings to show how the sofa can move around without looking completely out of place, using the environment to help with its kills.
Special Effects – The effects are mixed with the fact they make the sofa look terrifying being a huge plus, it is the CGI moments that look like the weakest part of the film.
Scene of the Movie – The sofa look.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The CGI moments.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror comedy that understands completely what it wants to be, it will get laughable kills from a sofa that uses its how frame as a weapon.
Overall: Funny horror comedy.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated What to Expect When You're Expecting (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
First off, a disclaimer: I have not read the book What to Expect When You’re Expecting; nor do I have any kids of my own. That being said….
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
Born a Crime: Stories from a South African Childhood
9.2
Rate It
Book
The compelling, inspiring, (often comic) coming-of-age story of Trevor Noah, set during the twilight...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Anna and the Apocalypse (2018) in Movies
Sep 4, 2020
Honestly struggled to get on board with this one.
I generally don't like musicals (with a couple of exceptions) and Anna and the Apocalypse certainly doesn't change my mind in that respect, but everything surrounding fell a bit flat for me as well.
For one, none of the characters are remotely likable, apart from Anna herself. By the time people start getting chowed on, it's hard to care. It takes its time building up, treating us all to four full forgettable songs before anything properly kicks off, and when it does it's all a bit meh.
In terms of zombie action, it's not the worst I've ever seen, but it's one of those films that likes to cut away instead of showing off any decent effects.
The music itself is just quite bland. It's certainly going for a Glee type feel with what it's doing, so for me personally it's just a huge miss. I'm sure there are plenty out there who enjoy Glee, and therefore will probably get something out of the music on show here which is fine, just not for me.
There's one scene to be fair, where Anna leaves her house with her headphones in, completely unaware of the carnage unfolding around her whilst singing. This bit was actually pretty entertaining and amusing, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is the scene that set off the whole idea process.
The film can't quite decide what genre it's going for however. Is it a musical, is it a zombie horror, is it a Christmas movie? I'm sure the advertising campaign would have you think it's all three, but it just doesn't do any of them justice. Most of the jokes fall flat - I will admit that I audibly laughed once during the whole thing...
Ultimately, Anna and the Apocalypse ultimately draws comparisons with its more superior peers, such as Shaun of the Dead, but the truth it's no where as witty or groundbreaking. Since SOTD, the zombie comedy sub genre has been done to death, and these days, it takes something special to really stand out. This film takes a punt, and genuinely tries something new, but it's not executed well enough to rise above the pack.
I generally don't like musicals (with a couple of exceptions) and Anna and the Apocalypse certainly doesn't change my mind in that respect, but everything surrounding fell a bit flat for me as well.
For one, none of the characters are remotely likable, apart from Anna herself. By the time people start getting chowed on, it's hard to care. It takes its time building up, treating us all to four full forgettable songs before anything properly kicks off, and when it does it's all a bit meh.
In terms of zombie action, it's not the worst I've ever seen, but it's one of those films that likes to cut away instead of showing off any decent effects.
The music itself is just quite bland. It's certainly going for a Glee type feel with what it's doing, so for me personally it's just a huge miss. I'm sure there are plenty out there who enjoy Glee, and therefore will probably get something out of the music on show here which is fine, just not for me.
There's one scene to be fair, where Anna leaves her house with her headphones in, completely unaware of the carnage unfolding around her whilst singing. This bit was actually pretty entertaining and amusing, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is the scene that set off the whole idea process.
The film can't quite decide what genre it's going for however. Is it a musical, is it a zombie horror, is it a Christmas movie? I'm sure the advertising campaign would have you think it's all three, but it just doesn't do any of them justice. Most of the jokes fall flat - I will admit that I audibly laughed once during the whole thing...
Ultimately, Anna and the Apocalypse ultimately draws comparisons with its more superior peers, such as Shaun of the Dead, but the truth it's no where as witty or groundbreaking. Since SOTD, the zombie comedy sub genre has been done to death, and these days, it takes something special to really stand out. This film takes a punt, and genuinely tries something new, but it's not executed well enough to rise above the pack.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Seinfeld - Season 1 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
I always assumed I wouldn’t like Seinfeld in the 90s. In fact I was opposed to the very idea of it on principle. And that principle was: I’ve never heard of this guy as a comedian, and American stand-up usually isn’t funny. I never saw a single episode until six months ago – in my head it was some dumb, canned laughter show with very forced scripts and little charm. I just didn’t get why it was always quoted amongst the best sitcoms of all time, and I wasn’t willing to find out. This is called “being ignorant”. Guilty.
One random day with nothing else inspiring me I finally took the plunge and put an episode on. Guess what happened? I laughed, I found it completely charming and witty and easy to watch, with some great lines and likeable characters. 3 hours later I had done 6 episodes and was as hooked as anyone can be with anything. It was just so nostalgically and completely 90s! And I loved that!
A show doesn’t run for 9 years and over 170 episodes without being some kind of special, especially taking into account the depreciation due to being dated, as all sitcoms eventually are, and it really is quite remarkable – deserving of a place in the conversation of the greatest ever American half hour shows. Sure, there is an element early on in the preoccupation with everyone’s sex life and dating habits that is a little creepy in 2020, but I am totally willing to forgive it.
Shows that are hyper aware of themselves and the audience are odd creatures the minute they take themselves too seriously, and Seinfeld never does that. It knows it is trivial, essentially about nothing and going nowhere, and style-wise it is always winking at us for being in on the joke and a part of it, even to the point of applauding new characters on their entrance, which is a uniquely American thing to do.
The secret of the show is undoubtedly the chemistry of the four leads, so mismatched that it someone works a spell and creates magic, much in the same way Friends managed to do, times six. Jerry Seinfeld himself is a very likeable everyman, and the schtick of each show beginning and ending with 30 seconds of stand up is a gimmick that grows on you, as does everything about it: the more you watch, the more you love it for what it is.
Jason Alexander as the balding, quirky, self-conscious, opinionated best friend is perhaps my least favourite of the regular quartet, but he has some amazing moments over the course of things, and plays great dead-pan. But the other two are on a plane of equal genius. The verbal timing of the super cute, super smart Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Elaine (who I have fallen in love with a little bit in 1993) and the physical slapstick timing of Michael Richards as Cosmo Kramer (surely one of the most memorable characters in sitcom history) have both left me aching with laughter time after time after time. Just a glance or an expression is often enough.
And the great thing is, it never seems to get old. They are always finding new ways and new situations that keep it fresh. Some trick! Even in the final season of the 9, when there is a small melancholia creeping in because they all know it is coming to an end, it still manages to create moments that aren’t just repeats of previous gags. Which means, as future background watching it is 100% perfect. Leave it on whilst doing something else, look up once in a while, and like the best of all long running US comedy shows each episode is indistinguishable from any other in the best way – it is like having a friend in the room.
I can’t imagine ever saying it is amongst my very favourites, maybe because I missed out on it first time around – which I put down to an inherent middle aged appeal, rather than a youth appeal – but I wouldn’t also ever argue with anyone that did say that it was one of their favourites. Because I get it now. And I’m so glad I got to do it, no matter how late to the party!
One random day with nothing else inspiring me I finally took the plunge and put an episode on. Guess what happened? I laughed, I found it completely charming and witty and easy to watch, with some great lines and likeable characters. 3 hours later I had done 6 episodes and was as hooked as anyone can be with anything. It was just so nostalgically and completely 90s! And I loved that!
A show doesn’t run for 9 years and over 170 episodes without being some kind of special, especially taking into account the depreciation due to being dated, as all sitcoms eventually are, and it really is quite remarkable – deserving of a place in the conversation of the greatest ever American half hour shows. Sure, there is an element early on in the preoccupation with everyone’s sex life and dating habits that is a little creepy in 2020, but I am totally willing to forgive it.
Shows that are hyper aware of themselves and the audience are odd creatures the minute they take themselves too seriously, and Seinfeld never does that. It knows it is trivial, essentially about nothing and going nowhere, and style-wise it is always winking at us for being in on the joke and a part of it, even to the point of applauding new characters on their entrance, which is a uniquely American thing to do.
The secret of the show is undoubtedly the chemistry of the four leads, so mismatched that it someone works a spell and creates magic, much in the same way Friends managed to do, times six. Jerry Seinfeld himself is a very likeable everyman, and the schtick of each show beginning and ending with 30 seconds of stand up is a gimmick that grows on you, as does everything about it: the more you watch, the more you love it for what it is.
Jason Alexander as the balding, quirky, self-conscious, opinionated best friend is perhaps my least favourite of the regular quartet, but he has some amazing moments over the course of things, and plays great dead-pan. But the other two are on a plane of equal genius. The verbal timing of the super cute, super smart Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Elaine (who I have fallen in love with a little bit in 1993) and the physical slapstick timing of Michael Richards as Cosmo Kramer (surely one of the most memorable characters in sitcom history) have both left me aching with laughter time after time after time. Just a glance or an expression is often enough.
And the great thing is, it never seems to get old. They are always finding new ways and new situations that keep it fresh. Some trick! Even in the final season of the 9, when there is a small melancholia creeping in because they all know it is coming to an end, it still manages to create moments that aren’t just repeats of previous gags. Which means, as future background watching it is 100% perfect. Leave it on whilst doing something else, look up once in a while, and like the best of all long running US comedy shows each episode is indistinguishable from any other in the best way – it is like having a friend in the room.
I can’t imagine ever saying it is amongst my very favourites, maybe because I missed out on it first time around – which I put down to an inherent middle aged appeal, rather than a youth appeal – but I wouldn’t also ever argue with anyone that did say that it was one of their favourites. Because I get it now. And I’m so glad I got to do it, no matter how late to the party!
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Devil Wears Prada (2006) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Story: The Devil Wears Prada starts as newly graduated journalist Andy Sachs (Hathaway) gets a chance to work as the second assistant to editor-in-chief Miranda Priestly (Streep) at a high fashion magazine. Andy is one of many applicates only she doesn’t have the knowledge of the fashion world, unlike the first assistant Emily (Blunt).
Andy must learn to get through the cold nature of Miranda who always looks down on her and everybody, to get through a year which could put her in a position in the journalist world she has always been dreaming off.
Thoughts on The Devil Wears Prada
Characters – Miranda Priestly is the feared editor-in-chief of a fashion magazine, her presence makes her employees dress to impress, everybody in the industry respects her opinion and for some reason she decides to take on Andy, she pushes Andy to the limits to see if she is good enough to work or her, like all the employees. Andy Sachs is a journalist graduate who is looking to a job in any publication, she doesn’t understand the fashion industry with this job being her gateway to her dream job, but she must learn fast or face being eaten alive in this industry. Her time in the job sees her change who she once was, pushing her friends and boyfriend away. This one-year job could see her future open, but her friendships vanish. Emily is the first assistant under Miranda, she knows the ins and outs of the business and has been waiting for this role for years. She doesn’t like Andy because she doesn’t have the same desire in the fashion industry. Nigel is the only person in the office that Andy gets along with, he does help put her on the right track for success under Miranda.
Performances – Meryl Streep is fantastic in this leading role, she brings a horrible boss to life, without making her seem like a truly horrible person, just somebody career driven. Anne Hathaway is wonderful too, to start with it seemed weird that she wasn’t considered the right body shape for position in the fashion world, but it does make perfect sense with how this world is working. Emily Blunt brings what should be a small role, to be one of the most interesting and entertaining part of the film. Stanley Tucci is a delight in the supporting role being the moral compass for the Andy character.
Story – The story follows a recent graduated journalist that takes a job working under one of the most notoriously difficult editors in the industry, here she must learn the industry to stand a chance to above water in this world, while gaining the experience she requires for her own success. This story first shows how difficult finding the first job for experience could be for any former student trying to get int the industry, it shows how fast the learning curve could be, how you can be looked upon as a replacement for others job too. It shows us how careers can take over lives if you let them which is important for how Andy changes through the story. most importantly it shows us just how you should never forget where you came from and the people that were there for you when you needed them. You will also get to have a laugh at how the fashion industry is considered to operate at the pace which could make or break careers in no time.
Comedy – The comedy in this film come from seeing how the world operates, seeing Andy needing to learn fast, the relationship with Emily and just how everyone can act over the top about the smallest detail.
Settings – The film is set mostly in New York, it shows how the business lives can move at such a pace it would be hard to keep up.
Scene of the Movie – Andy sees a real side of Miranda.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not understand brand names.
Final Thoughts – This is an enjoyable comedy with wonderful performances from the whole cast.
Overall: Enjoyable comedy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/23/meryl-streep-weekend-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
Andy must learn to get through the cold nature of Miranda who always looks down on her and everybody, to get through a year which could put her in a position in the journalist world she has always been dreaming off.
Thoughts on The Devil Wears Prada
Characters – Miranda Priestly is the feared editor-in-chief of a fashion magazine, her presence makes her employees dress to impress, everybody in the industry respects her opinion and for some reason she decides to take on Andy, she pushes Andy to the limits to see if she is good enough to work or her, like all the employees. Andy Sachs is a journalist graduate who is looking to a job in any publication, she doesn’t understand the fashion industry with this job being her gateway to her dream job, but she must learn fast or face being eaten alive in this industry. Her time in the job sees her change who she once was, pushing her friends and boyfriend away. This one-year job could see her future open, but her friendships vanish. Emily is the first assistant under Miranda, she knows the ins and outs of the business and has been waiting for this role for years. She doesn’t like Andy because she doesn’t have the same desire in the fashion industry. Nigel is the only person in the office that Andy gets along with, he does help put her on the right track for success under Miranda.
Performances – Meryl Streep is fantastic in this leading role, she brings a horrible boss to life, without making her seem like a truly horrible person, just somebody career driven. Anne Hathaway is wonderful too, to start with it seemed weird that she wasn’t considered the right body shape for position in the fashion world, but it does make perfect sense with how this world is working. Emily Blunt brings what should be a small role, to be one of the most interesting and entertaining part of the film. Stanley Tucci is a delight in the supporting role being the moral compass for the Andy character.
Story – The story follows a recent graduated journalist that takes a job working under one of the most notoriously difficult editors in the industry, here she must learn the industry to stand a chance to above water in this world, while gaining the experience she requires for her own success. This story first shows how difficult finding the first job for experience could be for any former student trying to get int the industry, it shows how fast the learning curve could be, how you can be looked upon as a replacement for others job too. It shows us how careers can take over lives if you let them which is important for how Andy changes through the story. most importantly it shows us just how you should never forget where you came from and the people that were there for you when you needed them. You will also get to have a laugh at how the fashion industry is considered to operate at the pace which could make or break careers in no time.
Comedy – The comedy in this film come from seeing how the world operates, seeing Andy needing to learn fast, the relationship with Emily and just how everyone can act over the top about the smallest detail.
Settings – The film is set mostly in New York, it shows how the business lives can move at such a pace it would be hard to keep up.
Scene of the Movie – Andy sees a real side of Miranda.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not understand brand names.
Final Thoughts – This is an enjoyable comedy with wonderful performances from the whole cast.
Overall: Enjoyable comedy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/23/meryl-streep-weekend-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Stand by Me (1986) in Movies
Jun 15, 2018
A Modern Classic
Remember the days of your youth, when Summer was just one long vacation - where you and your buddies would take off and let the day unfold as it presents itself - no schedules, no meetings and the only clock was the rising and setting of the sun?
Such, nostalgic, feelings and remembrances is at the heart of the 1986 Rob Reiner film, STAND BY ME, a "coming of age" tale of boys on the cusp of leaving boyhood behind.
Based on a Stephen King novella, STAND BY ME follows the adventures of Gordie LaChance and his pals Vern, Teddy and Chris as they set off to find the body of a young man who has been missing - and presumed dead.
But it is not the destination that is at the heart of this story, it is the journey - and what a journey, filled with heart, it is. We join in with these 4 boys as the walk towards the unknown - both physically and (more importantly) metaphorically, growing and developing in front of our eyes.
Credit for this film has to start with Director Rob Reiner - mainly known before this film as "Meathead" on the classic TV Series ALL IN THE FAMILY. This was Reiner's 5th film as a Director and, I believe, announced his "arrival" as a signature Director. Look at the run Reiner had. In order, he directed THIS IS SPINAL TAP, THE SURE THING, STAND BY ME, THE PRINCESS BRIDE, WHEN HARRY MET SALLY, MISERY and A FEW GOOD MEN. I would also include THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT and GHOSTS OF MISSISSIPPI in this list, but they come after the misfire NORTH. But, 9 out of 10 good films is quite the track record.
What struck me in this showing of the film (seen on the big screen for the first time by me since 1986) is the contrast between intimacy and enormity. When the boys are on their trek, Reiner shoots a good deal of these scenes from a distance - showing how small these boys are in comparison to the world around them. But, when the scene is an intimate, dialogue, character-driven scene, he tightens his shots right into the faces of the 4 leads, creating an intimacy that draws us into these characters.
The other credit has to go to whomever cast this film - for the 4 unknown boys that were cast in the leads were well cast, indeed.
Start with Wil Wheaton as Gordie. Gordie has spent his whole life in the shadow of his over-achieving "All American" brother, trying to be noticed for who - and what - he is, an author, not an athlete. Wheaton brings the right combination of determination, intelligence and vulnerability to Gordie, giving us a protagonist we can root for. Jerry O'Connell was funnier than I remembered as the "fat kid", Vern, who just wants to play by the rules, but always goes along with his friends, despite his better judgement. Corey Feldman has never been better than he is here as Teddy Duchamp - a young boy with a troubled home life - and a troubled life - that is trying to control, and understand, the rage inside of him.
But it is the work of the late River Phoenix as Chris Chambers, the "leader" of this group that really shines. He is the glue that keeps this foursome together, strong but showing a vulnerability and a "realistic" view of what it is to be a misunderstood youth - the hurt that comes with that and the walls that one puts up to combat that. Phoenix commands the screen in every scene that he is in and when the scene is just Phoenix and Wheaton, you are drawn into a real friendship.
I was surprised, at this viewing, at how serious this film is - and the topics that this film addresses - but those moments are wisely balanced by scenes of action/adventure (like the train tressel scene), comedy (like the the "lard-ass" pie eating scene) and "other" moments (the leaches!).
This is one of those films that is getting better with time - it is aging well - and, rightfully, fits in the category of "Modern Classic".
Letter Grade: A
Such, nostalgic, feelings and remembrances is at the heart of the 1986 Rob Reiner film, STAND BY ME, a "coming of age" tale of boys on the cusp of leaving boyhood behind.
Based on a Stephen King novella, STAND BY ME follows the adventures of Gordie LaChance and his pals Vern, Teddy and Chris as they set off to find the body of a young man who has been missing - and presumed dead.
But it is not the destination that is at the heart of this story, it is the journey - and what a journey, filled with heart, it is. We join in with these 4 boys as the walk towards the unknown - both physically and (more importantly) metaphorically, growing and developing in front of our eyes.
Credit for this film has to start with Director Rob Reiner - mainly known before this film as "Meathead" on the classic TV Series ALL IN THE FAMILY. This was Reiner's 5th film as a Director and, I believe, announced his "arrival" as a signature Director. Look at the run Reiner had. In order, he directed THIS IS SPINAL TAP, THE SURE THING, STAND BY ME, THE PRINCESS BRIDE, WHEN HARRY MET SALLY, MISERY and A FEW GOOD MEN. I would also include THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT and GHOSTS OF MISSISSIPPI in this list, but they come after the misfire NORTH. But, 9 out of 10 good films is quite the track record.
What struck me in this showing of the film (seen on the big screen for the first time by me since 1986) is the contrast between intimacy and enormity. When the boys are on their trek, Reiner shoots a good deal of these scenes from a distance - showing how small these boys are in comparison to the world around them. But, when the scene is an intimate, dialogue, character-driven scene, he tightens his shots right into the faces of the 4 leads, creating an intimacy that draws us into these characters.
The other credit has to go to whomever cast this film - for the 4 unknown boys that were cast in the leads were well cast, indeed.
Start with Wil Wheaton as Gordie. Gordie has spent his whole life in the shadow of his over-achieving "All American" brother, trying to be noticed for who - and what - he is, an author, not an athlete. Wheaton brings the right combination of determination, intelligence and vulnerability to Gordie, giving us a protagonist we can root for. Jerry O'Connell was funnier than I remembered as the "fat kid", Vern, who just wants to play by the rules, but always goes along with his friends, despite his better judgement. Corey Feldman has never been better than he is here as Teddy Duchamp - a young boy with a troubled home life - and a troubled life - that is trying to control, and understand, the rage inside of him.
But it is the work of the late River Phoenix as Chris Chambers, the "leader" of this group that really shines. He is the glue that keeps this foursome together, strong but showing a vulnerability and a "realistic" view of what it is to be a misunderstood youth - the hurt that comes with that and the walls that one puts up to combat that. Phoenix commands the screen in every scene that he is in and when the scene is just Phoenix and Wheaton, you are drawn into a real friendship.
I was surprised, at this viewing, at how serious this film is - and the topics that this film addresses - but those moments are wisely balanced by scenes of action/adventure (like the train tressel scene), comedy (like the the "lard-ass" pie eating scene) and "other" moments (the leaches!).
This is one of those films that is getting better with time - it is aging well - and, rightfully, fits in the category of "Modern Classic".
Letter Grade: A