Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
May 9, 2019
I'm always wary heading into comedies, and the majority of my reviews for the genre usually open with some intro along those lines. On the whole I'm usually disappointed with what I see, particularly as the trailers tend to show literally every single laugh out loud moment from the film, leaving very little else to enjoy. Mrs B joined me for this particular cinema trip, and we have a bit of a track record recently for picking movies to go and see together which then turn out to be a disappointment, so I was doubly worried. Coincidentally, as we pulled into the cinema car park, an ad for Long Shot played on the radio. It's outrageously funny! Absolutely hilarious! The funniest movie in years! Etc etc... All the usual claims, and mighty big words to live up to.
Seth Rogen is Fred Vlarsky, a scruffy investigative journalist who we first meet while working undercover at a white supremacist meeting. The meeting naturally doesn't go well, especially as Fred is a jew, and things only go from bad to worse when Fred finds himself out of work the next day. Meanwhile, we're introduced to Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron), Secretary of State with plans to run for president in the next election. She leads a very hectic life, barely getting chance for any downtime in-between working on improving her popularity score, constant phone call interviews and trying to deal with her bumbling, clueless boss, the president (played by Bob Odenkirk).
Fred's best friend Lance attempts to cheer him up by taking him to a swanky party where Boyz II Men are performing, and it's during this party that Fred and Charlotte both notice each other from across the room. Fred recounts to Lance an embarrassing story from when he was 13 and a 16 year old Charlotte babysat for him one evening. When the two meet up again at the party soon after, they immediately hit it off.
Charlotte is on the lookout for a writer to help write her speeches and hopefully boost her popularity score, so she decides to hire Fred on the basis that he's likely to know her a lot better than anyone else and therefore likely to write better material for her. Fred immediately joins the team, travelling the world at Charlotte's side and getting to know more about her in order to come up with great speeches.
Being a rom-com, it's not really a spoiler to say that our two main characters eventually get together romantically. That being said, I felt the trailer for Long Shot pretty much gave away the majority of key plot points, as seems to be the norm these days, and I was left with very little that actually felt like a surprise when I saw it. Luckily, the final twenty minutes or so contain plenty of unseen material and themes, which despite becoming slightly absurd, actually contain some of the funniest and most charming moments of the movie.
How much hilarity you find in Long Shot is really going to depend on how much you like Seth Rogen and his particular style of comedy. If an overdose of f-bombs, dick jokes and drug related humour are your thing, you'll be fine. To be honest, I'm not usually a big fan of his, although I do like a few of his movies. But thankfully, in this he wasn't too overbearing, allowing Charlize Theron to shine through with her own fair share of funny lines and moments. Their characters, and most importantly their chemistry together, is totally believable, and makes the movie that much more enjoyable. Supporting cast consist of Andy Serkis as a creepy Rupert Murdoch/Donald Trump hybrid, but this is primarily all about the unlikely relationship between Fred and Charlotte, and for the most part it works extremely well.
I'm a big fan of the TV show Madam Secretary, which also features a strong lead performance from Téa Leoni as Secretary of State. Her character is also currently considering running for president, in a show with some tight, well written and at times witty, political story-lines. I couldn't really help but compare Long Shot to that, and as a movie I felt it struggled at times to balance the tone and keep the pace, feeling way too long as well.
Seth Rogen is Fred Vlarsky, a scruffy investigative journalist who we first meet while working undercover at a white supremacist meeting. The meeting naturally doesn't go well, especially as Fred is a jew, and things only go from bad to worse when Fred finds himself out of work the next day. Meanwhile, we're introduced to Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron), Secretary of State with plans to run for president in the next election. She leads a very hectic life, barely getting chance for any downtime in-between working on improving her popularity score, constant phone call interviews and trying to deal with her bumbling, clueless boss, the president (played by Bob Odenkirk).
Fred's best friend Lance attempts to cheer him up by taking him to a swanky party where Boyz II Men are performing, and it's during this party that Fred and Charlotte both notice each other from across the room. Fred recounts to Lance an embarrassing story from when he was 13 and a 16 year old Charlotte babysat for him one evening. When the two meet up again at the party soon after, they immediately hit it off.
Charlotte is on the lookout for a writer to help write her speeches and hopefully boost her popularity score, so she decides to hire Fred on the basis that he's likely to know her a lot better than anyone else and therefore likely to write better material for her. Fred immediately joins the team, travelling the world at Charlotte's side and getting to know more about her in order to come up with great speeches.
Being a rom-com, it's not really a spoiler to say that our two main characters eventually get together romantically. That being said, I felt the trailer for Long Shot pretty much gave away the majority of key plot points, as seems to be the norm these days, and I was left with very little that actually felt like a surprise when I saw it. Luckily, the final twenty minutes or so contain plenty of unseen material and themes, which despite becoming slightly absurd, actually contain some of the funniest and most charming moments of the movie.
How much hilarity you find in Long Shot is really going to depend on how much you like Seth Rogen and his particular style of comedy. If an overdose of f-bombs, dick jokes and drug related humour are your thing, you'll be fine. To be honest, I'm not usually a big fan of his, although I do like a few of his movies. But thankfully, in this he wasn't too overbearing, allowing Charlize Theron to shine through with her own fair share of funny lines and moments. Their characters, and most importantly their chemistry together, is totally believable, and makes the movie that much more enjoyable. Supporting cast consist of Andy Serkis as a creepy Rupert Murdoch/Donald Trump hybrid, but this is primarily all about the unlikely relationship between Fred and Charlotte, and for the most part it works extremely well.
I'm a big fan of the TV show Madam Secretary, which also features a strong lead performance from Téa Leoni as Secretary of State. Her character is also currently considering running for president, in a show with some tight, well written and at times witty, political story-lines. I couldn't really help but compare Long Shot to that, and as a movie I felt it struggled at times to balance the tone and keep the pace, feeling way too long as well.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A visual spectacle
It’s always a worry when a production company feels the need to force feed you the fact that a big-name is in a relatively minor role. In the case of Alita: Battle Angel, 20th Century Fox have been hammering home the fact that James Cameron is involved in a Producer capacity.
You have to feel a little sorry for director Robert Rodriguez as his name has been almost usurped by Cameron’s in the marketing push for this live-action adaptation of the classic manga. Of course, Cameron is too busy making the four Avatar sequels no-one actually cares about anymore and instead, entrusted his vision for Alita: Battle Angel to Rodriguez. He’s certainly an intriguing choice of director, but does the finished product work?
Set several centuries in the future, the abandoned Alita (Rosa Salazar) is found in the scrapyard of Iron City by Ido (Christoph Waltz), a compassionate cyber-doctor who takes the unconscious cyborg Alita to his clinic. When Alita awakens, she has no memory of who she is, nor does she have any recognition of the world she finds herself in. As Alita learns to navigate her new life and the treacherous streets of Iron City, Ido tries to shield her from her mysterious past.
After spending nearly $200million on Alita, Fox clearly think they’ve got another massive hit on their hands and to an extent, they deserve one. Battle Angel is a majestic film, filled with visual presence not dissimilar to the spectacle of watching Avatar for the first time in 2009. The bustling world of Iron City feels as if it’s living and breathing right before our eyes and that’s a testament to both Cameron and Rodriguez as well as the visual effects people down at Weta Digital.
This thriving metropolis is populated by practical and CGI effects of varying qualities, but as a movie world, it works much better than Wakanda did in Black Panther and is leagues ahead of the empty, soulless Asgard from Thor.
It is reminiscent of Sakaar in Thor: Ragnarok however, with its narrow streets and market stalls. The difference here is that Iron City is a much darker, eerier place than Sakarr ever was, save for Jeff Goldblum’s Grandmaster towering above everything.
The casting is also very good and features some household names that were clearly intrigued by the project. Waltz is excellent as the compassionate Ido and Jennifer Connelly works well as his ex-wife, though she is underused throughout.
Alita: Battle Angel is a pleasant surprise from a director who has needed a hit for quite some time.
Ed Skrein turns up every now and then as Zapan, a cyborg bounty hunter and provides some light comic relief in a film that has more than its fair share of darker moments. TV actor Keann Johnson makes his big-budget film debut here and he is excellent as Hugo, Alita’s love interest.
Unfortunately, the initial optimism fades somewhat when you realise that Alita: Battle Angel struggles under the weight of its own script. Plot points in the first 45 minutes feel ridiculously rushed and then the film hurtles towards its climax without stopping for breath.
You get the feeling there was much more that had to be cut to trim the runtime down to a more family friendly 2 hours. The dialogue too isn’t a strong point. Overly expositional and riddled in cliché, Alita is not a film you watch because of its sparkling and witty one-liners.
Niggles aside though and Alita: Battle Angel is much better than I thought it was going to be. The plot, while unoriginal, is sweet and easy enough to swallow, making it a great family film. True, it has its darker moments, but the strong visuals and vibrant environment will make it enjoyable for older children and adults alike.
Overall, Alita: Battle Angel is a pleasant surprise from a director who has needed a hit for quite some time. It’s a flawed film that struggles to cope with its many ideas that continuously pull it in hundreds of different directions, but it’s worth a watch just for the visual spectacle and emotionally arresting story. Whether or not it recoups that colossal $200million budget remains to be seen.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/02/09/alita-battle-angel-review-a-visual-spectacle/
You have to feel a little sorry for director Robert Rodriguez as his name has been almost usurped by Cameron’s in the marketing push for this live-action adaptation of the classic manga. Of course, Cameron is too busy making the four Avatar sequels no-one actually cares about anymore and instead, entrusted his vision for Alita: Battle Angel to Rodriguez. He’s certainly an intriguing choice of director, but does the finished product work?
Set several centuries in the future, the abandoned Alita (Rosa Salazar) is found in the scrapyard of Iron City by Ido (Christoph Waltz), a compassionate cyber-doctor who takes the unconscious cyborg Alita to his clinic. When Alita awakens, she has no memory of who she is, nor does she have any recognition of the world she finds herself in. As Alita learns to navigate her new life and the treacherous streets of Iron City, Ido tries to shield her from her mysterious past.
After spending nearly $200million on Alita, Fox clearly think they’ve got another massive hit on their hands and to an extent, they deserve one. Battle Angel is a majestic film, filled with visual presence not dissimilar to the spectacle of watching Avatar for the first time in 2009. The bustling world of Iron City feels as if it’s living and breathing right before our eyes and that’s a testament to both Cameron and Rodriguez as well as the visual effects people down at Weta Digital.
This thriving metropolis is populated by practical and CGI effects of varying qualities, but as a movie world, it works much better than Wakanda did in Black Panther and is leagues ahead of the empty, soulless Asgard from Thor.
It is reminiscent of Sakaar in Thor: Ragnarok however, with its narrow streets and market stalls. The difference here is that Iron City is a much darker, eerier place than Sakarr ever was, save for Jeff Goldblum’s Grandmaster towering above everything.
The casting is also very good and features some household names that were clearly intrigued by the project. Waltz is excellent as the compassionate Ido and Jennifer Connelly works well as his ex-wife, though she is underused throughout.
Alita: Battle Angel is a pleasant surprise from a director who has needed a hit for quite some time.
Ed Skrein turns up every now and then as Zapan, a cyborg bounty hunter and provides some light comic relief in a film that has more than its fair share of darker moments. TV actor Keann Johnson makes his big-budget film debut here and he is excellent as Hugo, Alita’s love interest.
Unfortunately, the initial optimism fades somewhat when you realise that Alita: Battle Angel struggles under the weight of its own script. Plot points in the first 45 minutes feel ridiculously rushed and then the film hurtles towards its climax without stopping for breath.
You get the feeling there was much more that had to be cut to trim the runtime down to a more family friendly 2 hours. The dialogue too isn’t a strong point. Overly expositional and riddled in cliché, Alita is not a film you watch because of its sparkling and witty one-liners.
Niggles aside though and Alita: Battle Angel is much better than I thought it was going to be. The plot, while unoriginal, is sweet and easy enough to swallow, making it a great family film. True, it has its darker moments, but the strong visuals and vibrant environment will make it enjoyable for older children and adults alike.
Overall, Alita: Battle Angel is a pleasant surprise from a director who has needed a hit for quite some time. It’s a flawed film that struggles to cope with its many ideas that continuously pull it in hundreds of different directions, but it’s worth a watch just for the visual spectacle and emotionally arresting story. Whether or not it recoups that colossal $200million budget remains to be seen.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/02/09/alita-battle-angel-review-a-visual-spectacle/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018
IT is very good
I met the clown and IT is...fascinating, gripping, thrilling, humorous, intense and good.
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
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
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst in TV
Jun 27, 2018 (Updated Jun 27, 2018)
Mindblowing
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have been on a bit of a documentary kick lately and my most recent watch was the Jinx. I never watched this show back when it aired in 2015, or followed the story at the time, so I went into this show knowing very little about the tale it was telling. I'd say if you are in the same boat, then that is probably the best way to go into this doc. There are only six parts to the doc, so it can be binged over a few nights or in one day. Don't look up anything about it before watching and just go in blind, by the end your mind will be blown.
Please don't read on until you have seen the show in it's entirety as there are massive SPOILERS ahead. It feels weird to say that about a documentary, something that actually happened, but I promise you will not want this final revelation spoiled for you in any way.
Ok, so during the last interview, Andrew Jarecki confronts Robert Durst with two letters with the same address handwritten on each, one written by Durst years previous and the other was written by the killer and sent into a police station to notify them of the location of a body. Beverly Hills is spelt wrong in each, it is spelt BEVERLEY on each and the handwriting is exceptionally similar, especially the letter N. Durst initially appears pretty unphased by the accusation and brushes it off, until Jarecki asks him to look at a sheet that has the two versions of the address blown up and placed side by side and he asks him to tell him what one he wrote and what one he didn't and Durst is unable to tell the difference. He then begins burping uncontrollably as if trying to supress vomiting. The interview ends and Jarecki thanks Durst for his time. Durst then goes to the bathroom, unaware that he is still wearing a live microphone and says:
"There it is, you're caught.
You're right of course, but you can't imagine...
Arrest him.
I don't know what's in the house.
Oh, I want this.
What a disaster.
He was right, I was wrong.
And the burping?
I'm having difficulty understanding the question.
What the hell did I do?
Killed them all, of course."
Holy shit, these filmmakers just stumbled into getting an accidental confession from a guy who has dodged the law since 1982. Not only that, but what was recorded actually sounds like two different people having a conversation, almost like Gollum and Sméagol from Lord Of The Rings. The recording is creepy, but extremely important and provides an absolutely captivating ending to this already brilliant story. I think that what we hear in the bathroom is two sides of Durst arguing about what has just transpired. The way that each line is like a comment and then a response and the way that his tone of voice changes from line to line. I will type up my interpretation of the conversation below showing what side of Durst said what.
Good Bob: There it is, you're caught.
Bad Bob: You're right of course, but you can't imagine...
Good Bob: Arrest him.
Bad Bob: I don't know what's in the house.
Good Bob: Oh, I want this.
Bad Bob: What a disaster.
Good Bob:He was right, I was wrong.
Bad Bob: And the burping?
Good Bob: I'm having difficulty understanding the question.
What the hell did I do?
Bad Bob: Killed them all, of course.
This is obviously pure conjecture, but it's how I see the conversation going in Durst's head. Whether this is proof of disassociation or multiple personality disorder, I don't know as I'm not a psychiatrist, all that I know is that it is absolutely fascinating to hear this play out in a real world situation and makes for an absolutely brilliant piece of TV.
Please don't read on until you have seen the show in it's entirety as there are massive SPOILERS ahead. It feels weird to say that about a documentary, something that actually happened, but I promise you will not want this final revelation spoiled for you in any way.
Ok, so during the last interview, Andrew Jarecki confronts Robert Durst with two letters with the same address handwritten on each, one written by Durst years previous and the other was written by the killer and sent into a police station to notify them of the location of a body. Beverly Hills is spelt wrong in each, it is spelt BEVERLEY on each and the handwriting is exceptionally similar, especially the letter N. Durst initially appears pretty unphased by the accusation and brushes it off, until Jarecki asks him to look at a sheet that has the two versions of the address blown up and placed side by side and he asks him to tell him what one he wrote and what one he didn't and Durst is unable to tell the difference. He then begins burping uncontrollably as if trying to supress vomiting. The interview ends and Jarecki thanks Durst for his time. Durst then goes to the bathroom, unaware that he is still wearing a live microphone and says:
"There it is, you're caught.
You're right of course, but you can't imagine...
Arrest him.
I don't know what's in the house.
Oh, I want this.
What a disaster.
He was right, I was wrong.
And the burping?
I'm having difficulty understanding the question.
What the hell did I do?
Killed them all, of course."
Holy shit, these filmmakers just stumbled into getting an accidental confession from a guy who has dodged the law since 1982. Not only that, but what was recorded actually sounds like two different people having a conversation, almost like Gollum and Sméagol from Lord Of The Rings. The recording is creepy, but extremely important and provides an absolutely captivating ending to this already brilliant story. I think that what we hear in the bathroom is two sides of Durst arguing about what has just transpired. The way that each line is like a comment and then a response and the way that his tone of voice changes from line to line. I will type up my interpretation of the conversation below showing what side of Durst said what.
Good Bob: There it is, you're caught.
Bad Bob: You're right of course, but you can't imagine...
Good Bob: Arrest him.
Bad Bob: I don't know what's in the house.
Good Bob: Oh, I want this.
Bad Bob: What a disaster.
Good Bob:He was right, I was wrong.
Bad Bob: And the burping?
Good Bob: I'm having difficulty understanding the question.
What the hell did I do?
Bad Bob: Killed them all, of course.
This is obviously pure conjecture, but it's how I see the conversation going in Durst's head. Whether this is proof of disassociation or multiple personality disorder, I don't know as I'm not a psychiatrist, all that I know is that it is absolutely fascinating to hear this play out in a real world situation and makes for an absolutely brilliant piece of TV.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 5ive Girls (2006) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: 5ive Girls starts when one of the student of Father Drake’s (Perlman) school it taken by an evil force leaving only blood stained classroom. With the school closed down on the outside we still see Father Drake trying to help troubled girls with his newest class being Alex (Miller), Mara (Madley), Cecilia (Vnesa), Leah (Mamabolo) and Connie (Quintas).
The girls discover they are all witches with different powers and when Alex starts getting haunted by Elizabeth but what is she trying to communicate. We learn that Miss Pearce (Lalonde) is involved with what is going on but is she good or bad? Could these girls have been bought together for a reason? The girls find themselves battling the ancient demon Legion who wants to walk the Earth once more.
5ive Girls gives us a witch based film where the witches are not evil but instead fighting evil. Having the girls not fully understanding their powers works because we get to learn about them with them but saying that doing that really doesn’t help when they get picked off easily. I would like to see more about the girl’s powers but in the end we just have basic ideas of them. The story does work well for the fighting evil but also could just have been an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Actor Review
Ron Perlman: Father Drake is haunted by losing one of his students to an evil spirit, he is bought back to the school to finally make up for what happened but finds himself fighting the same evil that took away his faith. Ron is good in this role even if he is more of a supporting character than leading man.
Jennifer Miller: Alex is the last of the five new girls to arrive at the school, she has the ability to prevent and move objects with her mind. While in the school she finds herself having to work with the other girls to solve the hauntings going on in the school. Jennifer is solid in this role that works as the unsure girl.
Jordan Madley: Mara is the streetwise of the five girls, she is overly aggressive when it comes to protecting herself but is great to have on the right side when it comes to fighting the evil. Jordan is good as the bad ass chick that is actually very insecure.
Terra Vnesa: Cecilia is one of the students, she is the blind student who makes light of her disability being one of the main comic reliefs in the film. Terra is good because she is the funniest of the characters involved.
Support Cast: 5ive Girls only has a couple of extra cast members that end up doing just as good a job of the rest of the cast.
Director Review: Warren P Sonoda – Warren gives us a solid film that is easy to watch but never really challenges us.
Horror: 5ive Girls has good horror elements of good versus evil along with solid gore moments.
Thriller: 5ive Girls keeps us guessing to what will happened next as well as wondering what is going on through the story even if you can work parts of the film out.
Settings: 5ive Girls keeps nearly all the film in one place the school that is meant to be locked from the outside.
Special Effects: 5ive Girls has solid effects for the kills but when we see Legion we don’t get the best effects.
Suggestion: 5ive Girls is one to watch if it is on late night television. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: Only having early witch abilities.
Worst Part: Slightly predictable.
Funniest Scene: Blind girl searching for someone alone while still enough people to do it in pairs.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $3 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 35 Minutes
Tagline: 5 Witches. 5 Powers. One Evil.
Overall: Easy to watch horror that does lack scares but has strong elements.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/10/05/movie-reviews-101-midnight-halloween-horror-5ive-girls-2006/
The girls discover they are all witches with different powers and when Alex starts getting haunted by Elizabeth but what is she trying to communicate. We learn that Miss Pearce (Lalonde) is involved with what is going on but is she good or bad? Could these girls have been bought together for a reason? The girls find themselves battling the ancient demon Legion who wants to walk the Earth once more.
5ive Girls gives us a witch based film where the witches are not evil but instead fighting evil. Having the girls not fully understanding their powers works because we get to learn about them with them but saying that doing that really doesn’t help when they get picked off easily. I would like to see more about the girl’s powers but in the end we just have basic ideas of them. The story does work well for the fighting evil but also could just have been an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Actor Review
Ron Perlman: Father Drake is haunted by losing one of his students to an evil spirit, he is bought back to the school to finally make up for what happened but finds himself fighting the same evil that took away his faith. Ron is good in this role even if he is more of a supporting character than leading man.
Jennifer Miller: Alex is the last of the five new girls to arrive at the school, she has the ability to prevent and move objects with her mind. While in the school she finds herself having to work with the other girls to solve the hauntings going on in the school. Jennifer is solid in this role that works as the unsure girl.
Jordan Madley: Mara is the streetwise of the five girls, she is overly aggressive when it comes to protecting herself but is great to have on the right side when it comes to fighting the evil. Jordan is good as the bad ass chick that is actually very insecure.
Terra Vnesa: Cecilia is one of the students, she is the blind student who makes light of her disability being one of the main comic reliefs in the film. Terra is good because she is the funniest of the characters involved.
Support Cast: 5ive Girls only has a couple of extra cast members that end up doing just as good a job of the rest of the cast.
Director Review: Warren P Sonoda – Warren gives us a solid film that is easy to watch but never really challenges us.
Horror: 5ive Girls has good horror elements of good versus evil along with solid gore moments.
Thriller: 5ive Girls keeps us guessing to what will happened next as well as wondering what is going on through the story even if you can work parts of the film out.
Settings: 5ive Girls keeps nearly all the film in one place the school that is meant to be locked from the outside.
Special Effects: 5ive Girls has solid effects for the kills but when we see Legion we don’t get the best effects.
Suggestion: 5ive Girls is one to watch if it is on late night television. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: Only having early witch abilities.
Worst Part: Slightly predictable.
Funniest Scene: Blind girl searching for someone alone while still enough people to do it in pairs.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $3 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 35 Minutes
Tagline: 5 Witches. 5 Powers. One Evil.
Overall: Easy to watch horror that does lack scares but has strong elements.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/10/05/movie-reviews-101-midnight-halloween-horror-5ive-girls-2006/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Stephen King's A Good Marriage (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Good Marriage starts with the anniversary party of Darcy (Allen) and Bob Anderson (LaPaglia) with their grown up children Petra (Connolly) and Donnie (Stockman). Everything on the outside looks like it is going great for the couple and what could possibly be shocking about them? The couple seem to have a follower in Holt Ramsey (Lang) but why?
Darcy’s life takes a sudden change when searching for batteries she finds a hidden box with the drivers licences of woman who are found dead. As Darcy struggles to deal with the realisation that she is married to a serial killer we watch how Bob is tracking down him latest victim while away on business. We have to watch how Bob and Darcy try to work through the problems because spilling the secret could ruin the family.
A Good Marriage really does end up coming off very dull, the concept sounds very interesting. I feel this story should have been a hell of a lot tenser because of the action of the husband especially with the idea that the wife doesn’t want to destroy her children’s lives with the secret. I can honestly say I was expecting a look into the husband’s killing and an actual confrontation rather than just a calm talking about his actions. Overall the story doesn’t come off very well at all and I can honestly say this will disappoint any and all the Stephen King Fans out there. (2/10)
Actor Review
Joan Allen: Darcy Anderson is the loving mother and wife who discovers her husband’s secret. Darcy has to try and figure out what to do because talking will destroy the family but she also knows the next victim will now be here fault. Joan does a solid job but doesn’t reach the levels you would expect to make you feel like her character is scared or keeping a brave face. (5/10)
Anthony LaPaglia: Bob Anderson is the account husband of Darcy who has been living a different life behind his family’s back as a serial killer. When his wife discovers his secret he has to convince her not to go to the cops and ruin the life the children think they have had. Anthony is an actor I would expect to be able to play this role really well but he doesn’t seem to get into the role enough to make us believe he is a killer. (3/10)
Support Cast: A Good Marriage has a supporting cast that are mostly people Darcy is trying to protect from the truth, but it also has a man trying to find out the truth about the killer.
Director Review: Peter Askin – Peter doesn’t give us enough tension in a film that should be filled to the rim with tension because of the subject matter. (3/10)
Thriller: A Good Marriage is a film that should be filled with tension but this manages to let it all go without capitalising on the idea. (2/10)
Settings: A Good Marriage keeps the settings great because the idea would be that the killer is in plain sight living a normal life. (9/10)
Suggestion: A Good Marriage has to go down as one to avoid because it really does disappoint trying to tell an easy story. (Avoid)
Best Part: Hard to find anything.
Worst Part: No Tension.
Improve Ideas: High tension level.
Believability: The idea does come from a real serial killer but the outcome on film doesn’t really work. (3/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 42 Minutes
Trivia: This is Stephen King’s first self-adapted screenplay since “Pet Sematary,” which was released 25 years earlier. The last feature film script he wrote was “Sleepwalkers,” released in 1992. Since then he has written TV movies, mini-series and shows, such as “The Stand,” “The Shining” and “Kingdom Hospital.”
Overall: Very disappointing thriller with no actual tension.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/06/04/a-good-marriage-2014/
Darcy’s life takes a sudden change when searching for batteries she finds a hidden box with the drivers licences of woman who are found dead. As Darcy struggles to deal with the realisation that she is married to a serial killer we watch how Bob is tracking down him latest victim while away on business. We have to watch how Bob and Darcy try to work through the problems because spilling the secret could ruin the family.
A Good Marriage really does end up coming off very dull, the concept sounds very interesting. I feel this story should have been a hell of a lot tenser because of the action of the husband especially with the idea that the wife doesn’t want to destroy her children’s lives with the secret. I can honestly say I was expecting a look into the husband’s killing and an actual confrontation rather than just a calm talking about his actions. Overall the story doesn’t come off very well at all and I can honestly say this will disappoint any and all the Stephen King Fans out there. (2/10)
Actor Review
Joan Allen: Darcy Anderson is the loving mother and wife who discovers her husband’s secret. Darcy has to try and figure out what to do because talking will destroy the family but she also knows the next victim will now be here fault. Joan does a solid job but doesn’t reach the levels you would expect to make you feel like her character is scared or keeping a brave face. (5/10)
Anthony LaPaglia: Bob Anderson is the account husband of Darcy who has been living a different life behind his family’s back as a serial killer. When his wife discovers his secret he has to convince her not to go to the cops and ruin the life the children think they have had. Anthony is an actor I would expect to be able to play this role really well but he doesn’t seem to get into the role enough to make us believe he is a killer. (3/10)
Support Cast: A Good Marriage has a supporting cast that are mostly people Darcy is trying to protect from the truth, but it also has a man trying to find out the truth about the killer.
Director Review: Peter Askin – Peter doesn’t give us enough tension in a film that should be filled to the rim with tension because of the subject matter. (3/10)
Thriller: A Good Marriage is a film that should be filled with tension but this manages to let it all go without capitalising on the idea. (2/10)
Settings: A Good Marriage keeps the settings great because the idea would be that the killer is in plain sight living a normal life. (9/10)
Suggestion: A Good Marriage has to go down as one to avoid because it really does disappoint trying to tell an easy story. (Avoid)
Best Part: Hard to find anything.
Worst Part: No Tension.
Improve Ideas: High tension level.
Believability: The idea does come from a real serial killer but the outcome on film doesn’t really work. (3/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 42 Minutes
Trivia: This is Stephen King’s first self-adapted screenplay since “Pet Sematary,” which was released 25 years earlier. The last feature film script he wrote was “Sleepwalkers,” released in 1992. Since then he has written TV movies, mini-series and shows, such as “The Stand,” “The Shining” and “Kingdom Hospital.”
Overall: Very disappointing thriller with no actual tension.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/06/04/a-good-marriage-2014/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alone in the Dark (2005) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: I am going to first look at this only as a story, no opinions on the CGI or casting choices. If you were to look at the story as a solo idea you get a solid action horror. Now I hear people going ‘no its just crap’ so let’s look at the details. First off we have an idea of scientific experiment on children to create sleepers, but something goes wrong so we don’t see why it happened until more discoveries in the future. Then we have a search for hidden treasures of a lost ancient people. Add in a paranormal investigator, a secret government paranormal investigating team and the search for a truth. Now looking at those factors we should have a good story not special but enjoyable. Now with terrible casting decisions, awful CGI and a script that could have been written but a child everything goes south fast. As an idea for a story this is good, but as an execution of a story it’s bad. (5/10)
Actor Review
Christian Slater: Edward Carnby a paranormal investigator who has been trying to uncover the truth about his childhood, this puts him in danger as this time he has got closer than ever before. He must team up with his old organisation to final uncover the truth that has lost him the memories of his childhood. Slater strolls for this role without showing any of the skills that made him a star in the early 90s. (5/10)
slater
Tara Reid: Aline Cedrac assistant curator at the museum who also happens to be Edward’s girlfriend, she gets caught up in the middle of the battle after she uncover the location of the door. Going to take a deep breath before going for this one, just no how did this happen? Try your luck in romantic comedies. (2/10)
reid
Stephen Dorff: Commander Burke leader of a military team trying to keep the monsters away from the public, old partner of Edward but after seeing the truth he teams up with them to uncover the truth. Stephen can act and has proven it many times, just need to give him something to work with. (4/10)
dorff
Frank C Turner: Sam an old connection within the organisation that still communicates with Edward, he fills in the science gaps and you can guess what happens to him by the end. Basic supporting performance. (4/10)
fisher
Matthew Walker: Professor Hudgens scientist trying to open the door to the truth about the ancient people, he will do anything to get his answers including sacrificing anybody who gets in his way. As villains go this is generic one that doesn’t need too much to make them special. (4/10)
profes
Director Review: Uwe Boll – He not only managed to mess up a relatively easy story with awful CGI and lack of directing ideas. (2/10)
Action: Plenty of guns being fired, not sure if they ever hit anything as everything is in the pitch black. (3/10)
Horror: Doesn’t give you any scares, frights, well made with the acting. (1/10)
Settings: The settings used for the gun fights are used well, because they would make real settings for such a discover if someone wanted to keep it quiet. (6/10)
Special Effects: Terrible special effects that I only saw one good one and that was a soldier’s head split in two. (1/10)
Suggestion: I think if you are bored one night and this is on it would be acceptable to watch it as it slips close to the line of so bad you have to see. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: The idea
Worst Part: The CGI, Acting and Execution of the idea.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Actually has one sequel
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $10 Million
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Can mankind defeat the army of darkness unleashed by an ancient evil cult?
Overall: Not only did this film destroy the source material, it ruined any chance the video game had of returning.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/11/09/alone-in-the-dark-2005/
Actor Review
Christian Slater: Edward Carnby a paranormal investigator who has been trying to uncover the truth about his childhood, this puts him in danger as this time he has got closer than ever before. He must team up with his old organisation to final uncover the truth that has lost him the memories of his childhood. Slater strolls for this role without showing any of the skills that made him a star in the early 90s. (5/10)
slater
Tara Reid: Aline Cedrac assistant curator at the museum who also happens to be Edward’s girlfriend, she gets caught up in the middle of the battle after she uncover the location of the door. Going to take a deep breath before going for this one, just no how did this happen? Try your luck in romantic comedies. (2/10)
reid
Stephen Dorff: Commander Burke leader of a military team trying to keep the monsters away from the public, old partner of Edward but after seeing the truth he teams up with them to uncover the truth. Stephen can act and has proven it many times, just need to give him something to work with. (4/10)
dorff
Frank C Turner: Sam an old connection within the organisation that still communicates with Edward, he fills in the science gaps and you can guess what happens to him by the end. Basic supporting performance. (4/10)
fisher
Matthew Walker: Professor Hudgens scientist trying to open the door to the truth about the ancient people, he will do anything to get his answers including sacrificing anybody who gets in his way. As villains go this is generic one that doesn’t need too much to make them special. (4/10)
profes
Director Review: Uwe Boll – He not only managed to mess up a relatively easy story with awful CGI and lack of directing ideas. (2/10)
Action: Plenty of guns being fired, not sure if they ever hit anything as everything is in the pitch black. (3/10)
Horror: Doesn’t give you any scares, frights, well made with the acting. (1/10)
Settings: The settings used for the gun fights are used well, because they would make real settings for such a discover if someone wanted to keep it quiet. (6/10)
Special Effects: Terrible special effects that I only saw one good one and that was a soldier’s head split in two. (1/10)
Suggestion: I think if you are bored one night and this is on it would be acceptable to watch it as it slips close to the line of so bad you have to see. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: The idea
Worst Part: The CGI, Acting and Execution of the idea.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Actually has one sequel
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $10 Million
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Can mankind defeat the army of darkness unleashed by an ancient evil cult?
Overall: Not only did this film destroy the source material, it ruined any chance the video game had of returning.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/11/09/alone-in-the-dark-2005/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Zombieland: Double Tap (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Ten years is a long time in Hollywood. Ten years ago, to this day Avatar was yet to be released to the unsuspecting masses, with Titanic still reigning supreme over the global box-office and debutant director Ruben Fleischer surprised the cinema-going public with Zombieland.
Made on a tiny budget of just over $20million, it went on to gross over $100million globally and received unanimous praise. A sequel was widely expected in the years that followed but never materialised. That’s probably down to a few things; one being Emma Stone’s meteoric rise to fame, Jesse Eisenberg starring in some of the biggest and most celebrated films of the decade that followed and Woody Harrelson, well, being Woody Harrelson (that’s not a dig, we love you Woody).
Fleischer meanwhile went on to direct 30 Minutes or Less, Gangster Squad and Venom among a couple of other projects. The time for a Zombieland sequel came and went with the film’s core fanbase hoping that one day they’d get what they desired.
That day is now here with the release of Zombieland: Double Tap. With a cast of returning characters and the original director at the helm, things certainly look promising from a technical point of view, but has the ship sailed on getting this franchise off the ground?
Zombie slayers Tallahassee (Harrelson), Columbus (Eisenberg), Wichita (Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) square off against a newly evolved strain of the undead as well as combatting their own personal demons in an effort to survive the ongoing zombie apocalypse.
Despite the popularity of the film’s actors since its predecessor, it’s nice to see all of the lead cast slot back into their roles seamlessly. Granted they’re a little older than we last remember them, and a little wiser too, but these characters still retain the charm and humour that made the last movie such a success.
Harrelson remains the standout and that’s mainly down to a nicely written script, penned by Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick and Dave Callaham. Between them they’ve worked on films like Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla, Ant-Man, Deadpool and its sequel and Life. That’s a pretty impressive roster of films it has to be said.
Eisenberg and Stone are also nicely written with a good character arc that means we get to see opposing sides to their roles. Unfortunately, Breslin is underused throughout, reduced to a part that feels much more like a support role. Of the new characters introduced, Rosario Dawson and Zoey Deutch are thinly written but reasonably entertaining.
The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them
Thankfully, the script remains a real highlight over the brisk 99-minute run-time with some genuine hilarity. The screenplay’s attempts at emotion work reasonably well but fall flat on a couple of occasions – the basis of the previous film was its humour and no surprises, this is where the sequel excels.
It’s a nice film to look at too. While some of the landscapes look a little too artificial, the sweeping shots of desolate buildings and roads add a sense of scale that was sometimes lacking last time around. The opening sequence inside the White House is great to watch and sets up the rest of the film well.
Zombieland: Double Tap works best when our band of characters is bouncing off each other and it’s a good job as the zombie action is fleeting. Some action pieces are well choregraphed but for a film about the world being overrun by the undead, there’s a distinct lack of them. The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them until the final act and that’s a bit of a shame.
Nevertheless, Zombieland: Double Tap remains easy-to-watch and likeable throughout with a cracking cast of characters. Unfortunately, the world has moved on from 2009 and zombie films, TV shows and books are ten-a-penny nowadays (something nicely referenced at the beginning of the film) and while Zombieland 2 does an awful lot right, in the end it’s a decent sequel to a great film, and nothing more than that.
Stick around for a post-credits sequence that follows on from the predecessors “greatest cameo ever”.
Made on a tiny budget of just over $20million, it went on to gross over $100million globally and received unanimous praise. A sequel was widely expected in the years that followed but never materialised. That’s probably down to a few things; one being Emma Stone’s meteoric rise to fame, Jesse Eisenberg starring in some of the biggest and most celebrated films of the decade that followed and Woody Harrelson, well, being Woody Harrelson (that’s not a dig, we love you Woody).
Fleischer meanwhile went on to direct 30 Minutes or Less, Gangster Squad and Venom among a couple of other projects. The time for a Zombieland sequel came and went with the film’s core fanbase hoping that one day they’d get what they desired.
That day is now here with the release of Zombieland: Double Tap. With a cast of returning characters and the original director at the helm, things certainly look promising from a technical point of view, but has the ship sailed on getting this franchise off the ground?
Zombie slayers Tallahassee (Harrelson), Columbus (Eisenberg), Wichita (Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) square off against a newly evolved strain of the undead as well as combatting their own personal demons in an effort to survive the ongoing zombie apocalypse.
Despite the popularity of the film’s actors since its predecessor, it’s nice to see all of the lead cast slot back into their roles seamlessly. Granted they’re a little older than we last remember them, and a little wiser too, but these characters still retain the charm and humour that made the last movie such a success.
Harrelson remains the standout and that’s mainly down to a nicely written script, penned by Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick and Dave Callaham. Between them they’ve worked on films like Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla, Ant-Man, Deadpool and its sequel and Life. That’s a pretty impressive roster of films it has to be said.
Eisenberg and Stone are also nicely written with a good character arc that means we get to see opposing sides to their roles. Unfortunately, Breslin is underused throughout, reduced to a part that feels much more like a support role. Of the new characters introduced, Rosario Dawson and Zoey Deutch are thinly written but reasonably entertaining.
The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them
Thankfully, the script remains a real highlight over the brisk 99-minute run-time with some genuine hilarity. The screenplay’s attempts at emotion work reasonably well but fall flat on a couple of occasions – the basis of the previous film was its humour and no surprises, this is where the sequel excels.
It’s a nice film to look at too. While some of the landscapes look a little too artificial, the sweeping shots of desolate buildings and roads add a sense of scale that was sometimes lacking last time around. The opening sequence inside the White House is great to watch and sets up the rest of the film well.
Zombieland: Double Tap works best when our band of characters is bouncing off each other and it’s a good job as the zombie action is fleeting. Some action pieces are well choregraphed but for a film about the world being overrun by the undead, there’s a distinct lack of them. The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them until the final act and that’s a bit of a shame.
Nevertheless, Zombieland: Double Tap remains easy-to-watch and likeable throughout with a cracking cast of characters. Unfortunately, the world has moved on from 2009 and zombie films, TV shows and books are ten-a-penny nowadays (something nicely referenced at the beginning of the film) and while Zombieland 2 does an awful lot right, in the end it’s a decent sequel to a great film, and nothing more than that.
Stick around for a post-credits sequence that follows on from the predecessors “greatest cameo ever”.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Dec 19, 2018 (Updated Dec 19, 2018)
A wonderful movie
I have been really looking forward to seeing this movie. I, along with countless millions around the world, have fond memories of watching regular re-runs of Laurel & Hardy movies on TV, and they hold a very special place in so many people's hearts. Timeless legends that deserve to be remembered for generations to come. That being said, the preview screening I attended last night was probably only a quarter full, so I fear that this story detailing the latter part of their career isn't really going to appeal to mainstream audiences. I kind of hope it reignites interest in their work though as this truly is a wonderful film.
The movie begins in 1937, where Stan and Ollie are currently riding high as the most successful comedy performers in Hollywood. They're at Hal Roach studios, making their way to the set of Way Out West in order to shoot another scene. They're just chatting away together as we follow them - about their wives, about money. Stan's contract with Hal Roach is due to end shortly, while Ollie's isn't, and Stan is conscious of the fact that they don't actually own the rights to their own movies, so don't make as much money as performers such as Charlie Chaplin. He argues a bit with Hal Roach about it, before he and Ollie perform a song and dance number for the movie (the original clip of this scene is shown at the end of this movie, highlighting just how perfectly they nailed the recreation of it here). That short conversation, and the differing viewpoints regarding money and their film rights, lays the foundations for the rest of the movie, and we then jump forward 16 years.
The boys arrive in Newcastle, England in 1953. They're here to perform a tour of the UK, recreating classic scenes from their movies in an attempt to generate enough interest in them to get a movie made. A retelling of Robin Hood, which is being written by Stan. Age is clearly catching up with them though, particularly with Ollie, while Stan remains the driving force of the pair, constantly performing classic gags and coming up with new ideas. Unfortunately for them, they barely manage to fill half the seats of the theatres they perform in, with concern growing as to whether or not their eventual London dates will even go ahead. Their wives are due to join them on tour in a couple of weeks time, and they're also concerned as to what they'll make of it all when they arrive, especially as the boys are currently only staying in small, simple guest houses. Promoter Bernard Delfont (one of the movies funniest supporting roles) is keen to get them out and about promoting themselves, attending events and meeting dignitaries. His interests initially seem focused elsewhere in the theatre business, particularly with upcoming British comedy performer Norman Wisdom, so it's hard work generating interest in Laurel & Hardy once more. Luckily though, the effort pays off, and they eventually upgrade their London show to a bigger theatre, selling it out.
John C Reilly and Steve Coogan are just perfect as Stan and Ollie. I struggled a little at times with Steve Coogan, as I've been a big fan of his varied comedy work for nearly 30 years now, so found it a bit distracting. But he definitely pulls this off, and it's incredible to see so many mannerisms and iconic scenes from their movies so perfectly reproduced by both leads. The other outstanding and hilarious double act in this movie are the wives, who arrive in London to support their husbands and mix things up a little. They are clearly very caring and protective of their husbands though, supporting them through ill health, and an unfortunate falling out between Stan and Ollie related to events that occurred 16 years ago. A pivotal moment in their careers which was alluded to in the opening scenes of the movie, and further elaborated on in a number of flashbacks later on. It's a bit of an emotional roller-coaster, but overall this is a wonderfully heartwarming and moving love story about two of Hollywoods greatest. And it succeeded in making me want to watch every single one of their movies again.
The movie begins in 1937, where Stan and Ollie are currently riding high as the most successful comedy performers in Hollywood. They're at Hal Roach studios, making their way to the set of Way Out West in order to shoot another scene. They're just chatting away together as we follow them - about their wives, about money. Stan's contract with Hal Roach is due to end shortly, while Ollie's isn't, and Stan is conscious of the fact that they don't actually own the rights to their own movies, so don't make as much money as performers such as Charlie Chaplin. He argues a bit with Hal Roach about it, before he and Ollie perform a song and dance number for the movie (the original clip of this scene is shown at the end of this movie, highlighting just how perfectly they nailed the recreation of it here). That short conversation, and the differing viewpoints regarding money and their film rights, lays the foundations for the rest of the movie, and we then jump forward 16 years.
The boys arrive in Newcastle, England in 1953. They're here to perform a tour of the UK, recreating classic scenes from their movies in an attempt to generate enough interest in them to get a movie made. A retelling of Robin Hood, which is being written by Stan. Age is clearly catching up with them though, particularly with Ollie, while Stan remains the driving force of the pair, constantly performing classic gags and coming up with new ideas. Unfortunately for them, they barely manage to fill half the seats of the theatres they perform in, with concern growing as to whether or not their eventual London dates will even go ahead. Their wives are due to join them on tour in a couple of weeks time, and they're also concerned as to what they'll make of it all when they arrive, especially as the boys are currently only staying in small, simple guest houses. Promoter Bernard Delfont (one of the movies funniest supporting roles) is keen to get them out and about promoting themselves, attending events and meeting dignitaries. His interests initially seem focused elsewhere in the theatre business, particularly with upcoming British comedy performer Norman Wisdom, so it's hard work generating interest in Laurel & Hardy once more. Luckily though, the effort pays off, and they eventually upgrade their London show to a bigger theatre, selling it out.
John C Reilly and Steve Coogan are just perfect as Stan and Ollie. I struggled a little at times with Steve Coogan, as I've been a big fan of his varied comedy work for nearly 30 years now, so found it a bit distracting. But he definitely pulls this off, and it's incredible to see so many mannerisms and iconic scenes from their movies so perfectly reproduced by both leads. The other outstanding and hilarious double act in this movie are the wives, who arrive in London to support their husbands and mix things up a little. They are clearly very caring and protective of their husbands though, supporting them through ill health, and an unfortunate falling out between Stan and Ollie related to events that occurred 16 years ago. A pivotal moment in their careers which was alluded to in the opening scenes of the movie, and further elaborated on in a number of flashbacks later on. It's a bit of an emotional roller-coaster, but overall this is a wonderfully heartwarming and moving love story about two of Hollywoods greatest. And it succeeded in making me want to watch every single one of their movies again.