Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Lego Batman Movie (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
You know a movie is going to be hilarious when you find yourself laughing
out loud before the beginning credits start.
It’s no surprise a second film was in development after the massive success
of the first LEGO movie in 2014. The lengthy list of Batman movies/TV
shows that have existed–yes, this film actually addresses each one–always
ask the questions, but never quite answers them. The LEGO Batman movie
will answer them all for you in the best way LEGO movies can–with major
master builder craftsmanship, sarcasm, and slapstick humor.
In serious denial about his loneliness, Batman (Will Arnett) spends most of
his days saving Gotham from the Joker(Zach Gilfianakis), eating alone, and
watching sappy romantic comedies. He never lets anyone get close enough to
him for fear that he will lose them just like he lost his parents when he
was a young boy.
Commissioner Jim Gordon (Hector Elizondo) retires thus handing the baton
and Bat signal over to his daughter, Barbara Gordon (Rosario Dawson). The
newly appointed commissioner decides that Gotham Police Department should
take a more involved approach instead of just relying on one person to
fight crime. Of course, Batman isn’t having it—he works alone!
By this point in the film, Batman has managed to adopt a son, Dick Grayson
(Michael Cera), released the kracken on some of movies most notorious (some
forgettable) villains, and broken up one of the greatest relationships ever
to exist. I don’t want to give away too much because there are some great
cameos.
In true LEGO spirit, this movie addresses the importance of relationships,
working together, being part of a team, and trust. Batman is such an
important character to pop culture–we all have our own interpretation of
him–our ideals, our definition of a hero, and our own moral choices. It’s
nice to have this refreshing and comical take with way more depth,
creativity, and character development than we’ve seen from some of DCs
latest feature films. If you’re not too big on delving into the dark side
and complexity of Batman, don’t fret. Just sit back, relax, laugh, and
enjoy a wonderful movie for the whole family. Be sure and stay till the
end to watch the credits. The reason we all have come to love Batman
throughout the years is addressed and appreciated.
out loud before the beginning credits start.
It’s no surprise a second film was in development after the massive success
of the first LEGO movie in 2014. The lengthy list of Batman movies/TV
shows that have existed–yes, this film actually addresses each one–always
ask the questions, but never quite answers them. The LEGO Batman movie
will answer them all for you in the best way LEGO movies can–with major
master builder craftsmanship, sarcasm, and slapstick humor.
In serious denial about his loneliness, Batman (Will Arnett) spends most of
his days saving Gotham from the Joker(Zach Gilfianakis), eating alone, and
watching sappy romantic comedies. He never lets anyone get close enough to
him for fear that he will lose them just like he lost his parents when he
was a young boy.
Commissioner Jim Gordon (Hector Elizondo) retires thus handing the baton
and Bat signal over to his daughter, Barbara Gordon (Rosario Dawson). The
newly appointed commissioner decides that Gotham Police Department should
take a more involved approach instead of just relying on one person to
fight crime. Of course, Batman isn’t having it—he works alone!
By this point in the film, Batman has managed to adopt a son, Dick Grayson
(Michael Cera), released the kracken on some of movies most notorious (some
forgettable) villains, and broken up one of the greatest relationships ever
to exist. I don’t want to give away too much because there are some great
cameos.
In true LEGO spirit, this movie addresses the importance of relationships,
working together, being part of a team, and trust. Batman is such an
important character to pop culture–we all have our own interpretation of
him–our ideals, our definition of a hero, and our own moral choices. It’s
nice to have this refreshing and comical take with way more depth,
creativity, and character development than we’ve seen from some of DCs
latest feature films. If you’re not too big on delving into the dark side
and complexity of Batman, don’t fret. Just sit back, relax, laugh, and
enjoy a wonderful movie for the whole family. Be sure and stay till the
end to watch the credits. The reason we all have come to love Batman
throughout the years is addressed and appreciated.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Crazy Rich Asians (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Singapore Bling.
I’ve been catching up on films that I missed at the cinema during 2018. And this is one of the ones I most wanted to see but missed due to work commitments.
The Plot.
Rachel (Constance Wu) and Nick (Henry Golding) are young New Yorker professionals in love: Rachel is a successful economics professor and Nick… well, I’m not sure we ever find out what Nick ever does for a job, but his dress and confidence imply he’s doing well. Nick has an announcement: that his best friend Colin (Chris Pang) is getting married in Singapore and he invites Rachel to join him and meet his parents.
The trip discloses something previously hidden to Rachel: that Nick is actually heir to one of the richest families in Singapore. Indeed, as they got their money from property, the family effectively BUILT Singapore! But once in Singapore, life becomes hard for Rachel. She has to deal with the “not good enough for my Nick” disapproval of Nick’s family (led by Nick’s mother, the imperious Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh). Not only that, but thanks to Nick’s eligible-batchelor status and the pervasive nature of social media, everyone in Singapore knows about Nick and Rachel. As such, many of the ‘hens’ of Colin’s fiancee Araminta have it in for Rachel. (Araminta is played by Sonoya Mizuno, so memorable in “Ex Machina“).
Layers of rich characters.
This is not your average rom-com. Because here there’s a depth of characters within Nick’s broader family to entertain, each with their own set of quirks and issues. The dynamic of the family matriarch, grandmother (Lisa Lu), with the rest of the family is also fascinating; Friend or foe for Rachel? – it’s often difficult to tell.
Also entertaining is the introduction of Rachel’s old college room-mate Peil Lin Goh (a superbly over-the-top bonkers performance by Awkwafina) and her ‘nouveau-riche’ family. Her father (Ken Jeong) is simply hilarious in a bat-shit crazy sort of way.
But it’s the two engaging leads that impress most, particularly Henry Golding. Prior to this – his debut movie role – he was a Malaysian TV travel reporter! (He of course followed this performance up a month later with his equally impressive role as Blake Lively’s husband in “A Simple Favour“).
As sponsored by the Singapore tourist board.
Much of the action could be lifted from “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, “Meet the Parents” or “Mean Girls”. But it’s all given a refreshing asian facelift with its Singapore setting.
Singapore is one of my favourite cities: safe, clean and vibrant and with drop-dead gorgeous architecture. And I actually saw this movie while flying back out of Singapore itself. As such, I reflected on just what a great promotional flick for the tourist industry it was. From the wedding party at the Gardens by the Bay to the utterly jaw-dropping infinity pool at the “ship-hotel” (the Marina Bay Sands hotel, featured through a stunning fireworks-infused drone shot), all convey the excitement of the place.
A fun feel-good classic.
What’s impressive about the sharp writing is that this is the movie screenplay debut for co-writers Peter Chiarelli and Adele Lim. It’s a movie that makes you occasionally sit up and go ‘wow’. As an example, there’s a quirky ‘social media tsunami’ scene in the first 10 minutes. But the movie then builds with character-development stories that, while not particularly novel, are engagingly well-written and well delivered by the enthusiastic ensemble cast.
The director is John M Chu, whose less-than-stellar CV includes “GI: Joe” and “Now You See Me 2”, but here delivers a breathless momentum that lasts to the final scene.
The perfect wife and the perfect husband? Michael (Pierre Png), the boy who married well (which feels a plot borrowed from “Lost”), with the lovely Astrid (Gemma Chan). (Source: Warner Brothers).
And it’s that denouement that got to me. I don’t tend to get slushy about these sort of romantic comedies. But there’s a “reveal” in the final few minutes of the movie that completely surprised me (even though it should have been obvious!). It actually made me well-up!
It didn’t make a big dent in the awards nominations. But for fans of quirky romantic comedies it’s a recommended watch. It’s really difficult to dislike!
The Plot.
Rachel (Constance Wu) and Nick (Henry Golding) are young New Yorker professionals in love: Rachel is a successful economics professor and Nick… well, I’m not sure we ever find out what Nick ever does for a job, but his dress and confidence imply he’s doing well. Nick has an announcement: that his best friend Colin (Chris Pang) is getting married in Singapore and he invites Rachel to join him and meet his parents.
The trip discloses something previously hidden to Rachel: that Nick is actually heir to one of the richest families in Singapore. Indeed, as they got their money from property, the family effectively BUILT Singapore! But once in Singapore, life becomes hard for Rachel. She has to deal with the “not good enough for my Nick” disapproval of Nick’s family (led by Nick’s mother, the imperious Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh). Not only that, but thanks to Nick’s eligible-batchelor status and the pervasive nature of social media, everyone in Singapore knows about Nick and Rachel. As such, many of the ‘hens’ of Colin’s fiancee Araminta have it in for Rachel. (Araminta is played by Sonoya Mizuno, so memorable in “Ex Machina“).
Layers of rich characters.
This is not your average rom-com. Because here there’s a depth of characters within Nick’s broader family to entertain, each with their own set of quirks and issues. The dynamic of the family matriarch, grandmother (Lisa Lu), with the rest of the family is also fascinating; Friend or foe for Rachel? – it’s often difficult to tell.
Also entertaining is the introduction of Rachel’s old college room-mate Peil Lin Goh (a superbly over-the-top bonkers performance by Awkwafina) and her ‘nouveau-riche’ family. Her father (Ken Jeong) is simply hilarious in a bat-shit crazy sort of way.
But it’s the two engaging leads that impress most, particularly Henry Golding. Prior to this – his debut movie role – he was a Malaysian TV travel reporter! (He of course followed this performance up a month later with his equally impressive role as Blake Lively’s husband in “A Simple Favour“).
As sponsored by the Singapore tourist board.
Much of the action could be lifted from “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, “Meet the Parents” or “Mean Girls”. But it’s all given a refreshing asian facelift with its Singapore setting.
Singapore is one of my favourite cities: safe, clean and vibrant and with drop-dead gorgeous architecture. And I actually saw this movie while flying back out of Singapore itself. As such, I reflected on just what a great promotional flick for the tourist industry it was. From the wedding party at the Gardens by the Bay to the utterly jaw-dropping infinity pool at the “ship-hotel” (the Marina Bay Sands hotel, featured through a stunning fireworks-infused drone shot), all convey the excitement of the place.
A fun feel-good classic.
What’s impressive about the sharp writing is that this is the movie screenplay debut for co-writers Peter Chiarelli and Adele Lim. It’s a movie that makes you occasionally sit up and go ‘wow’. As an example, there’s a quirky ‘social media tsunami’ scene in the first 10 minutes. But the movie then builds with character-development stories that, while not particularly novel, are engagingly well-written and well delivered by the enthusiastic ensemble cast.
The director is John M Chu, whose less-than-stellar CV includes “GI: Joe” and “Now You See Me 2”, but here delivers a breathless momentum that lasts to the final scene.
The perfect wife and the perfect husband? Michael (Pierre Png), the boy who married well (which feels a plot borrowed from “Lost”), with the lovely Astrid (Gemma Chan). (Source: Warner Brothers).
And it’s that denouement that got to me. I don’t tend to get slushy about these sort of romantic comedies. But there’s a “reveal” in the final few minutes of the movie that completely surprised me (even though it should have been obvious!). It actually made me well-up!
It didn’t make a big dent in the awards nominations. But for fans of quirky romantic comedies it’s a recommended watch. It’s really difficult to dislike!
Lee (2222 KP) rated The House (2017) in Movies
Jul 14, 2017
Worst movie I've seen in a very, very long time
Usually when I review comedies I start off by complaining about how disappointing they tend to be these days. Sometimes they manage to prove me wrong (Bad Moms), sometimes they’re not quite as bad as I was expecting (Baywatch). The last time I was seriously annoyed about how bad a comedy was it was Office Christmas Party, but even then that managed to raise a laugh or two. The House though, well that goes way beyond that, taking it to a whole other level by having absolutely no laughs in it at all!
Will Ferrell is Scott, Amy Poehler is his wife Kate. When their daughter Alex gets into the university she wanted, they’re over the moon. Especially as the town runs some kind of scholarship program, paying for one lucky students education each year. This years lucky recipient is due to be Alex but when sleazy city councilman Bob decides to cancel the program in favour of building a huge pool for the town, Scott and Kate need to come up with another way of raising the money. Recently divorced neighbour Frank has a big empty house and between them they hit upon the idea of building a casino in his home, somewhere for the locals to come and spend all their money. Things go well for a while, then things get way out of hand. Cue the opportunity for some riotous, hilarious humour…
Only there’s none of that. It’s riotous, but this is just such a lazily written movie that the humour is non-existent. Featuring a date rape ‘gag’ within the first five minutes(?!) it just gets progressively worse from there. Pointless, nonsensical playground style bickering, name calling and random violence feature heavily throughout in a scatter-gun attempt at trying to raise a laugh. All of this ends up coming across as either poorly written, badly improvised, or both. Even the editing is a total disaster – in one scene Amy Poehler has a guy standing right behind her, cut to another camera and he’s gone, cut back and he’s there again, cut back and he’s gone!
The biggest disappointment about this is the complete waste of talent. Admittedly, Will Ferrell is on a downward spiral anyway since his Anchorman days and the brilliant Step Brothers, but you’d still expect more from him than this. One of my favourite TV shows, Parks and Recreation, stars Amy Poehler as the hilarious Leslie Knope, so I’d expect way more from her too. Even her movie roles haven’t been too bad so far. I guess it just proves that if you’ve got a seriously dud script on your hands, there isn’t really much that anyone can do to fix it. This isn’t just a bad comedy, it’s a bad, bad movie.
Will Ferrell is Scott, Amy Poehler is his wife Kate. When their daughter Alex gets into the university she wanted, they’re over the moon. Especially as the town runs some kind of scholarship program, paying for one lucky students education each year. This years lucky recipient is due to be Alex but when sleazy city councilman Bob decides to cancel the program in favour of building a huge pool for the town, Scott and Kate need to come up with another way of raising the money. Recently divorced neighbour Frank has a big empty house and between them they hit upon the idea of building a casino in his home, somewhere for the locals to come and spend all their money. Things go well for a while, then things get way out of hand. Cue the opportunity for some riotous, hilarious humour…
Only there’s none of that. It’s riotous, but this is just such a lazily written movie that the humour is non-existent. Featuring a date rape ‘gag’ within the first five minutes(?!) it just gets progressively worse from there. Pointless, nonsensical playground style bickering, name calling and random violence feature heavily throughout in a scatter-gun attempt at trying to raise a laugh. All of this ends up coming across as either poorly written, badly improvised, or both. Even the editing is a total disaster – in one scene Amy Poehler has a guy standing right behind her, cut to another camera and he’s gone, cut back and he’s there again, cut back and he’s gone!
The biggest disappointment about this is the complete waste of talent. Admittedly, Will Ferrell is on a downward spiral anyway since his Anchorman days and the brilliant Step Brothers, but you’d still expect more from him than this. One of my favourite TV shows, Parks and Recreation, stars Amy Poehler as the hilarious Leslie Knope, so I’d expect way more from her too. Even her movie roles haven’t been too bad so far. I guess it just proves that if you’ve got a seriously dud script on your hands, there isn’t really much that anyone can do to fix it. This isn’t just a bad comedy, it’s a bad, bad movie.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Greatest Beer Run Ever (2022) in Movies
Oct 10, 2022
Touched Me In The End
The new Apple TV+ original film THE GREATEST BEER RUN EVER is being advertised as kind of a “wacky buddy comedy” with a bunch of New York slackers looking for beer in Viet Nam.
This advertisement is doing this film a great disservice for this movie is much, much more than that and deserves some attention - and eyeballs looking at it.
Starring Zach Efron (who has turned into an actor who is much, much more than Troy Bolton of HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL fame) and directed by Peter Farrelly (one of the Farrelly brothers that brought you such comedies as THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY and KINGPIN), THE GREATEST BEER RUN EVER tells the tale of a New Yorker in the late 1960’s who is big on talk and little on action. To shut those around him up, Chickie Donohue (Efron) decides to bring his buddies that are fighting in Viet Nam some beer from home. What starts out as a lark, evolves into something much more serious…and meaningful…for both Chickie and the audience.
Efron is quite good in the central role as Chickie and this film needs his inherent charisma in the center of this film as he is in every scene. Efron exudes goodness and sincerity even though, at times, he his speaking out of the sides of his mouth - or a place much further down his anatomy. And, as his character learns more and more about what is really going on in the war in Vietnam, his bravado and bluster fade and we get a glimpse of the real person underneath who is horrified by what he sees in this war.
Russell Crowe - who is finding a career renaissance in Supporting Roles - is strong (naturally) as a war photographer who befriends Chickie and takes him under his wing while the myriad of young, unknown actors who play Chickie’s friends scattered across various theaters of action in Viet Nam are appropriately played as folks who think what Chickie is doing is hilarious to those who are horrified that Chickie would voluntarily enter this war zone.
The tone of the film shifts from fun and silly to deep and meaningful throughout it’s 2 hour, 6 minute run-time, all under the watchful eye of Farrelly. He really has a handle on the deeper war-torn aspects of this film, while he (purposefully, I would imagine) shies away from his expected comedy and zaniness that could have been the first part of this movie. IMHO, Farrelly could have imparted some more zaniness at the start - to give the film a better kickstart (the beginning is a little slow) while also more starkly contrasting the beginning and end of the film - and the change in Chickie because of this experience.
I was drawn in - and touched - by the latter part of this BEER RUN and would strongly encourage everyone to check out this fine film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This advertisement is doing this film a great disservice for this movie is much, much more than that and deserves some attention - and eyeballs looking at it.
Starring Zach Efron (who has turned into an actor who is much, much more than Troy Bolton of HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL fame) and directed by Peter Farrelly (one of the Farrelly brothers that brought you such comedies as THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY and KINGPIN), THE GREATEST BEER RUN EVER tells the tale of a New Yorker in the late 1960’s who is big on talk and little on action. To shut those around him up, Chickie Donohue (Efron) decides to bring his buddies that are fighting in Viet Nam some beer from home. What starts out as a lark, evolves into something much more serious…and meaningful…for both Chickie and the audience.
Efron is quite good in the central role as Chickie and this film needs his inherent charisma in the center of this film as he is in every scene. Efron exudes goodness and sincerity even though, at times, he his speaking out of the sides of his mouth - or a place much further down his anatomy. And, as his character learns more and more about what is really going on in the war in Vietnam, his bravado and bluster fade and we get a glimpse of the real person underneath who is horrified by what he sees in this war.
Russell Crowe - who is finding a career renaissance in Supporting Roles - is strong (naturally) as a war photographer who befriends Chickie and takes him under his wing while the myriad of young, unknown actors who play Chickie’s friends scattered across various theaters of action in Viet Nam are appropriately played as folks who think what Chickie is doing is hilarious to those who are horrified that Chickie would voluntarily enter this war zone.
The tone of the film shifts from fun and silly to deep and meaningful throughout it’s 2 hour, 6 minute run-time, all under the watchful eye of Farrelly. He really has a handle on the deeper war-torn aspects of this film, while he (purposefully, I would imagine) shies away from his expected comedy and zaniness that could have been the first part of this movie. IMHO, Farrelly could have imparted some more zaniness at the start - to give the film a better kickstart (the beginning is a little slow) while also more starkly contrasting the beginning and end of the film - and the change in Chickie because of this experience.
I was drawn in - and touched - by the latter part of this BEER RUN and would strongly encourage everyone to check out this fine film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) in Movies
Mar 15, 2021
A classic
Film #16 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Monty Python’s Life of Brian
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
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.
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/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Colossal (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Marvel-ous Indie Movie
Well!! I’ve been really surprised (in a good way) by two films this year, and both have involved monsters (the first being “A Monster Calls” back in January).
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated 22 Jump Street (2014) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019 (Updated Jun 29, 2019)
22 Jump Street is ingeniously self-aware. (3 more)
It's a fun film with lots of laughs and good action.
Channing Tatum and Ice Cube are both hilarious.
It ends with an unforgettably awesome credits sequence.
22 Jump Street may be a familiar foray, but this summer bromance still manages to be loads of fun and is without a doubt one of the funniest movies of the year.
Officers Schmidt and Jenko are back again for the biggest bromance of the summer. Previously on the film 21 Jump Street, this pair of police officers went undercover, disguised as high school students, to stop the spread of a new drug that was being distributed throughout the campus. Their mission was a success, and now the buddy cop duo returns with a new assignment – or actually the same assignment – but this time they’re going to college! 22 Jump Street has essentially the same exact premise as its predecessor and shamelessly spares no expense in letting you know it. It’s a running joke throughout the film with characters blatantly reminding you of the similarities. It may be a familiar foray, but 22 Jump Street still manages to be loads of fun and is without a doubt one of the funniest movies of the year.
One of the strengths of 22 Jump Street is that it never takes itself too seriously. Right off the bat, it sarcastically sets the stage through a cheesy and overly-dramatic recap of the first film that feels like it’s straight out of a ‘90s TV series. The movie continues to poke fun at itself every step of the way, reminding you that the creators are very much in on the joke. Rather than coming off as a lazy rehash, 22 Jump Street’s self-awareness makes it feel fresh and inviting. The whole movie plays out like a fourth-wall-breaking inside-joke between the actors and the audience. It openly acknowledges that it’s silly and redundant, but in doing so, it encourages us to put that aside and just sit back and have a good time. All in all, I most certainly did have a good time, and 22 Jump Street ended up being far more funny and enjoyable than I ever expected.
As much as I liked the movie, I have to say that it’s awfully heavy on the bromance. Many of the jokes revolve around the relationship between Jonah Hill’s Schmidt and Channing Tatum’s Jenko, and it gets to be pretty excessive and overdone. While Schmidt struggles to fit in at college, Jenko is accepted with open arms and quickly befriends the star quarterback Zook, played by Wyatt Russell, who recruits him to join the university football team. This puts a serious strain on Schmidt and Jenko’s friendship, and the film revels in their troubled relationship, portraying them like a bickering couple. The problem, however, is that it continuously stresses this bromance to the point where it becomes more awkward than funny. Additionally, as Schmidt feels more and more out of place without Jenko, I think Jonah Hill similarly falls more and more out of place in this film.
Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum make for an adequate comedic pair, however I find that Hill struggles in scenes without his co-star. While I respect Hill as an actor, it’s Tatum that truly carries the film, further establishing himself as a Hollywood star. He’s not only the funnier of the two, but he’s also highly entertaining and a perfect fit for an action star. He’s a natural in the movie’s comical action sequences, which include car chases, shootouts, and a well-choreographed fight scene on the beaches of Cancun. The movie drags on through Hill’s mopey solo scenes, only to be reinvigorated by Tatum’s humor and enthusiasm. Though the two of them play well together, I can’t help but feel like perhaps Hill should consider sticking to more dramatic roles.
While some of Hill’s attempts at humor fall flat, most of the comedy in the movie does work. Ice Cube is a stand-out in his return as police captain Dickson and his short temper creates some of the movie’s more memorable scenes. Meanwhile Tatum’s Jenko makes for a perfectly lovable and amusing airhead. The movie is chock-full of clever self-referential jokes and has an elaborate credits scene that expertly basks in its own egotism. 22 Jump Street is a movie that knows full well what it is and is proud of it.
22 Jump Street may be more of the same, but it’s completely content with that and wagers that you will be too. It’s a fun and comical adventure through college, and is coincidentally one of the best comedies of the year.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 12.2.14.)
One of the strengths of 22 Jump Street is that it never takes itself too seriously. Right off the bat, it sarcastically sets the stage through a cheesy and overly-dramatic recap of the first film that feels like it’s straight out of a ‘90s TV series. The movie continues to poke fun at itself every step of the way, reminding you that the creators are very much in on the joke. Rather than coming off as a lazy rehash, 22 Jump Street’s self-awareness makes it feel fresh and inviting. The whole movie plays out like a fourth-wall-breaking inside-joke between the actors and the audience. It openly acknowledges that it’s silly and redundant, but in doing so, it encourages us to put that aside and just sit back and have a good time. All in all, I most certainly did have a good time, and 22 Jump Street ended up being far more funny and enjoyable than I ever expected.
As much as I liked the movie, I have to say that it’s awfully heavy on the bromance. Many of the jokes revolve around the relationship between Jonah Hill’s Schmidt and Channing Tatum’s Jenko, and it gets to be pretty excessive and overdone. While Schmidt struggles to fit in at college, Jenko is accepted with open arms and quickly befriends the star quarterback Zook, played by Wyatt Russell, who recruits him to join the university football team. This puts a serious strain on Schmidt and Jenko’s friendship, and the film revels in their troubled relationship, portraying them like a bickering couple. The problem, however, is that it continuously stresses this bromance to the point where it becomes more awkward than funny. Additionally, as Schmidt feels more and more out of place without Jenko, I think Jonah Hill similarly falls more and more out of place in this film.
Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum make for an adequate comedic pair, however I find that Hill struggles in scenes without his co-star. While I respect Hill as an actor, it’s Tatum that truly carries the film, further establishing himself as a Hollywood star. He’s not only the funnier of the two, but he’s also highly entertaining and a perfect fit for an action star. He’s a natural in the movie’s comical action sequences, which include car chases, shootouts, and a well-choreographed fight scene on the beaches of Cancun. The movie drags on through Hill’s mopey solo scenes, only to be reinvigorated by Tatum’s humor and enthusiasm. Though the two of them play well together, I can’t help but feel like perhaps Hill should consider sticking to more dramatic roles.
While some of Hill’s attempts at humor fall flat, most of the comedy in the movie does work. Ice Cube is a stand-out in his return as police captain Dickson and his short temper creates some of the movie’s more memorable scenes. Meanwhile Tatum’s Jenko makes for a perfectly lovable and amusing airhead. The movie is chock-full of clever self-referential jokes and has an elaborate credits scene that expertly basks in its own egotism. 22 Jump Street is a movie that knows full well what it is and is proud of it.
22 Jump Street may be more of the same, but it’s completely content with that and wagers that you will be too. It’s a fun and comical adventure through college, and is coincidentally one of the best comedies of the year.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 12.2.14.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.