Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Copshop (2021) in Movies
Sep 15, 2021
Ludicrous plot points ruin a promising actioner.
Teddy Murretto (Frank Grillo) is arrested after deliberately punching dedicated rookie cop Valerie Young (Alexis Louder) and incarcerated within Gun Creek City police station. Soon after, Bob Viddick (Gerard Butler) is dumped in the opposite cell for drunk driving. It’s clear both men intended to end up there, but why?
The wheels come off the night big time though when the psychopathic Anthony Lamb (Toby Huss) arrives, having the same mission as Viddick.
Positives:
- While the three male leads have fun with their roles, the star of the show for me was the (unknown to me) Alexis Louder. She delivers a really strong performance here, with a confident stillness in some of her close-ups.
- There are a number of nice lines in the script, some of which made me laugh out loud, which I wasn't expecting to do.
- As a 'park your brain at the door' shoot-em-up, the ending is fun, similar in many ways I thought to the claustrophobic violence of "Free Fire".
Negatives:
- Here's YET another example of a script that is downright insulting to the audience's intelligence. There are some genuine "WTF" moments in this script. I can't go into details without dropping spoilers, but the biggest of these - you'll know it when you see it - is a genuine "HANG ON A MINUTE!!!" moment.
- The sound mix drowns out a lot of the (already drawly and indistinct) dialogue with the incessant music. It's really difficult to pick up on some of the lines.
- There's something surprisingly 'retro' about the whole movie, right down to the use of split-screen at the end. The titles feel as if they were from a 70's TV show like Kojak. I could imagine this would work well... if the movie had actually been set in the 70's!
Summary Thoughts on "Copshop": There's almost a good little action film buried in here struggling to get out. Alexis Louder makes a very positive impression with the best parts of the film happening when she is verbally sparring with Butler. But a good action movie needs to keep things credible, albeit on the edge of credibility (e.g. John McClane's lift shaft fall in "Die Hard" is very much on the boundary, if a little over it). Thanks to some ludicrous decisions within the script, this one lost all credibility for me and took me right out of the story.
(For the full graphical and video reviews, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
The wheels come off the night big time though when the psychopathic Anthony Lamb (Toby Huss) arrives, having the same mission as Viddick.
Positives:
- While the three male leads have fun with their roles, the star of the show for me was the (unknown to me) Alexis Louder. She delivers a really strong performance here, with a confident stillness in some of her close-ups.
- There are a number of nice lines in the script, some of which made me laugh out loud, which I wasn't expecting to do.
- As a 'park your brain at the door' shoot-em-up, the ending is fun, similar in many ways I thought to the claustrophobic violence of "Free Fire".
Negatives:
- Here's YET another example of a script that is downright insulting to the audience's intelligence. There are some genuine "WTF" moments in this script. I can't go into details without dropping spoilers, but the biggest of these - you'll know it when you see it - is a genuine "HANG ON A MINUTE!!!" moment.
- The sound mix drowns out a lot of the (already drawly and indistinct) dialogue with the incessant music. It's really difficult to pick up on some of the lines.
- There's something surprisingly 'retro' about the whole movie, right down to the use of split-screen at the end. The titles feel as if they were from a 70's TV show like Kojak. I could imagine this would work well... if the movie had actually been set in the 70's!
Summary Thoughts on "Copshop": There's almost a good little action film buried in here struggling to get out. Alexis Louder makes a very positive impression with the best parts of the film happening when she is verbally sparring with Butler. But a good action movie needs to keep things credible, albeit on the edge of credibility (e.g. John McClane's lift shaft fall in "Die Hard" is very much on the boundary, if a little over it). Thanks to some ludicrous decisions within the script, this one lost all credibility for me and took me right out of the story.
(For the full graphical and video reviews, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
Illeana Douglas recommended Easy Rider (1969) in Movies (curated)
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!
Steve Fearon (84 KP) rated Lake Placid (1999) in Movies
Sep 5, 2018
The Toothless Croc Adventure that bit off more than it could chew
If you are big horror fan, like I am, then you will no doubt have seen and loved Jaws at some point.
The spectacular fear of something huge and unseen in the water, a perfectly evolved marine predator capable of tremendous power and speed, with a jaw size capable of cutting you in half.
Jaws hit on a very primal fear, that there is an unreasoning, prehistoric simplicity to the shark, that reminds us that until the last few thousand years, we were just another form of food for many creatures on this planet, and that we could be again, in the right circumstances.
It is this fear that also informs our love of Zombie movies, our disgust at cannibals and keeps us watching endless episodes of dirty, tired-looking people arguing in 'The Walking Dead'.
Where Jaws created a whole genre of horror in 'Killer Shark' movies, their reptilian counterparts have had to make do with a somewhat less successful series of outings, with Alligator, Croc etc
They just haven't quite hit our imagination in the same way, whether that be because of their comical waddle on land, or having watched an excited Australian man jumping all over them on TV (RIP Steve Irwin)...
Regardless, Lake Placid is the one that most remember from recent history, and having listened to a 'Horrow Show' Podcast on the film recently, I mentioned to my better half I wouldn't mind seeing it again, to see if it is as bad as it sounded.
Well last night, said better half suggested we watch it and boy oh boy...
So first off, Brendan Gleeson was by far the best thing about this movie, his one liners and grumpy demeanor were, for long periods, the best thing about this movie, shortly followed by the hilarious Betty White.
Stan Winstone, legendary physical creature effects maestro turns in some great stuff, and when they are dealing withe the physical creature, it is very effective but all too often they resort to CGI, which is passable but still tends to take you out of the moment..
Oliver Platt's casting as a crocodile expert playboy is amusing at first, then confusing and eventually just...well not laughable exactly as it isnt very funny, but strange certainly.
The movie languishes for long periods, focusing on the incredibly inert chemistry between leading lady Fonda, and wooden cardboard cut out Pullman, giving you poorly written rom com scripts where we signed up to see a giant Croc eat people.
Long story short, this movie is light on tension and action, heavy on clumsy exposition and strange casting choices, and it a poor relation to Jaws, which is more worthy of your time.
The spectacular fear of something huge and unseen in the water, a perfectly evolved marine predator capable of tremendous power and speed, with a jaw size capable of cutting you in half.
Jaws hit on a very primal fear, that there is an unreasoning, prehistoric simplicity to the shark, that reminds us that until the last few thousand years, we were just another form of food for many creatures on this planet, and that we could be again, in the right circumstances.
It is this fear that also informs our love of Zombie movies, our disgust at cannibals and keeps us watching endless episodes of dirty, tired-looking people arguing in 'The Walking Dead'.
Where Jaws created a whole genre of horror in 'Killer Shark' movies, their reptilian counterparts have had to make do with a somewhat less successful series of outings, with Alligator, Croc etc
They just haven't quite hit our imagination in the same way, whether that be because of their comical waddle on land, or having watched an excited Australian man jumping all over them on TV (RIP Steve Irwin)...
Regardless, Lake Placid is the one that most remember from recent history, and having listened to a 'Horrow Show' Podcast on the film recently, I mentioned to my better half I wouldn't mind seeing it again, to see if it is as bad as it sounded.
Well last night, said better half suggested we watch it and boy oh boy...
So first off, Brendan Gleeson was by far the best thing about this movie, his one liners and grumpy demeanor were, for long periods, the best thing about this movie, shortly followed by the hilarious Betty White.
Stan Winstone, legendary physical creature effects maestro turns in some great stuff, and when they are dealing withe the physical creature, it is very effective but all too often they resort to CGI, which is passable but still tends to take you out of the moment..
Oliver Platt's casting as a crocodile expert playboy is amusing at first, then confusing and eventually just...well not laughable exactly as it isnt very funny, but strange certainly.
The movie languishes for long periods, focusing on the incredibly inert chemistry between leading lady Fonda, and wooden cardboard cut out Pullman, giving you poorly written rom com scripts where we signed up to see a giant Croc eat people.
Long story short, this movie is light on tension and action, heavy on clumsy exposition and strange casting choices, and it a poor relation to Jaws, which is more worthy of your time.
Tapzo: Cabs, Food, Recharge
Lifestyle and Travel
App
Tapzo, India's first All-in-One App : Recharge prepaid mobile & DTH, Pay postpaid mobile,...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated BEING THE RICARDOS (2021) in Movies
Jan 14, 2022
Superb "A" plot, Boring "B" plot
When I first heard that Nicole Kidman (of all people) was set to play Lucille Ball in a bio-pic (of sorts), I was suspect over the casting.
Darned if she doesn’t pull it off.
Written and Directed by Aaron Sorkin, BEING THE RICARDOS isn’t, exactly, a bio-pic of Lucy, but rather it tells the tale of a pivotal week in the life of Lucy and her husband Desi Arnaz (Javier Bardem) as Lucy deals with infidelity issues with Desi and accusations of being a Communist from the House UnAmerican activities committee all while trying to put on her weekly TV show. Oh…and it also shows, in flashback, Lucy and Desi’s courtship.
This is a lot to pack-in in one film and this movie almost manages to do it well.
Let’s start with the performances. Kidman is excellent as Lucy - especially as she recreates the Lucille Ball we know on-screen. She has the pattern and physicality of the TV star down and recreates Lucy’s TV personae well. Kidman also digs deeply into her considerable acting talent to pull out the “business” Lucy, showing a determined woman driving her way through a “man’s world”.
JK Simmons is brilliant, as always, as William Frawley (who played Fred Mertz in I LOVE LUCY). Sorkin has written Frawley as the “all knowing” mystic of the piece, hanging into the background, but coming to fore when one of the principal characters needs a bit of sage advice. It’s an old trope, but Simmons pulls it off well.
Unfortunately, the Desi Arnaz and Vivian Vance (who played Ethel) character’s are underwritten by Sorkin. Nina Arianda is well cast as Ethel, but she just doesn’t have much to do (besides being a foil for Lucy - which was what Vance was for many, many years). I’d love to see a version of this film where Arianda is giving something more meaty, I think she’d tear into it.
And then there is Javier Bardem’s portrayal of Desi Arnaz. It is an underwritten part and Bardem plays the surface of this character and just doesn’t get “deep enough” into the soul of this man, so Desi really ended up a throw away character in this.
It was good to see, however, some “veteran” performers (Linda Lavin, Ronny Cox and John Rubenstein) playing older versions of characters involved in the activities in this film, reminiscing (and commenting on) the events. It was a nice framing touch and added some depth to the film.
The praise for the good parts of this film (and there are plenty) and the blame for the bad (boring/underwritten) parts of this film (and there are plenty) all lie at the feet of Writer/Director Sorkin. It is as if he had a really good idea (showing Lucy under pressure by the House Un-American Committee while battling the Corporate Suits - and Directors/Writers/Producers who are not as in touch with Lucy’s Comedy as she is - while trying to put on a weekly show), but it wasn’t quite enough to fill a complete movie, so he added a “B” plot of Desi’s philandering (which is true to what really occurred) and flashbacks to how they met.
The first part works very well (clearly, this was the part that Sorkin was interested in) while the 2nd part feels “put on” (Sorkin “banging it out” to fill the film).
This film is worth watching, I just wish there was more “A” plot and less “B” plot.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darned if she doesn’t pull it off.
Written and Directed by Aaron Sorkin, BEING THE RICARDOS isn’t, exactly, a bio-pic of Lucy, but rather it tells the tale of a pivotal week in the life of Lucy and her husband Desi Arnaz (Javier Bardem) as Lucy deals with infidelity issues with Desi and accusations of being a Communist from the House UnAmerican activities committee all while trying to put on her weekly TV show. Oh…and it also shows, in flashback, Lucy and Desi’s courtship.
This is a lot to pack-in in one film and this movie almost manages to do it well.
Let’s start with the performances. Kidman is excellent as Lucy - especially as she recreates the Lucille Ball we know on-screen. She has the pattern and physicality of the TV star down and recreates Lucy’s TV personae well. Kidman also digs deeply into her considerable acting talent to pull out the “business” Lucy, showing a determined woman driving her way through a “man’s world”.
JK Simmons is brilliant, as always, as William Frawley (who played Fred Mertz in I LOVE LUCY). Sorkin has written Frawley as the “all knowing” mystic of the piece, hanging into the background, but coming to fore when one of the principal characters needs a bit of sage advice. It’s an old trope, but Simmons pulls it off well.
Unfortunately, the Desi Arnaz and Vivian Vance (who played Ethel) character’s are underwritten by Sorkin. Nina Arianda is well cast as Ethel, but she just doesn’t have much to do (besides being a foil for Lucy - which was what Vance was for many, many years). I’d love to see a version of this film where Arianda is giving something more meaty, I think she’d tear into it.
And then there is Javier Bardem’s portrayal of Desi Arnaz. It is an underwritten part and Bardem plays the surface of this character and just doesn’t get “deep enough” into the soul of this man, so Desi really ended up a throw away character in this.
It was good to see, however, some “veteran” performers (Linda Lavin, Ronny Cox and John Rubenstein) playing older versions of characters involved in the activities in this film, reminiscing (and commenting on) the events. It was a nice framing touch and added some depth to the film.
The praise for the good parts of this film (and there are plenty) and the blame for the bad (boring/underwritten) parts of this film (and there are plenty) all lie at the feet of Writer/Director Sorkin. It is as if he had a really good idea (showing Lucy under pressure by the House Un-American Committee while battling the Corporate Suits - and Directors/Writers/Producers who are not as in touch with Lucy’s Comedy as she is - while trying to put on a weekly show), but it wasn’t quite enough to fill a complete movie, so he added a “B” plot of Desi’s philandering (which is true to what really occurred) and flashbacks to how they met.
The first part works very well (clearly, this was the part that Sorkin was interested in) while the 2nd part feels “put on” (Sorkin “banging it out” to fill the film).
This film is worth watching, I just wish there was more “A” plot and less “B” plot.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Paddington 2 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Bear faced brilliance.
I never went to see “Paddington 2” at the cinema when it came out. Well, it’s a kids film isn’t it? And my grandkids I thought… well, their probably a bit too young for the long haul on this one. But – after catching up with it recently on a transatlantic flight – I’m sorry I missed it. For it is brilliant in its own way.
Having not seen the first “Paddington”, also directed by Paul King, there is a useful little flashback to the Peruvian origins of the little chap before we pitch into the plot proper. Paddington (voiced by Ben Wishaw, “Spectre“) has nicely settled down to life with The Brown’s in their London home and is a well-loved member of the community (well, well loved that is by everyone except the cranky Mr Curry (Peter Capaldi, “Dr Who“, “World War Z“). But he longs to buy his Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton, “Finding Your Feet“) a special birthday present – a pop-up book of London scenes that he’s seen in a local antique shop. But for that he needs a lot of cash, and so proceeds to earn it through a variety of different jobs.
However, fading actor Phoenix Buchanan (Hugh Grant, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) also shows an unhealty interest in the book and, after it disappears from the shop with Paddington’s paw prints all over the scene, the poor bear finds himself on the wrong side of the law.
This is a continually inventive movie, which rockets along with truly impressive verve and panache from scene to scene. As a particular example of this, an animated walk through the pop-up book is marvellously done: a tribute to the 2D retro nature (even in those days!) of the TV animation of the 70’s that will go over the heads of younger viewers. There are plenty of slapstick scenes – notably of Paddington trying window cleaning, and his job in a barber’s shop – which will not only delight younger children but also made this 57 year old laugh out loud too! The prison sequence also delights, with a laundry blunder by the bear leading into a comical showdown with the prison’s chief poisoner, sorry, head chef played by Brendan Gleeson (“Alone in Berlin“, “Live By Night“).
Vision AND sound! Paddington with incarcerated friends, including Brendan Gleeson (centre).
The cast all seem to revel in their parts, with Hugh Bonneville (“Viceroy’s House“, “The Monuments Men“) energetic as Mr Brown and Oscar runner-up (surely!) Sally Hawkins (“The Shape of Water“) very chirpy as Mrs Brown. All of the residents of Windsor Gardens are a who’s who of UK film and TV, and each cameo has a lovely little tale behind it: Julie Walters (“Brooklyn“) as Mrs Bird, the Brown’s help; Sanjeev Bhaskar as Dr Jafri, forever nearly locking himself out; Miss Kitts (Jessica Hynes) and the crusty Colonel Lancaster (Ben Miller) in a ‘will they/won’t they’ potential romance. Elsewhere, Jim Broadbent (“Bridget Jones Baby“, “Eddie the Eagle“) is great as the antique store owner; Tom Conti adds both gravitas and humour as Judge Biggleswade and Richard Ayoade (“The Double“) is very funny as a forensic expert.
The Brown family: from left; Mr Brown (Hugh Bonneville); Jonathan (Samuel Joslin); Mrs Brown (Sally Hawkins); Mrs Bird (Julie Walters); and Judy Brown (Madeleine Harris).
Head and shoulders above all of them though is Hugh Grant who is just outstandingly good as the puffed-up and self-important ham-actor. His Best Supporting Actor nomination for a BAFTA was surprising, but having seen the film so very much deserved. Hang around in the end credits for his last words of the film which are cornily hilarious! One can only hope that Phoenix Buchanen returns for Paddington 3.
A career best… Hugh Grant as the devilishly slippery Phoenix Buchanan.
I would have thought that some of the scenes towards the end of the film, particularly one where Paddington seems doomed to a watery end, might be a little frightening for younger viewers. Thank heavens Sally Hawkins has gills! 🙂
Overall, this is a movie I would gladly watch again, with or without kids. In a movie landscape that is pretty devoid of good comedy, here is a movie that really did make me laugh out loud.
Having not seen the first “Paddington”, also directed by Paul King, there is a useful little flashback to the Peruvian origins of the little chap before we pitch into the plot proper. Paddington (voiced by Ben Wishaw, “Spectre“) has nicely settled down to life with The Brown’s in their London home and is a well-loved member of the community (well, well loved that is by everyone except the cranky Mr Curry (Peter Capaldi, “Dr Who“, “World War Z“). But he longs to buy his Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton, “Finding Your Feet“) a special birthday present – a pop-up book of London scenes that he’s seen in a local antique shop. But for that he needs a lot of cash, and so proceeds to earn it through a variety of different jobs.
However, fading actor Phoenix Buchanan (Hugh Grant, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) also shows an unhealty interest in the book and, after it disappears from the shop with Paddington’s paw prints all over the scene, the poor bear finds himself on the wrong side of the law.
This is a continually inventive movie, which rockets along with truly impressive verve and panache from scene to scene. As a particular example of this, an animated walk through the pop-up book is marvellously done: a tribute to the 2D retro nature (even in those days!) of the TV animation of the 70’s that will go over the heads of younger viewers. There are plenty of slapstick scenes – notably of Paddington trying window cleaning, and his job in a barber’s shop – which will not only delight younger children but also made this 57 year old laugh out loud too! The prison sequence also delights, with a laundry blunder by the bear leading into a comical showdown with the prison’s chief poisoner, sorry, head chef played by Brendan Gleeson (“Alone in Berlin“, “Live By Night“).
Vision AND sound! Paddington with incarcerated friends, including Brendan Gleeson (centre).
The cast all seem to revel in their parts, with Hugh Bonneville (“Viceroy’s House“, “The Monuments Men“) energetic as Mr Brown and Oscar runner-up (surely!) Sally Hawkins (“The Shape of Water“) very chirpy as Mrs Brown. All of the residents of Windsor Gardens are a who’s who of UK film and TV, and each cameo has a lovely little tale behind it: Julie Walters (“Brooklyn“) as Mrs Bird, the Brown’s help; Sanjeev Bhaskar as Dr Jafri, forever nearly locking himself out; Miss Kitts (Jessica Hynes) and the crusty Colonel Lancaster (Ben Miller) in a ‘will they/won’t they’ potential romance. Elsewhere, Jim Broadbent (“Bridget Jones Baby“, “Eddie the Eagle“) is great as the antique store owner; Tom Conti adds both gravitas and humour as Judge Biggleswade and Richard Ayoade (“The Double“) is very funny as a forensic expert.
The Brown family: from left; Mr Brown (Hugh Bonneville); Jonathan (Samuel Joslin); Mrs Brown (Sally Hawkins); Mrs Bird (Julie Walters); and Judy Brown (Madeleine Harris).
Head and shoulders above all of them though is Hugh Grant who is just outstandingly good as the puffed-up and self-important ham-actor. His Best Supporting Actor nomination for a BAFTA was surprising, but having seen the film so very much deserved. Hang around in the end credits for his last words of the film which are cornily hilarious! One can only hope that Phoenix Buchanen returns for Paddington 3.
A career best… Hugh Grant as the devilishly slippery Phoenix Buchanan.
I would have thought that some of the scenes towards the end of the film, particularly one where Paddington seems doomed to a watery end, might be a little frightening for younger viewers. Thank heavens Sally Hawkins has gills! 🙂
Overall, this is a movie I would gladly watch again, with or without kids. In a movie landscape that is pretty devoid of good comedy, here is a movie that really did make me laugh out loud.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Wolf (2019) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
A lot of the acting in Wolf feels like it was from TV, and several of the parts wouldn't have been far off comedic roles in things made for network shows. The acting isn't the only thing that smacked of TV. The music is also not something you'd expect in this sort of thing, it would be much more suited to a crime drama. Occasionally I felt like it might have been perfect for this sort of historic piece but then it would quickly slip back to crime drama and I was almost completely distracted from the film.
As an idea it's an intriguing one. The outline of the story would make a good movie, it's simple and has lots of opportunities to be really effective on screen, unfortunately I don't think this delivered on that potential.
There's quite a spread of characters but some do get overlooked. Ima has a backstory that you can glean through context and Liviana has an implied story but both are only hinted at and nothing is used. Sometimes this is forgivable but with what happens with them both at the end of the film I think it's appalling that we don't get more from them.
This was yet another film that suffers from a black hole of time. There are a couple of points where they play fast and loose ad in one particular place it looks like they filmed at different times of day not accounting for the scenes timeline.
The location itself is stunning and you can see that repeatedly in the panning shots of forest... lots of forest, oh, and a mountain range. The first time it was nice, the second time it was a little cliche, and after that I started writing abuse in my notes.
The other thing that seems to be popular in Wolf is the blurry camera work. For the most part it looks intentional as it's part of the reveal but it's not isolated to that. Some of the fight scenes look like they might have been put together quite well but in one of the biggest of those you can't tell because the action is accompanied by camerawork that looks like it was done by someone hiccuping on a pogo stick.
My other major quibble is the ending. It seems very late in the game to be adding information to the story. There was even an opportunity to introduce the point earlier in the film but that was where we ignored Ima's backstory, looks like a lot of things could have been solved by changing that scene, it seems like a huge misstep.
It's not the worst film, but it's also not the best. There were some big opportunities for improvements but none of them were taken and ultimately this feels like a waste of a good story.
Check out my full review here: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/09/wolf-movie-review.html
As an idea it's an intriguing one. The outline of the story would make a good movie, it's simple and has lots of opportunities to be really effective on screen, unfortunately I don't think this delivered on that potential.
There's quite a spread of characters but some do get overlooked. Ima has a backstory that you can glean through context and Liviana has an implied story but both are only hinted at and nothing is used. Sometimes this is forgivable but with what happens with them both at the end of the film I think it's appalling that we don't get more from them.
This was yet another film that suffers from a black hole of time. There are a couple of points where they play fast and loose ad in one particular place it looks like they filmed at different times of day not accounting for the scenes timeline.
The location itself is stunning and you can see that repeatedly in the panning shots of forest... lots of forest, oh, and a mountain range. The first time it was nice, the second time it was a little cliche, and after that I started writing abuse in my notes.
The other thing that seems to be popular in Wolf is the blurry camera work. For the most part it looks intentional as it's part of the reveal but it's not isolated to that. Some of the fight scenes look like they might have been put together quite well but in one of the biggest of those you can't tell because the action is accompanied by camerawork that looks like it was done by someone hiccuping on a pogo stick.
My other major quibble is the ending. It seems very late in the game to be adding information to the story. There was even an opportunity to introduce the point earlier in the film but that was where we ignored Ima's backstory, looks like a lot of things could have been solved by changing that scene, it seems like a huge misstep.
It's not the worst film, but it's also not the best. There were some big opportunities for improvements but none of them were taken and ultimately this feels like a waste of a good story.
Check out my full review here: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/09/wolf-movie-review.html
Azul Media Player - Video player for your iPad
Travel and Utilities
App
••• ON SALE $4.99->$2.99 - The #1 Travel App of 2015 - As featured in Apple's "Staff...