Search
Search results
Betway – Play Live Casino, Roulette & Card Games
Games and Entertainment
App
You’re sat in a casino. You know what it's like to have the urge to win. You know what it feels...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Man Who Knew Infinity (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In 1914, Srinivasa Ramanujan (Dev Patel) traveled from his poverty-stricken existence in Madras, India to Trinity College, Cambridge in the hope that he would have his theories published and be recognized for the mathematical genius he was. While there, despite facing racism, hostility and severe illness, he formed an important relationship with G.H. Hardy (Jeremy Irons) that would lead to breakthroughs in mathematics that are still relevant today.
It would be easy to prattle on about the tremendous talent onscreen in The Man Who Knew Infinity and with a supporting cast that features some of Britain’s best; we get exactly what we’d expect from the likes of Jeremy Irons, Toby Jones and Kevin McNally. All at the top of their game, they serve the story well with nuanced and well-rounded performances, and I’m certainly not going to take anything away from the exceptional jobs they’ve all done here. All the praise this film deserves however, needs to be directed at Dev Patel. In his role as Ramanujan, he’s completely stepped out of the shadow of his big-screen debut in Slumdog Millionaire and has proved his worth as a leading man capable of carrying the weight of an entire feature. Distancing himself also from the lovable, bumbling hotel owner in The Best Exotic Marigold movies, with Ramanujan he is allowed the room to display an incredible range, from quiet intensity to outspoken, unbridled passion and determination. Kudos also to the writers for not going The Big Short route (e.g. talking down to the uninitiated with ridiculous cutaways), but by using simple logic and examples to help convey complex information relevant to the plot.
For the performances alone, this is a solid entry in the biopic genre, but structurally speaking, it’s the editing that lets the film down. This very easily could have emerged as the next A Beautiful Mind, but between a bloated first act, a middling and wandering second act and a truncated final third, The Man Who Knew Infinity falls just short of greatness. Not only is no attention paid to Ramanujan’s achievements as a child, but too much time is given to details and subplots that are arguably inconsequential to the main narrative. This is especially evident in the inclusion of Bertrand Russell (who lived such a rich and fascinating life himself, it would take several films to do that story justice) and his being here feels like just a hollow excuse to include a cameo from another figure of historical importance. The biggest disservice though comes with the ending where we are denied a much needed catharsis and are left to suffer through a slap-dash, halfhearted montage. A restructuring from a more seasoned hand would have undoubtedly led to stronger word-of-mouth and perhaps a wider release. I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is a case of “too many cooks” as the film has a staggering 43 credited producers. I get that independent features can be forced to source their funding from many places, but you can’t tell me that with all those opinions flying about that some of the original intent didn’t get lost in the noise.
As an aside, what Stephen Fry is doing here is beyond me. He’s given two scenes with perhaps a half a dozen lines, leaving his incomparable persona entirely wasted on a completely throwaway character. It’s a pity he wasn’t given a meatier role as one of Ramanujan’s antagonists.
It would be easy to prattle on about the tremendous talent onscreen in The Man Who Knew Infinity and with a supporting cast that features some of Britain’s best; we get exactly what we’d expect from the likes of Jeremy Irons, Toby Jones and Kevin McNally. All at the top of their game, they serve the story well with nuanced and well-rounded performances, and I’m certainly not going to take anything away from the exceptional jobs they’ve all done here. All the praise this film deserves however, needs to be directed at Dev Patel. In his role as Ramanujan, he’s completely stepped out of the shadow of his big-screen debut in Slumdog Millionaire and has proved his worth as a leading man capable of carrying the weight of an entire feature. Distancing himself also from the lovable, bumbling hotel owner in The Best Exotic Marigold movies, with Ramanujan he is allowed the room to display an incredible range, from quiet intensity to outspoken, unbridled passion and determination. Kudos also to the writers for not going The Big Short route (e.g. talking down to the uninitiated with ridiculous cutaways), but by using simple logic and examples to help convey complex information relevant to the plot.
For the performances alone, this is a solid entry in the biopic genre, but structurally speaking, it’s the editing that lets the film down. This very easily could have emerged as the next A Beautiful Mind, but between a bloated first act, a middling and wandering second act and a truncated final third, The Man Who Knew Infinity falls just short of greatness. Not only is no attention paid to Ramanujan’s achievements as a child, but too much time is given to details and subplots that are arguably inconsequential to the main narrative. This is especially evident in the inclusion of Bertrand Russell (who lived such a rich and fascinating life himself, it would take several films to do that story justice) and his being here feels like just a hollow excuse to include a cameo from another figure of historical importance. The biggest disservice though comes with the ending where we are denied a much needed catharsis and are left to suffer through a slap-dash, halfhearted montage. A restructuring from a more seasoned hand would have undoubtedly led to stronger word-of-mouth and perhaps a wider release. I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is a case of “too many cooks” as the film has a staggering 43 credited producers. I get that independent features can be forced to source their funding from many places, but you can’t tell me that with all those opinions flying about that some of the original intent didn’t get lost in the noise.
As an aside, what Stephen Fry is doing here is beyond me. He’s given two scenes with perhaps a half a dozen lines, leaving his incomparable persona entirely wasted on a completely throwaway character. It’s a pity he wasn’t given a meatier role as one of Ramanujan’s antagonists.
A Dark Spring (Stories That Twist & Tangle)
Laura N. Andrews, R.M. Gilmore, M. Billiter, Kenneth Jobe, Barb Shuler, M.C. St. John, Ricky Wells and Kim Deister
Book
Eight original tales of suspense that will tangle your senses and keep you gripped. From murder to...
Suspense
Creating Wealth Video Podcast with Jason Hartman | No-Hype Real Estate Investing Strategies for Achieving Financial Freedom
Podcast
Companion to Jason Hartman’s highly acclaimed Creating Wealth Show (audio podcast) Learn fresh new...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Murder mystery films tend to be more fun in theory and anticipation than they are to watch. It’s a genre that I very much enjoy and have indulged in over the years. Yet, if I look back in detail at it, I find that it is the books, especially those of Agatha Christie, that I like much more than anything lasting a couple of hours on the screen. There’s something about the mystery being rushed and squeezed into the cinema artform that is usually anti-climactic or even a full on let down.
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Finding Dory (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Is it a return to form for Pixar/
For years, Pixar was an unstoppable force. The studio combined stunning animation with thought-provoking stories that adults and children could enjoy. From Toy Story to Wall.E, everyone, at some point will have watched a Pixar film.
Then a few things caused the bubble to burst. Firstly, other companies upped their game, big time, with Dreamworks in particular being hot on the heels of their rival. Secondly, Pixar’s own partner, Disney started churning out great animated films with Zootropolis and Wreck-it Ralph worth a mention.
Finally, Pixar lost its way. Cars and its dreadful sequel, followed by an underwhelming prequel to Monsters Inc and the marketing disaster that was The Good Dinosaur all culminated in a studio damaged by its own high standards. Now, in 2016, we have a sequel to arguably Pixar’s best film, Finding Nemo, but does Finding Dory build on its predecessor or sink faster than a stone?
Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) is a wide-eyed, blue tang fish who suffers from memory loss. The one thing she can remember is she somehow became separated from her parents as a child. With help from Nemo and Marlin, Dory embarks on an epic adventure to find them. Her journey brings her to the Marine Life Institute, a rehabilitation centre for diverse ocean species and from there; she tries to reunite with her long-lost relatives.
Finding Dory opens with a neatly packaged throwback to its predecessor, providing an easy way of getting the audience up to speed with what came before it – after all, it’s been 13 years since the release of the first film. From then on, it’s full steam ahead with a story that lacks the subtlety of Finding Nemo, but is engaging nonetheless.
The animation is you guessed it, exceptional. Nemo was one of the best films to showcase Pixar’s talents and its sequel continues that trend. The vibrancy of the colour palette is breath-taking and each shimmering wave makes you feel part of the watery depths. The blacks feel endless and the diversity of marine life just adds to the sparkle.
For adults, there are some cracking references to other films. Would you believe me if I told you Pixar managed to shoehorn an Alien homage in there? Well, they did, and it works beautifully. Couple that with a surprise turn from Sigourney Weaver as a park announcer and it’s a recipe for laughs all around.
Ellen DeGeneres takes centre stage this time around and rightly so. Dory is a loveable character, especially in her wide-eyed youth, and a very well-written one, despite her constant forgetfulness. Elsewhere, Idris Elba provides some laughs as a lazy sea lion and Ed O’Neill steals the show as a grumpy octopus.
Unfortunately, the final act of the film delves into unnecessarily and uncharacteristically silly territory. The joy of Pixar’s other works is that, despite their often out-of-this-world themes, they still feel grounded in reality. Dory’s finale is so ridiculous that it spoils the effect of the plot.
Nevertheless, you’ll be reaching for your tissues more than once as director and scriptwriter Andrew Stanton combines that heart-warming story with some lovely dialogue that will resonate with all generations.
Overall, Finding Dory isn’t the outright success it could’ve been, but it doesn’t continue the slip in Pixar’s quality either. The animation is truly wonderful and some of the references to more adult films are worked in very cleverly – but that final act; it’s just awful.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/01/is-it-a-return-to-form-for-pixar-finding-dory-review/
Then a few things caused the bubble to burst. Firstly, other companies upped their game, big time, with Dreamworks in particular being hot on the heels of their rival. Secondly, Pixar’s own partner, Disney started churning out great animated films with Zootropolis and Wreck-it Ralph worth a mention.
Finally, Pixar lost its way. Cars and its dreadful sequel, followed by an underwhelming prequel to Monsters Inc and the marketing disaster that was The Good Dinosaur all culminated in a studio damaged by its own high standards. Now, in 2016, we have a sequel to arguably Pixar’s best film, Finding Nemo, but does Finding Dory build on its predecessor or sink faster than a stone?
Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) is a wide-eyed, blue tang fish who suffers from memory loss. The one thing she can remember is she somehow became separated from her parents as a child. With help from Nemo and Marlin, Dory embarks on an epic adventure to find them. Her journey brings her to the Marine Life Institute, a rehabilitation centre for diverse ocean species and from there; she tries to reunite with her long-lost relatives.
Finding Dory opens with a neatly packaged throwback to its predecessor, providing an easy way of getting the audience up to speed with what came before it – after all, it’s been 13 years since the release of the first film. From then on, it’s full steam ahead with a story that lacks the subtlety of Finding Nemo, but is engaging nonetheless.
The animation is you guessed it, exceptional. Nemo was one of the best films to showcase Pixar’s talents and its sequel continues that trend. The vibrancy of the colour palette is breath-taking and each shimmering wave makes you feel part of the watery depths. The blacks feel endless and the diversity of marine life just adds to the sparkle.
For adults, there are some cracking references to other films. Would you believe me if I told you Pixar managed to shoehorn an Alien homage in there? Well, they did, and it works beautifully. Couple that with a surprise turn from Sigourney Weaver as a park announcer and it’s a recipe for laughs all around.
Ellen DeGeneres takes centre stage this time around and rightly so. Dory is a loveable character, especially in her wide-eyed youth, and a very well-written one, despite her constant forgetfulness. Elsewhere, Idris Elba provides some laughs as a lazy sea lion and Ed O’Neill steals the show as a grumpy octopus.
Unfortunately, the final act of the film delves into unnecessarily and uncharacteristically silly territory. The joy of Pixar’s other works is that, despite their often out-of-this-world themes, they still feel grounded in reality. Dory’s finale is so ridiculous that it spoils the effect of the plot.
Nevertheless, you’ll be reaching for your tissues more than once as director and scriptwriter Andrew Stanton combines that heart-warming story with some lovely dialogue that will resonate with all generations.
Overall, Finding Dory isn’t the outright success it could’ve been, but it doesn’t continue the slip in Pixar’s quality either. The animation is truly wonderful and some of the references to more adult films are worked in very cleverly – but that final act; it’s just awful.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/01/is-it-a-return-to-form-for-pixar-finding-dory-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A film that never needed to exist
Marc Webb’s first attempt at being behind the lens of a Marvel film was 2012’s The Amazing Spider-Man. Just five years after Sam Raimi concluded his trilogy with Tobey Maguire in the tight fitting suit, Andrew Garfield donned the iconic costume in a film that was good if a little unnecessary. Here, Webb returns just two years later with The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but can it prove its worth?
Thankfully yes. Amazing Spider-Man 2 is not only the best Spider-Man film to date, but one of Marvel’s greatest offerings despite some flaws in its production.
Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone return as Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey respectively as they battle a whole host of new foes in a movie that is loud, frequently violent and massively long.
Peter is still trying to piece together the fate of his parents as Aunt May, played excellently by Sally Field, continues to keep the truth from him. However, there’s no time for anguish as the villains come thick-and-fast.
Jamie Foxx, Paul Giamatti and a superb Dane DeHaan are all present to give Spider-Man, and his alter ego, a good kicking. A brilliantly unrestrained Foxx plays Max Dillon who inexplicably becomes one of the title characters best on-screen foes, Electro.
Much of the criticism of Raimi’s 2007 blockbuster Spider-Man 3 was given to the inclusion of too many plots, sub-plots and villains. Therefore many fans and critics thought the case would be similar here, especially considering Electro, Green Goblin and Rhino were all billed to appear.
The-Amazing-Spider-Man-2-New-Poster-spider-man-35222096-1024-1421
Mercifully, Webb restrains himself and leaves much of the film’s running time to Electro while Rhino (Giamatti) and Green Goblin (DeHaan) are merely given glorified cameos; setting the characters up for a larger part in the inevitable Amazing Spider-Man 3 and 4.
The special effects are on a whole new level to what we have seen previously. Apart from a few lapses towards the climatic finale, where things can begin to look like a video game, the film looks absolutely fantastic. The soaring shots of Spider-Man swinging his way across New York landmarks are exceptional and Webb’s use of slow-motion frames bring home the spider like senses Parker has been gifted with.
Acting performances are also sublime. Parker is a much better Spider-Man than Maguire was in the previous films. His geeky, timid persona is brilliantly juxtaposed with the superhero’s more arrogant attitude. Yet he never becomes irritating, a la Spider-Man 3. Emma Stone’s portrayal of love interest Gwen Stacey is wonderful and she does a cracking job of making the pair have real chemistry despite how difficult it is for this to create – though it must always help when you are partnered in real life.
The real joy here though is Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborn/Green Goblin. His performance is the complete opposite of James Franco’s take, he makes Harry a more vulnerable young man, clearly damaged by previous events in his life, as well as the ones which will no doubt occur in the future.
Unfortunately, the film’s running time is a real headache. At 142 minutes, you begin to check your watch as there are numerous points where you believe it could end – though it never does. Thankfully, this is a minor issue in a film which rarely lets up in its riveting pace.
Overall, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a film which never really needed to exist, certainly not for another ten years or so. It is clear in some respects that its production has been rushed to capitalise on the ever-popular Marvel series, but in others it makes perfect sense to release it when the story is still fresh in people’s minds.
Despite some clunky special effects in the finale and its gargantuan length, Amazing Spider-Man 2 boasts excellent performances and a humorous and exciting story, and as such is one of Marvel’s best offerings to date, only beaten by Avengers Assemble. The only question is, was it all necessary?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/04/19/the-amazing-spider-man-2-review/
Thankfully yes. Amazing Spider-Man 2 is not only the best Spider-Man film to date, but one of Marvel’s greatest offerings despite some flaws in its production.
Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone return as Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey respectively as they battle a whole host of new foes in a movie that is loud, frequently violent and massively long.
Peter is still trying to piece together the fate of his parents as Aunt May, played excellently by Sally Field, continues to keep the truth from him. However, there’s no time for anguish as the villains come thick-and-fast.
Jamie Foxx, Paul Giamatti and a superb Dane DeHaan are all present to give Spider-Man, and his alter ego, a good kicking. A brilliantly unrestrained Foxx plays Max Dillon who inexplicably becomes one of the title characters best on-screen foes, Electro.
Much of the criticism of Raimi’s 2007 blockbuster Spider-Man 3 was given to the inclusion of too many plots, sub-plots and villains. Therefore many fans and critics thought the case would be similar here, especially considering Electro, Green Goblin and Rhino were all billed to appear.
The-Amazing-Spider-Man-2-New-Poster-spider-man-35222096-1024-1421
Mercifully, Webb restrains himself and leaves much of the film’s running time to Electro while Rhino (Giamatti) and Green Goblin (DeHaan) are merely given glorified cameos; setting the characters up for a larger part in the inevitable Amazing Spider-Man 3 and 4.
The special effects are on a whole new level to what we have seen previously. Apart from a few lapses towards the climatic finale, where things can begin to look like a video game, the film looks absolutely fantastic. The soaring shots of Spider-Man swinging his way across New York landmarks are exceptional and Webb’s use of slow-motion frames bring home the spider like senses Parker has been gifted with.
Acting performances are also sublime. Parker is a much better Spider-Man than Maguire was in the previous films. His geeky, timid persona is brilliantly juxtaposed with the superhero’s more arrogant attitude. Yet he never becomes irritating, a la Spider-Man 3. Emma Stone’s portrayal of love interest Gwen Stacey is wonderful and she does a cracking job of making the pair have real chemistry despite how difficult it is for this to create – though it must always help when you are partnered in real life.
The real joy here though is Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborn/Green Goblin. His performance is the complete opposite of James Franco’s take, he makes Harry a more vulnerable young man, clearly damaged by previous events in his life, as well as the ones which will no doubt occur in the future.
Unfortunately, the film’s running time is a real headache. At 142 minutes, you begin to check your watch as there are numerous points where you believe it could end – though it never does. Thankfully, this is a minor issue in a film which rarely lets up in its riveting pace.
Overall, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a film which never really needed to exist, certainly not for another ten years or so. It is clear in some respects that its production has been rushed to capitalise on the ever-popular Marvel series, but in others it makes perfect sense to release it when the story is still fresh in people’s minds.
Despite some clunky special effects in the finale and its gargantuan length, Amazing Spider-Man 2 boasts excellent performances and a humorous and exciting story, and as such is one of Marvel’s best offerings to date, only beaten by Avengers Assemble. The only question is, was it all necessary?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/04/19/the-amazing-spider-man-2-review/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Get Him to the Greek (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Aaron Green (Jonah Hill) works as a record company intern at Pinnacle Records. His boss Sergio Roma (Sean "Diddy" Combs) is wanting a "game changer" that will help turn the company around. Aaron pitches the idea that since it's the ten year anniversary of out of control British rock star Aldous Snow (Russell Brand) performing at the Greek Theatre in Los Angeles, he believes that the company can make a serious profit from not only a return performance, but by re-releasing his back catalog, as well. Sergio eventually goes for the idea and Aaron flies out to London to bring Aldous back to America to prepare for the show. Unfortunately for him, Aldous Snow's lifestyle tends to rub off on him and turns his life upside down in the process. As Aaron deals with some relationship issues and has his hands full trying to keep Aldous sober, Aldous has some relationship problems of his own and begins to wonder if there's more to life than sex, drugs, and rock and roll. It seems like a moot point by the time the Greek Theater show sells out as Aaron may not have a girlfriend or a job by the time the show begins and Aldous speaks of skipping the gig altogether.
I was a pretty big fan of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but that was mostly due to the Dracula rock opera and Russell Brand's outrageous portrayal of Aldous Snow. So Get Him to the Greek immediately grabbed my attention since it was announced as a spinoff sequel, but I became excited when reviews trickled in saying it was raunchier than its predecessor. Is more Aldous Snow really a good thing though? The short answer is yes. Yes it is.
Russell Brand is really the backbone of the film. Aldous Snow's rock star lifestyle provides his character with a sense of unpredictability as his outlandish outbursts and struggle with more adult decisions is enticing and at often times hilarious. Jonah Hill's screen presence is just as important to the film. His usual quick witted and delightfully explicit sense of humor in addition to his chemistry with Russell Brand is really a spectacular combination. Sean Combs manages to steal quite a few scenes, as well. His theory on screwing with people's heads and his one-liners ("You cannot out run me! I am black!") were surprisingly hysterical. The music in the film is really the key ingredient that brings the entire film together though. Fictional band Infant Sorrow delivers some pretty fantastic and humorously obscene ballads that are better than they should be for a film like this. I liked "Furry Walls" so much that I downloaded the soundtrack as soon as I returned from the theater.
The film's strongest scenes don't seem to last as long as they should though. The R-rated comedy seems to shine brightest when things get a bit more serious as the main characters come off as being more human, more realistic, and easier to relate to during those situations. Unfortunately those scenes really only begin to transpire in the last 15-20 minutes of the film and even though the point is made, I can't help but think of how a great film could have been even better if those events had occurred earlier on to have an even bigger impact. The biggest issue for me was that most of the scenes in the trailers were either not in the film at all or were different takes from scenes that actually made it into the theatrical version of the film. That means the DVD will probably be unrated and have x amount of extra footage not seen in theaters, but at least 50% of the scenes you're looking forward to were probably left on the cutting room floor which is just disappointing.
Get Him to the Greek may very well be this year's The Hangover, but isn't quite as laugh out loud funny as the 2009 comedy blockbuster. Get Him to the Greek is a wonderfully amusing comedy with a highly entertaining soundtrack that effectively gives a little more depth to the already remarkable for all the wrong reasons character Aldous Snow, but unfortunately doesn't live up to the reputation of being the uproarious riot that everyone seems to be making it out to be. Nevertheless, it is still an extremely solid comedy that comes highly recommended from me.
I was a pretty big fan of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but that was mostly due to the Dracula rock opera and Russell Brand's outrageous portrayal of Aldous Snow. So Get Him to the Greek immediately grabbed my attention since it was announced as a spinoff sequel, but I became excited when reviews trickled in saying it was raunchier than its predecessor. Is more Aldous Snow really a good thing though? The short answer is yes. Yes it is.
Russell Brand is really the backbone of the film. Aldous Snow's rock star lifestyle provides his character with a sense of unpredictability as his outlandish outbursts and struggle with more adult decisions is enticing and at often times hilarious. Jonah Hill's screen presence is just as important to the film. His usual quick witted and delightfully explicit sense of humor in addition to his chemistry with Russell Brand is really a spectacular combination. Sean Combs manages to steal quite a few scenes, as well. His theory on screwing with people's heads and his one-liners ("You cannot out run me! I am black!") were surprisingly hysterical. The music in the film is really the key ingredient that brings the entire film together though. Fictional band Infant Sorrow delivers some pretty fantastic and humorously obscene ballads that are better than they should be for a film like this. I liked "Furry Walls" so much that I downloaded the soundtrack as soon as I returned from the theater.
The film's strongest scenes don't seem to last as long as they should though. The R-rated comedy seems to shine brightest when things get a bit more serious as the main characters come off as being more human, more realistic, and easier to relate to during those situations. Unfortunately those scenes really only begin to transpire in the last 15-20 minutes of the film and even though the point is made, I can't help but think of how a great film could have been even better if those events had occurred earlier on to have an even bigger impact. The biggest issue for me was that most of the scenes in the trailers were either not in the film at all or were different takes from scenes that actually made it into the theatrical version of the film. That means the DVD will probably be unrated and have x amount of extra footage not seen in theaters, but at least 50% of the scenes you're looking forward to were probably left on the cutting room floor which is just disappointing.
Get Him to the Greek may very well be this year's The Hangover, but isn't quite as laugh out loud funny as the 2009 comedy blockbuster. Get Him to the Greek is a wonderfully amusing comedy with a highly entertaining soundtrack that effectively gives a little more depth to the already remarkable for all the wrong reasons character Aldous Snow, but unfortunately doesn't live up to the reputation of being the uproarious riot that everyone seems to be making it out to be. Nevertheless, it is still an extremely solid comedy that comes highly recommended from me.
Pool Break 3D Billiards 8 Ball, 9 Ball, Snooker
Games and Lifestyle
App
Pool Break is a suite of games featuring several variations of 3D Pool, Billiards, Snooker, and the...
Pool Break Lite 3D Billiards 8 Ball Snooker Carrom
Games and Sports
9.0
Rate It
App
Pool Break Lite is a free suite of games featuring several variations of 3D Pool, Billiards,...