Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? There is always a purpose and a message the film-maker’s have manufactured and edited to suit themselves, I find. They often leave you with more questions than answers. The best ones are open to interpretation enough to allow you in; allowing the source material to speak for itself. The worst ones rely on talking heads too much and can feel very manipulative.
Jim and Andy: The Great Beyond, is fortunately much more of the former than the latter. However, two days after watching this mind-blowing exposé of how Jim Carrey behaved on set of the excellent Man On The Moon, playing genius / lunatic Andy Kaufman, I am still left pondering what to think of it all. Is Carrey an ego maniac who belongs in a straight-jacket, or is he a hippie genius, dedicated to his art, who would do anything to achieve a perfect performance?
It focuses on a fully bearded Carrey reliving his memories of 20 years ago. Reinforced by a plethora of behind the scenes footage, which at turns is hilarious, shocking, confusing and revealing, in uncomfortable and fascinating ways. The premise is that at the time of being cast Kaufman’s spirit inhabited Carrey, allowing him to channel the actual man, and BE him, rather than merely play him!
Whatever your thoughts on method acting, and how indulgent that can be, it is always astonishing to see just how far he went! And why everyone else allowed him to get away with it? Director Milos Forman is forced to cope with never talking to “Jim”, only to “Andy”, and seems often at the point of break-down. Fellow cast members seem to deal with it in different ways too. Danny DeVito seems in awe; Courtney Love seems to embrace it; Paul Giamatti seems very uncomfortable. But the whole show goes ahead with Carrey as king. Simply extraordinary!
The thing is, both 1999 Jim and 2017 Jim never seem entirely insane, but rather totally in control and eloquent. It seems as if every “crazy” thing he did was a choice, conscious or unconscious, that as an actor he was happy to be part of; as if the performance was all that mattered. There have always been mental health questions about Carrey, and this throws a bright spotlight on his technique, personality and self-awareness. At some point you just have to say “wow” and to a degree applaud it.
Your enjoyment of it hinges on how much of a Carrey fan you are? If you have never liked or got him as a performer then you will be screaming at the screen in consternation. If you love his work then this is indespesible viewing! Either way, there is something wondrous about it! Just consider, Carrey won a Golden Globe for this role, and remains the only person ever to do so not to be Oscar nominated…
There is also a suggestion the whole thing is a joke, in typical Kaufman style, using the footage to create a trick on the audience… Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? You decide.
Jim and Andy: The Great Beyond, is fortunately much more of the former than the latter. However, two days after watching this mind-blowing exposé of how Jim Carrey behaved on set of the excellent Man On The Moon, playing genius / lunatic Andy Kaufman, I am still left pondering what to think of it all. Is Carrey an ego maniac who belongs in a straight-jacket, or is he a hippie genius, dedicated to his art, who would do anything to achieve a perfect performance?
It focuses on a fully bearded Carrey reliving his memories of 20 years ago. Reinforced by a plethora of behind the scenes footage, which at turns is hilarious, shocking, confusing and revealing, in uncomfortable and fascinating ways. The premise is that at the time of being cast Kaufman’s spirit inhabited Carrey, allowing him to channel the actual man, and BE him, rather than merely play him!
Whatever your thoughts on method acting, and how indulgent that can be, it is always astonishing to see just how far he went! And why everyone else allowed him to get away with it? Director Milos Forman is forced to cope with never talking to “Jim”, only to “Andy”, and seems often at the point of break-down. Fellow cast members seem to deal with it in different ways too. Danny DeVito seems in awe; Courtney Love seems to embrace it; Paul Giamatti seems very uncomfortable. But the whole show goes ahead with Carrey as king. Simply extraordinary!
The thing is, both 1999 Jim and 2017 Jim never seem entirely insane, but rather totally in control and eloquent. It seems as if every “crazy” thing he did was a choice, conscious or unconscious, that as an actor he was happy to be part of; as if the performance was all that mattered. There have always been mental health questions about Carrey, and this throws a bright spotlight on his technique, personality and self-awareness. At some point you just have to say “wow” and to a degree applaud it.
Your enjoyment of it hinges on how much of a Carrey fan you are? If you have never liked or got him as a performer then you will be screaming at the screen in consternation. If you love his work then this is indespesible viewing! Either way, there is something wondrous about it! Just consider, Carrey won a Golden Globe for this role, and remains the only person ever to do so not to be Oscar nominated…
There is also a suggestion the whole thing is a joke, in typical Kaufman style, using the footage to create a trick on the audience… Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? You decide.
JT (287 KP) rated Buried (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Shot with a low budget and entirely in one location (inside Paul’s coffin), Buried is a very intense and gripping movie, which plays on the age-old human fear of being buried alive and takes it to whole new levels.
Paul not only has to deal with thoughts of his almost imminent demise, but he also has to endure the psychological torment that comes with realising that your loved ones are in terrible danger and that the people whom your life depends upon don’t really care about your fate. This is the story of Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds), an American contractor working on an assignment in Iraq, who wakes up in something which looks like a makeshift wooden coffin, alone, and with no recollection of when and how he ended up there. All he remembers is that he and his colleagues were attacked by a group of Iraqi insurgents.
Understandably, he begins to panic, frantically trying to escape before realising that he won’t be able to do it on his own. Whoever buried him left a mobile phone, a lighter, a knife, a torch and some glow sticks in the coffin, and such items quickly become Paul’s connection to the outside world and his only hope of survival.
This situation is so exceptional (thankfully) that the film’s real challenge is to try and represent it as realistically as possible. What would you do? Would you let the nerves get the better of you, or would your will to live step in instead, and make you stay focused in trying to save yourself?
Ryan Reynolds does an excellent job in this, his Paul Conroy is human, desperate, scared, with no superhero pretence. The direction, by Rodrigo Cortes, is vivid, realistic, and makes good use of the limited space that the coffin setting allows to show; anxious people should try watching this anyway because, while it is undoubtedly claustrophobic, Paul’s determination to stay alive and the pull of wanting to know what’s going on outside keeps the mind occupied.
The voice of Hostage Work Group operator Dan Brenner (Robert Paterson) is possibly a little too “staged” and “actorish”, making it sound somewhat fake but also sinister, going to heighten the feeling of dread. Buried manages to be scary, tense, and yet ironic in representing the ignorance, incompetence and cowardice behind the behaviours of people we are supposed to trust in dangerous situations.
The whole film maintains a focused and realistic eye on the suffering of the protagonist – because we are supposed to feel what he feels, to be there with him in his fight for life- except maybe in a few moments when it slips into “mainstream”, cheap stratagems to reiterate that Paul is a good man who doesn’t deserve his fate (for example, when he calls his ill, senile mother who lives in a home and can’t even remember him).
Definitely best watched in a cinema screen rather than on DVD, this is a film which is very well done, and interesting; you will want to see what happens of Paul but also how his story is told from the confines of his coffin buried underground.
Paul not only has to deal with thoughts of his almost imminent demise, but he also has to endure the psychological torment that comes with realising that your loved ones are in terrible danger and that the people whom your life depends upon don’t really care about your fate. This is the story of Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds), an American contractor working on an assignment in Iraq, who wakes up in something which looks like a makeshift wooden coffin, alone, and with no recollection of when and how he ended up there. All he remembers is that he and his colleagues were attacked by a group of Iraqi insurgents.
Understandably, he begins to panic, frantically trying to escape before realising that he won’t be able to do it on his own. Whoever buried him left a mobile phone, a lighter, a knife, a torch and some glow sticks in the coffin, and such items quickly become Paul’s connection to the outside world and his only hope of survival.
This situation is so exceptional (thankfully) that the film’s real challenge is to try and represent it as realistically as possible. What would you do? Would you let the nerves get the better of you, or would your will to live step in instead, and make you stay focused in trying to save yourself?
Ryan Reynolds does an excellent job in this, his Paul Conroy is human, desperate, scared, with no superhero pretence. The direction, by Rodrigo Cortes, is vivid, realistic, and makes good use of the limited space that the coffin setting allows to show; anxious people should try watching this anyway because, while it is undoubtedly claustrophobic, Paul’s determination to stay alive and the pull of wanting to know what’s going on outside keeps the mind occupied.
The voice of Hostage Work Group operator Dan Brenner (Robert Paterson) is possibly a little too “staged” and “actorish”, making it sound somewhat fake but also sinister, going to heighten the feeling of dread. Buried manages to be scary, tense, and yet ironic in representing the ignorance, incompetence and cowardice behind the behaviours of people we are supposed to trust in dangerous situations.
The whole film maintains a focused and realistic eye on the suffering of the protagonist – because we are supposed to feel what he feels, to be there with him in his fight for life- except maybe in a few moments when it slips into “mainstream”, cheap stratagems to reiterate that Paul is a good man who doesn’t deserve his fate (for example, when he calls his ill, senile mother who lives in a home and can’t even remember him).
Definitely best watched in a cinema screen rather than on DVD, this is a film which is very well done, and interesting; you will want to see what happens of Paul but also how his story is told from the confines of his coffin buried underground.
Living Sketchbook Vol. 2: Metro North
Book and Entertainment
App
The "Living Sketchbook" is new technology that lets you experience one of James Gurney's actual...
PostEver 2 - Quick record, Lifelog, ToDo and Diary for Evernote
Business and Productivity
App
With regard to the latest iOS 10 of future delivery, making it in confirmation of the operating...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 10, 2021
Anarchic and very funny script, with some great visual gags (1 more)
Elba, Davis and Robbie all great. As is new name Daniela Melchior.
What a difference a "The" makes! The original "Suicide Squad" from 2016 was a botched and lacklustre affair, getting just 5/10 from me. James Gunn's semi-reboot is hyper-violent, overlong, totally ludicrous but a whole bunch of fun.
Positives:
- "From the horribly beautiful mind of James Gunn" gushes the trailer. But in this case, they ain't kidding. The film is (at times) hugely inventive in its visual gags as well as its dialogue. On the DC/Marvel superhero spectrum, this is right up at the "Ragnarok" end in terms of comedy value. It made me guffaw a good dozen times.
- To match that, the action scenes are suitably ludicrous and over-the-top. They feature the most "out there" big-boss since Mr Stay Puft terrorised New York in the original "Ghostbusters"!
- All the cast seem to be having a blast, which carries you, as the audience, along with the fun. Both Viola Davis and Idris Elba add real gravitas at the middle of it all, but Robbie's reprise of Harley Quinn tends to get all the best lines and the most memorable sequences. Her petal-strewn decimation of a platoon of security guards is something to behold.
- But of the lesser-known names, it's Daniela Melchior who really stood out for me as Cleo Cazo - Ratcatcher 2. This appears to be the first non-Portuguese feature she's done, and a great future beckons I think. Such extraordinary screen presence! Loved her character too: a "millennial" who sleeps in and questions what an OHP is!
- Great music choices, as you would expect from the "Guardians of the Galaxy" guy.
Negatives:
- Like Polka-Dot's mum, the comedy style is all over the place! (You have to have watched the movie to understand that gag!). I guess that's true of any comedy, but a number of the jokes feel contrived and didn't fully land.
- There is just so much gratuitous violence in this one that I am frankly amazed that the BBFC awarded it only a UK "15" certificate (this is my second query in a row to the BBFC - they need to employ me!). I reckon this will prove to have the highest body count of any movie in 2021. It's all done in a comic-book style, but when "Army of the Dead" (review still to follow) gets an "18", I'm not quite sure why this is much different.
Summary Thoughts on "The Suicide Squad": I'd mentally set myself up to really hate this one. But the opposite turned out to be true. As a comedy it made me laugh like a drain at times, and although some of the violence went somewhat over the top for me, I thought it to be a fine summer popcorn blockbuster (but very much for adults).
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
Positives:
- "From the horribly beautiful mind of James Gunn" gushes the trailer. But in this case, they ain't kidding. The film is (at times) hugely inventive in its visual gags as well as its dialogue. On the DC/Marvel superhero spectrum, this is right up at the "Ragnarok" end in terms of comedy value. It made me guffaw a good dozen times.
- To match that, the action scenes are suitably ludicrous and over-the-top. They feature the most "out there" big-boss since Mr Stay Puft terrorised New York in the original "Ghostbusters"!
- All the cast seem to be having a blast, which carries you, as the audience, along with the fun. Both Viola Davis and Idris Elba add real gravitas at the middle of it all, but Robbie's reprise of Harley Quinn tends to get all the best lines and the most memorable sequences. Her petal-strewn decimation of a platoon of security guards is something to behold.
- But of the lesser-known names, it's Daniela Melchior who really stood out for me as Cleo Cazo - Ratcatcher 2. This appears to be the first non-Portuguese feature she's done, and a great future beckons I think. Such extraordinary screen presence! Loved her character too: a "millennial" who sleeps in and questions what an OHP is!
- Great music choices, as you would expect from the "Guardians of the Galaxy" guy.
Negatives:
- Like Polka-Dot's mum, the comedy style is all over the place! (You have to have watched the movie to understand that gag!). I guess that's true of any comedy, but a number of the jokes feel contrived and didn't fully land.
- There is just so much gratuitous violence in this one that I am frankly amazed that the BBFC awarded it only a UK "15" certificate (this is my second query in a row to the BBFC - they need to employ me!). I reckon this will prove to have the highest body count of any movie in 2021. It's all done in a comic-book style, but when "Army of the Dead" (review still to follow) gets an "18", I'm not quite sure why this is much different.
Summary Thoughts on "The Suicide Squad": I'd mentally set myself up to really hate this one. But the opposite turned out to be true. As a comedy it made me laugh like a drain at times, and although some of the violence went somewhat over the top for me, I thought it to be a fine summer popcorn blockbuster (but very much for adults).
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dream Horse (2021) in Movies
Jun 12, 2021
Ensemble cast (1 more)
Cinematography of racing scenes
My lovely lovely horse fails to fully engage
An extraordinary story of ambition against all the odds - based on a true story - will Dream Alliance fulfil the town's dreams, or will it all end in tears?
Positives:
- Toni Collette! Without her powerful acting presence at the heart of the piece, I think the movie would have died in a ditch. As for her Welsh accent I (as an Englishman) thought it was pretty good: on my 'Welshometer', using the scale of Richard Burton as a 10 to RDW's "Doctor Dolittle" as a 1, I'd give Ms Collette about an 8. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man (as a Welsh lady) was less impressed, but found her "tolerable" when mixed with the other Welsh-born actors!
- And what a wonderful supporting cast of well know names from all our yesterdays. Just so great to see the great Siân Phillips ("I, Claudius"), Lynda Baron ('Nurse Gladys' from "Open all Hours"), Peter Davison ("Doctor Who") and Nicholas Farrell ("Chariots of Fire") in the cast. It was also (as is traditional in these "true stories") for the actual people to appear alongside their acting counterparts in the end titles: Howard Davies in particular seemed to be chuffed to bits to be singing alongside Damien Lewis!
- Hats off to cinematographer Erik Wilson and Chris Bates (the "drone operator"), for some impressive shots. The camera angles from the turf-pumping racing scenes are very impressive.
Negatives:
- How did it make me feel? Very little at all. Which is a problem. The movie is so utterly predictable that I saw every element of the story play out way before it did. Did this happen in real life? In which case, that's annoying that life was so unrealistically predictable in its ups and downs!
- Elements of the story also felt formulaic: from the token comedy cranky old bloke (Karl Johnson) to Jan's brooding father-with-a-grudge. This latter element seems unnecessarily bolted onto the plot: poorly worked through and pretty superfluous.
Summary Thoughts on "Dream Horse": This is a feature debut for welsh-born Euros Lyn, most familiar (as a peculiar name) for popping up in the end credits of TV shows such as "Doctor Who", "Torchwood" and "His Dark Materials". And, as a great supporter of UK films, I really wanted to like this one. But it just didn't do it for me. It's also unfortunate that some of the subject material makes it unsuitable for the 6-to-8 year old horse fanatics... this is no "International Velvet".
I've seen some social media comments from people who adore the movie. And, to be clear, it's NOT a bad movie. I just personally didn't connect with me. Just goes to show that cinema really is 'horses for courses' sometimes!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/dream-horse-%e2%99%abi-want-to-shower-you-in-sugar-lumps-and-ride-you-over-fences%e2%99%ab/ . Thanks).
Positives:
- Toni Collette! Without her powerful acting presence at the heart of the piece, I think the movie would have died in a ditch. As for her Welsh accent I (as an Englishman) thought it was pretty good: on my 'Welshometer', using the scale of Richard Burton as a 10 to RDW's "Doctor Dolittle" as a 1, I'd give Ms Collette about an 8. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man (as a Welsh lady) was less impressed, but found her "tolerable" when mixed with the other Welsh-born actors!
- And what a wonderful supporting cast of well know names from all our yesterdays. Just so great to see the great Siân Phillips ("I, Claudius"), Lynda Baron ('Nurse Gladys' from "Open all Hours"), Peter Davison ("Doctor Who") and Nicholas Farrell ("Chariots of Fire") in the cast. It was also (as is traditional in these "true stories") for the actual people to appear alongside their acting counterparts in the end titles: Howard Davies in particular seemed to be chuffed to bits to be singing alongside Damien Lewis!
- Hats off to cinematographer Erik Wilson and Chris Bates (the "drone operator"), for some impressive shots. The camera angles from the turf-pumping racing scenes are very impressive.
Negatives:
- How did it make me feel? Very little at all. Which is a problem. The movie is so utterly predictable that I saw every element of the story play out way before it did. Did this happen in real life? In which case, that's annoying that life was so unrealistically predictable in its ups and downs!
- Elements of the story also felt formulaic: from the token comedy cranky old bloke (Karl Johnson) to Jan's brooding father-with-a-grudge. This latter element seems unnecessarily bolted onto the plot: poorly worked through and pretty superfluous.
Summary Thoughts on "Dream Horse": This is a feature debut for welsh-born Euros Lyn, most familiar (as a peculiar name) for popping up in the end credits of TV shows such as "Doctor Who", "Torchwood" and "His Dark Materials". And, as a great supporter of UK films, I really wanted to like this one. But it just didn't do it for me. It's also unfortunate that some of the subject material makes it unsuitable for the 6-to-8 year old horse fanatics... this is no "International Velvet".
I've seen some social media comments from people who adore the movie. And, to be clear, it's NOT a bad movie. I just personally didn't connect with me. Just goes to show that cinema really is 'horses for courses' sometimes!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/dream-horse-%e2%99%abi-want-to-shower-you-in-sugar-lumps-and-ride-you-over-fences%e2%99%ab/ . Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard (2021) in Movies
Jun 22, 2021
No tension in the thriller elements (1 more)
Some shoddy special effects.
A movie that’s a pain in the A-double-dollar sign.
Struck-off bodyguard Michael Bryce (Ryan Reynolds) is plagued with nightmares about his failures, brought about by his nemesis Darius Kincaid (Samuel L Jackson) and his potty-mouthed wife Sonia (Salma Hayek). On doctor’s orders, he ‘retires’ from the business. But when Europe’s infrastructure is threatened by Greek megalomaniac Aristotle Papdopolous (Antonio Banderas) he is rudely dragged away from his briefly peaceful life and pitched back into utter mayhem.
Positives:
- As a comedy thriller, it does pass the '6 laughs test' in terms of the 'comedy' element. Some of these are minor chuckles. A few are really good belly laughs.
- Among these are some of the outrageous tirades of Salma Hayek: her accent makes some of the dialogue unintelligible, but given its X-rated nature, that's not necessarily a bad thing! As a mid-50's actress (Oh God - - don't tell her I mentioned her age!), Ms Hayek indeed has an arrestingly attractive form.
- Seeing Antonio Banderas and Morgan Freeman on the screen is never anything other than a positive. (Although Banderas is like Sean Connery in failing to tailor his natural accent to any role he's ever in!)
Negatives:
- A general problem I have with 'comedy thrillers' is that the comedy nearly always negates any of the thrills. Ryan Reynolds is not playing Deadpool in this one, although he might as well be doing so based on the number of times he is hit by cars and other solid objects. The result is that although it has the trappings of a Bond or a Bourne - exotic locations (here, mostly Italian ones) ; exotic woman; car chases; heavily-armed henchmen; huge explosions - it delivers none of the tension or excitement. When matched with some rather dodgy post-shoot special effects, the effect is generally underwhelming.
- If there was an award for the clumsiest movie title of 2021, we may already have a winner.
Summary Thoughts on "The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard": Sequels are very occasionally better. Often they are much worse. This one, I have to say, delivers very much "more of the same". Given that the writer/director team of Tom O'Connor and Patrick Hughes are in the driving seat, that's not much of a surprise. The shtick is mildly diverting, occasionally downright funny, but quickly outstays its welcome. The 100 minute run time felt, for me, much longer.
Looking back at my 2017 review of the first film, I think I was being over-kind giving it 6/10. I think this is neither better nor worse. So if you want to average the two and give each 5/10, I wouldn't object! But, again, it's one I will struggle to remember much about in a few month's time.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/22/the-hitmans-wifes-bodyguard-a-movie-thats-a-pain-in-the-a-double-dollar-sign/. Thanks).
Positives:
- As a comedy thriller, it does pass the '6 laughs test' in terms of the 'comedy' element. Some of these are minor chuckles. A few are really good belly laughs.
- Among these are some of the outrageous tirades of Salma Hayek: her accent makes some of the dialogue unintelligible, but given its X-rated nature, that's not necessarily a bad thing! As a mid-50's actress (Oh God - - don't tell her I mentioned her age!), Ms Hayek indeed has an arrestingly attractive form.
- Seeing Antonio Banderas and Morgan Freeman on the screen is never anything other than a positive. (Although Banderas is like Sean Connery in failing to tailor his natural accent to any role he's ever in!)
Negatives:
- A general problem I have with 'comedy thrillers' is that the comedy nearly always negates any of the thrills. Ryan Reynolds is not playing Deadpool in this one, although he might as well be doing so based on the number of times he is hit by cars and other solid objects. The result is that although it has the trappings of a Bond or a Bourne - exotic locations (here, mostly Italian ones) ; exotic woman; car chases; heavily-armed henchmen; huge explosions - it delivers none of the tension or excitement. When matched with some rather dodgy post-shoot special effects, the effect is generally underwhelming.
- If there was an award for the clumsiest movie title of 2021, we may already have a winner.
Summary Thoughts on "The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard": Sequels are very occasionally better. Often they are much worse. This one, I have to say, delivers very much "more of the same". Given that the writer/director team of Tom O'Connor and Patrick Hughes are in the driving seat, that's not much of a surprise. The shtick is mildly diverting, occasionally downright funny, but quickly outstays its welcome. The 100 minute run time felt, for me, much longer.
Looking back at my 2017 review of the first film, I think I was being over-kind giving it 6/10. I think this is neither better nor worse. So if you want to average the two and give each 5/10, I wouldn't object! But, again, it's one I will struggle to remember much about in a few month's time.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/22/the-hitmans-wifes-bodyguard-a-movie-thats-a-pain-in-the-a-double-dollar-sign/. Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Freaky (2021) in Movies
Jul 3, 2021
No, not like the Disney version
Some B-movies really pack a much bigger punch than you would expect. "Nobody" is a perfect recent example. But movie karma needs to be balanced with something. Ladies and gentlemen - "Freaky"!
Positives:
- If you are into your "teen slasher" movies, then this is more of the same and features some innovative ways to dispatch the victims. One is certainly no way to treat a fine wine!
- Vince Vaughn has fun mincing around as his alter-ego and Kathryn Newton (soon to be in the next "Ant-Man" movie) is personable enough as the cutie-cum-serial-killer.
- It's always good to see Ferris-actor Alan Ruck on the big screen. Here, he actually plays two parts in the film. (This joke (C) One Mann's Movies.)
Negatives:
- It's flagged as "comedy/horror" but failed to meet my personal 6-laugh test. It's just not funny enough to pass muster unless, that is, you view crude dialogue as "funny". And the dialogue does get ickily crude at some points. For example, when evil-Millie ends up alone with three jocks, there's a line of misogynist dialogue (that I won't repeat) but which sets the level.
- As a Blumhouse production, the horror is ultra-gory which will put off many viewers lacking a strong stomach. But because of the associated black comedy, the horror isn't remotely tense or scary. This might be why the film only got a UK-15 certificate. But my personal view is that, with the violence and the offensive dialogue, the BBFC under called this one, and it should have been an 18.
- There's a lot of schmaltz layered on regarding the relationship between Millie and her mum (Katie Finneran, channelling a Laura Dern look). A store cubicle exchange between Finneran and Vaughn is particularly stomach-churning.
- The movie leaves logic at the door many times. A formulaic post-finale ending assumes a superhero ability to shrug off bullets.
Summary Thoughts on "Freaky": The 'body-swap idea has gone through dozens of movie versions, with Disney's "Freaky Friday" the most well known: it's actually had two outings, once in 1976 with a young Jodie Foster and Barbara Harris and again in 2003 with Lindsay Lohan and Jamie-Lee Curtis. (The latter is a firm Mann-family favourite).
This new version tries a serial-killer twist on the story, which is a good idea. But the movie fails to execute well on the concept. The director is Christopher Landon who did the "Happy Death Day" movies. This is in a similar vein. So teens who enjoyed those flicks might get a fun Saturday night out with this. But, for me, this fell between the stools of comedy and horror and is instantly forgettable.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/03/freaky-no-its-not-remotely-like-the-disney-version/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies). Thanks.)
Positives:
- If you are into your "teen slasher" movies, then this is more of the same and features some innovative ways to dispatch the victims. One is certainly no way to treat a fine wine!
- Vince Vaughn has fun mincing around as his alter-ego and Kathryn Newton (soon to be in the next "Ant-Man" movie) is personable enough as the cutie-cum-serial-killer.
- It's always good to see Ferris-actor Alan Ruck on the big screen. Here, he actually plays two parts in the film. (This joke (C) One Mann's Movies.)
Negatives:
- It's flagged as "comedy/horror" but failed to meet my personal 6-laugh test. It's just not funny enough to pass muster unless, that is, you view crude dialogue as "funny". And the dialogue does get ickily crude at some points. For example, when evil-Millie ends up alone with three jocks, there's a line of misogynist dialogue (that I won't repeat) but which sets the level.
- As a Blumhouse production, the horror is ultra-gory which will put off many viewers lacking a strong stomach. But because of the associated black comedy, the horror isn't remotely tense or scary. This might be why the film only got a UK-15 certificate. But my personal view is that, with the violence and the offensive dialogue, the BBFC under called this one, and it should have been an 18.
- There's a lot of schmaltz layered on regarding the relationship between Millie and her mum (Katie Finneran, channelling a Laura Dern look). A store cubicle exchange between Finneran and Vaughn is particularly stomach-churning.
- The movie leaves logic at the door many times. A formulaic post-finale ending assumes a superhero ability to shrug off bullets.
Summary Thoughts on "Freaky": The 'body-swap idea has gone through dozens of movie versions, with Disney's "Freaky Friday" the most well known: it's actually had two outings, once in 1976 with a young Jodie Foster and Barbara Harris and again in 2003 with Lindsay Lohan and Jamie-Lee Curtis. (The latter is a firm Mann-family favourite).
This new version tries a serial-killer twist on the story, which is a good idea. But the movie fails to execute well on the concept. The director is Christopher Landon who did the "Happy Death Day" movies. This is in a similar vein. So teens who enjoyed those flicks might get a fun Saturday night out with this. But, for me, this fell between the stools of comedy and horror and is instantly forgettable.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/03/freaky-no-its-not-remotely-like-the-disney-version/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies). Thanks.)
BookInspector (124 KP) rated Dear Amy in Books
Sep 24, 2020
When I read the description of the book it really left me intrigued and I was very excited when I got this review book. After I finished it, I was slightly disappointed of how it turned out. The main character was a teacher/adviser Margot Lewis. Who was about to get divorced with her husband. When the schoolgirl gets kidnapped, Margot starts getting letters from Bethan, who vanished a decade ago, with a request to save her. Police is laughing at her letters, so she is trying to figure out Bethan’s story on her own. But what she finds out ruins her life. Margot is a very strong woman, who has some serious psychological issues. However I really liked the way she was dealing with them. Most of the novel is told by Margot, however I really loved that there were parts, where other characters had chance to express themselves. There was a part where the kidnapped schoolgirl had to tell her side of the story and how she was feeling in some situations. I was ecstatic when author gave an insight of the kidnapper’s brain and how he saw and felt during the whole story. The ability to involve more than one character in the book makes me enjoy it way more, and I am over the moon when authors do it. The characters in this publication were quite interesting and enjoyable.
I don’t think that the whole idea of getting letters from kidnapped people was very original, but the fact that they come after so long kept the suspense going. Unfortunately not for very long, because at least for me it was quite predictable what the outcome will be and who the sender was. The intensity of the plot I would describe as “V” shape. The beginning had turns and was interesting, the middle of the book got quite boring and predictable and then towards the end it became interesting and twisty again. I was not very excited to read so many Margot’s thoughts, as some of them were quite irrelevant and felt like dragging unnecessary. There was some action going on but it could’ve been a bit faster paced. It was quite easy to read this book; it has a simple and understandable writing style. The author shares her love for Cambridge in a very enjoyable way by describing the places and buildings very nicely and with great detail. Never been there but from this book I can imagine it is a beautiful place. I really liked that author touched such themes as school hierarchy, influence of internet posts and how naive young girls can be. I do hope that people who read the book will learn something from this book. I truly enjoyed the ending of the book and I think it was really thought trough and concluding. It didn’t leave any unfinished business and I’m very happy about it. So to conclude, It is a good book if you looking for mystery, some twists and turns and the story which was told from more than one point of view.
I don’t think that the whole idea of getting letters from kidnapped people was very original, but the fact that they come after so long kept the suspense going. Unfortunately not for very long, because at least for me it was quite predictable what the outcome will be and who the sender was. The intensity of the plot I would describe as “V” shape. The beginning had turns and was interesting, the middle of the book got quite boring and predictable and then towards the end it became interesting and twisty again. I was not very excited to read so many Margot’s thoughts, as some of them were quite irrelevant and felt like dragging unnecessary. There was some action going on but it could’ve been a bit faster paced. It was quite easy to read this book; it has a simple and understandable writing style. The author shares her love for Cambridge in a very enjoyable way by describing the places and buildings very nicely and with great detail. Never been there but from this book I can imagine it is a beautiful place. I really liked that author touched such themes as school hierarchy, influence of internet posts and how naive young girls can be. I do hope that people who read the book will learn something from this book. I truly enjoyed the ending of the book and I think it was really thought trough and concluding. It didn’t leave any unfinished business and I’m very happy about it. So to conclude, It is a good book if you looking for mystery, some twists and turns and the story which was told from more than one point of view.