Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018) in Movies
Jan 10, 2019 (Updated Jan 10, 2019)
A winning anthology
I am NOT a Coen Brothers apologist. For every good/great film that they have made (like FARGO, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN or underrated THE HUDSUCKER PROXY) there are duds/movies that didn't work for me (like O' BROTHER WHER ART THOU, INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS and the movie I ranked as the worst film of 2016, HAIL, CAESAR). So when I heard that the latest Coen Brothers flick was going straight to Netflix AND (like HAIL, CAESAR), it was a film anthology of 6 short stories, I dragged my feet in checking this out.
But...I am glad I finally got around to it...for THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS is a strong film, taking on a heavy subject (death) in a variety of ways - light-hearted, poignant and deadly (pun intended) serious. The tone of this film - or, more accurately, these 6 short films - worked for me and I felt they wove together very well to tell an overarching story of man's relationship with death - as seen through the eyes of Wild, Wild West characters.
And what characters they are! From Tim Blake Nelson's titular character, Buster Scruggs, to James Franco's hapless (but lucky) Outlaw to Liam Neeson's traveling theatrical show to Tom Waite's grizzled prospector to Zoe Kazan's lonesome Prairie Widow to the group of passengers on the Stagecoach in the last vignette, all are interesting to watch, and listen to.
Credit, of course, needs to go to Joel and Ethan Cohen. These characters are interesting to watch, because these two put wonderful scenes and scenery up on the screen with dialogue (or lack of dialogue) that perfectly reflects what is going on and what the characters are feeling. In my opinion, the Coen Brothers are at their best when they focus on gritty subjects with poignancy (BARTON FINK) but fail when they try to get "wacky" or "over-serious" (BURN AFTER READING, A SERIOUS MAN), this film is full of the former and has very little of the latter.
I'm sure, like all Coen Brothers films, that this anthology of short films is not for everyone - and not every film will work for everyone - but they did for me. I thought each short film was the better than the one before it. I caught the vibe of what the Coen's were after and I fell under their spell.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
But...I am glad I finally got around to it...for THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS is a strong film, taking on a heavy subject (death) in a variety of ways - light-hearted, poignant and deadly (pun intended) serious. The tone of this film - or, more accurately, these 6 short films - worked for me and I felt they wove together very well to tell an overarching story of man's relationship with death - as seen through the eyes of Wild, Wild West characters.
And what characters they are! From Tim Blake Nelson's titular character, Buster Scruggs, to James Franco's hapless (but lucky) Outlaw to Liam Neeson's traveling theatrical show to Tom Waite's grizzled prospector to Zoe Kazan's lonesome Prairie Widow to the group of passengers on the Stagecoach in the last vignette, all are interesting to watch, and listen to.
Credit, of course, needs to go to Joel and Ethan Cohen. These characters are interesting to watch, because these two put wonderful scenes and scenery up on the screen with dialogue (or lack of dialogue) that perfectly reflects what is going on and what the characters are feeling. In my opinion, the Coen Brothers are at their best when they focus on gritty subjects with poignancy (BARTON FINK) but fail when they try to get "wacky" or "over-serious" (BURN AFTER READING, A SERIOUS MAN), this film is full of the former and has very little of the latter.
I'm sure, like all Coen Brothers films, that this anthology of short films is not for everyone - and not every film will work for everyone - but they did for me. I thought each short film was the better than the one before it. I caught the vibe of what the Coen's were after and I fell under their spell.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Luce (2019) in Movies
Oct 26, 2019
Luce was an interesting film to watch, it shows a lot of different relationships and as such it's a very wordy sort of film. I'm not averse to wordy films but they can be a little dry to watch, luckily in this case the main cast are engaging and keep you interested.
Had we not been blessed with such a great performance from Kelvin Harrison Jr as Luce I think this would have failed to make it out of the blocks. Luce becomes something very serious in his hands and the swing in the character left me with an uneasy feeling as I watched. The one frustrating thing I found was that I could sense the insincerity in all of his responses so I was frustrated that it was only really Miss Wilson that picked up on it. I understand that it's a necessary part of the story... but still.
Octavia Spencer didn't disappoint as Harriet Wilson. She got to give a good range as she devolves after going head to head with Luce. I think she probably managed to cover every emotion and handles either end of the spectrum very well.
Tim Roth and Naomi Watts play Luce's adoptive parents. Roth is someone I love on screen but Watts is an unknown entity for me as I've only seen her in 2005's King Kong. There's obviously a certain amount of tension/conflict between the couple but even taking that into consideration I didn't feel there was much of a rapport between them. Even when you take into account the conflict in the film I couldn't quite find it in me to feel anything for the couple, good or bad. Roth as Peter was good and brought across the slightly bitter side of the character well but Watt's Amy didn't seem to have enough emotion behind her. I'd have said that Amy in particular could have stood to be a little grittier, at least a small part of her did need to be a bit of a pushover but combined with her activities in the film the character didn't feel entirely believable.
Luce was enjoyable to watch but looking back I'm less enthusiastic despite the good performances at the front of it. The good sadly didn't outway the average for me and at times it became a little confusing, but it's still a solid film.
From the full review previously posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/luce-movie-review.html
Had we not been blessed with such a great performance from Kelvin Harrison Jr as Luce I think this would have failed to make it out of the blocks. Luce becomes something very serious in his hands and the swing in the character left me with an uneasy feeling as I watched. The one frustrating thing I found was that I could sense the insincerity in all of his responses so I was frustrated that it was only really Miss Wilson that picked up on it. I understand that it's a necessary part of the story... but still.
Octavia Spencer didn't disappoint as Harriet Wilson. She got to give a good range as she devolves after going head to head with Luce. I think she probably managed to cover every emotion and handles either end of the spectrum very well.
Tim Roth and Naomi Watts play Luce's adoptive parents. Roth is someone I love on screen but Watts is an unknown entity for me as I've only seen her in 2005's King Kong. There's obviously a certain amount of tension/conflict between the couple but even taking that into consideration I didn't feel there was much of a rapport between them. Even when you take into account the conflict in the film I couldn't quite find it in me to feel anything for the couple, good or bad. Roth as Peter was good and brought across the slightly bitter side of the character well but Watt's Amy didn't seem to have enough emotion behind her. I'd have said that Amy in particular could have stood to be a little grittier, at least a small part of her did need to be a bit of a pushover but combined with her activities in the film the character didn't feel entirely believable.
Luce was enjoyable to watch but looking back I'm less enthusiastic despite the good performances at the front of it. The good sadly didn't outway the average for me and at times it became a little confusing, but it's still a solid film.
From the full review previously posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/luce-movie-review.html
Firefly - Season 1
9.3
Rate It
TV Season
Firefly is an American space western drama television series created by writer and director Joss...
Firefly Serenity Joss Whedon Browncoats TV Series Fox
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Shaft (2019) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
Bland, boring and uninteresting
Were you the one clamoring for a sequel to the year 2000 Samuel L. Jackson SHAFT (the sequel to the original 1971 Richard Roundtree SHAFT)? Did you remember there WAS a 2000 version of SHAFT? Do you remember the 1971 SHAFT?
Doesn't matter.
The makers of this film certainly don't remember those films for - besides casting Jackson and Roundtree - there is no similarity to either of these films.
The first SHAFT was a Blacksploitation film starring Roundtree with mucho gunfire and bloodshed and SHAFT 2000 (as I'll call it) is a full on action flick with Jackson as Roundtree's nephew fighting crime. SHAFT 2019 is none of these - the Samuel L. Jackson Shaft is now the SON of Richard Roundtree and partners with his son JJ ,John Shaft, Jr. (played by Jessie T. Usher) to investigate the death of his friend.
Okay...fine. I can forgive the change in tone and the "tweak" (I'm being generous) to the timeline. What I can't forgive is the weak script (why write any good, or interesting, dialogue when we can have all of the characters say Samuel L. Jackson's signature motherf*^#er over and over) by 3 different writers (never a good sign) that were all, clearly, just in it for the paycheck.
Jessie T. Usher (he played Will Smith's son in the also ill-advised sequel to INDEPENDENCE DAY) is a bland lead with no gravitas and no swagger that starts out young and naive and is supposed to develop (under the tutelage of his father) street smarts but, really, just becomes annoying.
Regina Hall (GIRLS TRIP), Titus Welliver (BOSCH), Method Man (!) and Luna Lauren Velez (DEXTER) are all sleepwalking through underwritten roles just counting the minutes until they can take their paychecks to the bank.
At the heart of all of this "missed opportunities" is Director Tim Story (RIDE ALONG) he directs this film like he has someplace else to be, never missing an opportunity to be obvious (for example, JJ's friend - Karim - who's death sparks what passes for a plot in this film - might as well be walking around with a "Dead Man Walking" sign on him). Story's direction is lazy (and that's doing injustice to the word lazy) and obvious with no spark of ingenuity or imagination to be found.
And then there's Samuel L. Jackson as SHAFT. He defines the term "sleepwalking through the picture" looking bored and uninterested throughout and HE'S THE BEST THING IN THE FILM! Thank goodness his charisma and charm ooze out of him without really trying - for he didn't really try here.
Save 2 hours of your life - skip SHAFT - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Doesn't matter.
The makers of this film certainly don't remember those films for - besides casting Jackson and Roundtree - there is no similarity to either of these films.
The first SHAFT was a Blacksploitation film starring Roundtree with mucho gunfire and bloodshed and SHAFT 2000 (as I'll call it) is a full on action flick with Jackson as Roundtree's nephew fighting crime. SHAFT 2019 is none of these - the Samuel L. Jackson Shaft is now the SON of Richard Roundtree and partners with his son JJ ,John Shaft, Jr. (played by Jessie T. Usher) to investigate the death of his friend.
Okay...fine. I can forgive the change in tone and the "tweak" (I'm being generous) to the timeline. What I can't forgive is the weak script (why write any good, or interesting, dialogue when we can have all of the characters say Samuel L. Jackson's signature motherf*^#er over and over) by 3 different writers (never a good sign) that were all, clearly, just in it for the paycheck.
Jessie T. Usher (he played Will Smith's son in the also ill-advised sequel to INDEPENDENCE DAY) is a bland lead with no gravitas and no swagger that starts out young and naive and is supposed to develop (under the tutelage of his father) street smarts but, really, just becomes annoying.
Regina Hall (GIRLS TRIP), Titus Welliver (BOSCH), Method Man (!) and Luna Lauren Velez (DEXTER) are all sleepwalking through underwritten roles just counting the minutes until they can take their paychecks to the bank.
At the heart of all of this "missed opportunities" is Director Tim Story (RIDE ALONG) he directs this film like he has someplace else to be, never missing an opportunity to be obvious (for example, JJ's friend - Karim - who's death sparks what passes for a plot in this film - might as well be walking around with a "Dead Man Walking" sign on him). Story's direction is lazy (and that's doing injustice to the word lazy) and obvious with no spark of ingenuity or imagination to be found.
And then there's Samuel L. Jackson as SHAFT. He defines the term "sleepwalking through the picture" looking bored and uninterested throughout and HE'S THE BEST THING IN THE FILM! Thank goodness his charisma and charm ooze out of him without really trying - for he didn't really try here.
Save 2 hours of your life - skip SHAFT - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
The battle for the future is about to unfold and if you think that “Terminator: Dark Fate” is dancing around to a familiar tune; you would be right to a certain point. Once again a killer cyborg from the future is dispatched to our timeline in order to destroy someone who will play a part in the downfall of an A.I. system in the future.
As before; a protector is sent back and this time around it is a woman named Grace (Mackenzie Davis); who will need every bit of her augmented abilities to stop a deadly new Terminator (Diego Luna), from killing a young girl named Dani (Natalia Reyes).
Grace is soon joined by Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), who has been waging a war on Terminators for most of her life and now has an even bigger reason to hate them. Sarah clashes with Grace as she tells her that she was Dani at one point and knows all too well what is going on even though Grace’s future does not include the exploits of Sarah and her son.
The crew eventually join forces with an older Terminator model (Arnold Schwarzenegger); to try to stop the new threat and what follows are some amazing action sequences along with some light comedic moments.
While the film opens with epic battles and chases which bring back memories of the earlier films it is the breakneck intensity that sets this film apart. While audiences are not in awe with a liquid metal Terminator as they were in the second film, it is done in a new and creative way to keep you guessing.
The film also cleverly throws some unexpected twists which helps explain the divergence from the futuristic timeline that was displayed in the prior films.
However this time around we get a fresh new wrinkle with a new A.I., new Terminator, new characters, but the same intense action sequences that have been missing from the series.
Creator James Cameron has returned to the franchise as a Producer and story contributor, and Director Tim Miller using the earlier Cameron films to set a tone that makes this film stand out from the recent sequels.
The return of Hamilton is great and she shows off a gritty and tough Sarah that has been missing greatly from the series. Luna plays his role with an icy efficiency but also has some good lines in the process showing how his model is an even more skilled and deadly infiltration unit.
While it will not be in the same class as the first two films in the series; it is much more enjoyable and much better than the subsequent films as Cameron and Miller have created an intense and relentless action spectacle.
4 stars out of 5
As before; a protector is sent back and this time around it is a woman named Grace (Mackenzie Davis); who will need every bit of her augmented abilities to stop a deadly new Terminator (Diego Luna), from killing a young girl named Dani (Natalia Reyes).
Grace is soon joined by Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), who has been waging a war on Terminators for most of her life and now has an even bigger reason to hate them. Sarah clashes with Grace as she tells her that she was Dani at one point and knows all too well what is going on even though Grace’s future does not include the exploits of Sarah and her son.
The crew eventually join forces with an older Terminator model (Arnold Schwarzenegger); to try to stop the new threat and what follows are some amazing action sequences along with some light comedic moments.
While the film opens with epic battles and chases which bring back memories of the earlier films it is the breakneck intensity that sets this film apart. While audiences are not in awe with a liquid metal Terminator as they were in the second film, it is done in a new and creative way to keep you guessing.
The film also cleverly throws some unexpected twists which helps explain the divergence from the futuristic timeline that was displayed in the prior films.
However this time around we get a fresh new wrinkle with a new A.I., new Terminator, new characters, but the same intense action sequences that have been missing from the series.
Creator James Cameron has returned to the franchise as a Producer and story contributor, and Director Tim Miller using the earlier Cameron films to set a tone that makes this film stand out from the recent sequels.
The return of Hamilton is great and she shows off a gritty and tough Sarah that has been missing greatly from the series. Luna plays his role with an icy efficiency but also has some good lines in the process showing how his model is an even more skilled and deadly infiltration unit.
While it will not be in the same class as the first two films in the series; it is much more enjoyable and much better than the subsequent films as Cameron and Miller have created an intense and relentless action spectacle.
4 stars out of 5
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Atomic Blonde (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Say hello to Mrs. John Wick
David Leitch is one of the most exciting film-makers of the current crop of directors working today. His brilliant John Wick reignited Keanu Reeves’ career in spectacular fashion and he’s worked behind-the-scenes on films like Captain America: Civil War and Jurassic World.
Just this year he signed on to direct Deadpool 2 after Tim Miller’s sudden departure. In the meantime, he’s treating us to another adults-only thriller, Atomic Blonde. But is this Charlize Theron-led vehicle as good as his previous work?
Sensual and savage, Lorraine Broughton (Charlize Theron) is the most elite spy in MI6, an agent willing to use all her skills to stay alive during impossible missions. With the Berlin Wall ready to crumble, she travels into the middle of the city to retrieve a dossier and take down an espionage ring. Once there, she teams up with an embedded station chief (James McAvoy) to navigate her way through the deadliest game of spies.
Charlize Theron is fast-becoming one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars after decent turns in Fast & Furious 8 and Mad Max: Fury Road. In Atomic Blonde this is no exception. She commands the screen in each and every frame, oozing class and showing the world she is a first-class action superstar.
The rest of the cast are also exquisite. James McAvoy can do no wrong this year after his out-of-this-world performance in Split, and his David Percival here is fleshed out, well-written and beautifully acted. Elsewhere, John Goodman and Toby Jones add even more prowess to proceedings.
Add to this some stunning cinematography and you’ve got a recipe for success. Atomic Blonde relishes the era in which it is presented with a magnificent soundtrack and beautiful direction. Leitch makes the film feel very much alive, with brutally realistic action shot without needless shaky cam or over-the-top scoring.
Unfortunately, the story is less successful. If Theron is the living, beating heart of Atomic Blonde, the script nearly strangles her. It is nearly impossible to truly understand what is happening on screen as the plot throws more twists and turns at the audience than Spaghetti Junction. Ordinarily, this would be great, but here it’s distracting and nonsensical.
Nevertheless, this is a vastly entertaining film, very much in the same vein of John Wick. In fact, it’d be fantastic if we could see these two characters brought together in a crossover of epic proportions.
Overall, David Leitch hasn’t quite recaptured the success of his first feature film but has managed to craft a highly stylised and quick-moving thriller that feels very real and utilises its exceptional cast incredibly well, with Charlize Theron being an absolute delight. It’s just unfortunate the plot is a bit of a damp squib.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/08/10/atomic-blonde-review-say-hello-to-mrs-john-wick/
Just this year he signed on to direct Deadpool 2 after Tim Miller’s sudden departure. In the meantime, he’s treating us to another adults-only thriller, Atomic Blonde. But is this Charlize Theron-led vehicle as good as his previous work?
Sensual and savage, Lorraine Broughton (Charlize Theron) is the most elite spy in MI6, an agent willing to use all her skills to stay alive during impossible missions. With the Berlin Wall ready to crumble, she travels into the middle of the city to retrieve a dossier and take down an espionage ring. Once there, she teams up with an embedded station chief (James McAvoy) to navigate her way through the deadliest game of spies.
Charlize Theron is fast-becoming one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars after decent turns in Fast & Furious 8 and Mad Max: Fury Road. In Atomic Blonde this is no exception. She commands the screen in each and every frame, oozing class and showing the world she is a first-class action superstar.
The rest of the cast are also exquisite. James McAvoy can do no wrong this year after his out-of-this-world performance in Split, and his David Percival here is fleshed out, well-written and beautifully acted. Elsewhere, John Goodman and Toby Jones add even more prowess to proceedings.
Add to this some stunning cinematography and you’ve got a recipe for success. Atomic Blonde relishes the era in which it is presented with a magnificent soundtrack and beautiful direction. Leitch makes the film feel very much alive, with brutally realistic action shot without needless shaky cam or over-the-top scoring.
Unfortunately, the story is less successful. If Theron is the living, beating heart of Atomic Blonde, the script nearly strangles her. It is nearly impossible to truly understand what is happening on screen as the plot throws more twists and turns at the audience than Spaghetti Junction. Ordinarily, this would be great, but here it’s distracting and nonsensical.
Nevertheless, this is a vastly entertaining film, very much in the same vein of John Wick. In fact, it’d be fantastic if we could see these two characters brought together in a crossover of epic proportions.
Overall, David Leitch hasn’t quite recaptured the success of his first feature film but has managed to craft a highly stylised and quick-moving thriller that feels very real and utilises its exceptional cast incredibly well, with Charlize Theron being an absolute delight. It’s just unfortunate the plot is a bit of a damp squib.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/08/10/atomic-blonde-review-say-hello-to-mrs-john-wick/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Minions (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Bright, smart and hilarious
They’re everywhere! Minions have become a worldwide phenomenon since their unveiling in 2010’s smash-hit Despicable Me and for their return in its sequel.
It was only a matter of time before Universal gave their most successful animated franchise a prequel, and allowing it to focus on the cute yellow creatures was a masterstroke by the people behind the scenes. No matter where you go there is something minion related to buy.
But the question is, does a film based on them truly work? After all, it’s their evil master Gru who is the main focus of the previous features.
Minions follows the history of the loveable race from humble beginnings serving an unlucky Tyrannosaurus right up to the moment they meet their aforementioned boss in a film packed full of colour and imagination.
After a history lesson narrated by the wonderful Geoffrey Rush, we find three plucky minions – Kevin, Stuart and the adorable Bob (accompanied by teddy Tim) as they are about to embark on a mission to find the most evil boss in the world.
Stumbling across the wicked Scarlet Overkill (voiced beautifully by Sandra Bullock) along the way, the trio think they have found everything they ever wanted right here in England.
Seeing London realised in animation as excellent as that in Minions is a joy. The city is a hive of activity with every frame being filled to the brim with tiny details like stained-glass windows, bees, rats, telephone boxes and fluttering flags. It’s just a shame we don’t get to see it more.
Naturally the English stereotypes come out in full force with tea-drinking newsreaders and policemen, but they’re done in such good taste you can’t help but laugh.
This is where Minions excels. Its humour is sublime. The kids will be rolling around in the aisles one moment, with adults finding something equally as hilarious the next – this is how a family film should be. There are pop culture references abound and even some nods to previous US presidents.
Kevin, Bob and Stuart are the perfect trio to spend 90 minutes with. Each of them have rich personalities that feel like they’ve been cleverly crafted to ensure you find a bit of yourself in each – I know, it sounds ridiculous.
Unfortunately, the story runs a little out of puff towards the film’s climax. It delves into unnecessarily silly territory when it really doesn’t need to and it’s a shame that a smart kid’s movie like this feels the need to dumb it all down.
Thankfully, it picks up again in the last 15 minutes and makes for a truly memorable ending.
Overall, Minions is a funny, charming and well-paced film that confirms what we all feared – Britain is obsessed by minions. The animation and humour are both sublime with only an exhausted plot stopping it from achieving greatness.
One thing’s for sure though, that obsession your child has with the pill-shaped creatures, it won’t be going away any time soon. Minions – me ti amo (I love you in Minionese).
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/28/bright-smart-and-hilarious-minions-review/
It was only a matter of time before Universal gave their most successful animated franchise a prequel, and allowing it to focus on the cute yellow creatures was a masterstroke by the people behind the scenes. No matter where you go there is something minion related to buy.
But the question is, does a film based on them truly work? After all, it’s their evil master Gru who is the main focus of the previous features.
Minions follows the history of the loveable race from humble beginnings serving an unlucky Tyrannosaurus right up to the moment they meet their aforementioned boss in a film packed full of colour and imagination.
After a history lesson narrated by the wonderful Geoffrey Rush, we find three plucky minions – Kevin, Stuart and the adorable Bob (accompanied by teddy Tim) as they are about to embark on a mission to find the most evil boss in the world.
Stumbling across the wicked Scarlet Overkill (voiced beautifully by Sandra Bullock) along the way, the trio think they have found everything they ever wanted right here in England.
Seeing London realised in animation as excellent as that in Minions is a joy. The city is a hive of activity with every frame being filled to the brim with tiny details like stained-glass windows, bees, rats, telephone boxes and fluttering flags. It’s just a shame we don’t get to see it more.
Naturally the English stereotypes come out in full force with tea-drinking newsreaders and policemen, but they’re done in such good taste you can’t help but laugh.
This is where Minions excels. Its humour is sublime. The kids will be rolling around in the aisles one moment, with adults finding something equally as hilarious the next – this is how a family film should be. There are pop culture references abound and even some nods to previous US presidents.
Kevin, Bob and Stuart are the perfect trio to spend 90 minutes with. Each of them have rich personalities that feel like they’ve been cleverly crafted to ensure you find a bit of yourself in each – I know, it sounds ridiculous.
Unfortunately, the story runs a little out of puff towards the film’s climax. It delves into unnecessarily silly territory when it really doesn’t need to and it’s a shame that a smart kid’s movie like this feels the need to dumb it all down.
Thankfully, it picks up again in the last 15 minutes and makes for a truly memorable ending.
Overall, Minions is a funny, charming and well-paced film that confirms what we all feared – Britain is obsessed by minions. The animation and humour are both sublime with only an exhausted plot stopping it from achieving greatness.
One thing’s for sure though, that obsession your child has with the pill-shaped creatures, it won’t be going away any time soon. Minions – me ti amo (I love you in Minionese).
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/28/bright-smart-and-hilarious-minions-review/
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Clue (1985) in Movies
Nov 3, 2020
The Multiple Endings (2 more)
The Cast
The Humor
All Time Favorites
Ive seen Clue about nine times now and it has become a tradition to watch Clue every October. I remember watching clue the first time and i laughed my ass off and i still do that. The humor is excellent, the cast is excellent, the multiple endings are excellent. Everything about Clue is excellent.
The plot: Based on the popular board game, this comedy begins at a dinner party hosted by Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving), where he admits to blackmailing his visitors. These guests, who have been given aliases, are Mrs. Peacock (Eileen Brennan), Miss Scarlet (Lesley Ann Warren), Mr. Green (Michael McKean), professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd), Mrs. White (Madeline Kahn) and Col. Mustard (Martin Mull). When Boddy turns up murdered, all are suspects, and together they try to figure out who is the killer.
The film was produced by Debra Hill and the story was by John Landis.
In keeping with the nature of the board game, the theatrical release included three possible endings, with different theaters receiving one of the three endings. In the film's home video release, all three endings were included.
The multiple-ending concept was developed by John Landis, who claimed in an interview to have invited playwright Tom Stoppard, writer and composer Stephen Sondheim, and actor Anthony Perkins to write the screenplay. The script was ultimately finished by director Jonathan Lynn.
A fourth ending was filmed, but Lynn removed it because as he later stated, "It really wasn't very good. I looked at it, and I thought, 'No, no, no, we've got to get rid of that.'" In the unused fourth ending, Wadsworth committed all of the murders. He was motivated by his desire for perfection. Having failed to be either the perfect husband or the perfect butler, he decided to be the perfect murderer instead. Wadsworth reports that he poisoned the champagne the guests had drunk earlier so they would soon die, leaving no witnesses. The police and the FBI arrive and Wadsworth is arrested. He breaks free and steals a police car, but his escape is thwarted when three police dogs lunge from the back seat. This ending is documented in Clue: The Storybook, a tie-in book released in conjunction with the film.
Carrie Fisher was originally contracted to portray Miss Scarlet, but withdrew to enter treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. Jonathan Lynn's first choice for the role of Wadsworth was Leonard Rossiter, but he died before filming commenced. The second choice was Rowan Atkinson, but it was decided that he wasn't well known enough at the time, so Tim Curry was eventually cast.
Mrs. White's famous "Flames" speech was improvised by Madeline Kahn.
A documentary about the movie is being made, including interviews already filmed with the director, writer, and several cast members including Lesley Ann Warren, Michael McKean, Colleen Camp, and Lee Ving.
I love Clue, it is one of my all time favorite films. In my top ten best films of all time at number #3 and just excellent.
Happy Halloween everybody.
The plot: Based on the popular board game, this comedy begins at a dinner party hosted by Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving), where he admits to blackmailing his visitors. These guests, who have been given aliases, are Mrs. Peacock (Eileen Brennan), Miss Scarlet (Lesley Ann Warren), Mr. Green (Michael McKean), professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd), Mrs. White (Madeline Kahn) and Col. Mustard (Martin Mull). When Boddy turns up murdered, all are suspects, and together they try to figure out who is the killer.
The film was produced by Debra Hill and the story was by John Landis.
In keeping with the nature of the board game, the theatrical release included three possible endings, with different theaters receiving one of the three endings. In the film's home video release, all three endings were included.
The multiple-ending concept was developed by John Landis, who claimed in an interview to have invited playwright Tom Stoppard, writer and composer Stephen Sondheim, and actor Anthony Perkins to write the screenplay. The script was ultimately finished by director Jonathan Lynn.
A fourth ending was filmed, but Lynn removed it because as he later stated, "It really wasn't very good. I looked at it, and I thought, 'No, no, no, we've got to get rid of that.'" In the unused fourth ending, Wadsworth committed all of the murders. He was motivated by his desire for perfection. Having failed to be either the perfect husband or the perfect butler, he decided to be the perfect murderer instead. Wadsworth reports that he poisoned the champagne the guests had drunk earlier so they would soon die, leaving no witnesses. The police and the FBI arrive and Wadsworth is arrested. He breaks free and steals a police car, but his escape is thwarted when three police dogs lunge from the back seat. This ending is documented in Clue: The Storybook, a tie-in book released in conjunction with the film.
Carrie Fisher was originally contracted to portray Miss Scarlet, but withdrew to enter treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. Jonathan Lynn's first choice for the role of Wadsworth was Leonard Rossiter, but he died before filming commenced. The second choice was Rowan Atkinson, but it was decided that he wasn't well known enough at the time, so Tim Curry was eventually cast.
Mrs. White's famous "Flames" speech was improvised by Madeline Kahn.
A documentary about the movie is being made, including interviews already filmed with the director, writer, and several cast members including Lesley Ann Warren, Michael McKean, Colleen Camp, and Lee Ving.
I love Clue, it is one of my all time favorite films. In my top ten best films of all time at number #3 and just excellent.
Happy Halloween everybody.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Colossal (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Marvel-ous Indie Movie
Well!! I’ve been really surprised (in a good way) by two films this year, and both have involved monsters (the first being “A Monster Calls” back in January).
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.