Search
Search results
Jordan Binkerd (567 KP) rated Men in Black International (2019) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
Chris Hemsworth (2 more)
Tessa Thompson
Pawny
The two twists are visible a mile away (1 more)
No Will Smith, no Tommy Lee Jones
Not as good as the original, but still excellent
I see a lot of derogatory reviews for this one, and I don't really understand that. Is it as good as the original? No. Neither were the other two sequels. I can only think of two sequels in the history of movies that were as good or better than the original: Terminator 2 - Judgement Day and Star Wars - The Empire Strikes Back. Okay, three, I forgot about The Road Warrior. My point stands. It's an unfair expectation to put on this film, which was perfectly enjoyable and managed to move the MiB franchise outside New York City for a change.
Agent M is our protagonist, a woman who witnessed MiB in action as a girl and escaped being Neuralized. After tracking down MiB, she's sent to London and partnered with Agent H, a legend in the agency who seems to have lost what made him a competent agent. Together, they must ferret out a mole in the Men in Black....
While they're no Smith and Jones, Hemsworth and Thompson have excellent chemistry as evidenced by their repeatedly being paired with each other. Emma Thompson and Liam Neeson are incapable of failing to entertain, especially in material as bonkers as MiB, and Pawny was hilarious. The storyline is a bit cliche, and you see the twists coming miles away, but on the whole I greatly enjoyed the film. It's exactly what I expected it to be, exactly what it wanted to be. The reason for H's change in character is left a little bit ambiguous and unexplained, but should be clear enough on further consideration. I'd be down for a couple more with this cast, honestly....
Agent M is our protagonist, a woman who witnessed MiB in action as a girl and escaped being Neuralized. After tracking down MiB, she's sent to London and partnered with Agent H, a legend in the agency who seems to have lost what made him a competent agent. Together, they must ferret out a mole in the Men in Black....
While they're no Smith and Jones, Hemsworth and Thompson have excellent chemistry as evidenced by their repeatedly being paired with each other. Emma Thompson and Liam Neeson are incapable of failing to entertain, especially in material as bonkers as MiB, and Pawny was hilarious. The storyline is a bit cliche, and you see the twists coming miles away, but on the whole I greatly enjoyed the film. It's exactly what I expected it to be, exactly what it wanted to be. The reason for H's change in character is left a little bit ambiguous and unexplained, but should be clear enough on further consideration. I'd be down for a couple more with this cast, honestly....
Lee (2222 KP) rated Men in Black International (2019) in Movies
Jun 16, 2019
A complete waste of time
Aside from Avengers Endgame, 2019 is shaping up to be pretty disappointing when it comes to blockbuster movies. Godzilla received a bit of a panning from the critics (although I personally quite liked it), then Dark Phoenix took an even bigger hit in the reviews, which I completely agree with. And now we have a sequel that nobody asked for, to a movie which has already had a couple of fairly average sequels, which has also received a wave of early bad reviews this week. To be honest, the trailer for Men In Black International certainly looked a bit....meh. A bunch of random stuff happening, no real indication of any plot, some annoying looking CGI aliens and an attempt to just coast off the back of having Thor and Valkyrie reunited on screen. I still remember how memorable the original trailer for the 1997 MIB movie was when it featured in cinemas - the shades, the guns, the aliens, the massive flying saucer crash landing in front of a cool looking Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones. This trailer had none of that wow factor, but I went in, hopeful as always that the reviews were wrong.
The movie begins in 2016, with Agent H (Chris Hemsworth) and High T (Liam Neeson) as they ascend the Eiffel Tower, interrupting a man who is about to propose to his partner, before saving the world from an incoming alien race called The Hive. Then we jump back 20 years into the past to a family who are disturbed one night by a cute little alien in their back garden. As the young daughter, Molly, hides the alien in her bedroom, she looks out of her window to see her parents as they are neuralysed by a couple of Men in Black.
Back in present day, Molly (Tessa Thompson) is now all grown up, but hasn't forgotten that eventful night. While working in a call centre, she uses her computer to connect to satellite equipment in order to track alien landings and therefore try and gain access to the Men in Black, and hopefully get a job with them. Eventually finding her way into their headquarters, she is recruited by Agent O (Emma Thompson) and sent on her first mission, where she partners up with Agent H. The pair get caught up in a mission involving an assassinated alien VIP and some kind of super weapon. And, as the title of the movie suggests, plenty of international travel, as we switch between New York, London, Paris and Marrakesh.
The problem is, whereas the original Men in Black boasted a lot of humour, along with some great visual gags and action and a great double act, in the form of Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, this movie does nothing to successfully recapture any of that. As much as I love Chris Hemsworth, I felt that he was the worst thing about this movie. Somebody simply thought they'd take the character of Thor and try to have that for the entire movie, but without making him funny, heroic or even that likeable in the process. As with Dark Phoenix recently, a great cast is let down by an awful script, with any attempts at humour or entertainment falling completely flat.
Elsewhere, the fun and wacky inventiveness behind the different alien species in the original movie is completely absent here. Apart from some interesting and formidable twin villains, there's a fairly wasted role for Rebecca Ferguson as a three armed ex lover of Agent H. Otherwise, the main alien throughout the movie is just an annoying little CGI character.
To be fair, there are a couple of fun action sequences and some nice visuals, but overall this is just a completely forgettable and unnecessary movie. Here's hoping that Toy Story 4 will finally bring us a worthy blockbuster when it opens later this week.
The movie begins in 2016, with Agent H (Chris Hemsworth) and High T (Liam Neeson) as they ascend the Eiffel Tower, interrupting a man who is about to propose to his partner, before saving the world from an incoming alien race called The Hive. Then we jump back 20 years into the past to a family who are disturbed one night by a cute little alien in their back garden. As the young daughter, Molly, hides the alien in her bedroom, she looks out of her window to see her parents as they are neuralysed by a couple of Men in Black.
Back in present day, Molly (Tessa Thompson) is now all grown up, but hasn't forgotten that eventful night. While working in a call centre, she uses her computer to connect to satellite equipment in order to track alien landings and therefore try and gain access to the Men in Black, and hopefully get a job with them. Eventually finding her way into their headquarters, she is recruited by Agent O (Emma Thompson) and sent on her first mission, where she partners up with Agent H. The pair get caught up in a mission involving an assassinated alien VIP and some kind of super weapon. And, as the title of the movie suggests, plenty of international travel, as we switch between New York, London, Paris and Marrakesh.
The problem is, whereas the original Men in Black boasted a lot of humour, along with some great visual gags and action and a great double act, in the form of Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, this movie does nothing to successfully recapture any of that. As much as I love Chris Hemsworth, I felt that he was the worst thing about this movie. Somebody simply thought they'd take the character of Thor and try to have that for the entire movie, but without making him funny, heroic or even that likeable in the process. As with Dark Phoenix recently, a great cast is let down by an awful script, with any attempts at humour or entertainment falling completely flat.
Elsewhere, the fun and wacky inventiveness behind the different alien species in the original movie is completely absent here. Apart from some interesting and formidable twin villains, there's a fairly wasted role for Rebecca Ferguson as a three armed ex lover of Agent H. Otherwise, the main alien throughout the movie is just an annoying little CGI character.
To be fair, there are a couple of fun action sequences and some nice visuals, but overall this is just a completely forgettable and unnecessary movie. Here's hoping that Toy Story 4 will finally bring us a worthy blockbuster when it opens later this week.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Criminal (2016) in Movies
Jul 21, 2017
Bad dialogue (2 more)
Rubbish Ending
Poorly written script
How To Waste A Great Cast
The trailers for this movie had me sold, as did the top class cast and the plot also sounded interesting, even if it is very similar to something that Ryan Reynolds was involved in previously. Last year he was in a film with Ben Kingsley called Selfless, in which Kingsley played an old millionaire who wanted his brain to be transferred into a young man’s body, and so he took over the body of Reynolds’ character. In this movie Reynolds plays a government agent who gets killed in action, but before he died, he had information that no one else knew and that the government needed. So the head of his team, played by Gary Oldman, recruits a scientist, played by Tommy Lee Jones, to use pioneering biology to transfer the memories of Reynolds’ character into Kevin Costner’s character, who is a psychopath with a child’s mind and has spent the majority of his life in prison. Predictably, Costner’s character starts developing symptoms of multiple personality disorder and having memories of Reynold’s character and from this point on, the film is kind of a mess. A poorly written script results in the audience struggling to find anyone to root with and this lack of a protagonist causes the movie to feel aimless from the start. The closest thing we get to a good guy is Ryan Reynolds and he dies at the very start of the movie, but then the filmmaker expects you to suddenly root for Kevin Costner’s character, even though he is a murderous psycho with absolutely no morals. Gary Oldman certainly isn’t a good guy, since he’s willing to go to whatever measures necessary to get this information that Reynolds’ character had when he died, no matter how extreme or morally ambiguous. Honestly this is one to skip, there isn’t even any payoff at the end of the movie and most of the dialogue throughout is pure cliché nonsense, go see something else instead.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Captain America: The First Avenger is a return to form for the Marvel comic-book film universe, and a solid final lead-up to the multi-hero film The Avengers, coming next year.
Chris Evans does a fantastic job of introducing us to the wiry little guy with guts who eventually becomes Captain America. Such unashamed, honest virtue is different from the typical superhero movie we’ve come to see over the last few years, and for good reason: internal conflicts often make for dramatic films. However, I don’t think such unwavering idealism would have worked with any other comic-book character than Captain America. Stanley Tucci and Tommy Lee Jones add heart to the movie, but the soul of this movie really is the Captain. Hugo Weaving as The Red Skull plays a satisfying villain here, but his motives aren’t clarified enough to warrant his fervor for evil. Hayley Atwell, playing love interest and British agent Peggy Carter does a more convincing job in her role than Hugo Weaving does in his.
The plot of the film was pretty standard fare. Hero battles villain. The ending was more climactic and earnest than I had expected walking into the theater, and it gracefully sets up the Avengers movie. Like many of the other Marvel movies of recent note, there is a decent amount of self-deprecating comic book humor that helps break up the slower parts between action scenes.
The effects of the film were solid. They were pulpy enough to feel like a Marvel universe, rather than our own, but they still carried the action to an exciting level. The art department and cinematographer did a good job recreating the 40’s asthetic throughout the film, though there was enough exotic comic book elements to bring you back into a world where superheroes really do exist.
Despite its own flaws, this is one of the better Marvel films to come out since Iron Man, and count me in to watch The Avengers next year.
Chris Evans does a fantastic job of introducing us to the wiry little guy with guts who eventually becomes Captain America. Such unashamed, honest virtue is different from the typical superhero movie we’ve come to see over the last few years, and for good reason: internal conflicts often make for dramatic films. However, I don’t think such unwavering idealism would have worked with any other comic-book character than Captain America. Stanley Tucci and Tommy Lee Jones add heart to the movie, but the soul of this movie really is the Captain. Hugo Weaving as The Red Skull plays a satisfying villain here, but his motives aren’t clarified enough to warrant his fervor for evil. Hayley Atwell, playing love interest and British agent Peggy Carter does a more convincing job in her role than Hugo Weaving does in his.
The plot of the film was pretty standard fare. Hero battles villain. The ending was more climactic and earnest than I had expected walking into the theater, and it gracefully sets up the Avengers movie. Like many of the other Marvel movies of recent note, there is a decent amount of self-deprecating comic book humor that helps break up the slower parts between action scenes.
The effects of the film were solid. They were pulpy enough to feel like a Marvel universe, rather than our own, but they still carried the action to an exciting level. The art department and cinematographer did a good job recreating the 40’s asthetic throughout the film, though there was enough exotic comic book elements to bring you back into a world where superheroes really do exist.
Despite its own flaws, this is one of the better Marvel films to come out since Iron Man, and count me in to watch The Avengers next year.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
My first experience in IMAX was at the IMAX theater at the Grand Canyon. This was before IMAX theaters could easily be found within easy driving distance in most large cities. The movie, which interestingly still is showing today from those early years took viewers on the magical journey through the Grand Canyon. Throwing in a bit of history, with incredible visages, viewers could experience the canyon without ever hiking within its depths. It may seem odd to compare a big budget title like Ad Astra written and directed by James Gray (The Immigrant / The Lost City of Z) to a short thirty-minute experience film about the Grand Canyon, but both are equally awe inspiring and beautiful if experienced in the same way.
Ad Astra features Brad Pitt as Astronaut Roy McBride, a film that takes place in the not so distant future where the moon has become a commercialized tourist destination. A place where outside the safe tourist zones corporations fight for control of resources, and convoys are regularly ransacked by pirates looking to make a quick buck off the wares they are able to obtain. Mars has become a staging location for deep exploration ships hoping to discover if intelligent life exists outside our solar system.
Strange power surges begin to emanate deep within the galaxy, threatening to destroy everything in their path (Earth not excluded) and the top scientist are brought together to identify the threat and propose a theory to stop it. Roy McBride after suffering a near fatal fall from aboard a space station is brought into a top-secret meeting to discuss these surges. It is in this meeting that Roy is informed that the surges appear to be manifesting near Neptune and even more interestingly they are identified as anti-matter surges that are being generated from a ship that Roy’s father Clifford (Tommy Lee Jones) was in charge of nearly 29 years ago. The mission was a search for extra terrestrial life that Clifford was overseeing and presumed dead after Earth had lost contact with his ship. Roy must put his personal feelings aside regarding his father and must travel to the outer reaches of our solar system to put a stop to the surges, in any way possible.
Ad Astra is an incredible achievement in cinematography. The visions of the moon, mars and the numerous rockets taken to get there are spectacular. Much like the Grand Canyon film I spoke of earlier, in IMAX Ad Astra gives you a front row seat exploring the solar system as we know it. It takes a realistic approach while not bogging the viewers in all the technical details that would be necessary to achieve this flight. You would be doing yourself a disservice to see this film on any but the largest of movie screens. While it might be an acceptable experience in a normal theater, much of the grandiose vistas and beautiful sets would be wasted. This is not a movie to wait for on Netflix if you have any interest in seeing it at all.
From a story perspective, there isn’t a whole lot to tell. Brad Pitt brings his amazing acting abilities to a film that features more inner dialogue to himself, then to others on the screen. It is reminiscent to the original Dune movie from the 80s combined with 2001: A space odyssey. For a movie that literally is about a voyage to deep space, there are some scenes sprinkled throughout that provide some action and even a bit of suspense. Supporting characters such as Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland provide outstanding performances, even if their screen time is extremely limited. Liv Tyler once again reprises a role similar to the one from Armageddon as the reluctant wife of a man who is tasked with saving the world.
Ad Astra is a cinematic experience, the story alone is passable if not particularly quick moving and at time rarely engaging. However, when you combine this with the technological wizardry used to bring the Solar System to life it makes for an adventure that certainly lives up to the hype and will delight your visual senses. If you’ve ever dreamed of what it would be like to live on the moon or adventure into the stars, then Ad Astra might just be the closest we ever get in our lifetime. It’s beautiful, deadly and overall an achievement to behold, just make sure you see it on the biggest screen you can.
4 out of 5 stars
Ad Astra features Brad Pitt as Astronaut Roy McBride, a film that takes place in the not so distant future where the moon has become a commercialized tourist destination. A place where outside the safe tourist zones corporations fight for control of resources, and convoys are regularly ransacked by pirates looking to make a quick buck off the wares they are able to obtain. Mars has become a staging location for deep exploration ships hoping to discover if intelligent life exists outside our solar system.
Strange power surges begin to emanate deep within the galaxy, threatening to destroy everything in their path (Earth not excluded) and the top scientist are brought together to identify the threat and propose a theory to stop it. Roy McBride after suffering a near fatal fall from aboard a space station is brought into a top-secret meeting to discuss these surges. It is in this meeting that Roy is informed that the surges appear to be manifesting near Neptune and even more interestingly they are identified as anti-matter surges that are being generated from a ship that Roy’s father Clifford (Tommy Lee Jones) was in charge of nearly 29 years ago. The mission was a search for extra terrestrial life that Clifford was overseeing and presumed dead after Earth had lost contact with his ship. Roy must put his personal feelings aside regarding his father and must travel to the outer reaches of our solar system to put a stop to the surges, in any way possible.
Ad Astra is an incredible achievement in cinematography. The visions of the moon, mars and the numerous rockets taken to get there are spectacular. Much like the Grand Canyon film I spoke of earlier, in IMAX Ad Astra gives you a front row seat exploring the solar system as we know it. It takes a realistic approach while not bogging the viewers in all the technical details that would be necessary to achieve this flight. You would be doing yourself a disservice to see this film on any but the largest of movie screens. While it might be an acceptable experience in a normal theater, much of the grandiose vistas and beautiful sets would be wasted. This is not a movie to wait for on Netflix if you have any interest in seeing it at all.
From a story perspective, there isn’t a whole lot to tell. Brad Pitt brings his amazing acting abilities to a film that features more inner dialogue to himself, then to others on the screen. It is reminiscent to the original Dune movie from the 80s combined with 2001: A space odyssey. For a movie that literally is about a voyage to deep space, there are some scenes sprinkled throughout that provide some action and even a bit of suspense. Supporting characters such as Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland provide outstanding performances, even if their screen time is extremely limited. Liv Tyler once again reprises a role similar to the one from Armageddon as the reluctant wife of a man who is tasked with saving the world.
Ad Astra is a cinematic experience, the story alone is passable if not particularly quick moving and at time rarely engaging. However, when you combine this with the technological wizardry used to bring the Solar System to life it makes for an adventure that certainly lives up to the hype and will delight your visual senses. If you’ve ever dreamed of what it would be like to live on the moon or adventure into the stars, then Ad Astra might just be the closest we ever get in our lifetime. It’s beautiful, deadly and overall an achievement to behold, just make sure you see it on the biggest screen you can.
4 out of 5 stars
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Dirt (2019) in Movies
Apr 4, 2019 (Updated Apr 4, 2019)
Brainless Fun
The Dirt is a Motley Crue biopic that debuted on Netflix last month. It is Jeff Tremaine's, (the director of the Jackass movies,) first narrative feature film. This should maybe give you some idea of what to expect within the movie. If Bohemian Rhapsody, Wayne's World and Jackass had a baby, this would most likely be the result.
Your enjoyment of this movie will probably depend on what you are wanting out of it going in. I am a casual Motely Crue fan, I only know a few of their songs and have a very surface level knowledge of their history. I was watching this movie for a bit of dumb fun after I had seen the trailer and it delivered exactly what I expected it to. If however, you are a die hard Motley Crue fan looking for an in-depth biopic with a sense of grit and realism, you will most likely be sorely disappointed.
The plot to this thing plays out like a Wikipedia article, in the sense that it hits all of the major beats of the band's history, but glosses over so much more and leaves any sense of nuance at the door. It is also incredibly cartoonish and cheesy, at no point in the film do you ever feel that you are watching the actual members of Motley Crue and it is always painfully clear that you are watching a group of actors in bad wigs playing faux, characterture versions of real people.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the cast have anything to do with how shallow or glossy this thing is. I think that Daniel Webber did a decent job as Vince Neil and Douglas Booth is okay as Nikki Sixx. For some reason, Machine Gun Kelly plays Tommy Lee as a goofy, lovable rogue, as apposed to the aggressive violent abuser he is in real life. Iwan Rheon is by far the stand out as Mick Mars, the older, more jaded member of the group who totally dismisses the immature 'sex drugs and rock and roll,' bullshit mentality of his band-mates and comes away with some of the driest, funniest lines in the movie.
Overall, I gave this a 7 based on the brainless fun I had watching it, but it by no means feels accurate or realistic, nor does it feel like it's trying to be. Hardcore Motely Crue fans will probably feel like they were let down by this biopic, but I got exactly what I wanted out of it and enjoyed it for what it was.
Your enjoyment of this movie will probably depend on what you are wanting out of it going in. I am a casual Motely Crue fan, I only know a few of their songs and have a very surface level knowledge of their history. I was watching this movie for a bit of dumb fun after I had seen the trailer and it delivered exactly what I expected it to. If however, you are a die hard Motley Crue fan looking for an in-depth biopic with a sense of grit and realism, you will most likely be sorely disappointed.
The plot to this thing plays out like a Wikipedia article, in the sense that it hits all of the major beats of the band's history, but glosses over so much more and leaves any sense of nuance at the door. It is also incredibly cartoonish and cheesy, at no point in the film do you ever feel that you are watching the actual members of Motley Crue and it is always painfully clear that you are watching a group of actors in bad wigs playing faux, characterture versions of real people.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the cast have anything to do with how shallow or glossy this thing is. I think that Daniel Webber did a decent job as Vince Neil and Douglas Booth is okay as Nikki Sixx. For some reason, Machine Gun Kelly plays Tommy Lee as a goofy, lovable rogue, as apposed to the aggressive violent abuser he is in real life. Iwan Rheon is by far the stand out as Mick Mars, the older, more jaded member of the group who totally dismisses the immature 'sex drugs and rock and roll,' bullshit mentality of his band-mates and comes away with some of the driest, funniest lines in the movie.
Overall, I gave this a 7 based on the brainless fun I had watching it, but it by no means feels accurate or realistic, nor does it feel like it's trying to be. Hardcore Motely Crue fans will probably feel like they were let down by this biopic, but I got exactly what I wanted out of it and enjoyed it for what it was.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Men in Black (1997) in Movies
Jan 6, 2021
Visually Brilliant and Gorgeous
A New York police officer gets thrown into a crazy world when he stumbles upon a special group trying to stop intergalactic threats.
Acting: 10
Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones have to be one my most favorite duos of all time. Playing Agent J and Agent K respectively, their partnership is one of new blood versus old head. I love how each of them took on their respective role, Smith with air of cockiness and bravado and Jones with the nature of one who has been there and done that too many times before. And I haven’t even dove into the fun performances of actors like Rip Torn and Tony Shalhoub. Very well casted movie.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
J and K are magnificent to watch, but it’s the broad scope of aliens for me that take the cake. There’s Jeebs whose head can explode and grow back. Then there’s Edgar who eventually becomes a massive bug wearing an “Edgar Suit” played by the amazing Vincent D’Onofrio. Those are only to name a couple from a large list of enriching characters that shed a fun new light on the underground of New York.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
The first ten minutes of the movie gives you a taste of what the action is going to be like. That dives right into the next scene and the next. Great action with high stakes that races across the city of New York. I appreciate the high level of conflict that kept me engaged.
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 7
Pace: 10
Ninety-eight minutes goes by quick in Men In Black. It’s one of those movies that you almost don’t want to end but you know it has to. It races through its story, but just quickly enough so that you don’t miss any important details. I love when movies can move at a pace like this without ruining with exposition.
Plot: 7
Resolution: 8
I wanted a little more from the ending but it was satisfactory for the most part. Definitely leaves room for the obvious sequel that follows it. Decent way to wrap things up.
Overall: 89
From the beginning, I had no doubt that I was going to like Men In Black. It wraps solid sci-fi action into a nice gift with quick pacing and a solid story for a bow. Director Barry Sonnenfeld masterfully captures the “aliens among us” idea and makes it inventive. Definitely a necessary piece of sci-fi movie history.
Acting: 10
Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones have to be one my most favorite duos of all time. Playing Agent J and Agent K respectively, their partnership is one of new blood versus old head. I love how each of them took on their respective role, Smith with air of cockiness and bravado and Jones with the nature of one who has been there and done that too many times before. And I haven’t even dove into the fun performances of actors like Rip Torn and Tony Shalhoub. Very well casted movie.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
J and K are magnificent to watch, but it’s the broad scope of aliens for me that take the cake. There’s Jeebs whose head can explode and grow back. Then there’s Edgar who eventually becomes a massive bug wearing an “Edgar Suit” played by the amazing Vincent D’Onofrio. Those are only to name a couple from a large list of enriching characters that shed a fun new light on the underground of New York.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
The first ten minutes of the movie gives you a taste of what the action is going to be like. That dives right into the next scene and the next. Great action with high stakes that races across the city of New York. I appreciate the high level of conflict that kept me engaged.
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 7
Pace: 10
Ninety-eight minutes goes by quick in Men In Black. It’s one of those movies that you almost don’t want to end but you know it has to. It races through its story, but just quickly enough so that you don’t miss any important details. I love when movies can move at a pace like this without ruining with exposition.
Plot: 7
Resolution: 8
I wanted a little more from the ending but it was satisfactory for the most part. Definitely leaves room for the obvious sequel that follows it. Decent way to wrap things up.
Overall: 89
From the beginning, I had no doubt that I was going to like Men In Black. It wraps solid sci-fi action into a nice gift with quick pacing and a solid story for a bow. Director Barry Sonnenfeld masterfully captures the “aliens among us” idea and makes it inventive. Definitely a necessary piece of sci-fi movie history.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Emperor (2013) in Movies
Sep 9, 2019
A tough challenge
The end of Asian campaign of World War II is complicated. The Japanese surrender following the US dropping the pair of atomic bombs; killing hundreds of thousands, wounding many more and leaving cities in ruins. Tensions are still running at a fever pitch and many people are demanding answers and swift justice for those responsible.
"Supreme Commander" General Douglas MacArthur is put in charge of rebuilding Japan and enlists General Bonner Fellers the nearly impossible task of investigating the involvement of Japan's emperor Hirohito and whether or not he should be tried convicted and hung as a result of his orders. Did he order the attack on Pearl Harbor? What did he know and when did he know it? Was he the one who gave the orders or were his generals in charge of the overall operations? In addition, Fellers is given only 10 days to find his ruling before MacArthur has to report back to his commanders in the US.
Sellers starts with trying to figure out the people involved, find them, interview them and find those who don't want to be found. His interviews ask more questions than answer them and he feels like he is going nowhere fast.
Intertwined are his recollections of a romance he had years earlier with a Japanese exchange student who left the US and returned to her home in Japan. His emotions are getting the better of him while he thinks about his former love and attempts to locate her or learn her fate while he does his job.
Matthew Fox is the best part of this film. As a military man, he respects the chain of command and works within in, but also is able to show his emotions when he is with the woman he loves. I loved the flashback scenes as they were able to show the man as well as just the uniform and Fox did this very well.
Tommy Lee Jones played the character he plays in most of his movies. Barking orders to his underlings and enjoying very much being in charge.
I don't know very much about Japanese culture and this film helped me understand what values they hold sacred. These values highly motivate their actions which can be very noble and traditional or unrelenting and barbaric depending on the situation.
You feel real turmoil as the investigation concludes and the results which are found (or not found) and how the situation is resolved. The characters are flawed which makes them more real. This makes the story more emotional and believable.
The Japanese countryside is beautiful in the time of peace contrasted with the desolate scarred Earth shown after the bombs fell.
Compelling historical dramas always intrigue me and this one did the same.
"Supreme Commander" General Douglas MacArthur is put in charge of rebuilding Japan and enlists General Bonner Fellers the nearly impossible task of investigating the involvement of Japan's emperor Hirohito and whether or not he should be tried convicted and hung as a result of his orders. Did he order the attack on Pearl Harbor? What did he know and when did he know it? Was he the one who gave the orders or were his generals in charge of the overall operations? In addition, Fellers is given only 10 days to find his ruling before MacArthur has to report back to his commanders in the US.
Sellers starts with trying to figure out the people involved, find them, interview them and find those who don't want to be found. His interviews ask more questions than answer them and he feels like he is going nowhere fast.
Intertwined are his recollections of a romance he had years earlier with a Japanese exchange student who left the US and returned to her home in Japan. His emotions are getting the better of him while he thinks about his former love and attempts to locate her or learn her fate while he does his job.
Matthew Fox is the best part of this film. As a military man, he respects the chain of command and works within in, but also is able to show his emotions when he is with the woman he loves. I loved the flashback scenes as they were able to show the man as well as just the uniform and Fox did this very well.
Tommy Lee Jones played the character he plays in most of his movies. Barking orders to his underlings and enjoying very much being in charge.
I don't know very much about Japanese culture and this film helped me understand what values they hold sacred. These values highly motivate their actions which can be very noble and traditional or unrelenting and barbaric depending on the situation.
You feel real turmoil as the investigation concludes and the results which are found (or not found) and how the situation is resolved. The characters are flawed which makes them more real. This makes the story more emotional and believable.
The Japanese countryside is beautiful in the time of peace contrasted with the desolate scarred Earth shown after the bombs fell.
Compelling historical dramas always intrigue me and this one did the same.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Impressive visuals, but rather disappointing as an overall package.
Like father, like son?
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Lincoln (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The history of this country is steeped in mystery and intrigue, but it’s fuzzy on the details. We cling to heroes of the past because we are jaded by the present. Lincoln, a new film from Steven Spielberg, comes to us at a time when there seems to be even more political strife than usual. (Or perhaps that’s just me getting older and actually paying attention.) Either way, I think this movie’s arrival on the silver screen is very timely, given the recent election.
Daniel Day Lewis, a man revered for his choice of films and roles, as well as his ability to portray characters with so much emotion and conviction, has done it once again. As the title character for this film, Lewis portrays one of the U.S.A’s greatest leaders and pioneers in a way that few other men could. Surrounded by some of the best actors in Hollywood (including Tommy Lee Jones), this star-studded film has a laundry list of very recognizable faces from all corners of Hollywood. The red carpet was clearly rolled out for this film.
The story starts amid the death and destruction of the American Civil War, an event that is both a fixed point of the story and a constant backdrop. Seeing the fighting and killing made me wonder how gritty this movie would get, but as it turns out, they kept the level of gore pretty low.
The film goes on to set the stage for the final footsteps into the southern theater that was the Civil War. In tandem, it follows the highly controversial 13th amendment, which was barely passed at the time due to racism and the belief that one color of human should be slave to another color. The absurdity of this notion is highlighted, but it’s also familiar in the way it parallels issues we face today: legalizing pot, gay marriage, prostitution, the right to bear arms, etc. Perhaps our grandchildren will watch a film in the future about these struggles, and regard it as we do a film about the Civil War. As I sat and watched this movie, I was nearly in tears at the thought of how African-Americans were once regarded as lesser beings. Will our grandchildren cry at the ridiculousness of our beliefs?
The cinematography was amazingly crisp. Many of the characters are introduced in such a way that they have a grand entrance through the mystique created by camera angles. I have to truly applaud Spielberg for what might be his best film yet. The camera work was immensely effective, relying heavily on the contrast between shadow and light. Coupled with richly detailed sets, it made everything staggeringly realistic, and absolutely convincing.
I will say this for Lincoln: I haven’t been so moved and taken aback by a period film in my life. This is a must see for everyone.
The dialog is highly political, and sometimes goes along at quite a clip; be prepared to miss a few things the first time around. However, watching it a second time surely won’t be a sin. The humor alone merits a second viewing. There are many good laughs to be had.
Lincoln is a work of art.
Daniel Day Lewis, a man revered for his choice of films and roles, as well as his ability to portray characters with so much emotion and conviction, has done it once again. As the title character for this film, Lewis portrays one of the U.S.A’s greatest leaders and pioneers in a way that few other men could. Surrounded by some of the best actors in Hollywood (including Tommy Lee Jones), this star-studded film has a laundry list of very recognizable faces from all corners of Hollywood. The red carpet was clearly rolled out for this film.
The story starts amid the death and destruction of the American Civil War, an event that is both a fixed point of the story and a constant backdrop. Seeing the fighting and killing made me wonder how gritty this movie would get, but as it turns out, they kept the level of gore pretty low.
The film goes on to set the stage for the final footsteps into the southern theater that was the Civil War. In tandem, it follows the highly controversial 13th amendment, which was barely passed at the time due to racism and the belief that one color of human should be slave to another color. The absurdity of this notion is highlighted, but it’s also familiar in the way it parallels issues we face today: legalizing pot, gay marriage, prostitution, the right to bear arms, etc. Perhaps our grandchildren will watch a film in the future about these struggles, and regard it as we do a film about the Civil War. As I sat and watched this movie, I was nearly in tears at the thought of how African-Americans were once regarded as lesser beings. Will our grandchildren cry at the ridiculousness of our beliefs?
The cinematography was amazingly crisp. Many of the characters are introduced in such a way that they have a grand entrance through the mystique created by camera angles. I have to truly applaud Spielberg for what might be his best film yet. The camera work was immensely effective, relying heavily on the contrast between shadow and light. Coupled with richly detailed sets, it made everything staggeringly realistic, and absolutely convincing.
I will say this for Lincoln: I haven’t been so moved and taken aback by a period film in my life. This is a must see for everyone.
The dialog is highly political, and sometimes goes along at quite a clip; be prepared to miss a few things the first time around. However, watching it a second time surely won’t be a sin. The humor alone merits a second viewing. There are many good laughs to be had.
Lincoln is a work of art.