Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
One Mann’s Movies Review of “Marriage Story” – a “Kramer vs Kramer lite” in my book, albeit with some great acting performances.
K vs K Lite.
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Along for the Ride in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Sarah Dessen caught me by the cover: I’m a bike rider. So I approached this book with eagerness, and it paid. The story was compelling, as Dessen’s novels always are, and they force you to read just one more chapter. I got to the end of the book, and wished there were more chapters. I re-read the last chapter a few times, just because it was so perfect. So so perfect. It solved all the problems in the book, didn’t leave you hanging, and made you smile and whisper to yourself “yes.”
She’s academically focused to the point that she runs to her studies when she’s afraid of choices, she’s developed a sleeping disorder from her parent’s fights before they divorced, and now she’s visiting her dad and his new wife and newborn baby for the summer, simply for lack of anything else to do. But Auden is named after a poet that nobody knows about, has forgotten how to ride a bike, and made a bad first impression with her new co-workers. She meets a quiet boy named Eli with too many secrets and all the right answers. She missed prom because her date was just like her—to school-centered to care about having fun in life. She never had a food fight, she never broke curfew, and she’s never been to a bar (“it’s a rite of passage!”). Eli is astonished that anyone could get through the first eighteen years of their life without going bowling at least once, and sets out to help her experience everything she missed. But now that she has the answers to the things she missed in life, and can see the next step and the decisions she has to make, she has to choose to “get back on that bike,” even when she falls down.
The characters in this story were so relatable. I understood exactly how Auden felt (even though I did build a tree-house in third grade) and could feel her confusion in this strange new social world of hers, the surprise of showing up at work one day and discovering “hey, whoa. How did this happen? I have friends now!” I was blown away when I found out Eli’s mysteries, and loved Maggie even more when she showed her true colors. All characters have their fatal flaws, and these ones do too, but it makes them real people, not just fairy-tales. Her father was a selfish jerk, but he had his commitments—he just needed to prioritize his family over his novel. Her mother was a hard shell—but she could learn to talk about her feelings, and open up. Leah looked like a snob until you got to know her. And Eli… well, I’ll let you discover Eli the way you need to discover him…
I will probably buy this book when it shows up at my little used book store (because I’m too broke to buy it full price) and put it on my bookshelf with my name in the cover, and read it again, and again, and again… because I truly loved it. Thank you, Sarah Dessen, for writing good YA fiction.
She’s academically focused to the point that she runs to her studies when she’s afraid of choices, she’s developed a sleeping disorder from her parent’s fights before they divorced, and now she’s visiting her dad and his new wife and newborn baby for the summer, simply for lack of anything else to do. But Auden is named after a poet that nobody knows about, has forgotten how to ride a bike, and made a bad first impression with her new co-workers. She meets a quiet boy named Eli with too many secrets and all the right answers. She missed prom because her date was just like her—to school-centered to care about having fun in life. She never had a food fight, she never broke curfew, and she’s never been to a bar (“it’s a rite of passage!”). Eli is astonished that anyone could get through the first eighteen years of their life without going bowling at least once, and sets out to help her experience everything she missed. But now that she has the answers to the things she missed in life, and can see the next step and the decisions she has to make, she has to choose to “get back on that bike,” even when she falls down.
The characters in this story were so relatable. I understood exactly how Auden felt (even though I did build a tree-house in third grade) and could feel her confusion in this strange new social world of hers, the surprise of showing up at work one day and discovering “hey, whoa. How did this happen? I have friends now!” I was blown away when I found out Eli’s mysteries, and loved Maggie even more when she showed her true colors. All characters have their fatal flaws, and these ones do too, but it makes them real people, not just fairy-tales. Her father was a selfish jerk, but he had his commitments—he just needed to prioritize his family over his novel. Her mother was a hard shell—but she could learn to talk about her feelings, and open up. Leah looked like a snob until you got to know her. And Eli… well, I’ll let you discover Eli the way you need to discover him…
I will probably buy this book when it shows up at my little used book store (because I’m too broke to buy it full price) and put it on my bookshelf with my name in the cover, and read it again, and again, and again… because I truly loved it. Thank you, Sarah Dessen, for writing good YA fiction.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Deepwater Horizon (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Disaster with feeling
“Based on true events”. I can’t think of anything more disconcerting when I sit down to watch a film. When it comes to blockbusters inspired by real-life situations, the outcome can be a poignant movie that captures the heart and emotion of the episode – a la American Sniper.
Unfortunately, films in this genre can also be a disaster from start to finish with a story barely related to its real-life counterpart. You can forgive me then for going into Deepwater Horizon with an air of scepticism, but was it justified?
Thankfully, director Peter Berg (Hancock, Battleship) strikes the right balance between pleasing the movie-going masses and respecting the events that took the lives of eleven people aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.
Based on the events that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, the story chronicles the courage of those who worked on the Deepwater Horizon and the extreme moments of bravery and survival in the face of what would become one of the biggest man-made disasters in world history.
Mark Wahlberg takes the helm of this intriguing action thriller as Mike Williams, an electrician working on the rig during the explosion. A supporting cast that includes Kurt Russell, Gina Rodriguez, John Malkovich and The Maze Runner’s Dylan O’Brien bolster Wahlberg’s natural charisma and each of the aforementioned actors give first-rate performances.
The acting from all sides is superb. Mark Wahlberg in particular excels, being one of his best roles to date. His work has been decidedly dodgy over the last few years but his performance here shows just how good he is with the right material.
Nevertheless, at its core, Deepwater Horizon is a simple disaster movie, and carries the genre’s traits to a tee; there’s the obligatory hero (Mark Wahlberg), the boss/politician who doesn’t believe anything is wrong (John Malkovich), the bombastic score (courtesy of Steve Jablonsky) and the damsel in distress (Gina Rodriguez). What it does differently however is focus more on the human elements of the plot – something helped by the fact the scriptwriters had factual events to pick from.
The special effects are astounding, aided greatly by Peter Berg’s often hectic camerawork. There’s very little shaky-cam but the claustrophobic nature of the rig itself is beautifully utilised in low angled shots and sweeping exterior sequences. The scenes showing the rig on fire are so intense you can virtually feel the heat radiating from them.
It almost feels like a documentary, and a very good one at that. The audience is given references throughout the film of Deepwater Horizon’s many functions and the scale of the behemoth is apparent throughout.
Overall, to say Deepwater Horizon is a cracking disaster film feels like a slight disservice to the eleven people who died aboard it in 2010. Having Peter Berg direct was a risky move when looking at his back-catalogue but after a viewing, it’s hard to think of anyone else better suited.
This is a disaster movie with feeling and it’s one of the best films of the year.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/30/disaster-with-feeling-deepwater-horizon-review/
Unfortunately, films in this genre can also be a disaster from start to finish with a story barely related to its real-life counterpart. You can forgive me then for going into Deepwater Horizon with an air of scepticism, but was it justified?
Thankfully, director Peter Berg (Hancock, Battleship) strikes the right balance between pleasing the movie-going masses and respecting the events that took the lives of eleven people aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.
Based on the events that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, the story chronicles the courage of those who worked on the Deepwater Horizon and the extreme moments of bravery and survival in the face of what would become one of the biggest man-made disasters in world history.
Mark Wahlberg takes the helm of this intriguing action thriller as Mike Williams, an electrician working on the rig during the explosion. A supporting cast that includes Kurt Russell, Gina Rodriguez, John Malkovich and The Maze Runner’s Dylan O’Brien bolster Wahlberg’s natural charisma and each of the aforementioned actors give first-rate performances.
The acting from all sides is superb. Mark Wahlberg in particular excels, being one of his best roles to date. His work has been decidedly dodgy over the last few years but his performance here shows just how good he is with the right material.
Nevertheless, at its core, Deepwater Horizon is a simple disaster movie, and carries the genre’s traits to a tee; there’s the obligatory hero (Mark Wahlberg), the boss/politician who doesn’t believe anything is wrong (John Malkovich), the bombastic score (courtesy of Steve Jablonsky) and the damsel in distress (Gina Rodriguez). What it does differently however is focus more on the human elements of the plot – something helped by the fact the scriptwriters had factual events to pick from.
The special effects are astounding, aided greatly by Peter Berg’s often hectic camerawork. There’s very little shaky-cam but the claustrophobic nature of the rig itself is beautifully utilised in low angled shots and sweeping exterior sequences. The scenes showing the rig on fire are so intense you can virtually feel the heat radiating from them.
It almost feels like a documentary, and a very good one at that. The audience is given references throughout the film of Deepwater Horizon’s many functions and the scale of the behemoth is apparent throughout.
Overall, to say Deepwater Horizon is a cracking disaster film feels like a slight disservice to the eleven people who died aboard it in 2010. Having Peter Berg direct was a risky move when looking at his back-catalogue but after a viewing, it’s hard to think of anyone else better suited.
This is a disaster movie with feeling and it’s one of the best films of the year.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/30/disaster-with-feeling-deepwater-horizon-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Kingsman: The Secret Service (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Simply Brilliant
Director Matthew Vaughn has brought some visually striking films to the big screen in his fairly short career, from the brilliant Layer Cake, to the movie which many credit as saving the X-Men franchise, First Class, he certainly knows his way around a camera.
However, Kingsman: The Secret Service is probably his riskiest proposition yet. Can a dark comedy about upper-class British spies with their tailor-made suits compete with the very best films in the genre?
Thankfully the answer is a resounding yes. The spectacular cinematography and fantastic performances in Kingsman ensure it is one of the most memorable and cleverly crafted blockbusters of the last decade.
The film follows the story of underprivileged Eggsy, played wonderfully by Taron Egerton in his first full role, as he does his best to join The Kingsmen, a secret society of spies working to bring down evil in the world.
An absolutely marvellous Colin Firth and a slightly underused Michael Caine also play part of this group – possibly creating the poshest ensemble of characters seen in a film for years.
Naturally a spy flick isn’t complete without a villain and Samuel L Jackson is on course here to become one of the cheesiest megalomaniacs ever put to the big screen. His deliberately camp performance goes well with the dark humour throughout.
Kingsman is also genuinely funny and a real treat to watch with explosive, over-the-top visuals and beautiful scenery which utilises what the world has to offer rather than delving into the CGI drawer many directors employ nowadays.
It all feels decidedly old fashioned and all the better for it with an almost grainy quality to the production – think The Avengers TV series but with a higher budget.
The plot is top notch and whilst it may border on cliché at times, Kingsman manages to steer the story in enough directions to make sure the audience never settles into a rut, the use of our reliance on modern technology being a particular highlight.
Special effects wise, it holds up well with most other blockbusters and has just a few lapses in CGI at the start and towards the riveting finale,Taron_Egerton_SDCC_2014 though these are barely noticeable if you’re not looking hard enough.
Moreover, it is a true pleasure to sit in a film and not wonder what the producers had to cut to achieve a crowd-pleasing 12A certification. Kingsman pulls no punches, this is a violent rollercoaster ride and well deserves the BBFC 15 rating it has been given. Whether or not this hurts its box-office performance remains to be seen.
Overall, Kingsman: The Secret Service is one of the only films which combines the ever-popular spy genre with comedy and manages to keep its dignity in tact as the end credits role.
So many films, Johnny English: Reborn and Get Smart to name a couple, simply delve into slapstick territory once the writers run out of ideas – this isn’t the case here.
From its exciting plot and brutally dark humour, to the engaging performances from every single character, Kingsman: The Secret Service is simply brilliant.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/30/simply-brilliant-kingsman-the-secret-service-review/
However, Kingsman: The Secret Service is probably his riskiest proposition yet. Can a dark comedy about upper-class British spies with their tailor-made suits compete with the very best films in the genre?
Thankfully the answer is a resounding yes. The spectacular cinematography and fantastic performances in Kingsman ensure it is one of the most memorable and cleverly crafted blockbusters of the last decade.
The film follows the story of underprivileged Eggsy, played wonderfully by Taron Egerton in his first full role, as he does his best to join The Kingsmen, a secret society of spies working to bring down evil in the world.
An absolutely marvellous Colin Firth and a slightly underused Michael Caine also play part of this group – possibly creating the poshest ensemble of characters seen in a film for years.
Naturally a spy flick isn’t complete without a villain and Samuel L Jackson is on course here to become one of the cheesiest megalomaniacs ever put to the big screen. His deliberately camp performance goes well with the dark humour throughout.
Kingsman is also genuinely funny and a real treat to watch with explosive, over-the-top visuals and beautiful scenery which utilises what the world has to offer rather than delving into the CGI drawer many directors employ nowadays.
It all feels decidedly old fashioned and all the better for it with an almost grainy quality to the production – think The Avengers TV series but with a higher budget.
The plot is top notch and whilst it may border on cliché at times, Kingsman manages to steer the story in enough directions to make sure the audience never settles into a rut, the use of our reliance on modern technology being a particular highlight.
Special effects wise, it holds up well with most other blockbusters and has just a few lapses in CGI at the start and towards the riveting finale,Taron_Egerton_SDCC_2014 though these are barely noticeable if you’re not looking hard enough.
Moreover, it is a true pleasure to sit in a film and not wonder what the producers had to cut to achieve a crowd-pleasing 12A certification. Kingsman pulls no punches, this is a violent rollercoaster ride and well deserves the BBFC 15 rating it has been given. Whether or not this hurts its box-office performance remains to be seen.
Overall, Kingsman: The Secret Service is one of the only films which combines the ever-popular spy genre with comedy and manages to keep its dignity in tact as the end credits role.
So many films, Johnny English: Reborn and Get Smart to name a couple, simply delve into slapstick territory once the writers run out of ideas – this isn’t the case here.
From its exciting plot and brutally dark humour, to the engaging performances from every single character, Kingsman: The Secret Service is simply brilliant.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/30/simply-brilliant-kingsman-the-secret-service-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Sing (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Fun for all the family
Talking animated animals are big business over in Hollywood. After all, Disney’s Zootopia was one of only a handful of films to gross over $1billion last year. Its competitor, The Secret Life of Pets performed well but wasn’t critically successful.
Here, the company behind that second film, Illumination Entertainment, try to get the genre right with Sing. But are we looking at the next superstar of the animated genre?
Koala Buster Moon (Matthew McConaughey) presides over a once-grand theatre that has recently fallen on hard times. An eternal optimist, he loves his work enormously and will do anything to preserve it. Facing the crumbling of his life’s ambition, he takes one final chance to restore his fading jewel to its former glory by producing a singing competition, with eternal glory facing the winner.
There’s an impressive roster of talent on offer in Sing, something that parents will no doubt enjoy slightly more than the offspring they no doubt have to bring with them. With Matthew McConaughey taking the lead role, Taron Egerton, Reese Witherspoon, Scarlett Johansson and Seth McFarlane to name a few all lend their voices. There’s even a role for Brit-favourite Jennifer Saunders as a grumpy old sheep, it’s not ground-breaking, but it’s immensely likeable stuff.
Illumination Entertainment has brought us the brilliant Despicable Me franchise as well as its ridiculously successful spin-off Minions, but they’ve been criticised heavily for relying too much on the funny yellow critters to cash their paycheques. Thankfully, bar the now infamous company logo, the tic-tac shaped creatures are nowhere to be found and Sing is a vastly entertaining movie, in spite of their absence.
Whilst it’s true that the animation lacks the depth or fluidity of offerings from Pixar, Disney, and Dreamworks, there is a certain charm to its simplistic colour palate that children will find endearing. The plot is woefully unoriginal but director Garth Jennings, in his first animated feature, utilises that well, cleverly referencing the many talent shows that feature on our television screens – including those we are sick of.
There are some moral lessons in here too. Tori Kelly’s stage-shy elephant Meena has a great story arc that sees her face her fears and embrace her talents, whilst Taron Egerton’s gorilla Johnny stands up to his criminal father and learns that a life of crime doesn’t always pay.
In fact, only Seth MacFarlane’s obnoxious mouse Mike fails to make an impact on the plot, with his berating of an asthmatic sheep in the cleverly produced opening sequence coming across a little crude in comparison to the rest of the script.
Overall, Sing is a great film to hold the kid’s attention as we approach the half-term holidays. It would be easy to criticise it for lacking an original story, but there’s more to offer here than a half-baked plot. It’s beautifully voiced and reasonably well animated. Illumination Entertainment may not have topped Zootopia, but this is their best offering outside of Despicable Me by a country mile.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/01/28/fun-for-all-the-family-sing-review/
Here, the company behind that second film, Illumination Entertainment, try to get the genre right with Sing. But are we looking at the next superstar of the animated genre?
Koala Buster Moon (Matthew McConaughey) presides over a once-grand theatre that has recently fallen on hard times. An eternal optimist, he loves his work enormously and will do anything to preserve it. Facing the crumbling of his life’s ambition, he takes one final chance to restore his fading jewel to its former glory by producing a singing competition, with eternal glory facing the winner.
There’s an impressive roster of talent on offer in Sing, something that parents will no doubt enjoy slightly more than the offspring they no doubt have to bring with them. With Matthew McConaughey taking the lead role, Taron Egerton, Reese Witherspoon, Scarlett Johansson and Seth McFarlane to name a few all lend their voices. There’s even a role for Brit-favourite Jennifer Saunders as a grumpy old sheep, it’s not ground-breaking, but it’s immensely likeable stuff.
Illumination Entertainment has brought us the brilliant Despicable Me franchise as well as its ridiculously successful spin-off Minions, but they’ve been criticised heavily for relying too much on the funny yellow critters to cash their paycheques. Thankfully, bar the now infamous company logo, the tic-tac shaped creatures are nowhere to be found and Sing is a vastly entertaining movie, in spite of their absence.
Whilst it’s true that the animation lacks the depth or fluidity of offerings from Pixar, Disney, and Dreamworks, there is a certain charm to its simplistic colour palate that children will find endearing. The plot is woefully unoriginal but director Garth Jennings, in his first animated feature, utilises that well, cleverly referencing the many talent shows that feature on our television screens – including those we are sick of.
There are some moral lessons in here too. Tori Kelly’s stage-shy elephant Meena has a great story arc that sees her face her fears and embrace her talents, whilst Taron Egerton’s gorilla Johnny stands up to his criminal father and learns that a life of crime doesn’t always pay.
In fact, only Seth MacFarlane’s obnoxious mouse Mike fails to make an impact on the plot, with his berating of an asthmatic sheep in the cleverly produced opening sequence coming across a little crude in comparison to the rest of the script.
Overall, Sing is a great film to hold the kid’s attention as we approach the half-term holidays. It would be easy to criticise it for lacking an original story, but there’s more to offer here than a half-baked plot. It’s beautifully voiced and reasonably well animated. Illumination Entertainment may not have topped Zootopia, but this is their best offering outside of Despicable Me by a country mile.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/01/28/fun-for-all-the-family-sing-review/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Girl Who Stayed in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Zoe returns to her hometown of Sullivan's Island with one goal in mind: repair her childhood home and sell it, so she never has to come back. Her parents are dead, her brother doesn't want it, and her little sister, Hannah, disappeared from the Island when Hannah was eight and Zoe was ten. At the time, Hannah's friend, Gabi, insinuated that Zoe was responsible for Hannah's disappearance and while she knows it isn't true, Zoe has always felt confused and remorseful about her behavior during the time period when Hannah vanished. Even worse, she grew up under the doubt of her parents, especially her angry father, who seemed to believe Gabi, and with whom Zoe had a rough and rocky relationship as she aged.
This was an interesting book and I confess it had the misfortune of being read during a crazy time for me of illness and work: not its fault. Zoe is a tough character to crack at first, but she's also a victim of abuse, and her slowness to reveal herself--in the book and to others--makes sense. Crosby does a good job of displaying (versus telling) how Zoe's relationship with her parents has formed her into the adult she is today. What I enjoyed is that Zoe is a complicated individual with many layers. I've read too many books lately where a character had a bad childhood or suffered some form of abuse and that seems to be a reason to make them have only one character trait, which they must act upon, with no sign of reason. Zoe is nuanced, even if she takes some time to warm up to.
There are several scenes in the book that are nearly heartbreaking as you read. For instance, when Zoe finds a projector and a bunch of film belonging to her grandfather and manages to splice together enough film to capture a few moments of her late sister as a kid. As she describes the moment, it's powerful, and you can completely picture it. In another scene, she reminisces about how her mother "helped" her fix up Zoe's bathing suit before a first date--an event that ended poorly. This moment is not only formed so clearly, but says so much about how Zoe continued to relate to her Mom. It's very well-done.
The book spends most of its time focusing on Zoe's late second coming of age story (at nearly 40), with a few characters from Sullivan's Island thrown in, but there is a subplot to Hannah's disappearance that picks up pace near the end. The very end of the story felt a little rushed (though exciting). I'm still a bit torn about the actual ending--it sort of pissed me off--but I understand Crosby's choices.
In writing this review, I'd probably push my rating up to a 3.75 stars. It's a different book, and I enjoyed Zoe. I almost wish I could encounter her again.
I received an ARC of this book from Edelweiss - thank you! It is available for publication on 4/19/16. You can find a review this novel and many more at my <a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">blog</a>;.
This was an interesting book and I confess it had the misfortune of being read during a crazy time for me of illness and work: not its fault. Zoe is a tough character to crack at first, but she's also a victim of abuse, and her slowness to reveal herself--in the book and to others--makes sense. Crosby does a good job of displaying (versus telling) how Zoe's relationship with her parents has formed her into the adult she is today. What I enjoyed is that Zoe is a complicated individual with many layers. I've read too many books lately where a character had a bad childhood or suffered some form of abuse and that seems to be a reason to make them have only one character trait, which they must act upon, with no sign of reason. Zoe is nuanced, even if she takes some time to warm up to.
There are several scenes in the book that are nearly heartbreaking as you read. For instance, when Zoe finds a projector and a bunch of film belonging to her grandfather and manages to splice together enough film to capture a few moments of her late sister as a kid. As she describes the moment, it's powerful, and you can completely picture it. In another scene, she reminisces about how her mother "helped" her fix up Zoe's bathing suit before a first date--an event that ended poorly. This moment is not only formed so clearly, but says so much about how Zoe continued to relate to her Mom. It's very well-done.
The book spends most of its time focusing on Zoe's late second coming of age story (at nearly 40), with a few characters from Sullivan's Island thrown in, but there is a subplot to Hannah's disappearance that picks up pace near the end. The very end of the story felt a little rushed (though exciting). I'm still a bit torn about the actual ending--it sort of pissed me off--but I understand Crosby's choices.
In writing this review, I'd probably push my rating up to a 3.75 stars. It's a different book, and I enjoyed Zoe. I almost wish I could encounter her again.
I received an ARC of this book from Edelweiss - thank you! It is available for publication on 4/19/16. You can find a review this novel and many more at my <a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">blog</a>;.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Call of Duty: Black Ops III in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
The latest in the incredibly popular Call of Duty Series has arrived and Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 is a nice mix of old and new that goes a long way to combating those who say that each game is basically the same thing with new maps.
Set in a future where combat technology is now imbedded into soldiers, allowing them to hack systems, control machines, and release all manner of electronic warfare, Black Ops 3 is a very ambitious entry into the series. The game also has a great feature that allows players to customize their appearance, weapons, and special features in the campaign instead of just relegating that feature to the multiplayer portion.
As if that was not enough, the game also allows up to four human players to play through the campaign as one unit, which is great for those with new players in the Call of Duty universe in tow.
The campaign is a mixed bag as at times the story is convoluted and the virtual reality based campaigns towards the end become frustrating as well as at times overly difficult.
Graphically the game shines and it is clear that the artists spent considerable love and effort on the game. Just walking around the ready room before missions alone lets one see the incredible level of detail in the game. The levels are pretty impressive as well from secret laboratories in Singapore to high rise locales in Egypt; the future is truly captivating and terrifying as envisioned by Treyarch.
The campaign despite the issues I had with it is not really the selling point of the series, as the multiplayer is where the game truly shines. With multiple formats of online play available as well as numerous maps and the ability to once again customize your weapon loadouts and killstreak rewards, comes a new class system. This allows players to play as a unique character with a special weapon or ability that becomes available to them after a certain amount of time.
While lots of fun, the old Call of Duty imbalances are there which become highly annoying. For instance, you unload a magazine into the chest of an oncoming enemy point blank. You hear the hits taking place, and while being hit, they can stop, draw a bow, and shoot you dead, all the while taking a barrage of machine gun fire. This sort of thing becomes highly frustrating as does the never ending barrage of hackers with their aim bots and other annoyances.
The Zombie mode of the game is a true classic With Jeff Goldblum and other Hollywood stars providing their voices and likenesses to a retro-locale where players can battle the undead.
In all, the game is a nice step forward as if the story of the campaign matched the customization it would really be something epic. But fans of the series know what to expect and Black Ops 3 gives them what they love about the series as well as some new features to push the series forward.
http://sknr.net/2015/11/21/call-of-duty-black-ops-3/
Set in a future where combat technology is now imbedded into soldiers, allowing them to hack systems, control machines, and release all manner of electronic warfare, Black Ops 3 is a very ambitious entry into the series. The game also has a great feature that allows players to customize their appearance, weapons, and special features in the campaign instead of just relegating that feature to the multiplayer portion.
As if that was not enough, the game also allows up to four human players to play through the campaign as one unit, which is great for those with new players in the Call of Duty universe in tow.
The campaign is a mixed bag as at times the story is convoluted and the virtual reality based campaigns towards the end become frustrating as well as at times overly difficult.
Graphically the game shines and it is clear that the artists spent considerable love and effort on the game. Just walking around the ready room before missions alone lets one see the incredible level of detail in the game. The levels are pretty impressive as well from secret laboratories in Singapore to high rise locales in Egypt; the future is truly captivating and terrifying as envisioned by Treyarch.
The campaign despite the issues I had with it is not really the selling point of the series, as the multiplayer is where the game truly shines. With multiple formats of online play available as well as numerous maps and the ability to once again customize your weapon loadouts and killstreak rewards, comes a new class system. This allows players to play as a unique character with a special weapon or ability that becomes available to them after a certain amount of time.
While lots of fun, the old Call of Duty imbalances are there which become highly annoying. For instance, you unload a magazine into the chest of an oncoming enemy point blank. You hear the hits taking place, and while being hit, they can stop, draw a bow, and shoot you dead, all the while taking a barrage of machine gun fire. This sort of thing becomes highly frustrating as does the never ending barrage of hackers with their aim bots and other annoyances.
The Zombie mode of the game is a true classic With Jeff Goldblum and other Hollywood stars providing their voices and likenesses to a retro-locale where players can battle the undead.
In all, the game is a nice step forward as if the story of the campaign matched the customization it would really be something epic. But fans of the series know what to expect and Black Ops 3 gives them what they love about the series as well as some new features to push the series forward.
http://sknr.net/2015/11/21/call-of-duty-black-ops-3/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Joyce Girl in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Winner of the Impress Prize for New Writers 2015, Annabel Abbs creates a fantastic work of historical fiction based upon the life of Lucia Joyce. Although the titular character may be unheard of within the general public, her father will be known amongst the majority of readers. James Joyce, the eccentric author of<i> Ulysses</i> and <i>Finnegan’s Wake</i>, travelled around Europe with his family until settling in Avant-garde Paris, 1928. His daughter, Lucia, an ambitious, talented dancer describes the unconventional life as a child of Mr. Joyce, its ups and downs, and inevitable ruinous breakdown.
<i>The Joyce Girl</i> begins in Küsnacht, Zurich where Lucia is receiving treatment from Dr. Carl Jung – another well-known name; this novel is full of them. Struggling to come to terms with her current mental ill health and supposed repressed memories, Jung encourages Lucia to write her memoirs in order to learn of the events that led to this current predicament. Starting from 1928, aged 21, Lucia describes her life to Jung and the reader in brutally honest detail.
The unusual Irish family went through various successes and traumas in the intervening years, creating a humorous and emotional story. Lucia’s brother, Giorgio, caused the family enough problems without adding in the devastating heartache Lucia suffers from men who do not reciprocate her love. One of these lovers is the famous Samuel Beckett (<i>Waiting for Godot</i>, 1952), the first man Lucia falls for. It is fascinating to learn of the multiple connections these notable names had with each other. Although in retrospect it makes sense that the literary and artistic crowds would stick together.
From Lucia’s memoirs Jung formulates that the Joyce parents were extremely controlling, not giving Lucia the opportunity to live her own life – particularly within her dancing career. However, Jung still maintains that Lucia experienced emotional trauma and is insistent on retrieving those memories. What he eventually discovers will shock and possibly sicken the reader.
Through enormous amount of research, Annabel Abbs has put together a likely account of the Joyce family, particularly Lucia’s life. Using existing biographies, original letters and professional opinion, Abbs devises a logical narrative for the unfortunate dancer. Drawing upon knowledge of other literary greats and artists of the era, <i>The Joyce Girl</i> can be easily believed to be a true account, although doubtlessly some scenes must be based upon imagination.
<i>The Joyce Girl</i> will attract historical and romantic novel enthusiasts, providing an enjoyable, thought capturing story, as well as an opportunity to learn. Whether you are aware of James Joyce’s works, or even Lucia herself, <i>The Joyce Girl</i> is bound to capture your attention and draw your mind into the European life during the early 1930s. Although only her debut novel, Annabel Abbs comes highly recommended and it will be interesting to see what direction she has decided to take in her shortly expected second novel.
Winner of the Impress Prize for New Writers 2015, Annabel Abbs creates a fantastic work of historical fiction based upon the life of Lucia Joyce. Although the titular character may be unheard of within the general public, her father will be known amongst the majority of readers. James Joyce, the eccentric author of<i> Ulysses</i> and <i>Finnegan’s Wake</i>, travelled around Europe with his family until settling in Avant-garde Paris, 1928. His daughter, Lucia, an ambitious, talented dancer describes the unconventional life as a child of Mr. Joyce, its ups and downs, and inevitable ruinous breakdown.
<i>The Joyce Girl</i> begins in Küsnacht, Zurich where Lucia is receiving treatment from Dr. Carl Jung – another well-known name; this novel is full of them. Struggling to come to terms with her current mental ill health and supposed repressed memories, Jung encourages Lucia to write her memoirs in order to learn of the events that led to this current predicament. Starting from 1928, aged 21, Lucia describes her life to Jung and the reader in brutally honest detail.
The unusual Irish family went through various successes and traumas in the intervening years, creating a humorous and emotional story. Lucia’s brother, Giorgio, caused the family enough problems without adding in the devastating heartache Lucia suffers from men who do not reciprocate her love. One of these lovers is the famous Samuel Beckett (<i>Waiting for Godot</i>, 1952), the first man Lucia falls for. It is fascinating to learn of the multiple connections these notable names had with each other. Although in retrospect it makes sense that the literary and artistic crowds would stick together.
From Lucia’s memoirs Jung formulates that the Joyce parents were extremely controlling, not giving Lucia the opportunity to live her own life – particularly within her dancing career. However, Jung still maintains that Lucia experienced emotional trauma and is insistent on retrieving those memories. What he eventually discovers will shock and possibly sicken the reader.
Through enormous amount of research, Annabel Abbs has put together a likely account of the Joyce family, particularly Lucia’s life. Using existing biographies, original letters and professional opinion, Abbs devises a logical narrative for the unfortunate dancer. Drawing upon knowledge of other literary greats and artists of the era, <i>The Joyce Girl</i> can be easily believed to be a true account, although doubtlessly some scenes must be based upon imagination.
<i>The Joyce Girl</i> will attract historical and romantic novel enthusiasts, providing an enjoyable, thought capturing story, as well as an opportunity to learn. Whether you are aware of James Joyce’s works, or even Lucia herself, <i>The Joyce Girl</i> is bound to capture your attention and draw your mind into the European life during the early 1930s. Although only her debut novel, Annabel Abbs comes highly recommended and it will be interesting to see what direction she has decided to take in her shortly expected second novel.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Green Book (2018) in Movies
Dec 14, 2018
One of the best of 2018
When the dust is settled on 2018, you can be rest assured that GREEN BOOK will be listed as one of my top films of the year.
Yes, it's that good.
"Based on a true story", GREEN BOOK stars Viggo Mortenson (Aragon in the LOTR films) as "Tony Lip" a bouncer at the Copacabana in the early 1960's who is tapped by African American concert pianist Dr. Don Shirley (Academy Award winner Mahershala Ali) to be his driver/escort/security on a tour of a very prejudicial Southern part of the United States in the early 1960's. Both Tony and Dr. Don look down their noses at the other one, but during the course of this film, the two develop mutual respect and a friendship that lasted until the both passed away in 2013.
That is, in essence, the entire plot of this film. But it is not the destination, but rather, the journey that is the core of this film - and what a journey it is.
We, the audience, probably spend 70% of the film in a car with the 2 stars of this film, so they better be interesting to look at and listen to (for nothing much else happens) and both characters - and both actors- are up to the task.
Ali won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his brief turn in Barry Jenkins MOONLIGHT - and he is even better here as Dr. Don Shirley, an elitist virtuoso piano player, with strong pride and hidden secrets of his own. Ali brings a humanity and vulnerability to this character that acts as a softening of the hard shell of this character that allows us, the audience, a glimpse into this character's heart. This person could easily have been a one-note caricature, but in Ali's hands, it is much, much more.
The biggest surprise to me is two-time Oscar Nominee Mortenson as "Tony Lip". While the character starts as a typical early 1960's Italian-mob type, Mortenson brings humor, humanity and (yes) heart to a matter-of-fact character and continues to evolve the rough edges of Tony as Tony, himself, develops throughout the course of the film. I have always "liked but not loved" Mortenson, but, I LOVE HIM in this film and will be rooting for him come Oscars time.
The other big surprise of this film is the strong, subtle and human way that Director Peter Farrelly brings events to the screen. Prior to this, Farrelly (along with his brother Bobby) Directed such over-the-top comedies as THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY and KINGPIN, so I was a bit concerned that the Direction would be over-the-top. But...it wasn't...and I wouldn't be surprised if Farelly's name is called when Oscar nominations are announced.
I was charmed and moved by these characters - and this story - and was glad to spend 2 hours with them.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Yes, it's that good.
"Based on a true story", GREEN BOOK stars Viggo Mortenson (Aragon in the LOTR films) as "Tony Lip" a bouncer at the Copacabana in the early 1960's who is tapped by African American concert pianist Dr. Don Shirley (Academy Award winner Mahershala Ali) to be his driver/escort/security on a tour of a very prejudicial Southern part of the United States in the early 1960's. Both Tony and Dr. Don look down their noses at the other one, but during the course of this film, the two develop mutual respect and a friendship that lasted until the both passed away in 2013.
That is, in essence, the entire plot of this film. But it is not the destination, but rather, the journey that is the core of this film - and what a journey it is.
We, the audience, probably spend 70% of the film in a car with the 2 stars of this film, so they better be interesting to look at and listen to (for nothing much else happens) and both characters - and both actors- are up to the task.
Ali won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his brief turn in Barry Jenkins MOONLIGHT - and he is even better here as Dr. Don Shirley, an elitist virtuoso piano player, with strong pride and hidden secrets of his own. Ali brings a humanity and vulnerability to this character that acts as a softening of the hard shell of this character that allows us, the audience, a glimpse into this character's heart. This person could easily have been a one-note caricature, but in Ali's hands, it is much, much more.
The biggest surprise to me is two-time Oscar Nominee Mortenson as "Tony Lip". While the character starts as a typical early 1960's Italian-mob type, Mortenson brings humor, humanity and (yes) heart to a matter-of-fact character and continues to evolve the rough edges of Tony as Tony, himself, develops throughout the course of the film. I have always "liked but not loved" Mortenson, but, I LOVE HIM in this film and will be rooting for him come Oscars time.
The other big surprise of this film is the strong, subtle and human way that Director Peter Farrelly brings events to the screen. Prior to this, Farrelly (along with his brother Bobby) Directed such over-the-top comedies as THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY and KINGPIN, so I was a bit concerned that the Direction would be over-the-top. But...it wasn't...and I wouldn't be surprised if Farelly's name is called when Oscar nominations are announced.
I was charmed and moved by these characters - and this story - and was glad to spend 2 hours with them.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Vampires Suck (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Vampires suck – but does the movie? We open on the San Salvatore Festival with the angsty Becca watching her beau, Edward Sullen, disrobe and expose his sparkly secrets- he’s a vampire! Cue the “True Blood- 40oz” toting, Mono-fang vampire to take Edward out….wait, we have to get the rest of the story! What follows is a parody of the first two movies of the Twilight Saga. Most of the characters analogous to the spoof’s target are introduced in the first 30 minutes; few of them are actually seen again throughout the movie.
Becca (newcomer Jenn Proske) is forced to move to Sporks, Washington, with her deadbeat father and town sheriff, Frank Crane (Diedrich Bader of The Drew Carey Show). Frank’s best friend is the rough-and-tumble paraplegic Native American, Bobby. His contribution to the plot is his hunky teenage son, Jacob White (Chris Riggi of Gossip Girl). The town of Sporks seems to have vampires on the brain and its population is only growing smaller.
Our heroine is introduced to Edward Sullen (Matt Lanter of Disaster Movie) and what follows is the “classic” story of girl-meets-vampire, girl-loses-vampire, girl-gets-threatened-by-vampire-nemesis, etc. Writers/Directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer use their formulaic approach to spoof movies by making the plot a cliff-notes version of the Stephanie Meyer’s original material, with ample jokes thrown in-in an attempt to beef up their rendition.
In fact, there are so many visual jokes in the movie that it left me wondering what a sight-impaired person might conclude of the movie. “What are all these people laughing at?” I noticed a few of the dialogue driven jokes weren’t even played off by the actors. They seemed to have been missed by everyone, including the editors. Other jokes are pop-culture references that will get stale with time. They’re integrated well, but definitely dated. The movie is redolent with the classic American comedy tradition of slapstick, which occasionally comes off as funny.
The production value left something to be desired as several scenes were obviously one-takes. I counted several instances where Becca’s kiss left Edward’s mouth with a smudge of his own flesh-tone showing through. But hey- at least single takes have continuity, right? The contacts, no doubt purchased in bulk, gave the characters an occasional Marty Feldman goggly-look. The effect is hilarious, although I’m not always sure if it’s intentional.
The cast has its standouts. Jenn Proske’s Becca comes dangerously close (like copyright-violating close) to the performance of Kristen Stewart’s Bella as the fidgety, twitchy, sullen and hormone-y heroine. And Ken Jeong (The Hangover) as Daro, while not appearing on screen much, definitely makes his comedic presence felt.
All in all, “Vampires Suck” didn’t really suck… it kind of chews, like gum. Gum out of the package is fresh, flavorful, but the longer you chew it, the tougher and more stale it becomes. This movie is fresh, funny, and quirky right now, but it won’t stand the test of time like more accomplished parodies.
Becca (newcomer Jenn Proske) is forced to move to Sporks, Washington, with her deadbeat father and town sheriff, Frank Crane (Diedrich Bader of The Drew Carey Show). Frank’s best friend is the rough-and-tumble paraplegic Native American, Bobby. His contribution to the plot is his hunky teenage son, Jacob White (Chris Riggi of Gossip Girl). The town of Sporks seems to have vampires on the brain and its population is only growing smaller.
Our heroine is introduced to Edward Sullen (Matt Lanter of Disaster Movie) and what follows is the “classic” story of girl-meets-vampire, girl-loses-vampire, girl-gets-threatened-by-vampire-nemesis, etc. Writers/Directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer use their formulaic approach to spoof movies by making the plot a cliff-notes version of the Stephanie Meyer’s original material, with ample jokes thrown in-in an attempt to beef up their rendition.
In fact, there are so many visual jokes in the movie that it left me wondering what a sight-impaired person might conclude of the movie. “What are all these people laughing at?” I noticed a few of the dialogue driven jokes weren’t even played off by the actors. They seemed to have been missed by everyone, including the editors. Other jokes are pop-culture references that will get stale with time. They’re integrated well, but definitely dated. The movie is redolent with the classic American comedy tradition of slapstick, which occasionally comes off as funny.
The production value left something to be desired as several scenes were obviously one-takes. I counted several instances where Becca’s kiss left Edward’s mouth with a smudge of his own flesh-tone showing through. But hey- at least single takes have continuity, right? The contacts, no doubt purchased in bulk, gave the characters an occasional Marty Feldman goggly-look. The effect is hilarious, although I’m not always sure if it’s intentional.
The cast has its standouts. Jenn Proske’s Becca comes dangerously close (like copyright-violating close) to the performance of Kristen Stewart’s Bella as the fidgety, twitchy, sullen and hormone-y heroine. And Ken Jeong (The Hangover) as Daro, while not appearing on screen much, definitely makes his comedic presence felt.
All in all, “Vampires Suck” didn’t really suck… it kind of chews, like gum. Gum out of the package is fresh, flavorful, but the longer you chew it, the tougher and more stale it becomes. This movie is fresh, funny, and quirky right now, but it won’t stand the test of time like more accomplished parodies.