Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated What to Expect When You're Expecting (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
First off, a disclaimer: I have not read the book What to Expect When You’re Expecting; nor do I have any kids of my own. That being said….
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated All About Steve (2009) in Movies
Jun 15, 2020
A Movie About a Crossword Puzzle Designer? Ummm...
With a mindblowing 6% Rating on Rotten Tomatoes (mindblowing because it’s too high), All About Steve is the story of a crossword puzzle designer who travels across the country with the hopes of convincing a CNN newsreporter that they belong together. I can feel your excitement. It’s palpable.
Acting: 3
Have you ever seen a mouse try and get off of a glue trap? That’s the equivalent of the acting work in this movie. Let’s start with the woman of the hour, Sandra Bullock playing the leading role of Mary Horowitz. I couldn’t help but think as she runs through her lines, “Do you even want to be on set right now?” She reads the lines of her character like a robocaller at times. I can actually say that for quite a few of the actors that bought into this dud.
Beginning: 6
I’ve seen worse starts to movies, I’ll be honest. The career fair scene is actually pretty hilarious which is probably about the only nice thing I have to say about this movie. If the entire movie had been like this, the overall score would have been double. Unfortunately the movie still would have been shit.
Characters: 5
I’ve always said, if you hate the main character of a movie, there’s a good chance you’re going to hate the movie. That theory definitely holds true here as Mary pains me with every single scene I watch her in. And the way they paint Bradley Cooper’s character Steve out to be such a jerk is just wrong. I mean this a reverse Pepe Le Peu situation we got going on here but he is the one we’re supposed to be mad at? Nightmare.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 1
Yeah, there’s nothing I care about that’s happening throughout the duration of this movie. I could care less about Mary’s quest to win Steve because it’s just wrong. She’s a psycopath! When I say, “Nothing to see here!” I mean it.
Entertainment Value: 2
Ok, so here’s why I gave it a 2 despite how dreadful the entire movie was: I kept waiting to see how much worse things would get. The further I went down the rabbit hole, things just got more and more painful. Ever watch elementary school kids play basketball? Pretty much the same kind of train wreck here.
Memorability: 0
Pace: 0
Considering this is one of the worst movies imaginable, it’s no secret that “snail’s pace” doesn’t do it justice. Getting through All About Steve almost requires much drinking. Sure, you can survive it sober. Not advisable.
Plot: 1
It’s a story that makes no sense revolving around characters that don’t have a single solid motivation to their name. Even when you think for a moment that things might redeem themselves, the movie manages to set itself on fire again. Lost count of the number of times I asked myself, “Where the hell is this going?”
Resolution: 3
Overall: 26
Maybe it was because I was tired. Maybe it’s because I think Sandra Bullock is beautiful and who the hell would be stupid enough to run from that? Maybe it was because I had just watched A Quiet Place right before and was blown away by how incredible it was. Or maybe…All About Steve is just a terrible terrible movie. Yeah, I think I’ll go with the latter.
Acting: 3
Have you ever seen a mouse try and get off of a glue trap? That’s the equivalent of the acting work in this movie. Let’s start with the woman of the hour, Sandra Bullock playing the leading role of Mary Horowitz. I couldn’t help but think as she runs through her lines, “Do you even want to be on set right now?” She reads the lines of her character like a robocaller at times. I can actually say that for quite a few of the actors that bought into this dud.
Beginning: 6
I’ve seen worse starts to movies, I’ll be honest. The career fair scene is actually pretty hilarious which is probably about the only nice thing I have to say about this movie. If the entire movie had been like this, the overall score would have been double. Unfortunately the movie still would have been shit.
Characters: 5
I’ve always said, if you hate the main character of a movie, there’s a good chance you’re going to hate the movie. That theory definitely holds true here as Mary pains me with every single scene I watch her in. And the way they paint Bradley Cooper’s character Steve out to be such a jerk is just wrong. I mean this a reverse Pepe Le Peu situation we got going on here but he is the one we’re supposed to be mad at? Nightmare.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 1
Yeah, there’s nothing I care about that’s happening throughout the duration of this movie. I could care less about Mary’s quest to win Steve because it’s just wrong. She’s a psycopath! When I say, “Nothing to see here!” I mean it.
Entertainment Value: 2
Ok, so here’s why I gave it a 2 despite how dreadful the entire movie was: I kept waiting to see how much worse things would get. The further I went down the rabbit hole, things just got more and more painful. Ever watch elementary school kids play basketball? Pretty much the same kind of train wreck here.
Memorability: 0
Pace: 0
Considering this is one of the worst movies imaginable, it’s no secret that “snail’s pace” doesn’t do it justice. Getting through All About Steve almost requires much drinking. Sure, you can survive it sober. Not advisable.
Plot: 1
It’s a story that makes no sense revolving around characters that don’t have a single solid motivation to their name. Even when you think for a moment that things might redeem themselves, the movie manages to set itself on fire again. Lost count of the number of times I asked myself, “Where the hell is this going?”
Resolution: 3
Overall: 26
Maybe it was because I was tired. Maybe it’s because I think Sandra Bullock is beautiful and who the hell would be stupid enough to run from that? Maybe it was because I had just watched A Quiet Place right before and was blown away by how incredible it was. Or maybe…All About Steve is just a terrible terrible movie. Yeah, I think I’ll go with the latter.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Finding Steve McQueen (2019) in Movies
Nov 3, 2020
Not much of a heist
Finding Steve McQueen is a heist drama centring around a young man who idolises Steve McQueen, and follows him as he joins a gang of thieves as they plot to steal millions from President Nixon’s secret funds. This is loosely based around a true story and is told from the point of view of the gang’s getaway driver Harry Barber, with his McQueen inspired locks and mannerisms.
The tale of the 1972 heist is recounted by Barber (Travis Fimmel) to his girlfriend Molly Murphy (Rachael Taylor) in 1980, after having been on the run from the FBI for 8 years. This starts out as though it could be a rather fun and lighthearted heist movie, but I’m afraid despite it’s short 90 minute run time, it feels rather drawn out and dull. Right from the get go, the cinematography, directing style and just general look of this film just doesn’t feel right. It feels like it has been made for tv, it has that rather cheap look about it and sadly the camera angles and character styling do nothing but reinforce this. The CGI, whilst infrequent, is very bad and you can spot the green screen scenes a mile off. Even the car chase scene is lacklustre and unimpressive. You can tell that this hasn’t had a lot of money thrown at it.
The performances too I’m afraid are also rather lacking, although a large part of this is likely down to the often dodgy script that seems to enjoy ramming 70s references down our throats whilst being completely unconvincing about every other aspect of the story. I haven’t see much of Travis Fimmel, so I’m not sure if his goofy persona in this is his acting style or in character, but either way it doesn’t always work. Rachael Taylor’s Molly seems out of place and rather unlikeable and it’s only Forest Whitaker as FBI Agent Howard Lambert who comes out unscathed, playing a rather aloof and unfazed agent on the tail of the gang following the heist.
The heist itself is really the main problem here. Instead of being a heist movie, this plays out like a romance with a little bit of heist thrown in, and not a very exciting one at that. There are some moments of intrigue and fun when you see how the gang pulled the heist off and later on how they got caught, but apart from this it’s probably one of the dullest heists I’ve ever seen. Aside from a decent soundtrack, there is very little excitement in this. The motive for the heist also seems rather fuzzy and far fetched. Even the romance seems forced and wavers between being very fake and unconvincing to rather cringeworthy and cliched.
There’s also the question of whether this movie succeeds in finding Steve McQueen, and whilst it is undoubtedly a homage to the man himself, it is not a very successful one. It references all the right things but unfortunately struggles to get close to the man himself and as heist movies go, it may have done itself a disservice by trying to liken itself to McQueen and his successes. Overall I’m afraid this is a rather dull heist film that even with a low budget could’ve been much better.
The tale of the 1972 heist is recounted by Barber (Travis Fimmel) to his girlfriend Molly Murphy (Rachael Taylor) in 1980, after having been on the run from the FBI for 8 years. This starts out as though it could be a rather fun and lighthearted heist movie, but I’m afraid despite it’s short 90 minute run time, it feels rather drawn out and dull. Right from the get go, the cinematography, directing style and just general look of this film just doesn’t feel right. It feels like it has been made for tv, it has that rather cheap look about it and sadly the camera angles and character styling do nothing but reinforce this. The CGI, whilst infrequent, is very bad and you can spot the green screen scenes a mile off. Even the car chase scene is lacklustre and unimpressive. You can tell that this hasn’t had a lot of money thrown at it.
The performances too I’m afraid are also rather lacking, although a large part of this is likely down to the often dodgy script that seems to enjoy ramming 70s references down our throats whilst being completely unconvincing about every other aspect of the story. I haven’t see much of Travis Fimmel, so I’m not sure if his goofy persona in this is his acting style or in character, but either way it doesn’t always work. Rachael Taylor’s Molly seems out of place and rather unlikeable and it’s only Forest Whitaker as FBI Agent Howard Lambert who comes out unscathed, playing a rather aloof and unfazed agent on the tail of the gang following the heist.
The heist itself is really the main problem here. Instead of being a heist movie, this plays out like a romance with a little bit of heist thrown in, and not a very exciting one at that. There are some moments of intrigue and fun when you see how the gang pulled the heist off and later on how they got caught, but apart from this it’s probably one of the dullest heists I’ve ever seen. Aside from a decent soundtrack, there is very little excitement in this. The motive for the heist also seems rather fuzzy and far fetched. Even the romance seems forced and wavers between being very fake and unconvincing to rather cringeworthy and cliched.
There’s also the question of whether this movie succeeds in finding Steve McQueen, and whilst it is undoubtedly a homage to the man himself, it is not a very successful one. It references all the right things but unfortunately struggles to get close to the man himself and as heist movies go, it may have done itself a disservice by trying to liken itself to McQueen and his successes. Overall I’m afraid this is a rather dull heist film that even with a low budget could’ve been much better.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The United States vs. Billie Holiday (2021) in Movies
Apr 16, 2021
Spasmodic biopic anchored by an astonishing performance by Andra Day
It's the late 40's in the US. We follow the distressing story of Billie Holiday (Andra Day) through her period of fame and drug addiction, while constantly pursued by Harry Anslinger (Garrett Hedlund) of the FBI. The reason? Holiday kept repeatedly singing the song "Strange Fruit" at her concerts, seen as being incendiary in support of the emerging civil rights movement. While surrounded by exploitative men, can she escape the destructive cycle and find true love with her "soldier boy" Jimmy Fletcher (Trevante Rhodes).
Positives:
- Andra Day. My word! What an acting performance from the lady. Apart from a small role in the Chadwick Boseman movie "Marshall", this is her live-action feature debut. Talk about knocking it out of the park! This is a raw and very brave performance (in terms of the degree of passion and nudity required. And that's even before you take into account that she is rendering all of Billie Holiday's songs in pitch-perfect fashion. Astonishing. With a Golden Globe win under her belt, it could be an interesting battle for the Oscar between her and Frances McDormand later in the month.
- There is zero sugar-coating on this version of Holiday's biopic. Various scenes in here, especially a drug-induced retelling of the alleged origins of "Strange Fruit", are harrowing and leave a lasting impression. For the second time in a week (the other being "The Mauritanian"), I am left angry about the racism and injustice present in the US systems of government. (An astonishing caption at the end of the film - regarding a 2020 senate bill - left me speechless). Much of the movie's content is based on truth: there is a nice "fact vs fiction" summary here on collider.com.
- Elements of the story are very moving. A love-making scene (very much as opposed to a sex scene) between Billie and Jimmy is sensitively handled: like seeing an abused dog finally being shown some kindness. (Well - I was moved anyway).
- Production design for the movie (by Daniel Dorrance) is fabulous, with sets such as the Café Society brimming with 40's style.
Negatives:
- Sadly, for all of its positives, the overall concoction is a bit of a muddle. Nothing flows terribly well, and the script hops around all over the place. This left me - while never totally disengaged - feeling a bit bored and restless at times.
- I KNOW that it was common parlance at the time, but the excessive use of the "N-word" throughout the film is bound to upset some watchers.
- The movie is just SOOOO gritty and downbeat, that it left me feeling angry and upset after watching it.
Summary Thoughts: As a biopic, it comes across as jerky and spasmodic. It has moments of genius, particularly in some of the musical performances. But there are also spells where it fails to fully engage. If I was rating this purely on its content, it would probably be a 5/10. But you just can't ignore the quality here of Andra Day's performance. So for that reason, I have added 2 extra stars into the rating.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/16/the-united-states-vs-billie-holiday-strange-fruit-hangin-from-the-poplar-trees/. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Andra Day. My word! What an acting performance from the lady. Apart from a small role in the Chadwick Boseman movie "Marshall", this is her live-action feature debut. Talk about knocking it out of the park! This is a raw and very brave performance (in terms of the degree of passion and nudity required. And that's even before you take into account that she is rendering all of Billie Holiday's songs in pitch-perfect fashion. Astonishing. With a Golden Globe win under her belt, it could be an interesting battle for the Oscar between her and Frances McDormand later in the month.
- There is zero sugar-coating on this version of Holiday's biopic. Various scenes in here, especially a drug-induced retelling of the alleged origins of "Strange Fruit", are harrowing and leave a lasting impression. For the second time in a week (the other being "The Mauritanian"), I am left angry about the racism and injustice present in the US systems of government. (An astonishing caption at the end of the film - regarding a 2020 senate bill - left me speechless). Much of the movie's content is based on truth: there is a nice "fact vs fiction" summary here on collider.com.
- Elements of the story are very moving. A love-making scene (very much as opposed to a sex scene) between Billie and Jimmy is sensitively handled: like seeing an abused dog finally being shown some kindness. (Well - I was moved anyway).
- Production design for the movie (by Daniel Dorrance) is fabulous, with sets such as the Café Society brimming with 40's style.
Negatives:
- Sadly, for all of its positives, the overall concoction is a bit of a muddle. Nothing flows terribly well, and the script hops around all over the place. This left me - while never totally disengaged - feeling a bit bored and restless at times.
- I KNOW that it was common parlance at the time, but the excessive use of the "N-word" throughout the film is bound to upset some watchers.
- The movie is just SOOOO gritty and downbeat, that it left me feeling angry and upset after watching it.
Summary Thoughts: As a biopic, it comes across as jerky and spasmodic. It has moments of genius, particularly in some of the musical performances. But there are also spells where it fails to fully engage. If I was rating this purely on its content, it would probably be a 5/10. But you just can't ignore the quality here of Andra Day's performance. So for that reason, I have added 2 extra stars into the rating.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/16/the-united-states-vs-billie-holiday-strange-fruit-hangin-from-the-poplar-trees/. Thanks.)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Scoob (2020) in Movies
May 8, 2021
Another film that snuck its way through to VOD (and is thankfully now streaming). As much as I love Scooby Doo, I did not have the desire to pay money to view this one.
Here I would normally put an extended synopsis, but I'll be honest, after watching the film I don't think I could tell you what the story was. I'm not sure it actually matters anyway.
The beginning of the film confused me. From every trailer that I saw I thought this film was about the mini Scooby Gang. At least that's what I remembered. So having seen lots of clips of them as kids, coupled with the posters meant I was left confused when it was hardly a feature of the final product.
Apart from me evidently forgetting the plot of the film, it was a classic Scooby story with a modern twist, and ultimately you can't go wrong with that. You get all the things you expect from masked villains to hair-brained schemes that seem to fool the minions... and that is all pretty satisfying stuff to watch.
A note I made very quickly was that the voices left a lot to be desired. While capturing the essence of the original cast would be very difficult, there's no denying that the actors from the live-action originals did a very good job... here we had no real comparison at all. Gina Rodriguez (who has been knocking it out of the park recently) probably being the only exception. I just truly don't know how anyone could possibly be better than Casey Kasem and Matthew Lillard. MVP of the film was definitely the bike cop when questioning Scooby and Shaggy, quality content, loved the end of his scene.
Despite the nostalgia of everything it doesn't make up for some truly awful dialogue, it's very inconsistent and yoyos between bad and good (when I say good, in this case, I probably mean cheesy). There are a couple of true gems though, my favourite being an early line from Shaggy with some heavy foreshadowing.
The yoyoing of the script is generally reflected in my notes on the film as a whole. For every laugh, there was something negative I wrote down. Scoob! was very self-aware, which was amusing to begin with, but it began to grate a little.
I was at least thankful that the CG animation actually became less of an annoyance as I got into the film, I wasn't a fan. The majority of the film managed to get a pass, but sadly I really disliked the portrayal of Dick Dastardly and Muttley in this style. As much as I'd like a Hanna and Barbera universe, I do not care to see anymore in this look. And absolutely no more Dastardly looking like Gru with his minions.
"But Emma... you gave this film a pretty decent rating and all you've done is grumble about it!" Yes, yes I have. But... I still enjoyed myself, and like I said, for every bad note there was a laugh or a moment that made me happy. And sometimes having a rant about a film's pitfalls is just something you need to do.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/scoob-movie-review.html
Here I would normally put an extended synopsis, but I'll be honest, after watching the film I don't think I could tell you what the story was. I'm not sure it actually matters anyway.
The beginning of the film confused me. From every trailer that I saw I thought this film was about the mini Scooby Gang. At least that's what I remembered. So having seen lots of clips of them as kids, coupled with the posters meant I was left confused when it was hardly a feature of the final product.
Apart from me evidently forgetting the plot of the film, it was a classic Scooby story with a modern twist, and ultimately you can't go wrong with that. You get all the things you expect from masked villains to hair-brained schemes that seem to fool the minions... and that is all pretty satisfying stuff to watch.
A note I made very quickly was that the voices left a lot to be desired. While capturing the essence of the original cast would be very difficult, there's no denying that the actors from the live-action originals did a very good job... here we had no real comparison at all. Gina Rodriguez (who has been knocking it out of the park recently) probably being the only exception. I just truly don't know how anyone could possibly be better than Casey Kasem and Matthew Lillard. MVP of the film was definitely the bike cop when questioning Scooby and Shaggy, quality content, loved the end of his scene.
Despite the nostalgia of everything it doesn't make up for some truly awful dialogue, it's very inconsistent and yoyos between bad and good (when I say good, in this case, I probably mean cheesy). There are a couple of true gems though, my favourite being an early line from Shaggy with some heavy foreshadowing.
The yoyoing of the script is generally reflected in my notes on the film as a whole. For every laugh, there was something negative I wrote down. Scoob! was very self-aware, which was amusing to begin with, but it began to grate a little.
I was at least thankful that the CG animation actually became less of an annoyance as I got into the film, I wasn't a fan. The majority of the film managed to get a pass, but sadly I really disliked the portrayal of Dick Dastardly and Muttley in this style. As much as I'd like a Hanna and Barbera universe, I do not care to see anymore in this look. And absolutely no more Dastardly looking like Gru with his minions.
"But Emma... you gave this film a pretty decent rating and all you've done is grumble about it!" Yes, yes I have. But... I still enjoyed myself, and like I said, for every bad note there was a laugh or a moment that made me happy. And sometimes having a rant about a film's pitfalls is just something you need to do.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/scoob-movie-review.html
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Untouchables (1987) in Movies
Dec 16, 2020 (Updated Dec 16, 2020)
A little melodramatic
(not) Film #7 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: The Untouchables
As with most of the films on this list, The Untouchables is a film that has garnered a great deal of acclaim over the years, and yet if I’ve ever seen it, I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t remember it.
The Untouchables (1987) was directed by Brian De Palma and stars Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness, a treasury agent who recruits a group of fellow cops and agents to take down mob boss Al Capone (Robert De Niro) in Prohibition-era Chicago, with Ness and his agents soon becoming known as the “untouchables” after refusing large bribes. Sean Connery, Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith make up the rest of the Untouchables.
An American gangster film is a dime a dozen, there have been countless over the years and the 1920s and 30s are always featured fairly heavily, no doubt due to the large number of criminal gangs and mobsters around in that era. Personally whilst The Untouchables is a good film, I don’t think there’s a lot in this to make it particularly notable or outstanding above any of the others. It’s engaging and interesting, which it should be considering the subject matter – it is based on a true story after all. The entire production looks great too; the sets, costumes and locations are very well done and definitely look the part.
The issue with The Untouchables is it’s too melodramatic, too over the top and clichéd. This isn’t helped by Ennio Morricone’s score, which feels far too heavy handed, cheesy and out of place for the scenes. Even the open title credits is ridiculously over dramatic. You can definitely tell this film was made in the 80s and I’m afraid that’s not a good thing. There’s also some questionable acting from Kevin Costner, and while admittedly I’ve never been a big fan of his, the script and some of the almost cringeworthy scenes with Ness’s wife don’t help matters. And De Niro’s Capone pops up in scenes that feel rather random and forced during the first hour, and seem completely out of place with the rest of the story.
Despite this, The Untouchables is still fairly enjoyable and this is mostly due to Sean Connery’s Malone, the role that he won his only Oscar for. The Irishman, despite sounding very Scottish, injects some much needed heart, humour and spirit into the film and without him, this would have been a very lacklustre film indeed. Even Connery’s horrific Irish accent is a source of amusement, and without the character having been described as Irish, I would’ve just assumed he was Scottish.
Overall, I found The Untouchables to be a decent and entertaining gangster film as long as you can ignore the melodramatic overtones. But I’m not convinced that it’s anything memorable or above average, and if it even deserves a place on this list.
Update: So after having watched this film and headed to my Bucket List to scratch it off, I realised that the film on this list is actually The Intouchables, a French film from 2012 also known as Untouchable. Oops. So I’m afraid The Untouchables isn’t number 7 ticked off my bucket list after all 😆
As with most of the films on this list, The Untouchables is a film that has garnered a great deal of acclaim over the years, and yet if I’ve ever seen it, I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t remember it.
The Untouchables (1987) was directed by Brian De Palma and stars Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness, a treasury agent who recruits a group of fellow cops and agents to take down mob boss Al Capone (Robert De Niro) in Prohibition-era Chicago, with Ness and his agents soon becoming known as the “untouchables” after refusing large bribes. Sean Connery, Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith make up the rest of the Untouchables.
An American gangster film is a dime a dozen, there have been countless over the years and the 1920s and 30s are always featured fairly heavily, no doubt due to the large number of criminal gangs and mobsters around in that era. Personally whilst The Untouchables is a good film, I don’t think there’s a lot in this to make it particularly notable or outstanding above any of the others. It’s engaging and interesting, which it should be considering the subject matter – it is based on a true story after all. The entire production looks great too; the sets, costumes and locations are very well done and definitely look the part.
The issue with The Untouchables is it’s too melodramatic, too over the top and clichéd. This isn’t helped by Ennio Morricone’s score, which feels far too heavy handed, cheesy and out of place for the scenes. Even the open title credits is ridiculously over dramatic. You can definitely tell this film was made in the 80s and I’m afraid that’s not a good thing. There’s also some questionable acting from Kevin Costner, and while admittedly I’ve never been a big fan of his, the script and some of the almost cringeworthy scenes with Ness’s wife don’t help matters. And De Niro’s Capone pops up in scenes that feel rather random and forced during the first hour, and seem completely out of place with the rest of the story.
Despite this, The Untouchables is still fairly enjoyable and this is mostly due to Sean Connery’s Malone, the role that he won his only Oscar for. The Irishman, despite sounding very Scottish, injects some much needed heart, humour and spirit into the film and without him, this would have been a very lacklustre film indeed. Even Connery’s horrific Irish accent is a source of amusement, and without the character having been described as Irish, I would’ve just assumed he was Scottish.
Overall, I found The Untouchables to be a decent and entertaining gangster film as long as you can ignore the melodramatic overtones. But I’m not convinced that it’s anything memorable or above average, and if it even deserves a place on this list.
Update: So after having watched this film and headed to my Bucket List to scratch it off, I realised that the film on this list is actually The Intouchables, a French film from 2012 also known as Untouchable. Oops. So I’m afraid The Untouchables isn’t number 7 ticked off my bucket list after all 😆
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I'd been on the fence about this one. The trailer King Of Thieves looked both good and bad in equal measures. Some of the clips they used weren't even particularly good when you saw them in the context of the whole films so I have no idea how they made it into such an important cut. Since seeing the Unlimited Screening I've seen the second trailer that is actually much better than the first. It's probably a god send that I didn't see it before the film otherwise I think I'd have been even more disappointed.
The film runs at a surprisingly short 1 hour 48 minutes, but don't worry, it feels like a lot longer than that. At one point I checked my phone for the time and nearly audibly swore (which probably would have been drowned out by the swearing of the film) about there being 20 minutes to go.
The idea is a great one, and the true life story behind it gives some opportunities for hilariously comedic moments, and yet somehow nothing was really fulfilled. I laughed a little, but I really didn't find it as amusing as some of the other cinema goers. The were a couple of voices in the darkness who were laughing hard that then set of a tiny ripple of tittering. I'm glad they enjoyed it so much, but I didn't once feel the need to laugh so hard.
Looking back on it I was left wondering something... did any of the police characters actually speak? The only things I remember were screamed words while arrests were made and lots of knowing looks and satisfied grins. Honestly can't remember any lines at all. I'm thinking they hired the main line-up and went "well that blew the acting budget, better cut all the other speaking parts."
Something that bugged me slightly was the use of spliced footage from the actor's younger days. It's a nice idea, but ultimately, when it was used undermined the message at the end of the film. Brian doesn't want them to be seen as old boys who are past their prime, so the film should have let them walk off to their sunset retirement not jumble it up with their younger selves and losing that moment between them all. It would have made perfect sense having the footage mixed into the scenes where the police were uncovering their identities and piecing the case together.
That line up was indeed fantastic, and that's why this film was so disappointing to me. All of them have done much better work than this. The script, or real lack thereof is what contributed the most to this let down. I'm not really sure that it should have two stars at all. In fact, no... *I'm revoking one of them, I've just been reading my criteria and I can't let it have two. ★☆☆☆☆ The story behind it and the cast potential don't make up for this lacklustre film.
What should you do?
There are some good scenes and a truly star studded cast, but even those don't really make up for the potential that this film squandered. If you like heist movies then it might be worth a watch but I feel like there are better ones out there to see.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
All that loot, obviously!
The film runs at a surprisingly short 1 hour 48 minutes, but don't worry, it feels like a lot longer than that. At one point I checked my phone for the time and nearly audibly swore (which probably would have been drowned out by the swearing of the film) about there being 20 minutes to go.
The idea is a great one, and the true life story behind it gives some opportunities for hilariously comedic moments, and yet somehow nothing was really fulfilled. I laughed a little, but I really didn't find it as amusing as some of the other cinema goers. The were a couple of voices in the darkness who were laughing hard that then set of a tiny ripple of tittering. I'm glad they enjoyed it so much, but I didn't once feel the need to laugh so hard.
Looking back on it I was left wondering something... did any of the police characters actually speak? The only things I remember were screamed words while arrests were made and lots of knowing looks and satisfied grins. Honestly can't remember any lines at all. I'm thinking they hired the main line-up and went "well that blew the acting budget, better cut all the other speaking parts."
Something that bugged me slightly was the use of spliced footage from the actor's younger days. It's a nice idea, but ultimately, when it was used undermined the message at the end of the film. Brian doesn't want them to be seen as old boys who are past their prime, so the film should have let them walk off to their sunset retirement not jumble it up with their younger selves and losing that moment between them all. It would have made perfect sense having the footage mixed into the scenes where the police were uncovering their identities and piecing the case together.
That line up was indeed fantastic, and that's why this film was so disappointing to me. All of them have done much better work than this. The script, or real lack thereof is what contributed the most to this let down. I'm not really sure that it should have two stars at all. In fact, no... *I'm revoking one of them, I've just been reading my criteria and I can't let it have two. ★☆☆☆☆ The story behind it and the cast potential don't make up for this lacklustre film.
What should you do?
There are some good scenes and a truly star studded cast, but even those don't really make up for the potential that this film squandered. If you like heist movies then it might be worth a watch but I feel like there are better ones out there to see.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
All that loot, obviously!
Kids Yogaverse: I AM SUN, I AM MOON
Health & Fitness and Book
App
Kids Yogaverse introduces a complete Sun and Moon yoga flow just for kids! I AM SUN, I AM MOON...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Battle of the Sexes (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tennis and sex, but without the grunting.
Here’s a good test of someone’s age…. ask the question “Billie-Jean?”. Millennials will probably come back with “Huh?”; those in their 30’s or 40’s might come back with “Michael Jackson!”; those older than that will probably reply “King!”.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
Debbiereadsbook (1469 KP) rated Immersion Play (Leather and Lattes #1) in Books
May 10, 2024
Stunning intro into this new world!
I was gifted my copy of this book, that I write a review was not required.
BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT if you follow my reviews, you'll know I have a particular fondness for this author, having followed her for some time and I NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED to write a review to tell you about this book.
Because it's a cracker of a book! Full of love and smex and found families and disfunctional real families and all the geeky references that are McIntyre's trademark!
Micah runs from his home, literally in the middle of the night, back to San Fran and his previous college room-mate, Pixie. He lands the job at Whipped as barista, and is introduced to a world of kink. Parker is a Dom, a Daddy as well. But he refuses to let anyone into his heart after seeing what losing the love of his life did to his dad. Micah, though, gets under his skin and sneaks in. Knowing it can only end in heartbreak, they still embark on a rollercoaster of a relationship, til Micah pushes Parker away, and Parker has to make some difficult decisions.
What I loved about this was that it really did creep up on me! I was enjoying it, yes, but couldn't say I loved it. Then I have no idea what happened, who said what or anything, but I started to LOVE this book, I really did!
Whipped is a kink cafe, and the staff are extremely free with their affections and bodies. I liked that Micah knew this, and still went to that first play night with them all. He did some research too, and knew once he found out that Parker liked to spank, he wanted that, wanted Parker. I loved that parker was well aware that Micah was new to the screen, and led him accordingly, even if Micah was the brattiest brat he ever came across, and Micah really didn't know that about himself.
Scorching smexy scenes between Micah and Parker, with a connection rarely seen. Even for McIntyre, the connection runs deep and hot and I loved it!
As it is a kink cafe, there is lots of smexy scenes, and I loved the introduction to the staff and owners and their particular flavour of kink. I feel that all these people will have amazing tales to tell and I really look forward to them!
Micah and Parker's story has some difficult themes: death of a parent, withdrawl from life of another, obnoxious families, and all that entails. I loved how each topic was dealt with. Parker tries with his dad, he really does, but it's not until Parker lays it all out with his dad, that dad then tries too. Micah's family caused all his problems, caused him to run, but he always thought they would come round. It's not until his sister Eva, comes out to them, that they show their true colours and Micah decides enough is enough.
It's Eva who gets the next story, her and Pixie hit it right off when she visits Micah. I look forward to reading that book!!
I can't give it anything other than . . . .
5 full and shiny, and super smexy stars!
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT if you follow my reviews, you'll know I have a particular fondness for this author, having followed her for some time and I NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED to write a review to tell you about this book.
Because it's a cracker of a book! Full of love and smex and found families and disfunctional real families and all the geeky references that are McIntyre's trademark!
Micah runs from his home, literally in the middle of the night, back to San Fran and his previous college room-mate, Pixie. He lands the job at Whipped as barista, and is introduced to a world of kink. Parker is a Dom, a Daddy as well. But he refuses to let anyone into his heart after seeing what losing the love of his life did to his dad. Micah, though, gets under his skin and sneaks in. Knowing it can only end in heartbreak, they still embark on a rollercoaster of a relationship, til Micah pushes Parker away, and Parker has to make some difficult decisions.
What I loved about this was that it really did creep up on me! I was enjoying it, yes, but couldn't say I loved it. Then I have no idea what happened, who said what or anything, but I started to LOVE this book, I really did!
Whipped is a kink cafe, and the staff are extremely free with their affections and bodies. I liked that Micah knew this, and still went to that first play night with them all. He did some research too, and knew once he found out that Parker liked to spank, he wanted that, wanted Parker. I loved that parker was well aware that Micah was new to the screen, and led him accordingly, even if Micah was the brattiest brat he ever came across, and Micah really didn't know that about himself.
Scorching smexy scenes between Micah and Parker, with a connection rarely seen. Even for McIntyre, the connection runs deep and hot and I loved it!
As it is a kink cafe, there is lots of smexy scenes, and I loved the introduction to the staff and owners and their particular flavour of kink. I feel that all these people will have amazing tales to tell and I really look forward to them!
Micah and Parker's story has some difficult themes: death of a parent, withdrawl from life of another, obnoxious families, and all that entails. I loved how each topic was dealt with. Parker tries with his dad, he really does, but it's not until Parker lays it all out with his dad, that dad then tries too. Micah's family caused all his problems, caused him to run, but he always thought they would come round. It's not until his sister Eva, comes out to them, that they show their true colours and Micah decides enough is enough.
It's Eva who gets the next story, her and Pixie hit it right off when she visits Micah. I look forward to reading that book!!
I can't give it anything other than . . . .
5 full and shiny, and super smexy stars!
*same worded review will appear elsewhere