Search
Search results
Andy K (10821 KP) created a video about in My bucket list
May 1, 2018
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
A Whole New World For A New Generation
Aladdin is a 2019 live-action film adaptation of the 1992 Disney animated movie. It was directed by Guy Ritchie, who wrote the screenplay with John August. The movie is produced by Walt Disney Pictures, Rideback, and Marc Platt Productions and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The movie stars Will Smith, Mena Massoud, Naomi Scott, and Marwan Kenzari.
Living in the desert kingdom of Agrabah, Aladdin (Mena Moussad), along with Abu, his pet monkey, befriend and rescue Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott), when she is caught giving bread to poor children. Meanwhile, growing tired of being "second" in power to the Sultan, Jafar (Marwen Kenzari), the Royal Vizier, along with his parrot Iago seek a magic lamp hidden within the Cave of Wonders.
This movie was really good and a really awesome adaptation of the original Disney animated film. It stayed very faithful to the original and changed very little, also it added somethings, like an original song that Jasmine sang. At first I was "if-ey" about Will Smith being cast as the Genie, but I have to say he did a real good job. Mena Massoud who played Aladdin also gave an excellent performance. I was a little disappointed in the way they went with Jafar's character but not as upset as I was with this film's version of Iago. The original had Gilbert Godfrey, who was extremely funny albeit a little annoying, but this Iago was just terrible. The costumes were great and even the musical numbers of dancing and singing were really good. My favorite was the Prince Ali song/dance. I have to say I wasn't too happy with some of the changes and what they left out. At certain times the direction veered from the plot of the original and the pacing felt off but a lot of it lead to some very comedic scenes. I liked the inclusion of the character of Jasmine's hand maiden played by Nasim Pedrad, she looked very pretty and was very funny. And I thought the CGI looked good, however some critics complained that it brought nothing new to the film. I give this movie a 7/10.
Living in the desert kingdom of Agrabah, Aladdin (Mena Moussad), along with Abu, his pet monkey, befriend and rescue Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott), when she is caught giving bread to poor children. Meanwhile, growing tired of being "second" in power to the Sultan, Jafar (Marwen Kenzari), the Royal Vizier, along with his parrot Iago seek a magic lamp hidden within the Cave of Wonders.
This movie was really good and a really awesome adaptation of the original Disney animated film. It stayed very faithful to the original and changed very little, also it added somethings, like an original song that Jasmine sang. At first I was "if-ey" about Will Smith being cast as the Genie, but I have to say he did a real good job. Mena Massoud who played Aladdin also gave an excellent performance. I was a little disappointed in the way they went with Jafar's character but not as upset as I was with this film's version of Iago. The original had Gilbert Godfrey, who was extremely funny albeit a little annoying, but this Iago was just terrible. The costumes were great and even the musical numbers of dancing and singing were really good. My favorite was the Prince Ali song/dance. I have to say I wasn't too happy with some of the changes and what they left out. At certain times the direction veered from the plot of the original and the pacing felt off but a lot of it lead to some very comedic scenes. I liked the inclusion of the character of Jasmine's hand maiden played by Nasim Pedrad, she looked very pretty and was very funny. And I thought the CGI looked good, however some critics complained that it brought nothing new to the film. I give this movie a 7/10.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2 (2018) in Movies
Dec 1, 2018
Come for Ralph and Vanelope, stay for the Disney Princesses
I'm pretty sure that this is going to be the only review of WRECK-IT RALPH 2: RALPH BREAKS THE INTERNET that will draw a comparison between Ralph2 and DEADPOOL 2.
Like, DP2, Ralph2 suffers in the first 1/2 hour of the film with an issue - it tries too hard to repeat what was successful in the first film. I spent the first portion of both films thinking "you did this - better - in the first film". But, like DP2, Ralph2 finds it's footing - and it's own voice - after a fashion and becomes a very entertaining film.
And you can thank the Disney Princesses for that.
Without giving too much away, the plot of Ralph2 has Wreck-it Ralph (John C. Reilly) and Vanelope (Sarah Silverman) heading to the Internet (notably E:BAY) to find a replacement part for her game. The main theme of this film is "finding the place where you belong" and along this journey Vanelope enters in the world of Disney and encounters all of the Disney Princesses backstage.
Kudos to The Walt Disney Company - and Disney Animation Studios - for having a sense of humor and poking fun at themselves. These versions of the princesses are funny and don't take themselves too seriously, by taking themselves very seriously (if that makes any sense) - every character acts (and reacts) ways that make sense. It's a tribute to this extended bit that EVERY original voice of these characters (at least the ones that are still alive) agreed to contribute their voice talents to this bit. The funniest bit was the way Disney Animation handled the character of Princess Merida from BRAVE - a Pixar film.
As for the film proper - it is fine enough. John C. Reilly (as Ralph) and Sarah Silverman (as Vanelope) reprise their roles and they are winning enough to hold our attention throughout (though Ralph is sidelined for long stretches as this is really Vanelope's story). Jacks McBrayer's Fix-It Felix is back (for small bits in the beginning and end) as is the great Jane Lynch's Calhoun character. I get that these 2 characters are not really in service to the story - and I applaud the filmmakers for not trying to shoehorn them in - but I can't believe ANY conversation that starts "We have Jane Lynch, so we're going to push her in the background and use very little of her."
As for the other voice cast, Alan Tudyk (the voice of the King Candy in the first Wreck-It Ralph) is back as the voice of an overly-aggressive search engine. Tudyk is this generation's "Man of a Thousand Voices" and I had no idea it was him until the credits, which was fun (for me). Joining the fun this time around - and acquitting herself quite well - is Gal Gadot as an on-line game Race Car Drive that becomes Big Sister/mentor to Vanelope.
One final mention, there are 2 credits scene. The first one is fun enough (and is a callback to the first film), but the 2nd one (at the very end of the credits) had me chuckling - and I was glad I stayed for it.
Come for Ralph and Vanelope, stay for the Disney Princesses. You'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Like, DP2, Ralph2 suffers in the first 1/2 hour of the film with an issue - it tries too hard to repeat what was successful in the first film. I spent the first portion of both films thinking "you did this - better - in the first film". But, like DP2, Ralph2 finds it's footing - and it's own voice - after a fashion and becomes a very entertaining film.
And you can thank the Disney Princesses for that.
Without giving too much away, the plot of Ralph2 has Wreck-it Ralph (John C. Reilly) and Vanelope (Sarah Silverman) heading to the Internet (notably E:BAY) to find a replacement part for her game. The main theme of this film is "finding the place where you belong" and along this journey Vanelope enters in the world of Disney and encounters all of the Disney Princesses backstage.
Kudos to The Walt Disney Company - and Disney Animation Studios - for having a sense of humor and poking fun at themselves. These versions of the princesses are funny and don't take themselves too seriously, by taking themselves very seriously (if that makes any sense) - every character acts (and reacts) ways that make sense. It's a tribute to this extended bit that EVERY original voice of these characters (at least the ones that are still alive) agreed to contribute their voice talents to this bit. The funniest bit was the way Disney Animation handled the character of Princess Merida from BRAVE - a Pixar film.
As for the film proper - it is fine enough. John C. Reilly (as Ralph) and Sarah Silverman (as Vanelope) reprise their roles and they are winning enough to hold our attention throughout (though Ralph is sidelined for long stretches as this is really Vanelope's story). Jacks McBrayer's Fix-It Felix is back (for small bits in the beginning and end) as is the great Jane Lynch's Calhoun character. I get that these 2 characters are not really in service to the story - and I applaud the filmmakers for not trying to shoehorn them in - but I can't believe ANY conversation that starts "We have Jane Lynch, so we're going to push her in the background and use very little of her."
As for the other voice cast, Alan Tudyk (the voice of the King Candy in the first Wreck-It Ralph) is back as the voice of an overly-aggressive search engine. Tudyk is this generation's "Man of a Thousand Voices" and I had no idea it was him until the credits, which was fun (for me). Joining the fun this time around - and acquitting herself quite well - is Gal Gadot as an on-line game Race Car Drive that becomes Big Sister/mentor to Vanelope.
One final mention, there are 2 credits scene. The first one is fun enough (and is a callback to the first film), but the 2nd one (at the very end of the credits) had me chuckling - and I was glad I stayed for it.
Come for Ralph and Vanelope, stay for the Disney Princesses. You'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Apr 5, 2019
In a word...bland
There are many words that you can use to describe films by Tim Burton: Gothic, Bizarre, Dark, Interesting, SteamPunk, Unique, Visual.
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Disney knocks it out of the park
It was 1964 when the world was introduced to a practically-perfect British nanny in Walt Disney’s Mary Poppins. Back then, Julie Andrews starred as the eponymous character alongside Dick van Dyke and David Tomlinson. It was an instant hit and became one of Disney’s most-loved feature films.
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Johnny Depp returns as Capt. Jack Sparrow in the fifth outing for the “Pirates of the Caribbean” film franchise. Based on the phenomenally popular attraction at Disneyland and Walt Disney World; the latest film “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales” finds Jack and his crew once again at odds with British authorities in St. Maarten. Adding Jack’s troubles is a malevolent spirit from his past named Capt. Salazar (Javier Bardem), who seeks to return to the living by exacting his revenge upon Jack. Along for the adventure are a young man named Henry Turner (Brenton Thwaites), and a science minded woman named Carina (Kaya Scodelario), who all have their reasons for joining one another on the adventure despite ample levels of mistrust amongst them.
In keeping with the series all sorts of comedic hijinks mixed with action and the supernatural to give audiences a very noisy and destruction filled storyline.
While there is a decent amount of action in the film there were also large gaps where things just plod along which caused me to glance at my watch from time to time during the two-hour runtime of the film. Adding to the issues is the tendency of depth to slur and mumble his lines playing the frequently inebriated Capt. Jack which does hamper some of the better lines in the film.
Well I certainly enjoyed this one much better than the second and third films in the series I kept thinking that I have seen this all before and that this film was essentially a collection of some of the best moments from previous films combined into one. The end result is that I found myself saying that while I would not mind another outing in the series I would also be more than okay they decided to end the cinematic adventures with this film. Diehard fans will likely enjoy this new effort but more casual fans may not have as much patience this time around.
http://sknr.net/2017/05/25/pirates-caribbean-dead-men-tell-no-tales/
In keeping with the series all sorts of comedic hijinks mixed with action and the supernatural to give audiences a very noisy and destruction filled storyline.
While there is a decent amount of action in the film there were also large gaps where things just plod along which caused me to glance at my watch from time to time during the two-hour runtime of the film. Adding to the issues is the tendency of depth to slur and mumble his lines playing the frequently inebriated Capt. Jack which does hamper some of the better lines in the film.
Well I certainly enjoyed this one much better than the second and third films in the series I kept thinking that I have seen this all before and that this film was essentially a collection of some of the best moments from previous films combined into one. The end result is that I found myself saying that while I would not mind another outing in the series I would also be more than okay they decided to end the cinematic adventures with this film. Diehard fans will likely enjoy this new effort but more casual fans may not have as much patience this time around.
http://sknr.net/2017/05/25/pirates-caribbean-dead-men-tell-no-tales/
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Tolkien (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
An Unexpectedly Dull Journey
Tolkien is a 2019 biographical/drama movie directed by Dome Karukoski and written by David Gleeson and Stephen Beresford. It's produced by Fox Searchlight Pictures and Chernin Entertainment and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The film stars Nicholas Hoult, Lily Collins, Colm Meaney, and Derek Jacobi.
As a young boy living in the countryside, J.R.R. Tolkien, learns multiple languages and how to read and write with his younger brother as they are taught by their mother. They are forced to move to the city so their mother can better provide for them when unfortunate events have them taken in by the Church and and stay at a boarding house. This is where, as a young student at King Edward's School, among a group of fellow outcasts, he finds friendship, love, and artistic inspiration. But his friends and their new brotherhood must endure the ups and downs of his position in society, his relationship with the love of his life Edith Bratt and later the outbreak of World War I.
I was really excited for this movie and having my hopes up and expectations might be the reason I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. For one I don't normally watch autobiographies but I have seen more that I liked in comparison to this film. I guess I thought they would show more about him coming up with the ideas for his books, which they showed very little of. Instead it was about the important events of his life which I guess is what biographies should do. For some reason though I felt like the storytelling dragged and it didn't do enough to keep you interested, very lackluster. I found that the story, acting, and dialogue were all well done but the movie suffered from the direction they went with and how they chose to show it. One thing I really liked was there were several instances where you could see what influenced him when he wrote the Lord of The Rings" books. It's an entertaining film with flair and ambition that teems with on the nose moments but is hindered by the usual biopic framework. I believe the quote from Rotten Tomatoes says it best, "Tolkien Has the period trappings and strong performances of a worthy biopic, but lacks the imagination required to truly do it's subject justice". I give it a 6/10.
As a young boy living in the countryside, J.R.R. Tolkien, learns multiple languages and how to read and write with his younger brother as they are taught by their mother. They are forced to move to the city so their mother can better provide for them when unfortunate events have them taken in by the Church and and stay at a boarding house. This is where, as a young student at King Edward's School, among a group of fellow outcasts, he finds friendship, love, and artistic inspiration. But his friends and their new brotherhood must endure the ups and downs of his position in society, his relationship with the love of his life Edith Bratt and later the outbreak of World War I.
I was really excited for this movie and having my hopes up and expectations might be the reason I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. For one I don't normally watch autobiographies but I have seen more that I liked in comparison to this film. I guess I thought they would show more about him coming up with the ideas for his books, which they showed very little of. Instead it was about the important events of his life which I guess is what biographies should do. For some reason though I felt like the storytelling dragged and it didn't do enough to keep you interested, very lackluster. I found that the story, acting, and dialogue were all well done but the movie suffered from the direction they went with and how they chose to show it. One thing I really liked was there were several instances where you could see what influenced him when he wrote the Lord of The Rings" books. It's an entertaining film with flair and ambition that teems with on the nose moments but is hindered by the usual biopic framework. I believe the quote from Rotten Tomatoes says it best, "Tolkien Has the period trappings and strong performances of a worthy biopic, but lacks the imagination required to truly do it's subject justice". I give it a 6/10.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
End of a Generation
Marvel's Avengers: Endgame is a 2019 superhero movie produced by Marvel Studios and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The film was directed by the Russo brothers (Anthony and Joe), written by Christopher Markus and Stephen Mcfeely and starred an All-star cast of actors. It is a sequel to Avengers: Infinity War and is the 22nd film in the MCU.
Three weeks after the events of Avengers: Infinity War, what's left of the Avengers are coping with their loss in their own ways. With so many gone, the world itself has changed and become a different place. Many struggle to move on or move forward, others try to keep busy continuing to fight crime/criminals. Thanos is gone and his location can't be found by any deep space satellite or advanced technology that Earth has. However in their darkest moment a glimmer of hope emerges when information outside of Earth comes into play with Thanos possible location. They form a plan and maybe just maybe, have a chance to get their hands on the Infinity stones and bring their friends back. But this time there will be even less of them to fight the all powerful Thanos.
This movie was epic. This film definitely lived up to all the hype. Already a phenomenal success financially, it made 1.2 billion opening weekend. This film was also a success in story telling being the finality of a story being told in over 20 films. It was very emotional with lots of action and pretty satisfying. Very somber in the beginning, especially with how the last installment in the franchise went. I really thought that i knew how the beginning of the film would play out but they really gave the audience some twists early on and throughout. And they also made sure it had plenty of "fan service", giving the fans a lot of what they wanted. Not a lot more that i can say without spoilers but I was really thrown for a loop with a couple of characters mainly Thor and Hulk. This movie gets my "Must See Seal of Approval" and I give it an 8.
I almost gave it a 9, but I felt Infinity War was better and certain Avengers acted out of character. Also a pretty confusing plot device that plays a very important role in how the movie unfolds.
Three weeks after the events of Avengers: Infinity War, what's left of the Avengers are coping with their loss in their own ways. With so many gone, the world itself has changed and become a different place. Many struggle to move on or move forward, others try to keep busy continuing to fight crime/criminals. Thanos is gone and his location can't be found by any deep space satellite or advanced technology that Earth has. However in their darkest moment a glimmer of hope emerges when information outside of Earth comes into play with Thanos possible location. They form a plan and maybe just maybe, have a chance to get their hands on the Infinity stones and bring their friends back. But this time there will be even less of them to fight the all powerful Thanos.
This movie was epic. This film definitely lived up to all the hype. Already a phenomenal success financially, it made 1.2 billion opening weekend. This film was also a success in story telling being the finality of a story being told in over 20 films. It was very emotional with lots of action and pretty satisfying. Very somber in the beginning, especially with how the last installment in the franchise went. I really thought that i knew how the beginning of the film would play out but they really gave the audience some twists early on and throughout. And they also made sure it had plenty of "fan service", giving the fans a lot of what they wanted. Not a lot more that i can say without spoilers but I was really thrown for a loop with a couple of characters mainly Thor and Hulk. This movie gets my "Must See Seal of Approval" and I give it an 8.
I almost gave it a 9, but I felt Infinity War was better and certain Avengers acted out of character. Also a pretty confusing plot device that plays a very important role in how the movie unfolds.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Florida Project (2017) in Movies
Feb 18, 2018
Not Strong Enough To Keep My Attention
THE FLORIDA PROJECT is one of those "slice of life" films, shot on a low budget that doesn't really have a plot but exposes the audience to 2 hours of what it would be like to live the life of someone - usually a disaffected fringe group. There is no real plot, so the film needs to hang itself onto how interesting the characters - and the situation they find themselves - are.
These types of films are not usually my cup of tea, and this film was no exception.
THE FLORIDA PROJECT, conceived, written and directed by Sean Baker (who did a similar-type of film about the transgender community, TANGERINE), is about the community of people living just at the poverty line in the shadow of Walt Disney World. These people are constantly scrambling to earn money to eat and live and to pay rent at one of the seedy, rundown motels boarding just outside "the happiest place on earth".
We see this world through the eyes of Moonee - a "precocious" (I would say farel) youth who lives at one of these hotels with her mother, Halley. Moonee runs wild all day, doing whatever she wants and just 'living her life" while her mother hustles to make ends meet - all under the watchful eye of the motel's Manager, Bobby.
There is no real plot to this film. We just follow Moonee and her pals Scooty, Dicky and Jancey as they go about their day getting into misadventures. 6 year old Brooklyn Prince (in her film debut) stars as Moonee and she is an engaging enough presence, but not nearly strong enough to keep my attention for the entire 2 hours of the film - and that's the issue with this film. It relies heavily on the audience's fascination with this 6 year old and I wasn't fascinated enough to watch her for 2 hours.
Much more interesting to me to watch was another new actress, Bria Vinaite as her mother, Halley. I said she spends the film hustling - and I mean that in every sense of the word. Every interaction with another person is laced with the thought "what can I get out of this". She is always working an angle, looking for the quick score. She was a fascinating character, and I would have preferred that she would be the focus of this story.
Overseeing these two - and the other denizen's of his Motel - is Willem DaFoe playing against type as the kindly, caring Manager, Bobby. DaFoe is nominated for an Oscar for his work in this film - and it is strong work (it's good to see DaFoe with something to sink his teeth into), but is it enough for an Oscar? I don't think so. Much like Mary J. Blige in MUDBOUND, I think it is a very good performance, but I kept waiting for the "Academy Award" scene from him, and it just didn't come.
Ultimately, a labor of love for Sean Baker. It looks like a film that was made on a shoestring budget - and I'm sure that was intentional. The look and feel of this film mimics the circumstance that the characters find themselves in - including some "guerilla" filmmaking at Disney's Magic Kingdom itself. He made the type of film he wanted to make.
It just isn't the kind of film I wanted - or am interested - in seeing.
Letter Grade: C+
5 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
These types of films are not usually my cup of tea, and this film was no exception.
THE FLORIDA PROJECT, conceived, written and directed by Sean Baker (who did a similar-type of film about the transgender community, TANGERINE), is about the community of people living just at the poverty line in the shadow of Walt Disney World. These people are constantly scrambling to earn money to eat and live and to pay rent at one of the seedy, rundown motels boarding just outside "the happiest place on earth".
We see this world through the eyes of Moonee - a "precocious" (I would say farel) youth who lives at one of these hotels with her mother, Halley. Moonee runs wild all day, doing whatever she wants and just 'living her life" while her mother hustles to make ends meet - all under the watchful eye of the motel's Manager, Bobby.
There is no real plot to this film. We just follow Moonee and her pals Scooty, Dicky and Jancey as they go about their day getting into misadventures. 6 year old Brooklyn Prince (in her film debut) stars as Moonee and she is an engaging enough presence, but not nearly strong enough to keep my attention for the entire 2 hours of the film - and that's the issue with this film. It relies heavily on the audience's fascination with this 6 year old and I wasn't fascinated enough to watch her for 2 hours.
Much more interesting to me to watch was another new actress, Bria Vinaite as her mother, Halley. I said she spends the film hustling - and I mean that in every sense of the word. Every interaction with another person is laced with the thought "what can I get out of this". She is always working an angle, looking for the quick score. She was a fascinating character, and I would have preferred that she would be the focus of this story.
Overseeing these two - and the other denizen's of his Motel - is Willem DaFoe playing against type as the kindly, caring Manager, Bobby. DaFoe is nominated for an Oscar for his work in this film - and it is strong work (it's good to see DaFoe with something to sink his teeth into), but is it enough for an Oscar? I don't think so. Much like Mary J. Blige in MUDBOUND, I think it is a very good performance, but I kept waiting for the "Academy Award" scene from him, and it just didn't come.
Ultimately, a labor of love for Sean Baker. It looks like a film that was made on a shoestring budget - and I'm sure that was intentional. The look and feel of this film mimics the circumstance that the characters find themselves in - including some "guerilla" filmmaking at Disney's Magic Kingdom itself. He made the type of film he wanted to make.
It just isn't the kind of film I wanted - or am interested - in seeing.
Letter Grade: C+
5 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Oct 8, 2019
Roman Griffin Davis stars as Jojo Betzler in Taika Waititi’s black comedy Jojo Rabbit. Along with his second best friend Yorki (Archie Yates), Jojo is a part of a Nazi training camp for young boys and girls to become the men and women suited for Hitler supporting soldiers. Meanwhile, Jojo’s mom Rosie (Scarlett Johansson) is secretly hiding a young Jewish girl named Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie) within the walls of their home. Jojo, who is incredibly adamant about Hitler becoming his first best friend, has Hitler as an imaginary friend (portrayed by Taika Waititi) who shows up whenever Jojo seems to need a pep talk.
Based on the 2008 novel Caging Skies by Christine Leunens, Jojo Rabbit is a bonkers twist on one of the most devastating wars and tyrannical madmen in history. On the surface, the film is about a child attempting to become a Nazi because he views HItler as this great leader. He has to attempt to learn to kill, hate Jews, and essentially ignore all of his morals in order to just fit in with an army who believes they are the superior race. The intriguing aspect is that Waititi injects this unexpected tenderness and has concocted a film that has a heartbeat that is entirely too human and too genuine for any sort of project involving the likes of Adolf Hitler.
The Jojo/Hitler dynamic is an incredibly playful one. Hitler only seems to show up when something doesn’t go according to plan for Jojo or he needs some words of encouragement when times get tough. Hitler is a figment of Jojo’s imagination and is completely reactionary to Jojo’s world. If Jojo gets scared, Hitler shows up to remind him why he’s risking his own self comfort. While Waititi is funny and awkwardly charming as Hitler, which is an odd thing to say in itself, don’t overlook Archie Yates. Roman Griffin Davis encapsulates this innocence that even Elsa describes as something along the lines of a ten year old playing dress up with his friends in order to join a club. But Yates often plays off of Davis humorously and amusingly and will likely be forgotten about by some by the time they leave the theater.
Seemingly tapping into his inspiration for Gentlemen Broncos, Sam Rockwell portrays Captain Klenzendorf - a former war veteran who lost an eye and is now forced to teach children how to be soldiers. He has this strange tension on the verge of romance thing going on with his right hand man Finkel (Alfie Allen) and has extravagant taste with intricate ideas for his new uniform. Rockwell and Allen are hilarious and outshine Rebel Wilson’s Fräulein Rahm who never seems to serve much purpose before or after her line about, “having 18 kids for Germany.”
The sweet nature of Jojo Rabbit is expanded upon with the mother/son relationship between Rosie and Jojo. They have completely different viewpoints of a world on the verge of total annihilation where Jojo is slowly nudged into his mother’s mindset. It’s not so much a brainwashing as it is Jojo coming to terms with how he feels about people. Jojo Rabbit defines who we all are on the inside and simply explores the path anyone with an everyday beating heart (not rooted by a tiny mustache) would travel down over the course of their youth.
It’s kind of extraordinary that Jojo Rabbit has been released during a time when Fox Searchlight Pictures is owned by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures where a guy directing two of the biggest Thor movies did a side project where he plays Hitler and never had to attempt to keep that a secret. Waititi puts Jojo Betzler through the ringer by blowing him up repeatedly and throwing him down a flight of stairs all while being bullied and pushed around the entire time. But dammit if Jojo Rabbit isn’t one of the most heartfelt and imaginative fairy tales of the year.
This is a film where storytelling, embellishing and elongating false reputations, and glorifying urban myths is the driving force of entertainment. Underneath its layers of SS uniforms, dangerous pistols, and knives you should never leave home without, Jojo Rabbit is a touching film about human compassion with an intimacy that is absolutely unparalleled. Categorized somewhere between Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom and an imaginative concept that is an obvious homage to Calvin and Hobbes, love feels like it’s the only thing spreading across the world more powerful than war and Jojo Rabbit is more than happy to hype you up and throw you in love’s way without remorse.
Based on the 2008 novel Caging Skies by Christine Leunens, Jojo Rabbit is a bonkers twist on one of the most devastating wars and tyrannical madmen in history. On the surface, the film is about a child attempting to become a Nazi because he views HItler as this great leader. He has to attempt to learn to kill, hate Jews, and essentially ignore all of his morals in order to just fit in with an army who believes they are the superior race. The intriguing aspect is that Waititi injects this unexpected tenderness and has concocted a film that has a heartbeat that is entirely too human and too genuine for any sort of project involving the likes of Adolf Hitler.
The Jojo/Hitler dynamic is an incredibly playful one. Hitler only seems to show up when something doesn’t go according to plan for Jojo or he needs some words of encouragement when times get tough. Hitler is a figment of Jojo’s imagination and is completely reactionary to Jojo’s world. If Jojo gets scared, Hitler shows up to remind him why he’s risking his own self comfort. While Waititi is funny and awkwardly charming as Hitler, which is an odd thing to say in itself, don’t overlook Archie Yates. Roman Griffin Davis encapsulates this innocence that even Elsa describes as something along the lines of a ten year old playing dress up with his friends in order to join a club. But Yates often plays off of Davis humorously and amusingly and will likely be forgotten about by some by the time they leave the theater.
Seemingly tapping into his inspiration for Gentlemen Broncos, Sam Rockwell portrays Captain Klenzendorf - a former war veteran who lost an eye and is now forced to teach children how to be soldiers. He has this strange tension on the verge of romance thing going on with his right hand man Finkel (Alfie Allen) and has extravagant taste with intricate ideas for his new uniform. Rockwell and Allen are hilarious and outshine Rebel Wilson’s Fräulein Rahm who never seems to serve much purpose before or after her line about, “having 18 kids for Germany.”
The sweet nature of Jojo Rabbit is expanded upon with the mother/son relationship between Rosie and Jojo. They have completely different viewpoints of a world on the verge of total annihilation where Jojo is slowly nudged into his mother’s mindset. It’s not so much a brainwashing as it is Jojo coming to terms with how he feels about people. Jojo Rabbit defines who we all are on the inside and simply explores the path anyone with an everyday beating heart (not rooted by a tiny mustache) would travel down over the course of their youth.
It’s kind of extraordinary that Jojo Rabbit has been released during a time when Fox Searchlight Pictures is owned by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures where a guy directing two of the biggest Thor movies did a side project where he plays Hitler and never had to attempt to keep that a secret. Waititi puts Jojo Betzler through the ringer by blowing him up repeatedly and throwing him down a flight of stairs all while being bullied and pushed around the entire time. But dammit if Jojo Rabbit isn’t one of the most heartfelt and imaginative fairy tales of the year.
This is a film where storytelling, embellishing and elongating false reputations, and glorifying urban myths is the driving force of entertainment. Underneath its layers of SS uniforms, dangerous pistols, and knives you should never leave home without, Jojo Rabbit is a touching film about human compassion with an intimacy that is absolutely unparalleled. Categorized somewhere between Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom and an imaginative concept that is an obvious homage to Calvin and Hobbes, love feels like it’s the only thing spreading across the world more powerful than war and Jojo Rabbit is more than happy to hype you up and throw you in love’s way without remorse.