Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Uncut Gems (2019) in Movies
Jan 5, 2020
Sandler deserves an Oscar Nomination
Adam Sandler deserves and Oscar nomination.
I never thought I'd ever write that sentence, but after seeing his performance in the Safdie brothers film, UNCUT GEMS, I can make that statement with solid confidence.
Following the constant hustle of NYC jewelry dealer (and degenerate gambler), Howard Ratner (Sandler), UNCUT GEMS is an unrelenting look at a person who is never satisfied with where he is - he's always looking for the next "big score".
As portrayed by Sandler, Ratner is charming, charismatic, a BS artist of the highest order and quick with a joke and a scheme in every situation. This is a tour-de-force performance by Sandler who is in virtually every moment of this film. His character is ruthless and relentless - never giving up or losing energy - and it was the constant rat-a-tat-tat of this character/performance that caused great angst in me - as well as great appreciation for the fine performance I was witnessing.
The film was written and directed by the Safdie Brothers (Benny and Josh) who are known in the Independent film world, but who are new to me. I was intrigued by the story, the world and the logistics of this film. It is a smart - and fast paced - film that doesn't try to "dumb it down" for the audience. I applaud them for their work here - and I look forward to what they do next.
A performance like Sandler's is only good if he has good actors to play off of - and he does (in spades) here. From veteran actor Judd Hirsch, to Broadway Superstar Idina Menzel to the great (and underused, in my opinion) Eric Brogosian to the always watchable Lakeith Stanfield, Sandler was able to spar and parry with these performers at a breakneck pace that was intriguing, fascinating and hard to watch.
But the biggest surprise (besides Sandler's dramatic acting chops) was the performance of NBA Superstar Kevin Garnett. Playing a fictionalized and younger (this film is set in 2011) version of himself, Garnett brought the same authority to the screen that he brought to the court.
This is a VERY adult film (according to reports, this film has the 7th most "F-Bombs" of any film in history) with adult subjects and adult situations - all swirling around Sandler's character at a breakneck pace that will be simultaneously satisfying - and hard to watch. Are you watching a person spiraling out of control - or are you watching a very smart person weaving his way in and out of precarious situations?
Watch UNCUT GEMS - and you be the judge.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I never thought I'd ever write that sentence, but after seeing his performance in the Safdie brothers film, UNCUT GEMS, I can make that statement with solid confidence.
Following the constant hustle of NYC jewelry dealer (and degenerate gambler), Howard Ratner (Sandler), UNCUT GEMS is an unrelenting look at a person who is never satisfied with where he is - he's always looking for the next "big score".
As portrayed by Sandler, Ratner is charming, charismatic, a BS artist of the highest order and quick with a joke and a scheme in every situation. This is a tour-de-force performance by Sandler who is in virtually every moment of this film. His character is ruthless and relentless - never giving up or losing energy - and it was the constant rat-a-tat-tat of this character/performance that caused great angst in me - as well as great appreciation for the fine performance I was witnessing.
The film was written and directed by the Safdie Brothers (Benny and Josh) who are known in the Independent film world, but who are new to me. I was intrigued by the story, the world and the logistics of this film. It is a smart - and fast paced - film that doesn't try to "dumb it down" for the audience. I applaud them for their work here - and I look forward to what they do next.
A performance like Sandler's is only good if he has good actors to play off of - and he does (in spades) here. From veteran actor Judd Hirsch, to Broadway Superstar Idina Menzel to the great (and underused, in my opinion) Eric Brogosian to the always watchable Lakeith Stanfield, Sandler was able to spar and parry with these performers at a breakneck pace that was intriguing, fascinating and hard to watch.
But the biggest surprise (besides Sandler's dramatic acting chops) was the performance of NBA Superstar Kevin Garnett. Playing a fictionalized and younger (this film is set in 2011) version of himself, Garnett brought the same authority to the screen that he brought to the court.
This is a VERY adult film (according to reports, this film has the 7th most "F-Bombs" of any film in history) with adult subjects and adult situations - all swirling around Sandler's character at a breakneck pace that will be simultaneously satisfying - and hard to watch. Are you watching a person spiraling out of control - or are you watching a very smart person weaving his way in and out of precarious situations?
Watch UNCUT GEMS - and you be the judge.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated The Incredible Hulk (2008) in Movies
Feb 11, 2020 (Updated Apr 7, 2020)
The second entry into the ever expanding MCU has it's flaws, but it's still an entertaining enough monster movie featuring one of Marvel Comics most beloved characters.
Edward Norton is a fantastic actor, and his involvement here as Bruce Banner is an inspired choice. It's a shame that behind the scenes politics resulted in him leaving the franchise so soon, even though I love Mark Ruffalo!
He plays Banner as a fairly broody individual, but with an awkward edge, a man who's constantly in fear if what he can turn into.
Liv Tyler plays Betty Ross, and she's pretty much just Liv Tyler throughout. She's actually pretty charming as the character and it would be nice to see her turn up in future MCU films (hey, if they can get Natalie Portman involved again then surely it's a possibility!)
Tim Roth and William Hurt play the antagonists to Banner, and are both enjoyable in the more villainous roles, even if Roth is more or less relegated to spouting out cheesy one liners. Hurt has of course reprised his role in later films and is a welcome main stay in the franchise.
We also have Tim Blake Nelson and Ty Burrell, set up as future characters (The Leader and Doc Samson respectively), but neither of these have yet to come to fruition, so as it stands, both feel like wasted opportunities.
The narrative is pretty straightforward as Banner is pursued across the planet, but it gets the job done, ending in a big showdown between Hulk and Abomination in the middle of Harlem.
One of my main criticisms stems from this scene actually, with the film climaxing in a big CGI fight, between the hero, and an evil version of the hero, exactly like in Iron Man, and unfortunately, in a fair few MCU films further down the line (Iron Man 2, Black Panther, Ant Man). The CGI, whilst still good enough, doesn't hold up anywhere near as well as Iron Man however (which came out in the same year), and the green/grey colour scheme of both characters, and the night-time setting, gives the whole scene a dull edge, even if Hulk does tear a car in half and use both halves as boxing gloves...
The Incredible Hulk is a mostly decent film, but it shows signs of a franchise still finding its feet, and these signs grow in obviousness the older it gets, which is a big contrast when compared to the confident nature of Iron Man.
It also feels a bit stuck in the "look at this cool shot" superhero formula that became rampant during the 2000s.
It's still a fun film however, and deserves it's place in a Marvel movie marathon.
Edward Norton is a fantastic actor, and his involvement here as Bruce Banner is an inspired choice. It's a shame that behind the scenes politics resulted in him leaving the franchise so soon, even though I love Mark Ruffalo!
He plays Banner as a fairly broody individual, but with an awkward edge, a man who's constantly in fear if what he can turn into.
Liv Tyler plays Betty Ross, and she's pretty much just Liv Tyler throughout. She's actually pretty charming as the character and it would be nice to see her turn up in future MCU films (hey, if they can get Natalie Portman involved again then surely it's a possibility!)
Tim Roth and William Hurt play the antagonists to Banner, and are both enjoyable in the more villainous roles, even if Roth is more or less relegated to spouting out cheesy one liners. Hurt has of course reprised his role in later films and is a welcome main stay in the franchise.
We also have Tim Blake Nelson and Ty Burrell, set up as future characters (The Leader and Doc Samson respectively), but neither of these have yet to come to fruition, so as it stands, both feel like wasted opportunities.
The narrative is pretty straightforward as Banner is pursued across the planet, but it gets the job done, ending in a big showdown between Hulk and Abomination in the middle of Harlem.
One of my main criticisms stems from this scene actually, with the film climaxing in a big CGI fight, between the hero, and an evil version of the hero, exactly like in Iron Man, and unfortunately, in a fair few MCU films further down the line (Iron Man 2, Black Panther, Ant Man). The CGI, whilst still good enough, doesn't hold up anywhere near as well as Iron Man however (which came out in the same year), and the green/grey colour scheme of both characters, and the night-time setting, gives the whole scene a dull edge, even if Hulk does tear a car in half and use both halves as boxing gloves...
The Incredible Hulk is a mostly decent film, but it shows signs of a franchise still finding its feet, and these signs grow in obviousness the older it gets, which is a big contrast when compared to the confident nature of Iron Man.
It also feels a bit stuck in the "look at this cool shot" superhero formula that became rampant during the 2000s.
It's still a fun film however, and deserves it's place in a Marvel movie marathon.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
This doesn’t need to be a long review; the film itself doesn’t merit a lot of reflection. But, I have set myself the task of recording every piece of cultural media I consume, and there is already a backlog. So, here come a few quickfire bits on things that I found less than impressive. There is some value in identifying why something failed. Especially, as in the case of Glass, when there was an expectation it might be quite exciting.
I am not the biggest M. Night Shyamalan fan, to be honest. I will give you The Sixth Sense and Signs (to an extent), but even those contain some dodgy direction, plotting and unforgivable dialogue that hasn’t weathered the test of time well. 75% of his output is so bad it becomes funny; I mean, The Happening and Lady in the Water – WTF!? And the less said about The Last Airbender the better. My favourite of his works would have to be Unbreakable, from 2000. At least there is a satisfying story arc and the “twist” makes sense. Often with him it is so preposterous or an non-event, it makes you wonder why he bothered.
Sixteen years later, and Split sprung a surprise by being not bad at all, largely thanks to James McAvoy’s performance as a man with multiple personality disorder – a striking, terrifying, turn that showcased his abilities as an actor superbly. So there was some anticipation that bringing those two film worlds together would yield something very interesting and at least fun. So, it is sad to say that, once again, he pretty much botched it.
Don’t get me wrong, it is watchable and entertaining, up to a point – that point being when the story tries to gel all its strands together in a cohesive new twist, and fails utterly to do so. McAvoy is yet again the standout. Here he pushes the split personalities at his command to a brain spinning degree, switching from one to the other effortlessly – I would much rather just have watched him talking and twitching for two hours, to be fair. Bruce Willis has little to do but brood, and Samuel L. Jackson becomes totally laughable as he strains with the script to find any grounding in real character, and descends into cartoon / pantomime villain very quickly, losing all validity carried over from Unbreakable.
It’s a shame, because there is an idea in there somewhere; this just wasn’t it. No doubt, he has left it open for further exploration with these characters, and will in time return to them. I just hope he takes his time to consider the script properly before diving headlong into another disappointment of cliche and bad plotting. I just feel sorry for McAvoy, who deserved much better.
I am not the biggest M. Night Shyamalan fan, to be honest. I will give you The Sixth Sense and Signs (to an extent), but even those contain some dodgy direction, plotting and unforgivable dialogue that hasn’t weathered the test of time well. 75% of his output is so bad it becomes funny; I mean, The Happening and Lady in the Water – WTF!? And the less said about The Last Airbender the better. My favourite of his works would have to be Unbreakable, from 2000. At least there is a satisfying story arc and the “twist” makes sense. Often with him it is so preposterous or an non-event, it makes you wonder why he bothered.
Sixteen years later, and Split sprung a surprise by being not bad at all, largely thanks to James McAvoy’s performance as a man with multiple personality disorder – a striking, terrifying, turn that showcased his abilities as an actor superbly. So there was some anticipation that bringing those two film worlds together would yield something very interesting and at least fun. So, it is sad to say that, once again, he pretty much botched it.
Don’t get me wrong, it is watchable and entertaining, up to a point – that point being when the story tries to gel all its strands together in a cohesive new twist, and fails utterly to do so. McAvoy is yet again the standout. Here he pushes the split personalities at his command to a brain spinning degree, switching from one to the other effortlessly – I would much rather just have watched him talking and twitching for two hours, to be fair. Bruce Willis has little to do but brood, and Samuel L. Jackson becomes totally laughable as he strains with the script to find any grounding in real character, and descends into cartoon / pantomime villain very quickly, losing all validity carried over from Unbreakable.
It’s a shame, because there is an idea in there somewhere; this just wasn’t it. No doubt, he has left it open for further exploration with these characters, and will in time return to them. I just hope he takes his time to consider the script properly before diving headlong into another disappointment of cliche and bad plotting. I just feel sorry for McAvoy, who deserved much better.
JT (287 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
As an action connoisseur I know what I like. I’m easily pleased and not overly bothered by plot. It doesn’t always have to make sense, and set pieces can be incoherently over the top. This is why Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw is so enjoyable.
It’s clear to see that out of the franchise’s many characters Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) have been by far the most entertaining. Johnson arrived in Fast & Furious 5 as the agent tasked with capturing Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and his crew, while Statham’s debut was via a mid-credits scene during Fast & Furious 6 which connected to Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift.
What carries the film through the odd bump here and there is the chemistry between Johnson and Statham. They are not pleased at having to work together in order to locate a deadly virus called ‘Snowflake’. The pair engage in a number of funny put-downs and quips that start to build a love hate relationship. By the end of the film it’s pretty much guaranteed they are going to be back for a sequel.
Fast & Furious is well known for pushing boundaries when it comes to action sequences and this installment continues the trend. From running down a high-rise building to a chase through the streets of London, culminating with a totally bonkers helicopter finale that must be seen to be believed. The fight scenes are well choreographed and slick, all catering to the actor in question, with a vast array of objects at hand to be used as lethal weapons.
Idris Elba‘s Brixton Lore is an admirable villain. With built in cybernetic augmentations he has a spidey sense that is second to none. But he doesn’t get the screen time he deserves and his back story feels rushed. That said, his motorbike has a distinct Transformers feel about it and not surprisingly it emanates a familiar sound during a high speed pursuit.
What carries the film through the odd bump here and there is the chemistry between Johnson and Statham.
As if all of that wasn’t enough, there are a couple of great cameos thrown which actually work quite well [we won’t spoil them]. Helen Mirren pops up as Queenie, the matriarch of the Shaw family and Deckard’s sister Hattie (Vanessa Kirby) has an integral role to play.
Whatever you might think of the franchise or how tired it has become, there is no getting away from the fact that it has made a shed load of money. Things certainly don’t look like slowing down either, with the release of Fast & Furious 9 due out next year – although it could be minus this dynamic duo.
It’s clear to see that out of the franchise’s many characters Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) have been by far the most entertaining. Johnson arrived in Fast & Furious 5 as the agent tasked with capturing Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and his crew, while Statham’s debut was via a mid-credits scene during Fast & Furious 6 which connected to Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift.
What carries the film through the odd bump here and there is the chemistry between Johnson and Statham. They are not pleased at having to work together in order to locate a deadly virus called ‘Snowflake’. The pair engage in a number of funny put-downs and quips that start to build a love hate relationship. By the end of the film it’s pretty much guaranteed they are going to be back for a sequel.
Fast & Furious is well known for pushing boundaries when it comes to action sequences and this installment continues the trend. From running down a high-rise building to a chase through the streets of London, culminating with a totally bonkers helicopter finale that must be seen to be believed. The fight scenes are well choreographed and slick, all catering to the actor in question, with a vast array of objects at hand to be used as lethal weapons.
Idris Elba‘s Brixton Lore is an admirable villain. With built in cybernetic augmentations he has a spidey sense that is second to none. But he doesn’t get the screen time he deserves and his back story feels rushed. That said, his motorbike has a distinct Transformers feel about it and not surprisingly it emanates a familiar sound during a high speed pursuit.
What carries the film through the odd bump here and there is the chemistry between Johnson and Statham.
As if all of that wasn’t enough, there are a couple of great cameos thrown which actually work quite well [we won’t spoil them]. Helen Mirren pops up as Queenie, the matriarch of the Shaw family and Deckard’s sister Hattie (Vanessa Kirby) has an integral role to play.
Whatever you might think of the franchise or how tired it has become, there is no getting away from the fact that it has made a shed load of money. Things certainly don’t look like slowing down either, with the release of Fast & Furious 9 due out next year – although it could be minus this dynamic duo.
Kaz (232 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2019 (Updated Jul 31, 2019)
A film which I can't figure out.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I read the novel 'Pet Semetary' last year and, although there are some questionable elements to the story, I thought that generally, it was a good, creepy read.
Having just watched the 2019 remake, (I must point out that I haven't watched the original film) I'm not sure what to make of it.
For me, the novel 'Pet Semetary' is really dark and creepy. What this film version does, is add to that atmosphere and made it even more sinister, which I really liked.
Another good thing about this adaptation, was that it stayed pretty close to the original text, for the most part. Usually I don't like changes when a book is being made into a film, but actually, thinking about it, some of the changes in 'Pet Semetary' were wise, due to practicalities,
For example, in the novel, Gage is the one that dies and not Ellie. I would imagine the producers of this film, might have thought that it would either be too extreme to show a 2-3 year old running around with a knife and also it would be difficult to direct a child in this type of scene. So I understand why this was changed.
I thought that the acting was ok, but nothing special. I think John Lithgow was underused as Judd and actually, I thought his character was much less likable, than Judd in the book. I would give a special mention to the child actor who plays Ellie, as I thought she played her role well.
Now, let's talk about the ending. Whilst I thought the ending of the book was rather questionable, I could understand the thinking behind it. This book's general theme is grief and so Louis' decision to resurrect his wife, illustrates that his grief was so powerful, that he would do almost anything to bring his loved on,e back from the dead.
The ending to the film version though, was very disappointing. For me, Stephen King, not only writes books which satisfy a reader's enjoyment for being scared, but also has other themes and messages running through them too. So, by changing the ending to this film, it kind of took away that sad, powerful message of grief and replaced it with a conventional, 'horror film' ending. This was really disappointing for me, because by putting in that ending, it kind of demeaned everything that the book was trying to do.
This film was ok and had some positive points, but I don't think it does the original book, sufficient justice.
Having just watched the 2019 remake, (I must point out that I haven't watched the original film) I'm not sure what to make of it.
For me, the novel 'Pet Semetary' is really dark and creepy. What this film version does, is add to that atmosphere and made it even more sinister, which I really liked.
Another good thing about this adaptation, was that it stayed pretty close to the original text, for the most part. Usually I don't like changes when a book is being made into a film, but actually, thinking about it, some of the changes in 'Pet Semetary' were wise, due to practicalities,
For example, in the novel, Gage is the one that dies and not Ellie. I would imagine the producers of this film, might have thought that it would either be too extreme to show a 2-3 year old running around with a knife and also it would be difficult to direct a child in this type of scene. So I understand why this was changed.
I thought that the acting was ok, but nothing special. I think John Lithgow was underused as Judd and actually, I thought his character was much less likable, than Judd in the book. I would give a special mention to the child actor who plays Ellie, as I thought she played her role well.
Now, let's talk about the ending. Whilst I thought the ending of the book was rather questionable, I could understand the thinking behind it. This book's general theme is grief and so Louis' decision to resurrect his wife, illustrates that his grief was so powerful, that he would do almost anything to bring his loved on,e back from the dead.
The ending to the film version though, was very disappointing. For me, Stephen King, not only writes books which satisfy a reader's enjoyment for being scared, but also has other themes and messages running through them too. So, by changing the ending to this film, it kind of took away that sad, powerful message of grief and replaced it with a conventional, 'horror film' ending. This was really disappointing for me, because by putting in that ending, it kind of demeaned everything that the book was trying to do.
This film was ok and had some positive points, but I don't think it does the original book, sufficient justice.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Inherent Vice (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
“Inherent Vice” Follows Doc (Joaquin Phoenix), a private investigator, as he falls down a dark rabbit hole into a world of crime and systemic corruption.
Phoenix is a transformative actor, delving deep into his role. We’ve seen him do it before in movies like “Walk the Line.” He becomes his character to the point that it is conceivable this just might be the real him.
It is set in bohemian 1970s California. Everything from the way the camera captures the scene, to the outfits that adorn the characters, exudes a hippy-grunge vibe.
The film encompasses multiple genres including crime, comedy, and drama.
Similar to movies like “The Big Lebowski,” it is filled with humorous moments as Doc, a well-meaning and laid back stoner, is constantly found in the middle of the proverbial shit.
When his ex-girlfriend Shasta Fay (Katherine Waterston) reappears one random day, telling him of a plot to kidnap her billionaire boyfriend and then disappears shortly after, Doc becomes consumed by his investigation into her whereabouts. He is led into a conspiracy-like web of drugs, crime, and corruption.
It is not a typical movie with a coherent storyline, rather it is an experience of what Doc goes through as a mind bending mystery unfolds before him.
Strange, subtle details leave a trail of breadcrumbs for the audience to follow along with Doc, as he tries to make some sense out of the connections he stumbles across.
The plot transpires in a blur, floating into the perceptions of the audience like the winding smoke of an opium den. With a few dull moments, it drags on at times, much like the reality of human experience tends to do.
The musical selection only adds to the film’s tantalizing stylistic ambiance – at times it’s a dull and prolonged high, other times it’s a seedy bluesy underground, or absolute instrumental lunacy. Interestingly, much of the music was composed by Radiohead lead guitarist Jonny Greenwood.
Adding to the intricacy and authenticity of the film, is a brief cameo by what is perhaps the most psychedelic band of our time, The Growlers. This moment will only be recognized by fans who are paying close attention, but is an absolutely fitting detail.
Director Paul Thomas Anderson adapted the film from the original novel written by Thomas Pynchon. Like reading a novel, the film is consuming. But because it goes by much quicker than reading a book, it may need to be watched several times for the viewer to grasp exactly what happened.
Audiences will leave theaters with a resonating feeling of pure delirium from the cerebral experience that is “Inherent Vice.”
A surreal masterpiece, I give “Inherent Vice” 5 out of 5 stars.
Phoenix is a transformative actor, delving deep into his role. We’ve seen him do it before in movies like “Walk the Line.” He becomes his character to the point that it is conceivable this just might be the real him.
It is set in bohemian 1970s California. Everything from the way the camera captures the scene, to the outfits that adorn the characters, exudes a hippy-grunge vibe.
The film encompasses multiple genres including crime, comedy, and drama.
Similar to movies like “The Big Lebowski,” it is filled with humorous moments as Doc, a well-meaning and laid back stoner, is constantly found in the middle of the proverbial shit.
When his ex-girlfriend Shasta Fay (Katherine Waterston) reappears one random day, telling him of a plot to kidnap her billionaire boyfriend and then disappears shortly after, Doc becomes consumed by his investigation into her whereabouts. He is led into a conspiracy-like web of drugs, crime, and corruption.
It is not a typical movie with a coherent storyline, rather it is an experience of what Doc goes through as a mind bending mystery unfolds before him.
Strange, subtle details leave a trail of breadcrumbs for the audience to follow along with Doc, as he tries to make some sense out of the connections he stumbles across.
The plot transpires in a blur, floating into the perceptions of the audience like the winding smoke of an opium den. With a few dull moments, it drags on at times, much like the reality of human experience tends to do.
The musical selection only adds to the film’s tantalizing stylistic ambiance – at times it’s a dull and prolonged high, other times it’s a seedy bluesy underground, or absolute instrumental lunacy. Interestingly, much of the music was composed by Radiohead lead guitarist Jonny Greenwood.
Adding to the intricacy and authenticity of the film, is a brief cameo by what is perhaps the most psychedelic band of our time, The Growlers. This moment will only be recognized by fans who are paying close attention, but is an absolutely fitting detail.
Director Paul Thomas Anderson adapted the film from the original novel written by Thomas Pynchon. Like reading a novel, the film is consuming. But because it goes by much quicker than reading a book, it may need to be watched several times for the viewer to grasp exactly what happened.
Audiences will leave theaters with a resonating feeling of pure delirium from the cerebral experience that is “Inherent Vice.”
A surreal masterpiece, I give “Inherent Vice” 5 out of 5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Laggies (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Laggies is a film that I walked into open minded and a little bit excited where they might take the storyline. As a millennial, I can relate to Keira Knightley’s character Megan as she is approaching 30 and she does not really have any clear direction in life. So when her boyfriend proposes, she freaks out and escapes for a week with her new 16 year old friend and her father. Believable, however rather than this film deciding to become something more akin to 2004’s Garden State, it instead abruptly turns in a “Hollywood” direction, badly.
While watching Laggies, I realized it has some pacing issues. At a 99 minute runtime it felt closer to two hours than a quick and entertaining story it should have been. While walking out the theater I thought that was the intent of the film and was a bit forgiving. Megan doesn’t exactly know where her life is going and neither do we. However as the days passed after watching this film, I realized these pacing issues made like this film less and less each day.
As the days passed, something else I realized was that Keira Knightley is not a leading lady. Her performance was boring, uninteresting and at times unlikable for a character that could have had layers, but did not. It made it hard to understand why she was doing the things that she was doing and why she ultimately comes to the conclusions she does. She seems like she is a 14 year old girl who “doesn’t talk” and we are supposed to look at her “British” smile and understand her without any acting to shed insight on her thoughts, which is actually annoying.
However her younger counter part, Chloe Grace Moretz (Kick Ass), shows yet again how she is a strong up and coming actress who has a good range already. She is believable as self-reflective and brooding 16 year old who is hoping and looking for something more for herself and her father played by Sam Rockwell (Moon). Rockwell reminds audiences yet again how solid an actor he is. He is actually the brightest star in this film as he steals every scene he is in and even manages to elevate Knightley to be likeable and attractive.
In the end, this film is not worth the full price of admission. It is more of a red box or film you may pause and watch when it comes on cable. Moretz and Rockwell are the bright spots of this film and fans of them may want to check this out, however Knightley is not a leading lady and this film suffers from her poor performance and an abruptly Hollywood script.
While watching Laggies, I realized it has some pacing issues. At a 99 minute runtime it felt closer to two hours than a quick and entertaining story it should have been. While walking out the theater I thought that was the intent of the film and was a bit forgiving. Megan doesn’t exactly know where her life is going and neither do we. However as the days passed after watching this film, I realized these pacing issues made like this film less and less each day.
As the days passed, something else I realized was that Keira Knightley is not a leading lady. Her performance was boring, uninteresting and at times unlikable for a character that could have had layers, but did not. It made it hard to understand why she was doing the things that she was doing and why she ultimately comes to the conclusions she does. She seems like she is a 14 year old girl who “doesn’t talk” and we are supposed to look at her “British” smile and understand her without any acting to shed insight on her thoughts, which is actually annoying.
However her younger counter part, Chloe Grace Moretz (Kick Ass), shows yet again how she is a strong up and coming actress who has a good range already. She is believable as self-reflective and brooding 16 year old who is hoping and looking for something more for herself and her father played by Sam Rockwell (Moon). Rockwell reminds audiences yet again how solid an actor he is. He is actually the brightest star in this film as he steals every scene he is in and even manages to elevate Knightley to be likeable and attractive.
In the end, this film is not worth the full price of admission. It is more of a red box or film you may pause and watch when it comes on cable. Moretz and Rockwell are the bright spots of this film and fans of them may want to check this out, however Knightley is not a leading lady and this film suffers from her poor performance and an abruptly Hollywood script.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Friended To Death (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Actress turned filmmaker Sarah Smick might well be the next Nicole Sullivan should fortune smile upon her. Not many people will have seen her debut film, Old Souls, but if Friended to Death is any indication, she shows that she has the chops to create satire. Although her second film is not entirely perfect, it shows that she does have a lot to say in a screenplay that examines friendship in the real life sense.
Ryan Hansen (Zach McGowan, Veronica Mars) is a terrific actor, and he plays the perfect narcissistic jerk. As Michael Harris, he’s unsympathetic to everyone he knows, including his new mate Emil (Zach McGowan, Shameless) whom he treats poorly.
Harris is more obsessive with telling his Facebook friends what is going on in his day-to-day life. But when he gets fired from his job as a traffic cop, just what does he do next? He definitely does not go crying to his mom about it. Instead, he hatches a plot to fake his death (with the help of Emil) and look online to see who will miss him.
No one. This movie is not about saying how terrible and unsympathetic people are. Instead, it reveals that one can not treat social media as the end all be all of how relationships are defined. The screenplay is well thought out to show a hyperbole of extremes. Harris is more obsessed with what is said online than in person. At the same time, Harris does not realize that Emil is helping him despite his many reservations. He does not realize that he does have a friend who is doing his best to pull that stick out of Harris’ ass, but the further in it goes, more problems arises.
However, social media has its uses. It has a purpose in the world of business, but in society, that’s another question. When Harris uses it as his lifeblood and measure of his worth, maybe what he needs is a reality check (with perhaps a sociologist/psychologist to treat him).
The underlying themes of what this film examines is great, but sadly the execution is hit and miss. Unless viewers can actually care for the protagonist, the reason to continue watching will depend on either wanting to see how Harris’ life will pan out or wondering who the comely women in red (Sarah Smick) is involved in this plot. As Sylvie, this woman has a beef to settle with Harris, and to watch how that pans out is almost as nutty as watching an episode of MadTV. This subplot actually carries this movie a lot more, and it has all the meat to make watching this movie all the more interesting.
Ryan Hansen (Zach McGowan, Veronica Mars) is a terrific actor, and he plays the perfect narcissistic jerk. As Michael Harris, he’s unsympathetic to everyone he knows, including his new mate Emil (Zach McGowan, Shameless) whom he treats poorly.
Harris is more obsessive with telling his Facebook friends what is going on in his day-to-day life. But when he gets fired from his job as a traffic cop, just what does he do next? He definitely does not go crying to his mom about it. Instead, he hatches a plot to fake his death (with the help of Emil) and look online to see who will miss him.
No one. This movie is not about saying how terrible and unsympathetic people are. Instead, it reveals that one can not treat social media as the end all be all of how relationships are defined. The screenplay is well thought out to show a hyperbole of extremes. Harris is more obsessed with what is said online than in person. At the same time, Harris does not realize that Emil is helping him despite his many reservations. He does not realize that he does have a friend who is doing his best to pull that stick out of Harris’ ass, but the further in it goes, more problems arises.
However, social media has its uses. It has a purpose in the world of business, but in society, that’s another question. When Harris uses it as his lifeblood and measure of his worth, maybe what he needs is a reality check (with perhaps a sociologist/psychologist to treat him).
The underlying themes of what this film examines is great, but sadly the execution is hit and miss. Unless viewers can actually care for the protagonist, the reason to continue watching will depend on either wanting to see how Harris’ life will pan out or wondering who the comely women in red (Sarah Smick) is involved in this plot. As Sylvie, this woman has a beef to settle with Harris, and to watch how that pans out is almost as nutty as watching an episode of MadTV. This subplot actually carries this movie a lot more, and it has all the meat to make watching this movie all the more interesting.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
A Fairly Tale In Hollywood But Lacks Finesse And Excitement
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is a 2019 dramedy (drama/comedy) movie written and directed by Quentin Tarantino and producers David Heyman and Shannon Mcintosh. It was produced by Columbia Pictures, Bona Film Group, Heyday Films, and Visiona Romantica and distributed by Sony Pictures Releasing. The movie stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad, Margot Robbie, Emile Hirsch and Al Pacino.
In 1969 Los Angeles, actor Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his best friend and stunt double Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) navigate their way through an ever changing industry they hardly recognize anymore. Rick laments to Cliff that his career is over, having been the star of Bounty Law a 1950s Western television series and having trouble landing acting jobs as the lead in films. Dalton dreams of befriending actress Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and her husband, director Roman Polanski (Rafal Zawierucha), who are now his neighbors, in order to resurrect his career. Booth, who lives in a trailer with his pitbull, Brandy, relies on Dalton for work because of rumors he killed his wife, and drives Dalton around town and does other odd jobs for him.
This movie was definitely not what I expected from Quentin Tarantino. It was very slow building, and honestly boring in a lot of ways. I kept waiting for something to happen, but half way through the movie, still nothing really did. The acting however was outstanding. Leonardo DiCaprio was excellent as Rick Dalton and Brad Pitt was a charmer, I think this movie was awesome in its portrayal of Hollywood from that time and was almost like a fairy tale about Hollywood in a way. The ending of the movie really didn't fit with the rest of the film and was controversial, but to me it didn't fit because it hyper violent like most of Tarantino's other films. To me the ending kind of saved the movie but I see how to others it didn't go with it. I usually really like Tarantino's films but I didn't particularly like this one altogether. It kind of was a collection of good scenes and acting but didn't deliver on an actual story that was good or compelling enough for me personally. But then again I didn't like Inglorious Bastards that much, and thought The Hateful 8 could have been better too. But I loved Django Unchained, and the Kill Bill films and pretty much all his other films. So I would give this movie a 6/10, it's above average in a lot of ways but just fell through for me equally in a lot of ways that can't justify a higher rating from me. Maybe it was overrated or over-hyped, or maybe I just had too high of expectations.
In 1969 Los Angeles, actor Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his best friend and stunt double Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) navigate their way through an ever changing industry they hardly recognize anymore. Rick laments to Cliff that his career is over, having been the star of Bounty Law a 1950s Western television series and having trouble landing acting jobs as the lead in films. Dalton dreams of befriending actress Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and her husband, director Roman Polanski (Rafal Zawierucha), who are now his neighbors, in order to resurrect his career. Booth, who lives in a trailer with his pitbull, Brandy, relies on Dalton for work because of rumors he killed his wife, and drives Dalton around town and does other odd jobs for him.
This movie was definitely not what I expected from Quentin Tarantino. It was very slow building, and honestly boring in a lot of ways. I kept waiting for something to happen, but half way through the movie, still nothing really did. The acting however was outstanding. Leonardo DiCaprio was excellent as Rick Dalton and Brad Pitt was a charmer, I think this movie was awesome in its portrayal of Hollywood from that time and was almost like a fairy tale about Hollywood in a way. The ending of the movie really didn't fit with the rest of the film and was controversial, but to me it didn't fit because it hyper violent like most of Tarantino's other films. To me the ending kind of saved the movie but I see how to others it didn't go with it. I usually really like Tarantino's films but I didn't particularly like this one altogether. It kind of was a collection of good scenes and acting but didn't deliver on an actual story that was good or compelling enough for me personally. But then again I didn't like Inglorious Bastards that much, and thought The Hateful 8 could have been better too. But I loved Django Unchained, and the Kill Bill films and pretty much all his other films. So I would give this movie a 6/10, it's above average in a lot of ways but just fell through for me equally in a lot of ways that can't justify a higher rating from me. Maybe it was overrated or over-hyped, or maybe I just had too high of expectations.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
A Really Great Video Game Movie
Pokemon: Detective Pikachu is a 2019 video game film adaptation directed by Rob Letterman with screenplay written by Letterman, Dan Hernandez, Benji Samit and Derek Connolly from a story by Hernandez, Samit, and Nicole Perlman. The movie is produced by Warner Bros. Pictures, Legendary Pictures and The Pokemon Company, in association with Toho Co., Ltd. It's based on the Pokemon franchise created by Satoshi Tajiri and the 2016 video game Detective Pikachu. The movie stars Justice Smith, Kathryn Newton, Suki Waterhouse, Ken Watanabe, and Bill Nighy.
Tim Goodman (Justice Smith) is a 21-year-old insurance salesman who gave up on training Pokemon at a young age. While hanging out with his friend Jack, he receives a call that his father Harry died while investigating a case. He travels to Ryme City, where his father was a detective and where Pokemon fighting is outlawed. It is a metropolis that pushes the bonds of humans and Pokemon by not conforming to some of the usual Pokemon world rules, such as battles or pokeballs. Tim is there to collect his father's belongings and encounters a Pikachu that can speak and he can somehow understand it. And together they try to uncover why Tim's father was killed.
This movie was lots of fun and very enjoyable, even for people that might not know anything about Pokemon. Ryan Reynolds did a great job in portraying the coffee drinking Pikachu detective. The plot was a little weak and could have been better, but I didn't hold that against it too hard since its kind of a kids movie. The CGI was beautiful in a lot of ways, somethings like the city and the skin and texture on Pokemon were phenomenal, but kinda fell short in a few scenes. Some of the human actors were definitely better than others and it shows but doesn't kill the whole movie or vibe. I really liked seeing Ryme City though, it was just so awesome to see all the Pokemon and people interacting and the world building done to make it look real, like it could exist in real life. I think they could of used Ken Watanabe more in the movie, he's a pretty good actor I feel was under utilized. This was a really great video game movie though and I think one that breaks the stigma that video game movies aren't good or successful. I give this movie a 7.
I almost gave it an 8 but I feel that it's nostalgia and my love for the Pokemon games and cartoon movies that are behind that. But I do give it my seal of approval, that you should go see this movie in theaters, especially if you are a Pokemon fan or if you have kids who are.
Tim Goodman (Justice Smith) is a 21-year-old insurance salesman who gave up on training Pokemon at a young age. While hanging out with his friend Jack, he receives a call that his father Harry died while investigating a case. He travels to Ryme City, where his father was a detective and where Pokemon fighting is outlawed. It is a metropolis that pushes the bonds of humans and Pokemon by not conforming to some of the usual Pokemon world rules, such as battles or pokeballs. Tim is there to collect his father's belongings and encounters a Pikachu that can speak and he can somehow understand it. And together they try to uncover why Tim's father was killed.
This movie was lots of fun and very enjoyable, even for people that might not know anything about Pokemon. Ryan Reynolds did a great job in portraying the coffee drinking Pikachu detective. The plot was a little weak and could have been better, but I didn't hold that against it too hard since its kind of a kids movie. The CGI was beautiful in a lot of ways, somethings like the city and the skin and texture on Pokemon were phenomenal, but kinda fell short in a few scenes. Some of the human actors were definitely better than others and it shows but doesn't kill the whole movie or vibe. I really liked seeing Ryme City though, it was just so awesome to see all the Pokemon and people interacting and the world building done to make it look real, like it could exist in real life. I think they could of used Ken Watanabe more in the movie, he's a pretty good actor I feel was under utilized. This was a really great video game movie though and I think one that breaks the stigma that video game movies aren't good or successful. I give this movie a 7.
I almost gave it an 8 but I feel that it's nostalgia and my love for the Pokemon games and cartoon movies that are behind that. But I do give it my seal of approval, that you should go see this movie in theaters, especially if you are a Pokemon fan or if you have kids who are.