Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Aug 23, 2019
Gerard Butler returns once again as secret service agent Mike Banning in this third entry in the 'fallen' series. The first movie, Olympus Has Fallen (not to be confused with White House Down, the Channing Tatum movie which was also released in 2013 and also covered a similar plot!) saw Banning trapped in the White House during a terrorist attack. It had an enjoyable Die Hard feel to it, and a sequel was inevitable. London Has Fallen (2016) saw Banning venture to London for the funeral of the Prime Minister and becoming involved in a terrorist plot to assassinate the world leaders who were in attendance. Not quite as good as Olympus, losing that enclosed claustrophobic setting from the first movie, but it was still a fun piece of action.
Which brings us to Angel Has Fallen. That angel being Mike Banning, guardian angel to President Trumbull (Morgan Freeman) who has now been promoted from vice president in the last movie. Mike is starting to feel the strain of old age and his years of being a hero and one man army - insomnia, a reliance on pills, migraines. His secret service colleagues, even the president, are noticing his health issues and his doctor plainly tells him "You're a disaster waiting to happen"!
This time round, the terrorist attack comes in the form of a swarm of drones, which appear in the skies over the lake where the president is fishing on a boat. Taking out the secret service team on protection duty, both the president and Banning are forced into the water in order to try and avoid being blown to pieces. But, instead of being hailed a hero once again, Banning is now accused of masterminding and orchestrating the attack and it becomes clear that he is being setup, forcing him to go on the run in order to try and clear his name.
Once again, it's all ridiculous crowd pleasing stuff. Some elements make absolutely no sense whatsoever, and it's not exactly difficult to work out who the bad guys are right from the offset - hell, the trailer even gives one of them away! The action for the most part is fairly enjoyable, although it does suffer from the occasional bit of dodgy CGI and there are moments of dark close-up action - quickly edited, shaky camera work, which make it frustratingly difficult to work out what on earth is going on at times.
As with London Has Fallen, we lose that claustrophobic and confined Die Hard action once again, giving us something more alike to The Fugitive and a poor mans John Wick 3. But overall, it's still an enjoyable ride, with a fun cameo from Nick Nolte as Mike's long lost father and a third act which actually delivers.
Which brings us to Angel Has Fallen. That angel being Mike Banning, guardian angel to President Trumbull (Morgan Freeman) who has now been promoted from vice president in the last movie. Mike is starting to feel the strain of old age and his years of being a hero and one man army - insomnia, a reliance on pills, migraines. His secret service colleagues, even the president, are noticing his health issues and his doctor plainly tells him "You're a disaster waiting to happen"!
This time round, the terrorist attack comes in the form of a swarm of drones, which appear in the skies over the lake where the president is fishing on a boat. Taking out the secret service team on protection duty, both the president and Banning are forced into the water in order to try and avoid being blown to pieces. But, instead of being hailed a hero once again, Banning is now accused of masterminding and orchestrating the attack and it becomes clear that he is being setup, forcing him to go on the run in order to try and clear his name.
Once again, it's all ridiculous crowd pleasing stuff. Some elements make absolutely no sense whatsoever, and it's not exactly difficult to work out who the bad guys are right from the offset - hell, the trailer even gives one of them away! The action for the most part is fairly enjoyable, although it does suffer from the occasional bit of dodgy CGI and there are moments of dark close-up action - quickly edited, shaky camera work, which make it frustratingly difficult to work out what on earth is going on at times.
As with London Has Fallen, we lose that claustrophobic and confined Die Hard action once again, giving us something more alike to The Fugitive and a poor mans John Wick 3. But overall, it's still an enjoyable ride, with a fun cameo from Nick Nolte as Mike's long lost father and a third act which actually delivers.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Targets (1968) in Movies
Jun 18, 2020
Targeting Frankenstein: A Horror Icon
Targets- is a very suspenseful film that stars a old boris Karloff. His performance in this film is different. Usually he is type-cast in a horror movie. Targets is not the cast, its a more serious role for Karloff and I liked it alot. He is dramatic in Targets. It was Karloff's last appearance in a marjor american film, before he passed away in 1968.
The plot: After unhinged Vietnam vet Bobby Thompson (Tim O'Kelly) kills his wife and mother, he goes on a brutal shooting spree. Starting at an oil refinery, he evades the police and continues his murderous outing at a drive-in movie theater, where Byron Orlock (Boris Karloff), a retiring horror film icon, is making a promotional appearance. Before long, Orlock, a symbol of fantastical old-fashioned scares, faces off against Thompson, a remorseless psychopath rooted in a harsh modern reality.
Even Karloff's charcter is a retired horror film actor, so he can never get away from the horror genre/type-casting.
In the film's finale at a drive-in theater, Orlok – the old-fashioned, traditional screen monster who always obeyed the rules – confronts the new, realistic, nihilistic late-1960s "monster" in the shape of a clean-cut, unassuming multiple murderer.
Bogdanovich got the chance to make Targets because Boris Karloff owed studio head Roger Corman two days' work. Corman told Bogdanovich he could make any film he liked provided he used Karloff and stayed under budget. In addition, Bogdanovich had to use clips from Corman's Napoleonic-era thriller The Terror in the movie. The clips from The Terror feature Jack Nicholson and Boris Karloff. A brief clip of Howard Hawks' 1931 film The Criminal Code featuring Karloff was also used.
American International Pictures offered to release, but Bogdanovich wanted to try to see if the film could get a deal with a major studio. It was seen by Robert Evans of Paramount who bought it for $150,000, giving Corman an instant profit on the movie before it was even released.
Although the film was written and production photography completed in late 1967, it was released after the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in early 1968 and thus had some topical relevance to then-current events. Nevertheless, it was not very successful at the box office.
Quentin Tarantino later called it "the most political movie Corman ever made since The Intruder. And forty years later it’s still one of the strongest cries for gun control in American cinema. The film isn’t a thriller with a social commentary buried inside of it (the normal Corman model), it’s a social commentary with a thriller buried inside of it... It was one of the most powerful films of 1968 and one of the greatest directorial debuts of all time. And I believe the best film ever produced by Roger Corman.
Its a excellent mystery suspenseful thrilling starring Boris Karloff, last appearance in a marjor american film, before he passed away in 1968. A great film to end your career on.
The plot: After unhinged Vietnam vet Bobby Thompson (Tim O'Kelly) kills his wife and mother, he goes on a brutal shooting spree. Starting at an oil refinery, he evades the police and continues his murderous outing at a drive-in movie theater, where Byron Orlock (Boris Karloff), a retiring horror film icon, is making a promotional appearance. Before long, Orlock, a symbol of fantastical old-fashioned scares, faces off against Thompson, a remorseless psychopath rooted in a harsh modern reality.
Even Karloff's charcter is a retired horror film actor, so he can never get away from the horror genre/type-casting.
In the film's finale at a drive-in theater, Orlok – the old-fashioned, traditional screen monster who always obeyed the rules – confronts the new, realistic, nihilistic late-1960s "monster" in the shape of a clean-cut, unassuming multiple murderer.
Bogdanovich got the chance to make Targets because Boris Karloff owed studio head Roger Corman two days' work. Corman told Bogdanovich he could make any film he liked provided he used Karloff and stayed under budget. In addition, Bogdanovich had to use clips from Corman's Napoleonic-era thriller The Terror in the movie. The clips from The Terror feature Jack Nicholson and Boris Karloff. A brief clip of Howard Hawks' 1931 film The Criminal Code featuring Karloff was also used.
American International Pictures offered to release, but Bogdanovich wanted to try to see if the film could get a deal with a major studio. It was seen by Robert Evans of Paramount who bought it for $150,000, giving Corman an instant profit on the movie before it was even released.
Although the film was written and production photography completed in late 1967, it was released after the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in early 1968 and thus had some topical relevance to then-current events. Nevertheless, it was not very successful at the box office.
Quentin Tarantino later called it "the most political movie Corman ever made since The Intruder. And forty years later it’s still one of the strongest cries for gun control in American cinema. The film isn’t a thriller with a social commentary buried inside of it (the normal Corman model), it’s a social commentary with a thriller buried inside of it... It was one of the most powerful films of 1968 and one of the greatest directorial debuts of all time. And I believe the best film ever produced by Roger Corman.
Its a excellent mystery suspenseful thrilling starring Boris Karloff, last appearance in a marjor american film, before he passed away in 1968. A great film to end your career on.
BrainPOP Featured Movie
Education
App
Help kids understand their world with the BrainPOP Featured Movie app. Our free Featured Movie...
Scott Tostik (389 KP) rated Spotlight (2015) in Movies
Jul 28, 2017
The story is amazing (2 more)
Heartfelt writing
The best ensemble cast in years
Wow. Just wow
Michael fucking Keaton!!!!
Holy shit!!!!
Although he will always be Beetlejuice to me, he keeps proving to me time and time again that he is one of the finest dramatic actors of our time. Id even go as far to say of anytime.
This movie follows the Boston Globe's Spotlight team in the early 2000's as they break a scandal involving the Catholic Church's involvement in a priest molestation case.
Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams and Leiv Shriver (spelling incorrect I know) also star, as well as a few other familiar faces.
This is not my typical movie, but when something stars Keaton, I check it out. And it didn't disappoint.
It's long, drawn out, and sometimes boring. But in this reviewers opinion, totally worth a watch.
The number 87 will forever stick out in my mind as something that reminds me of that wretched feeling you get in your stomach before you vomit.
Based on true events that transpired over an almost 55 year period, if not longer.
Holy shit!!!!
Although he will always be Beetlejuice to me, he keeps proving to me time and time again that he is one of the finest dramatic actors of our time. Id even go as far to say of anytime.
This movie follows the Boston Globe's Spotlight team in the early 2000's as they break a scandal involving the Catholic Church's involvement in a priest molestation case.
Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams and Leiv Shriver (spelling incorrect I know) also star, as well as a few other familiar faces.
This is not my typical movie, but when something stars Keaton, I check it out. And it didn't disappoint.
It's long, drawn out, and sometimes boring. But in this reviewers opinion, totally worth a watch.
The number 87 will forever stick out in my mind as something that reminds me of that wretched feeling you get in your stomach before you vomit.
Based on true events that transpired over an almost 55 year period, if not longer.
Judy Greer recommended Moonstruck (1987) in Movies (curated)
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Kingpin (1996) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020
Familiar Farrelly fare to a fault (I swear to God that repetition was unintentional) - it's got every single hallmark of their films all rolled into one: extremely juvenile peepee/caca/sex jokes, USA heartland road trip, lovable doofus + straight man lead pairing plus the underdeveloped woman who puts them at odds with each other, runtime that's about 15 or so minutes too heavy, unpointed misogyny, and heaping helpings of sentimentality. For better or worse, this is the quintessential Farrelly film. On the whole though, it's okay. Comedy is hit or miss here but this can be damn funny, specifically Bill Murray - who easily runs away with this entire film (the film's biggest flaw? that there isn't more of him). Randy Quaid is a riot too, though this is oddly a better sports movie than it is an outright comedy. All these (still fair) gross-out comedy trappings are infused into your model sports film formula but it's oddly really engaging as that, and the comedy is just a bonus. I like how this movie portrays skill, and it's also one of the Farrellys' best looking ones, too. All of this is still rather simple but it's fun.
Felipe (17 KP) rated Arrival (2016) in Movies
Dec 7, 2020
Excellent speculative movie even if it was somewhat optimistic.
Contains spoilers, click to show
This movie poses and excellent problem of what it would be like if an advanced alien species visited Earth and what form that would take. I found the design of the aliens and the extent of their technology to be interesting but what I found more fascinating was how they were able to come up with a language that is at one time alien but also somewhat familiar using basic linguistic theory that is common to all languages and yet come up with something completely out of the box. Despite being an excellent film posing complex and thought provoking questions, I found the timeline and the flashbacks to be confusing and the ending of the film posing more questions than answers. The telling of the story is as complex as a tesseract or 4th dimensional hypercube trying to describe itself to a three dimensional cube. There simply is no common frame of reference to begin to understand the multidimensionality of the film.
Robert Eggers recommended Fanny and Alexander (1982) in Movies (curated)
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated Inherit the Wind (1960) in Movies
Feb 1, 2020
I found this movie incredibly interesting. Not only is it based on a true story, I think it's a film that transcends time because of its themes. All of the issues discussed in this movie are ones that we still talk about today. We see all the time arguments for more religion in schools or less, and religion itself is argued and where its place is in our lives. I think this movie does a beautiful job of pushing those boundaries and causing you to question why it is we believe what we do and why we're so set on others believing it too.
As far as the cast and the acting, I think it's phenomenal. Obviously, with powerhouses like Gene Kelly, Spencer Tracy, and Fredric March, their performances are incredible. I find the women in the film to be less believable but I think it's more the time and the way women acted in the '60s and less to do with the women themselves. The overdramatic, falling after their husband or fiancé, in one case, is just played out - but that also might just be me speaking from my own experience.
Overall, I think this movie is great. It holds up 60 years after its initial release and I'm sure it will hold up for another 60 years. I think it pushes positive conversations and forces you to think outside of your own experiences and your own life and in general, I think that's what art (in any form) should do. Would definitely recommend this film.
As far as the cast and the acting, I think it's phenomenal. Obviously, with powerhouses like Gene Kelly, Spencer Tracy, and Fredric March, their performances are incredible. I find the women in the film to be less believable but I think it's more the time and the way women acted in the '60s and less to do with the women themselves. The overdramatic, falling after their husband or fiancé, in one case, is just played out - but that also might just be me speaking from my own experience.
Overall, I think this movie is great. It holds up 60 years after its initial release and I'm sure it will hold up for another 60 years. I think it pushes positive conversations and forces you to think outside of your own experiences and your own life and in general, I think that's what art (in any form) should do. Would definitely recommend this film.