Search
Search results
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.
Erika (17789 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Mar 18, 2018 (Updated Mar 18, 2018)
So, the best advice I can give while watching this movie is to not compare it to the previous Lara Croft films.
I wasn't completely sold on Vikander as Lara, and she wasn't honestly that believable in the role. Maybe that can improve in the next films (if they're made), as this was essentially an origin story.
One thing that bothered my throughout was Lara's boots; it seems like a stupid thing to complain about, but the heel on them was ridiculous. Though, a positive thing on her costuming is that she was actually wearing a bra, unlike Jolie in the other films.
Walter Groggin's performance was a little pedestrian, I was expecting/hoping for a Django Unchained performance. But it wasn't, he seemed to be sleepwalking throughout the movie.
Now, the story: It was interesting, but a little clunky. They probably could have worked on that a little more. I was glad they took it out of the supernatural realm.
In the end, and right now, I'm really torn on whether or not I liked it. Maybe I need to see it again? I was entertained, at the very least.
**Also can we talk about Vikander's scary giraffe neck in the poster? CRAZY looking. In fact, I'm going to add the other poster so I don't have to look at it again.**
I wasn't completely sold on Vikander as Lara, and she wasn't honestly that believable in the role. Maybe that can improve in the next films (if they're made), as this was essentially an origin story.
One thing that bothered my throughout was Lara's boots; it seems like a stupid thing to complain about, but the heel on them was ridiculous. Though, a positive thing on her costuming is that she was actually wearing a bra, unlike Jolie in the other films.
Walter Groggin's performance was a little pedestrian, I was expecting/hoping for a Django Unchained performance. But it wasn't, he seemed to be sleepwalking throughout the movie.
Now, the story: It was interesting, but a little clunky. They probably could have worked on that a little more. I was glad they took it out of the supernatural realm.
In the end, and right now, I'm really torn on whether or not I liked it. Maybe I need to see it again? I was entertained, at the very least.
**Also can we talk about Vikander's scary giraffe neck in the poster? CRAZY looking. In fact, I'm going to add the other poster so I don't have to look at it again.**
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Feb 11, 2018 (Updated Feb 11, 2018)
Oh, Mummy.
Laborious attempt by Universal to grab a slice of Marvel's meta-franchise pie by launching a series of fantasy blockbusters based on their stable of famous monster characters. Tom Cruise plays an annoying mercenary who catches the eye of an ancient and evil supernatural creature unearthed in Iraq.
There's a good reason why sensible studios don't try to make horror blockbusters, and especially horror blockbusters starring Tom Cruise - every time the film starts to be effectively creepy or atmospheric, along comes a CGI-enhanced chase sequence, or Tom Cruise doing that smirk, or some other manifestation of corporate blandness. Isn't Tom Cruise too old for this sort of thing? Watching him flirting with a considerably younger actress is by far the creepiest thing in the movie, and he seems quite incapable of the moral ambiguity the part probably requires - Russell Crowe, in the Samuel L Jackson plot-device-character role, acts him off the screen.
You scratch your head wondering how this thing is supposed to work - are all the monsters going to team up together? And do what, exactly? No-one seems to have thought this through. It's much more of a zombie movie than one about an actual mummy, anyway. The depiction of the one-way system in Oxford City Centre is also very misleading; I nearly knocked off a point because of it.
There's a good reason why sensible studios don't try to make horror blockbusters, and especially horror blockbusters starring Tom Cruise - every time the film starts to be effectively creepy or atmospheric, along comes a CGI-enhanced chase sequence, or Tom Cruise doing that smirk, or some other manifestation of corporate blandness. Isn't Tom Cruise too old for this sort of thing? Watching him flirting with a considerably younger actress is by far the creepiest thing in the movie, and he seems quite incapable of the moral ambiguity the part probably requires - Russell Crowe, in the Samuel L Jackson plot-device-character role, acts him off the screen.
You scratch your head wondering how this thing is supposed to work - are all the monsters going to team up together? And do what, exactly? No-one seems to have thought this through. It's much more of a zombie movie than one about an actual mummy, anyway. The depiction of the one-way system in Oxford City Centre is also very misleading; I nearly knocked off a point because of it.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Molly's Game (2017) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020
Objectively horrendous but a ton of fun, pretty much what one of those later MCU entries *should* feel like. A lot of fast-talking verbiage and flashiness which every single one of these stylish, ADHD biopics (which, for the record I enjoy incomparably more than the unbearable, cursory ones that get nominated for Oscars) stole from 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘰𝘭𝘧 𝘰𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘵 - which I was convinced I'd never get tired of but I confess is actually starting to get pretty rote here. Like okay do we really need to halt the already legendarily messy and borderline unfollowable plotline so you can describe what the sticker on the fucking cheese platter says? It's also one of those movies where the acting is nice but nobody actually plays a real human (for better [Chastain, Cera, Strong, Costner] or worse [poor Elba]). The dialogue is, as you can imagine, unadulterated Sorkin which leads to some very amusing cringe without the filter this time around. I like it, pretty much a collection of rousing scenes that look and play nice but don't fit together too well (at all) on the whole. Best part is easily those iconic Chastain outfits. A much better poker movie than it is a true story movie, and a lot of the banter is stilted - but worth it entirely for the title character calling Michael Cera (playing a power-hungry real life Tobey Maguire) a "green-screened little shit".
Awix (3310 KP) rated Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988) in Movies
Jul 30, 2020
Slightly discombobulating horror sequel. Following the events of the first movie Kirsty Cotton unsurprisingly ends up in a loony bin run by brain surgeon and keen puzzle-box fan Dr Channard (Kenneth Cranham tries mightily to bring a touch of Peter Cushing-style class to an underwritten part). As Channard is a lunatic, he resurrects Kirsty's evil stepmother, and because he is clearly either very forgetful or slow off the mark, together they give a puzzle box (which he already had) to a traumatised patient who's good at puzzles (who he likewise already had about the place) and together they begin to explore the realm of the box.
Meanwhile... oh, does it really matter? As you can perhaps begin to discern, the plot of Hellraiser II Makes No Sense Whatsoever (the Cotton house appears to have teleported from London to New York City in the gap between films, and this is only a minor issue), and there is something baffling and miraculous about the fact the film is as coherent and watchable as it is. Then again, it's not actually about logic, plot, or the motivation of the characters, just a succession of grisly, visceral, nightmarish, surreal images. In this respect at least the film is an astonishing success. Doesn't stop the story from being nonsense, though. Manages to be a very bad movie but also a terrific one, frequently at exactly the same time. Like I say, discombobulating.
Meanwhile... oh, does it really matter? As you can perhaps begin to discern, the plot of Hellraiser II Makes No Sense Whatsoever (the Cotton house appears to have teleported from London to New York City in the gap between films, and this is only a minor issue), and there is something baffling and miraculous about the fact the film is as coherent and watchable as it is. Then again, it's not actually about logic, plot, or the motivation of the characters, just a succession of grisly, visceral, nightmarish, surreal images. In this respect at least the film is an astonishing success. Doesn't stop the story from being nonsense, though. Manages to be a very bad movie but also a terrific one, frequently at exactly the same time. Like I say, discombobulating.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Rampage (2018) in Movies
Apr 13, 2018
Dwayne Johnson (2 more)
The Action
The Humour
Surprisingly enjoyable video game movie!
I have fond memories of playing the Rampage video game in my early teens. Me and my two brothers, huddled around my feeble ZX Spectrum, each of us taking control of one of three monsters. George the giant King-Kong style gorilla, Lizzie a dinosaur/Godzilla creature and Ralph the big wolf. The idea of the game was simple, but hugely satisfying - smash up city buildings until they collapse, while avoiding damage from the military who are out to stop you. Hitting your fellow monsters also takes out their energy, making it a great game for competitive brothers to be playing! Eating food you find, and even the soldiers trying to kill you, restores your energy. Lots of fun.
Rampage the movie begins out in space, where genetic editing experiments too dangerous/illegal are taking place onboard a space station. Things have gone badly wrong though and canisters containing an experimental genetic pathogen begin hurtling towards North America in what looks like a meteor shower. Back down on Earth we're introduced to Davis Okoye (Dwayne Johnson) - San Diego zoologist, ex-military (so, comfortable with guns, flying helicopters etc, could come in handy later...) and general all-round cool guy. In his care is an albino gorilla called George, who was rescued from poachers as a baby by Davis. They've built up a special bond ever since, communicating in sign language to the level where they are able to joke and generally take the piss out of each other. Overnight, one of the space canisters lands in the zoo and is released into the face of an inquisitive (or Curious?) George. From there he begins to grow bigger, and become increasingly violent.
Elsewhere, two other canisters have landed out in the wild. One right by a pack of wolves and another hitting a lake. The brother and sister team heading up Energyne, the company responsible for the space station and the genetic work (Malin Åkerman and Jake Lacy), dispatch a bunch of clean up guys with big guns to try and apprehend the wolf, which ends up going badly. Meanwhile, an ex employee of Energyne, Dr Kate Caldwell (Naomie Harris), who is also responsible for creating the pathogen, heads to the zoo. She wants to make amends for everything and bring down the company that fired her. Government agent Harvey Russell (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) also shows up at the zoo with a bunch of men of his own, looking to take George away by plane - something else which you just know is going to end badly. Morgan plays Harvey Russell as basically just a slightly toned down version of his Walking Dead character, Negan. Grinning cockily throughout the whole movie and when he first squares up to Davis, you fully expect him to start swaggering around, monologuing about swinging dicks or something. He tells Davis that "when science shits the bed, I'm the guy they call to change the sheets"!
The three monsters begin making their way to Chicago to start smashing stuff up, attracted by a beacon emitting a sound only they can hear. Something "the tech guys rustled up overnight" at Energyne. Davis and Dr Caldwell also head to Chicago to try and help George and end the destruction, eventually aided by Harvey Russell.
Rampage has the potential to be a trainwreck, another casualty in the long line of awful video game movies, especially when there are so many CGI-heavy monster-city-smash movies out there these days. It all works surprisingly well though. When the monsters begin trashing things, it's not an over the top assault on the senses where you can't even make out any sign of human life and the affect that all of this is having on them. The action is well done and enjoyable, and peppered with plenty of trademark Dwayne Johnson humour too. Outside of the action, it's also Johnson that holds the rest of the movie together and prevents it from dipping below average. Dr Caldwell is a very underused and forgettable character, serving only as sidekick to The Rock. Everyone else, aside from Harvey Russell, is also pretty forgettable too. But then at the end of the day, this is all about George and his monster buddies, and overall I found this to be a very enjoyable movie.
Rampage the movie begins out in space, where genetic editing experiments too dangerous/illegal are taking place onboard a space station. Things have gone badly wrong though and canisters containing an experimental genetic pathogen begin hurtling towards North America in what looks like a meteor shower. Back down on Earth we're introduced to Davis Okoye (Dwayne Johnson) - San Diego zoologist, ex-military (so, comfortable with guns, flying helicopters etc, could come in handy later...) and general all-round cool guy. In his care is an albino gorilla called George, who was rescued from poachers as a baby by Davis. They've built up a special bond ever since, communicating in sign language to the level where they are able to joke and generally take the piss out of each other. Overnight, one of the space canisters lands in the zoo and is released into the face of an inquisitive (or Curious?) George. From there he begins to grow bigger, and become increasingly violent.
Elsewhere, two other canisters have landed out in the wild. One right by a pack of wolves and another hitting a lake. The brother and sister team heading up Energyne, the company responsible for the space station and the genetic work (Malin Åkerman and Jake Lacy), dispatch a bunch of clean up guys with big guns to try and apprehend the wolf, which ends up going badly. Meanwhile, an ex employee of Energyne, Dr Kate Caldwell (Naomie Harris), who is also responsible for creating the pathogen, heads to the zoo. She wants to make amends for everything and bring down the company that fired her. Government agent Harvey Russell (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) also shows up at the zoo with a bunch of men of his own, looking to take George away by plane - something else which you just know is going to end badly. Morgan plays Harvey Russell as basically just a slightly toned down version of his Walking Dead character, Negan. Grinning cockily throughout the whole movie and when he first squares up to Davis, you fully expect him to start swaggering around, monologuing about swinging dicks or something. He tells Davis that "when science shits the bed, I'm the guy they call to change the sheets"!
The three monsters begin making their way to Chicago to start smashing stuff up, attracted by a beacon emitting a sound only they can hear. Something "the tech guys rustled up overnight" at Energyne. Davis and Dr Caldwell also head to Chicago to try and help George and end the destruction, eventually aided by Harvey Russell.
Rampage has the potential to be a trainwreck, another casualty in the long line of awful video game movies, especially when there are so many CGI-heavy monster-city-smash movies out there these days. It all works surprisingly well though. When the monsters begin trashing things, it's not an over the top assault on the senses where you can't even make out any sign of human life and the affect that all of this is having on them. The action is well done and enjoyable, and peppered with plenty of trademark Dwayne Johnson humour too. Outside of the action, it's also Johnson that holds the rest of the movie together and prevents it from dipping below average. Dr Caldwell is a very underused and forgettable character, serving only as sidekick to The Rock. Everyone else, aside from Harvey Russell, is also pretty forgettable too. But then at the end of the day, this is all about George and his monster buddies, and overall I found this to be a very enjoyable movie.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Amélie (2001) in Movies
Sep 30, 2019
Beautiful Movie With a Beautiful Ending
You watch a film like Amelie and you leave thinking, “Some directors just have it figured out more than others.” This movie is pure genius from start to finish, one of my all-time faves for a number of reasons. In this story, Amelie seeks to change the world and make it a better place by helping the people around her.
Acting: 10
While I don’t know many of these actors since this a French film, I was impressed by the multitude of brilliant performances. Audrey Tautou shines as main character Amelie, carrying with her a sincere innocence that is hard not to gravitate towards. From the smaller roles, like Amelie’s parents, to the more pivotal roles, every actor/actress impressed me to no end.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
The movie revolves around Amelie’s sensational character. You are captivated by her from her very first moments on screen as a young child. She leads an interesting life that revolves around a number of interesting people. I know I’m being vague, but this is one of those films that’s best experienced when you know very little about it.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
A classic film is one that breaks the mold giving you something that you won’t find anywhere else. That is very much the case in Amelie as it carries a style all its own. The film is interwoven with grainy flashbacks that are uniquely done in unforgettable fashion. It is hard not to be captivated by these scenes as they unfold. I also appreciate how it dives into the challenges that shy introverts face on a daily basis.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Great story with enough diversions to keep you entertained throughout. It is such a simple idea, but is pulled off with complex characters and stories-within-stories. It’s almost disappointing when it ends.
Resolution: 10
Concludes just as it should. It gives you the ending that you hope for without overstaying its welcome. A nice bow on a beautiful present.
Overall: 100
We watch movies for an escape, to be captivated by something better than our own mundane lives. Amelie is magical from beginning to end and the greatest movie I never knew existed until recently. To put it simply, it is damn-near perfect.
Acting: 10
While I don’t know many of these actors since this a French film, I was impressed by the multitude of brilliant performances. Audrey Tautou shines as main character Amelie, carrying with her a sincere innocence that is hard not to gravitate towards. From the smaller roles, like Amelie’s parents, to the more pivotal roles, every actor/actress impressed me to no end.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
The movie revolves around Amelie’s sensational character. You are captivated by her from her very first moments on screen as a young child. She leads an interesting life that revolves around a number of interesting people. I know I’m being vague, but this is one of those films that’s best experienced when you know very little about it.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
A classic film is one that breaks the mold giving you something that you won’t find anywhere else. That is very much the case in Amelie as it carries a style all its own. The film is interwoven with grainy flashbacks that are uniquely done in unforgettable fashion. It is hard not to be captivated by these scenes as they unfold. I also appreciate how it dives into the challenges that shy introverts face on a daily basis.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Great story with enough diversions to keep you entertained throughout. It is such a simple idea, but is pulled off with complex characters and stories-within-stories. It’s almost disappointing when it ends.
Resolution: 10
Concludes just as it should. It gives you the ending that you hope for without overstaying its welcome. A nice bow on a beautiful present.
Overall: 100
We watch movies for an escape, to be captivated by something better than our own mundane lives. Amelie is magical from beginning to end and the greatest movie I never knew existed until recently. To put it simply, it is damn-near perfect.
Maddi Zoe (6 KP) rated Wonder (2017) in Movies
Feb 8, 2018
acting (2 more)
storyline
underlying message
Cute messages tugging at your heart strings
Based on the best-selling novel of the same name, Wonder, directed by Stephen Chbosky, is a wonderfully endearing and uplifting story about a boy, Auggie Pullman (Jacob Tremblay), who was born with Treacher Collins syndrome and has had several surgeries leaving him with facial deformities.
The movie starts as he is entering into fifth-grade, and actually going to school for the first time as he has previously been home schooled by his mother (Julia Roberts). He is understandably scared about not making friends, or being ridiculed by his classmates, but with the help of his Mum and Dad (Owen Wilson) he braves going to school and meets new people.
There are many moments of sadness, as you would expect, but there are also moments of great joy. I found myself crying from start to finish, riding on a rollercoaster of emotions.
There are a few mini storylines about other characters that get given the spotlight at different times as well, which is a nice change to when some films focus on just the one person, because we get to see other characters backgrounds, and why they act how they do.
The casting is brilliant, Tremblay plays Auggie excellently, bringing both emotion and sass to the character. He has been in a fair few things before, such as Before I Wake, but this role will definitely boost him into the spotlight.
Roberts and Wilson as the parents is also an excellent choice, Roberts gives an emotive performance, and it’s great to see Wilson in a serious role, whilst still bringing some light comic relief.
The cast has a lot of young actors, but there isn’t one that stands out as being stiff or unnatural, they are all brilliant and help to bring the feel of the movie together. The relationships between all the characters is brought to life really well by the actors.
The writing is brilliant, although it is based on a book so the story is there already, but the screenwriters, Chbosky, Steve Conrad and Jack Thorne, put it together for the screen really well.
There are some stand out quotes, that also come from the book, that make you stop and think, and the teacher, Mr Browne (Daveed Diggs), teaches the class about precepts such as ‘When given the choice between being right or being kind, choose kind’.
Overall, it’s a well-rounded family movie, that may change your outlook on some things in life. With such great casting, writing and direction, I’d be very surprised if it didn’t do well during awards season.
The movie starts as he is entering into fifth-grade, and actually going to school for the first time as he has previously been home schooled by his mother (Julia Roberts). He is understandably scared about not making friends, or being ridiculed by his classmates, but with the help of his Mum and Dad (Owen Wilson) he braves going to school and meets new people.
There are many moments of sadness, as you would expect, but there are also moments of great joy. I found myself crying from start to finish, riding on a rollercoaster of emotions.
There are a few mini storylines about other characters that get given the spotlight at different times as well, which is a nice change to when some films focus on just the one person, because we get to see other characters backgrounds, and why they act how they do.
The casting is brilliant, Tremblay plays Auggie excellently, bringing both emotion and sass to the character. He has been in a fair few things before, such as Before I Wake, but this role will definitely boost him into the spotlight.
Roberts and Wilson as the parents is also an excellent choice, Roberts gives an emotive performance, and it’s great to see Wilson in a serious role, whilst still bringing some light comic relief.
The cast has a lot of young actors, but there isn’t one that stands out as being stiff or unnatural, they are all brilliant and help to bring the feel of the movie together. The relationships between all the characters is brought to life really well by the actors.
The writing is brilliant, although it is based on a book so the story is there already, but the screenwriters, Chbosky, Steve Conrad and Jack Thorne, put it together for the screen really well.
There are some stand out quotes, that also come from the book, that make you stop and think, and the teacher, Mr Browne (Daveed Diggs), teaches the class about precepts such as ‘When given the choice between being right or being kind, choose kind’.
Overall, it’s a well-rounded family movie, that may change your outlook on some things in life. With such great casting, writing and direction, I’d be very surprised if it didn’t do well during awards season.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Dictator (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Sacha Baron Cohen is undoubtedly one of the most daring names in comedy recently. A Cambridge graduate, the comedian-actor who has starred in fairly controversial films “Bruno” and “Borat” returns with director Larry Charles in 2012’s “The Dictator”. What can be said about Cohen, over other contemporary comedians, is his absolutely excellent ability to inhabit a character role – both in and out of the film he is portrayed in. “The Dictator” is no exception to this, yet it might be the controversy regarding the Academy Awards snub that is remembered more than this film.
Cohen plays the hilariously named Admiral General Aladeen, a megalomaniacal dictator of a fictional oil-rich North African country named Waadeya. While on his trip to the UN to deliver a speech, he is thrown from his oppressive dictatorial role into that of a lost New Yorker, desperate to get back to his position as dictator. He meets others along the way to help him, namely Aasif Mandvi and Anna Farris.
The film’s plot is about as formulaic and basic as a comedy can get, simply serving as a vehicle to push from one joke to the next. If you were expecting any sort of compelling narrative, with jokes sprinkled throughout, then this movie will not be enjoyable. It completely rides upon its humor, which is both beneficial and detrimental. If the film at least attached you to particular characters other than Admiral General Aladeen then it might benefit more from its gags featuring multiple characters.
The real highlight of the film is Cohen’s consistent portrayal of this outrageous ruler. He is funny throughout; and even though he might be a horrible person with villainous qualities, he has a childish heart underneath. It is that mixture of qualities that makes for some very hilarious moments.
The actual jokes and gags themselves hold their own throughout. As mentioned, the film plods forward from one gag or joke to the next, with story simply setting up the scenes. Most of the jokes were grin worthy, and a handful of them were laugh-out-loud hilarious. Yet, overall I would not call it the funniest movie of the year. There’s a bit of everything in the movie. Sacha Baron Cohen’s trademark shocking and offensive humor will please the college moviegoers and his more clever witty humor will amuse older watchers. Yet, even the offensive humor appears to be more tame than his other movies’ most memorable moments. The whole film also deals heavily with contemporary political issues – specifically the power-obsessed dictators which have filled the news as of late. Cohen’s character pokes fun at both the absurdity of people like Colonel Ghadafi as well as the hangers-on who surround such people.
Overall, the movie maintains a consistent level of humor throughout. While that level of humor may remain at simply grin-level comedy, it still has a handful of laugh-out-loud moments. It might not be the funniest movie of the year, but it is by no means bad at what it does. A less formulaic plot would have benefited the movie’s gags by allowing other comedians in the movie to shine more. As it stands, it is a movie centered completely on Cohen’s comedy and held up by it as well. Not completely unlike the self-centered nature of his character, Admiral General Aladeen.
Cohen plays the hilariously named Admiral General Aladeen, a megalomaniacal dictator of a fictional oil-rich North African country named Waadeya. While on his trip to the UN to deliver a speech, he is thrown from his oppressive dictatorial role into that of a lost New Yorker, desperate to get back to his position as dictator. He meets others along the way to help him, namely Aasif Mandvi and Anna Farris.
The film’s plot is about as formulaic and basic as a comedy can get, simply serving as a vehicle to push from one joke to the next. If you were expecting any sort of compelling narrative, with jokes sprinkled throughout, then this movie will not be enjoyable. It completely rides upon its humor, which is both beneficial and detrimental. If the film at least attached you to particular characters other than Admiral General Aladeen then it might benefit more from its gags featuring multiple characters.
The real highlight of the film is Cohen’s consistent portrayal of this outrageous ruler. He is funny throughout; and even though he might be a horrible person with villainous qualities, he has a childish heart underneath. It is that mixture of qualities that makes for some very hilarious moments.
The actual jokes and gags themselves hold their own throughout. As mentioned, the film plods forward from one gag or joke to the next, with story simply setting up the scenes. Most of the jokes were grin worthy, and a handful of them were laugh-out-loud hilarious. Yet, overall I would not call it the funniest movie of the year. There’s a bit of everything in the movie. Sacha Baron Cohen’s trademark shocking and offensive humor will please the college moviegoers and his more clever witty humor will amuse older watchers. Yet, even the offensive humor appears to be more tame than his other movies’ most memorable moments. The whole film also deals heavily with contemporary political issues – specifically the power-obsessed dictators which have filled the news as of late. Cohen’s character pokes fun at both the absurdity of people like Colonel Ghadafi as well as the hangers-on who surround such people.
Overall, the movie maintains a consistent level of humor throughout. While that level of humor may remain at simply grin-level comedy, it still has a handful of laugh-out-loud moments. It might not be the funniest movie of the year, but it is by no means bad at what it does. A less formulaic plot would have benefited the movie’s gags by allowing other comedians in the movie to shine more. As it stands, it is a movie centered completely on Cohen’s comedy and held up by it as well. Not completely unlike the self-centered nature of his character, Admiral General Aladeen.
Lee (2222 KP) Jul 20, 2019
Andy K (10823 KP) Jul 20, 2019