Search
Search results
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.
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.
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.
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.