Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Greyhound (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
Snore...
Based on a C.S. Forester novel The Good Shepherd, and a screenplay by Mr Tom Hanks himself, Greyhound is the latest movie to feature Hanks in the role of brave Captain, returning once more to World War II territory. Any hopes that this might be a return to the grand heights of Saving Private Ryan though are soon laid to rest.
Set in 1942, Hanks plays Captain Ernest Krause, responsible for one of only a handful of warships as they escort and protect an even larger number of merchant vessels making the journey across the Atlantic Ocean with vital supplies for England. They will be entering what’s known as ‘the black pit’ – a stretch of Ocean too far out at sea for any aerial cover to be provided by the countries on either side. For a few days, they will be on their own, and at the mercy of any German U-boats they may encounter.
Greyhound wastes no time in landing us right in the thick of it all, joining the crew as they enter the black pit, and sticking with them while they attempt to make it to relative safety on the other side. Obviously, it’s not long before a number of U-boats target the fleet of vessels and begin trying to pick them off in a tense game of cat and mouse at sea.
There is a LOT of nautical jargon in Greyhound and twenty minutes in, I was already feeling exhausted just trying to follow it all and gain any kind of enjoyment out of the movie. Despite throwing the occasion title up on screen to tell us which vessel we’re looking at out on the gloomy CGI seas, it’s also not always clear which ship is which, or who’s firing at who either. That attention to detailed dialogue really doesn’t let up one bit either, making what is only a 91 minute movie feel so much longer.
By throwing us straight into the action, we’re also given no time to learn or even care about any of the characters. Krause is only given a couple of brief flashback scenes, showing us with his partner two months earlier, played by Elizabeth Shue. Other than knowing this is his first Atlantic crossing, and that he is fully committed to the job in hand, refusing to eat any of the hot meals regularly brought to him by the ship’s cook, we’re provided very little information about our Captain.
The crew are also there just to fire off updates to their Captain and respond to his commands, providing no character development whatsoever for them either and giving us nothing to feel invested in, other than a desire for them all to make it safely to England.
With the focus of the movie entirely on the crew and setting of the Greyhound, we only hear from other characters via radio – calls for support from the other vessels, or psychological jaunts from the Germans on the U-boat. Again, by not giving us the viewpoint of any other side or vessel, it all makes for a very one dimensional and dull ride. Definitely not one of Tom Hanks finest.
Set in 1942, Hanks plays Captain Ernest Krause, responsible for one of only a handful of warships as they escort and protect an even larger number of merchant vessels making the journey across the Atlantic Ocean with vital supplies for England. They will be entering what’s known as ‘the black pit’ – a stretch of Ocean too far out at sea for any aerial cover to be provided by the countries on either side. For a few days, they will be on their own, and at the mercy of any German U-boats they may encounter.
Greyhound wastes no time in landing us right in the thick of it all, joining the crew as they enter the black pit, and sticking with them while they attempt to make it to relative safety on the other side. Obviously, it’s not long before a number of U-boats target the fleet of vessels and begin trying to pick them off in a tense game of cat and mouse at sea.
There is a LOT of nautical jargon in Greyhound and twenty minutes in, I was already feeling exhausted just trying to follow it all and gain any kind of enjoyment out of the movie. Despite throwing the occasion title up on screen to tell us which vessel we’re looking at out on the gloomy CGI seas, it’s also not always clear which ship is which, or who’s firing at who either. That attention to detailed dialogue really doesn’t let up one bit either, making what is only a 91 minute movie feel so much longer.
By throwing us straight into the action, we’re also given no time to learn or even care about any of the characters. Krause is only given a couple of brief flashback scenes, showing us with his partner two months earlier, played by Elizabeth Shue. Other than knowing this is his first Atlantic crossing, and that he is fully committed to the job in hand, refusing to eat any of the hot meals regularly brought to him by the ship’s cook, we’re provided very little information about our Captain.
The crew are also there just to fire off updates to their Captain and respond to his commands, providing no character development whatsoever for them either and giving us nothing to feel invested in, other than a desire for them all to make it safely to England.
With the focus of the movie entirely on the crew and setting of the Greyhound, we only hear from other characters via radio – calls for support from the other vessels, or psychological jaunts from the Germans on the U-boat. Again, by not giving us the viewpoint of any other side or vessel, it all makes for a very one dimensional and dull ride. Definitely not one of Tom Hanks finest.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Annabelle Comes Home (2019) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Enjoyable, not as good as Annabelle Creation
Annabelle Comes Home is the third standalone movie for the creepy looking doll since her introduction during the original Conjuring movie. It's also the seventh feature movie from the ever expanding 'Conjuring Universe', a series of movies that have seen wildly varying degrees of quality and success thus far. I tend to start my reviews for this series of movies by declaring my love for the first Conjuring, before wishing that the latest release I'm reviewing might actually match that. But so far the only other movie in the series to come anywhere close to doing that for me was the last Annabelle movie - Annabelle Creation. So, I had very high hopes for this next Annabelle installment.
After venturing into the past with the previous Annabelle movies, Annabelle Comes Home begins by expanding on the events of The Conjuring. The Warrens take the Annabelle doll into their care in order to keep it safe in their home, under lock and key in their famous artefact room. The car journey home is an eventful one though and it is a real joy to be back in the company of Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga and their portrayal of paranormal investigators, Ed and Lorraine Warren. Their characters, and their performances, have been the most enjoyable aspect of these movies for me and this opening chapter with them gets things off to a great start. With Annabelle in the artefact room, blessed by the local priest and contained in a cabinet made out of chapel glass, the evil is contained. And Annabelle is now home.
From there we shift forward a year, where the focus of the movie turns to the Warren's 10 year old daughter Judy (Mckenna Grace). Her parents occupation and reputation is clearly having an effect on her life, with other children at school poking fun at her and refusing to come to her birthday party at the creepy Warren house. That uncomfortable, uneasy feeling of having a room in your house where unspeakable evil is being contained probably doesn't help things either! When her parents have to go away one night, friendly babysitter Mary Ellen comes over to take care of Judy, stepping in to the role of much needed friend. Mary Ellen's friend Daniela arrives to join them a little bit later, uninvited and proving to be a little less straight-laced than Mary Ellen is.
Daniela is currently grieving from the recent loss of her father and is suffering with strong feelings of guilt surrounding the circumstances of his death. She is clearly fascinated and intrigued by the work of the Warrens, so while Mary Ellen and Judy are outside rollerskating, she wastes no time in hunting down the keys to the artefact room so that she can take a poke around inside. As Daniela slowly and carefully examines the room and its many contents for us, it's clear that we're getting a pretty good introduction to the variety of horrors set to be unleashed on the girls in some form later on in the movie. It's a slow buildup though, and on top of the babysitter buildup we've had so far, it's probably a good 45 minutes into the movie before anything substantial happens. I read my review of Annabelle Creation before seeing this movie, and I'd noted that following a similar pattern, with very good results, so I wasn't overly concerned by all of that if the payoff was worth it.
The thing is though, when things do start going a little crazy, the results aren't entirely successful. To be fair, there are some genuinely creepy and very well executed scares. But there are also plenty that don't work so well too. Some new spirits are introduced too, no doubt destined to have their own spin-off movie at some point - 'The Ferryman', who guides souls into the afterlife and requires payment of two coins placed on the eyes of the dead, and the 'Hellhound of Essex'. One of those works considerably well, the other just being distracting and silly.
Despite it's slow-burn start, and it's generic baby-sitter horror setting, I definitely enjoyed Annabelle Comes Home. It's certainly not as good as either of The Conjuring movies, or Annabelle Creation, but it's definitely much better than The Nun or The Curse of La Llorona.
After venturing into the past with the previous Annabelle movies, Annabelle Comes Home begins by expanding on the events of The Conjuring. The Warrens take the Annabelle doll into their care in order to keep it safe in their home, under lock and key in their famous artefact room. The car journey home is an eventful one though and it is a real joy to be back in the company of Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga and their portrayal of paranormal investigators, Ed and Lorraine Warren. Their characters, and their performances, have been the most enjoyable aspect of these movies for me and this opening chapter with them gets things off to a great start. With Annabelle in the artefact room, blessed by the local priest and contained in a cabinet made out of chapel glass, the evil is contained. And Annabelle is now home.
From there we shift forward a year, where the focus of the movie turns to the Warren's 10 year old daughter Judy (Mckenna Grace). Her parents occupation and reputation is clearly having an effect on her life, with other children at school poking fun at her and refusing to come to her birthday party at the creepy Warren house. That uncomfortable, uneasy feeling of having a room in your house where unspeakable evil is being contained probably doesn't help things either! When her parents have to go away one night, friendly babysitter Mary Ellen comes over to take care of Judy, stepping in to the role of much needed friend. Mary Ellen's friend Daniela arrives to join them a little bit later, uninvited and proving to be a little less straight-laced than Mary Ellen is.
Daniela is currently grieving from the recent loss of her father and is suffering with strong feelings of guilt surrounding the circumstances of his death. She is clearly fascinated and intrigued by the work of the Warrens, so while Mary Ellen and Judy are outside rollerskating, she wastes no time in hunting down the keys to the artefact room so that she can take a poke around inside. As Daniela slowly and carefully examines the room and its many contents for us, it's clear that we're getting a pretty good introduction to the variety of horrors set to be unleashed on the girls in some form later on in the movie. It's a slow buildup though, and on top of the babysitter buildup we've had so far, it's probably a good 45 minutes into the movie before anything substantial happens. I read my review of Annabelle Creation before seeing this movie, and I'd noted that following a similar pattern, with very good results, so I wasn't overly concerned by all of that if the payoff was worth it.
The thing is though, when things do start going a little crazy, the results aren't entirely successful. To be fair, there are some genuinely creepy and very well executed scares. But there are also plenty that don't work so well too. Some new spirits are introduced too, no doubt destined to have their own spin-off movie at some point - 'The Ferryman', who guides souls into the afterlife and requires payment of two coins placed on the eyes of the dead, and the 'Hellhound of Essex'. One of those works considerably well, the other just being distracting and silly.
Despite it's slow-burn start, and it's generic baby-sitter horror setting, I definitely enjoyed Annabelle Comes Home. It's certainly not as good as either of The Conjuring movies, or Annabelle Creation, but it's definitely much better than The Nun or The Curse of La Llorona.
Leigh J (71 KP) rated Dancer in the Dark (2000) in Movies
Nov 17, 2019 (Updated Nov 17, 2019)
I cried... and cried... and cried
Contains spoilers, click to show
Selma (played by Björk) is an immigrant living and working a Factory job in America to support her son, who also lives with her. She suffers from a degenerative Eye disease that leads of complete blindness and has found out that this condition is hereditary and her son will go blind also if he doesn't get Surgery soon. Determined to save the money for the operation so her Son won't go blind, Selma cheats eye tests and makes out that she's less blind than she really is so that she can continue work. One night, she and her Landlord whom she considers to be a trusted friend, are having a conversation, when he suddenly breaks down and confides in Selma that he is completely broke and cannot tell his Wife, who is used to a life of luxury. Feeling empathy for her friend; Selma reveals to him that she is going blind and that she is saving money for her son to have the operation to save his own sight. Disgustingly, the "friend" steals her money and gives Selma no other option but to kill him, but promise to keep what he told her secret. Selma, in her sweet naivety and generally being a good person, keeps his secret... even when she is arrested and faced with a life or death situation. Will Selma reveal the secret and save herself? Will her son be able to get the operation he needs? Or will Selma's determination not to break the trust of another mean sacrificing everything?
I'll start by saying I'm not a fan of Musicals at all. With the exception of Rocky Horror Picture Show and Grease; they make me cringe in embarrassment. The only reason I gave this a go is because a) I'm a HUGE Lars Von Trier fan and b) Björk!! However,this is a musical that made me cry like a baby almost all the way through. It's incredibly tragic (even the songs) and is sad enough to reduce even the most hardened Movie-goer to a puddle of teary mess. It's such a beautiful Movie that I recommend you watch it without hesitation however... have plenty of Tissues ready. There will be tears.
I'll start by saying I'm not a fan of Musicals at all. With the exception of Rocky Horror Picture Show and Grease; they make me cringe in embarrassment. The only reason I gave this a go is because a) I'm a HUGE Lars Von Trier fan and b) Björk!! However,this is a musical that made me cry like a baby almost all the way through. It's incredibly tragic (even the songs) and is sad enough to reduce even the most hardened Movie-goer to a puddle of teary mess. It's such a beautiful Movie that I recommend you watch it without hesitation however... have plenty of Tissues ready. There will be tears.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Despicable Me 2 (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The second installment of Dreamwork’s Despicable Me franchise had me laughing out loud repeatedly throughout the movie. Getting the biggest laughs, like in the first movie, were the antics of the Minions, the formerly felonious Gru’s eager assistants. While the first Despicable Me actually had me tearing up at some points, I think overall I laughed more during this one.
Although Gru (voiced by Steve Carrell), and his daughters Margo, Edith and Agnes are the main characters, the Minions steal many scenes. Watch for references to The Love Boat and the Village People when the Minions go on vacation.
The main story line introduces us to the Anti Villain League, an organization that that sends a resourceful agent named Lucy (voiced by Kristin Wiig) to contact (kidnap!) Gru in order to help them find the villain who is stealing a serum that turns things monstrous. Resistant at first, Gru acquiesces, and what follows is a quick-paced and laugh-out-loud funny tale of good vs. bad as Gru and Lucy work to solve the mystery of who the culprit is. During all this Gru also shows us how much of a doting and protective father he’s become to his girls.
In a slightly predictable sub-plot, Gru both fends off, and finds, love! We saw the movie in 3D, which I normally do not do, as it frequently makes me feel slightly ill, however, in this instance it was totally fitting, and completely drew us into the story and the characters.
Although Gru (voiced by Steve Carrell), and his daughters Margo, Edith and Agnes are the main characters, the Minions steal many scenes. Watch for references to The Love Boat and the Village People when the Minions go on vacation.
The main story line introduces us to the Anti Villain League, an organization that that sends a resourceful agent named Lucy (voiced by Kristin Wiig) to contact (kidnap!) Gru in order to help them find the villain who is stealing a serum that turns things monstrous. Resistant at first, Gru acquiesces, and what follows is a quick-paced and laugh-out-loud funny tale of good vs. bad as Gru and Lucy work to solve the mystery of who the culprit is. During all this Gru also shows us how much of a doting and protective father he’s become to his girls.
In a slightly predictable sub-plot, Gru both fends off, and finds, love! We saw the movie in 3D, which I normally do not do, as it frequently makes me feel slightly ill, however, in this instance it was totally fitting, and completely drew us into the story and the characters.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Rango (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Y’all want to know what Rango is about? Have a seat by the camp fire and I’ll tell ya. The chameleon that would one day be known as Rango (voiced by Johnny Depp) begins the movie as a pet, traveling across the desert with a human family in their SUV. However, fate or perhaps the Spirit of the West (voiced by Timothy Olyphant) has other plans for him. Soon he is separated from his human family and he meets a wise armadillo named Roadkill (voiced by Alfred Molina) who tells him about the Spirit of the West, fate and, more importantly to him, where to find water.
Fans of Johnny Depp will recognize an amazing reference, tribute if you will, to the 1998 movie Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas that starred the actor. On his way to the nearest town where he can get some water, he meets one of the locals, a young lady lizard named Beans (voiced by Isla Fisher) who offers him a ride to the edge of town, a town aptly named Dirt. As he tries to fit in with the locals he realizes that he can reinvent himself here, so he gives himself the name Rango but thanks to a lie that he told to the guys in the saloon he soon finds himself in a showdown with one of the meanest gangs in town. Through a very funny turn of events he not only survives but becomes the town hero. In honor of his victory the Mayor (voiced by Ned Beatty) offers him the job of sheriff which Rango gladly accepts.
Soon after, the limited water supply in town disappears and it is up to Rango (along with some quirky townfolk) to solve the mystery and save Dirt. Along his journey, Rango eventually comes to a point where he must decide what kind of lizard he wants to be, a hero of the people or a person who just plays one. Will he make the right choices? Will he find the water? Will he save the town? See the movie to find out the answers to these questions and more.
I have seen many family movies that were very entertaining for the kids but extremely boring for the adults. Luckily Rangois not one of those movies. Not only does the movie have a very talented voice cast, it also has entertaining action that enhances the story instead of over-powering or taking away from it. The visuals were so realistic that at times I almost forgot it was an animated film and it has plenty of humor to make the audience laugh, regardless of age.
At the end of the movie as we all were heading towards the exit I overhead a person saying to their friends how the movie actually felt like the old westerns that they had watched growing up and I found myself agreeing. The story unfolded with a natural flow, beautiful scenery and wild west action that kept the audience engaged from start to finish.
Fans of Johnny Depp will recognize an amazing reference, tribute if you will, to the 1998 movie Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas that starred the actor. On his way to the nearest town where he can get some water, he meets one of the locals, a young lady lizard named Beans (voiced by Isla Fisher) who offers him a ride to the edge of town, a town aptly named Dirt. As he tries to fit in with the locals he realizes that he can reinvent himself here, so he gives himself the name Rango but thanks to a lie that he told to the guys in the saloon he soon finds himself in a showdown with one of the meanest gangs in town. Through a very funny turn of events he not only survives but becomes the town hero. In honor of his victory the Mayor (voiced by Ned Beatty) offers him the job of sheriff which Rango gladly accepts.
Soon after, the limited water supply in town disappears and it is up to Rango (along with some quirky townfolk) to solve the mystery and save Dirt. Along his journey, Rango eventually comes to a point where he must decide what kind of lizard he wants to be, a hero of the people or a person who just plays one. Will he make the right choices? Will he find the water? Will he save the town? See the movie to find out the answers to these questions and more.
I have seen many family movies that were very entertaining for the kids but extremely boring for the adults. Luckily Rangois not one of those movies. Not only does the movie have a very talented voice cast, it also has entertaining action that enhances the story instead of over-powering or taking away from it. The visuals were so realistic that at times I almost forgot it was an animated film and it has plenty of humor to make the audience laugh, regardless of age.
At the end of the movie as we all were heading towards the exit I overhead a person saying to their friends how the movie actually felt like the old westerns that they had watched growing up and I found myself agreeing. The story unfolded with a natural flow, beautiful scenery and wild west action that kept the audience engaged from start to finish.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
May 18, 2018 (Updated May 18, 2018)
Some razor sharp lines of dialogue (2 more)
Clever direction
Extremely funny from start to finish
The Merc With A Mouth Is Back
Contains spoilers, click to show
Deadpool 2 is the kind of sequel that knows exactly what it is. It doesn't pretend to be anything original and it's main focus is getting a laugh out of it's audience over anything else. It succeeds greatly at this with the film being hilarious throughout and it comes very close to being as funny as it's predecessor, it just doesn't quite get there. I think that the main reason for this is because it chooses to focus more on a story than the last one did and through that, the humour loses some of the momentum that it builds up.
Okay, spoilers from here on out. If you haven't seen it yet, why the hell not? Go to the cinema right now.
Although the first movies laughs have better momentum, an argument could be made for this movie's individual lines being funnier. My particular favourite was the jab Deadpool has at his creator Rob Liefeld for not being able to draw feet properly in his comics.
I loved how they chose to show off Domino's powers. Her power of 'luck,' could have came across really lame onscreen, but David Leitch's fantastic direction helped it to come across brilliantly. I also loved the cameos, from the room full of X-Men, to Brad Pitt as the Vanisher.
When they killed Vanessa at the start of the movie, I was disappointed as I was looking forward to seeing her character develop in this movie and I felt like just killing her off to give Deadpool motivation for his arc in the movie was pretty lazy. Then, they immediately rectified it with the hilarious Bond-esque opening title sequence. Then I thought that they were going to make Vanessa become Death, who is Deadpool's love interest in the comics because he has so many encounters with her, but at the end of the movie we see Deadpool going back in time to reverse her death from happening, which also sort of negates a lot of the emotional beats that the movie surprisingly managed to hit during it's finale.
The Juggernaught is the movie's surprise villain and while it is nice to see him in his comic accurate form, the CGI used is really cartoony and even hard to swallow in a surreal superhero movie like this one.
However, that's not why anybody watches a Deadpool movie. If I was looking for deep, meaningful character arcs and realistic CGI, there are a ton of other movies for that. Deadpool is there to make you laugh and there is no doubt that it succeeds at that.
There are some comedic moments that feel oddly dated, like the constant references to dubstep for example and I feel like they missed a trick not bringing up the fact that the director was swapped out during the film's production or the real life scandals involving TJ Miller, but every joke earns at least a chuckle, which justifies it's place in the film. It may not as quite as novel because we have seen it before, but there are plenty of scenes in here that will have you laughing out loud in the cinema and fans of the character will not be disappointed.
Okay, spoilers from here on out. If you haven't seen it yet, why the hell not? Go to the cinema right now.
Although the first movies laughs have better momentum, an argument could be made for this movie's individual lines being funnier. My particular favourite was the jab Deadpool has at his creator Rob Liefeld for not being able to draw feet properly in his comics.
I loved how they chose to show off Domino's powers. Her power of 'luck,' could have came across really lame onscreen, but David Leitch's fantastic direction helped it to come across brilliantly. I also loved the cameos, from the room full of X-Men, to Brad Pitt as the Vanisher.
When they killed Vanessa at the start of the movie, I was disappointed as I was looking forward to seeing her character develop in this movie and I felt like just killing her off to give Deadpool motivation for his arc in the movie was pretty lazy. Then, they immediately rectified it with the hilarious Bond-esque opening title sequence. Then I thought that they were going to make Vanessa become Death, who is Deadpool's love interest in the comics because he has so many encounters with her, but at the end of the movie we see Deadpool going back in time to reverse her death from happening, which also sort of negates a lot of the emotional beats that the movie surprisingly managed to hit during it's finale.
The Juggernaught is the movie's surprise villain and while it is nice to see him in his comic accurate form, the CGI used is really cartoony and even hard to swallow in a surreal superhero movie like this one.
However, that's not why anybody watches a Deadpool movie. If I was looking for deep, meaningful character arcs and realistic CGI, there are a ton of other movies for that. Deadpool is there to make you laugh and there is no doubt that it succeeds at that.
There are some comedic moments that feel oddly dated, like the constant references to dubstep for example and I feel like they missed a trick not bringing up the fact that the director was swapped out during the film's production or the real life scandals involving TJ Miller, but every joke earns at least a chuckle, which justifies it's place in the film. It may not as quite as novel because we have seen it before, but there are plenty of scenes in here that will have you laughing out loud in the cinema and fans of the character will not be disappointed.
Caitlyn Ould (6 KP) rated Love, Simon (2018) in Movies
Jan 21, 2019
Love in a good form
I loved the book that this movie is based on so, so much. It was one of the best books that I read in 2018 along with it's sequel Leah on the Offbeat. And this was one of the best movies that I saw in 2018. The acting is superb and it's so relevant to today's society and culture with the pop culture references of Harry Potter, Brendon Urie, and even a Hamilton Easter Egg which I enjoyed. It also touches your heart and has a lot of themes to do with family at the very core and learning to let people see you for who you really are
GPS Recorder X
Navigation and Lifestyle
App
The “GPS Recorder X” is a recorder capable of operating in all kinds of measuring environments...
David McK (3562 KP) rated Death on the Nile (2022) in Movies
Apr 10, 2022
The second of Kenneth Branagh's outing as Agatha Christie's sleuth Poirot, apparently much delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic, and set after The Murder on the Orient Express.
I've never seen that movie.
I have read the book on which it (Murder on Orient Express) is based, though.
As I'm not that big a fan of murder mysteries, I hadn't, however, read the story on which this is based.
Why does that matter?
Simply because it meant I was going into this with no preconceptions; no real idea of what would happen (other than there would be a murder which Poirot has to solve)!
I'm not sure whether the rest of Agatha Christie's Poirot novels are all like this or not - I've only read Murder on Orient Express and Murder of Roger Ackroyd, but I did find heavy similarities between the plots, with both Orient Express and is film largely taking place in a confined location, where there is a limited pool of suspects and where Poirot has to sit down and methodically think his way through.
This movie takes a while to get going, with the first hour or so in particular - I found - dragging quite a bit. I've also heard that there was extensive use of Green screen throughout, which might also explain why some of the Nile scenes just didn't sit quite right.
On the other hand, there is a veritable list of who's who acting talent on the screen: aside from Branagh himself, we have Gal Gadot (as the key victim), Emma Mackey, Arnie Hammer, Russel Brand (surprisingly understated), Annette Benning, Dawn French, Jennifer Saunders (yes, that French and Saunders!), Letitia Wright and Sophie Okonedo - nearly all of whom would have their own motives for the murder.
I've never seen that movie.
I have read the book on which it (Murder on Orient Express) is based, though.
As I'm not that big a fan of murder mysteries, I hadn't, however, read the story on which this is based.
Why does that matter?
Simply because it meant I was going into this with no preconceptions; no real idea of what would happen (other than there would be a murder which Poirot has to solve)!
I'm not sure whether the rest of Agatha Christie's Poirot novels are all like this or not - I've only read Murder on Orient Express and Murder of Roger Ackroyd, but I did find heavy similarities between the plots, with both Orient Express and is film largely taking place in a confined location, where there is a limited pool of suspects and where Poirot has to sit down and methodically think his way through.
This movie takes a while to get going, with the first hour or so in particular - I found - dragging quite a bit. I've also heard that there was extensive use of Green screen throughout, which might also explain why some of the Nile scenes just didn't sit quite right.
On the other hand, there is a veritable list of who's who acting talent on the screen: aside from Branagh himself, we have Gal Gadot (as the key victim), Emma Mackey, Arnie Hammer, Russel Brand (surprisingly understated), Annette Benning, Dawn French, Jennifer Saunders (yes, that French and Saunders!), Letitia Wright and Sophie Okonedo - nearly all of whom would have their own motives for the murder.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Palm Springs (2020) in Movies
Apr 14, 2021
Cristin Milioti - a breakout comedy role (1 more)
Nice variants on Groundhog Day
Did anyone order Groundhog for Two?
Nyles (Andy Samberg) is reliving the same day over and over again at a wedding in Palm Springs. Suddenly joining him in the loop is fellow wedding guest Sarah (Cristin Milioti). The no-hoper man has given up trying to find a way to break the spell. Can the more intelligent woman succeed? Or if not, can they find satisfaction and – who knows – love in the never-ending grind of eternity?
Positives:
- So, it's obviously a retread of "Groundhog Day" (so 1/5 for originality), but it has some fresh fun with the concept.
- It starts off at the "town dance" stage of G/D, where Bill Murray's character has lived enough lives to perfect everything. This is a smart move, and allows those of the audience 'in the know' (which I would guess is 80%+) the joy of getting to the fun bits early.
- It also luxuriates in having two (actually, more than two) people experiencing the 'phenomenon'. This leads to some truly hilarious scenes of Nyles and Sarah living life to the max.
- Because this dynamic duo can talk to each other, we get deeper existential discussion about the downsides of eternity and what life is all about.
- The best comedies also have some element of pathos as well, to mix the highs with some lows, and this movie does that nicely. The despair felt by Nyles at one point in the movie is heartfelt and moving.
- The element of female empowerment in here (no spoilers) is very 2020's and entertaining.
- The mushroom-induced hallucinations (again, no spoilers) made me laugh.
- I wasn't familiar with either Samberg (who is a regular in TVs "Brooklyn Nine-Nine") or Milioti. Samberg was fine, but came across a bit "Saturday Night Live cookie-cutter". Milioti though is a real comedic find, nicely filling the sort of young-kooky-woman space that the younger Sarah Silverman used to do in movies. One to watch.
Negatives:
- The movie starts off at such a pace that the minority of the audience not familiar with the "Groundhog Day" concepts will have a "WTF" attitude and possibly turn them off during the first 20 minutes. (There is explanation, but it takes this long).
- The movie is rude. Very rude. This doesn't bother me, but it does shift the viewing options away from the "Groundhog Day" set and more towards the "Hangover" set. This will limit the audience, so I'm not sure it was a wise move by the writers.
Thoughts:
Of all the films showing this week, this one seems to have the most hype through social media: "SEE THIS, YOU'LL LOVE IT" screamed the posts. And - don't get me wrong - it's pretty good and has more than the requisite half-dozen laugh-out-loud moments to merit being called a comedy. But - perhaps my expectations were too high - it's no where near, in my book anyway the 5* classic that "Groundhog Day" was. Any any movie that borrows so much from the plot of that film has to be prepared to be directly compared and rated against it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the version on One Mann's Movies here: https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/14/palm-springs-did-anyone-order-groundhog-for-two/ . Thanks).
Positives:
- So, it's obviously a retread of "Groundhog Day" (so 1/5 for originality), but it has some fresh fun with the concept.
- It starts off at the "town dance" stage of G/D, where Bill Murray's character has lived enough lives to perfect everything. This is a smart move, and allows those of the audience 'in the know' (which I would guess is 80%+) the joy of getting to the fun bits early.
- It also luxuriates in having two (actually, more than two) people experiencing the 'phenomenon'. This leads to some truly hilarious scenes of Nyles and Sarah living life to the max.
- Because this dynamic duo can talk to each other, we get deeper existential discussion about the downsides of eternity and what life is all about.
- The best comedies also have some element of pathos as well, to mix the highs with some lows, and this movie does that nicely. The despair felt by Nyles at one point in the movie is heartfelt and moving.
- The element of female empowerment in here (no spoilers) is very 2020's and entertaining.
- The mushroom-induced hallucinations (again, no spoilers) made me laugh.
- I wasn't familiar with either Samberg (who is a regular in TVs "Brooklyn Nine-Nine") or Milioti. Samberg was fine, but came across a bit "Saturday Night Live cookie-cutter". Milioti though is a real comedic find, nicely filling the sort of young-kooky-woman space that the younger Sarah Silverman used to do in movies. One to watch.
Negatives:
- The movie starts off at such a pace that the minority of the audience not familiar with the "Groundhog Day" concepts will have a "WTF" attitude and possibly turn them off during the first 20 minutes. (There is explanation, but it takes this long).
- The movie is rude. Very rude. This doesn't bother me, but it does shift the viewing options away from the "Groundhog Day" set and more towards the "Hangover" set. This will limit the audience, so I'm not sure it was a wise move by the writers.
Thoughts:
Of all the films showing this week, this one seems to have the most hype through social media: "SEE THIS, YOU'LL LOVE IT" screamed the posts. And - don't get me wrong - it's pretty good and has more than the requisite half-dozen laugh-out-loud moments to merit being called a comedy. But - perhaps my expectations were too high - it's no where near, in my book anyway the 5* classic that "Groundhog Day" was. Any any movie that borrows so much from the plot of that film has to be prepared to be directly compared and rated against it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the version on One Mann's Movies here: https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/14/palm-springs-did-anyone-order-groundhog-for-two/ . Thanks).
