Search
Search results
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 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 (3857 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).
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated T2 Trainspotting (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
The first time I saw Trainspotting was my senior year of high school. At the time, I knew that I wanted to get involved in film, and I really did for about ¾ of a year after I graduated. I looked at movies for their artistry and cinematography even at a young age. I was a band geek, so music was also things I would love about movies. I was deep for a 17-year-old, or so I thought any way. But I explain this to you so you don’t think that I loved this movie simply because of the drug use or humor it presented. I have always been of the mind to find something I like about a movie, watch it for what it is, and try to just find the enjoyment value (I know, weird coming from a film reviewer). I didn’t even have to try for Trainspotting. It was the complete package, and ground breaking. It also introduced me to Ewan McGregor, who is one of my favorite actors. I loved the movie so much, I bought Irvine Welsh’s book that the movie was based on of the same title, Trainspotting, which I highly recommend simply for the fact that it’s written in phonetic Scottish. I never picked up Porno, the literary sequel to Trainspotting, but I hear it is bizarre and will need to pick it up, but not because of this movie. I’ll explain in a moment.
Naturally, when the announcement was made for a second Trainspotting movie, I was both excited and terrified at the same time. The first was so good, why did Hollywood need to ruin it with a sequel that has a bigger budget. What was promising was that it was announced that the entire cast of characters (that survived from the first film) would be back, including Diane (Kelly MacDonald). But it’s been 20 years. Typically, when you see sequels come out even after only 10 years, the whole film seems a contrite, forced replication of the first. Hell, look at all the criticism for the Hangover films being exactly that, and they were only a few years apart. Whether the script feels forced just for the sake of a sequel, or the actors are trying too hard to be the character they played many years prior, it never quite works. So, as we neared the release date, I was getting more and more weary of seeing the film. Then, the trailer dropped.
Damn the trailer looked good. And I will tell you, the movie did not fall into the trap of forced sequels. The main cast came back and played the characters perfectly. Not as they were, but as the people they grew to be over the 20-year period. The plot was fun and pointless, with all of the same charm as its predecessor. I saw the movie with fellow SKNR staffer Joshua Aja, and we had a pretty good conversation following the film. We both came to the same conclusion, that neither of us could remember the last time we saw a film that just that good.
So now to the actual meat of the review itself. What was the movie about? Well, I won’t give away too much, but I will give you a quick recap of the events leading up to this film. Basically, do you remember the end of Trainspotting? Renton (Ewan McGregor), Spud (Ewen Bremner), Sick Boy (Jonny Lee Miller), and Begbie (Robert Carlyle) had successfully pulled off a heist, and Renton was making off with the money while everyone slept, except Spud of course who saw Renton leaving but didn’t say anything. As a result, Renton left Spud’s share of the cash for him in a locker. Okay; all caught up.
T2 Trainspotting picks up 20 years later. Renton comes back to Scotland because his mother passed away, he ends up reuniting with Spud, and eventually Sick Boy, who we now know by his real name, Simon. Begbie is in prison because, well… he’s Begbie, but he doesn’t stay there long. Tempers fly, old feelings flare, and not every reunited moment is met with glee. But soon enough, Renton, Simon and Spud are drawn into old habits, though not old drugs, and start to build money up to open a ‘sauna’ (read: undercover brothel) for Simon’s girlfriend, Veronika (Angela Nedyalkova). It’s not long before Begbie shows up and starts mucking things up leading to a suspenseful conclusion between Renton, Simon and Begbie.
That’s all I can say. There was an excellent use of the history from the first film, and of course we get another fantastic ‘Choose Life’ speech from Renton. The soundtrack, while not quite as good as the first, still holds its own very well. And be sure to look for the Bowie tribute, since it was he who helped Danny Boyle obtain a lot of music rights on the cheap for the first film. And, you will find Spud’s writings throughout the movie to be lifted, verbatim, from the Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh. But what’s interesting, is that there is not a lot that relates this film to the literary sequel, Porno. Much of the plot of this film is taken from, or at least inspired by, parts of the book that were not used in the first film. That combined with some new writing and storytelling from Irvine Welsh and John Hodge.
Bottom line: if you liked the Trainspotting even in the slightest, you will absolutely enjoy T2 Trainspotting. A phenomenal job by cast, crew, and writers, and an excellent soundtrack will leave you wanting a trilogy. This is only the third film I have given a perfect score to in my 7 years of reviewing films, and it is well deserved. Go see this movie.
Naturally, when the announcement was made for a second Trainspotting movie, I was both excited and terrified at the same time. The first was so good, why did Hollywood need to ruin it with a sequel that has a bigger budget. What was promising was that it was announced that the entire cast of characters (that survived from the first film) would be back, including Diane (Kelly MacDonald). But it’s been 20 years. Typically, when you see sequels come out even after only 10 years, the whole film seems a contrite, forced replication of the first. Hell, look at all the criticism for the Hangover films being exactly that, and they were only a few years apart. Whether the script feels forced just for the sake of a sequel, or the actors are trying too hard to be the character they played many years prior, it never quite works. So, as we neared the release date, I was getting more and more weary of seeing the film. Then, the trailer dropped.
Damn the trailer looked good. And I will tell you, the movie did not fall into the trap of forced sequels. The main cast came back and played the characters perfectly. Not as they were, but as the people they grew to be over the 20-year period. The plot was fun and pointless, with all of the same charm as its predecessor. I saw the movie with fellow SKNR staffer Joshua Aja, and we had a pretty good conversation following the film. We both came to the same conclusion, that neither of us could remember the last time we saw a film that just that good.
So now to the actual meat of the review itself. What was the movie about? Well, I won’t give away too much, but I will give you a quick recap of the events leading up to this film. Basically, do you remember the end of Trainspotting? Renton (Ewan McGregor), Spud (Ewen Bremner), Sick Boy (Jonny Lee Miller), and Begbie (Robert Carlyle) had successfully pulled off a heist, and Renton was making off with the money while everyone slept, except Spud of course who saw Renton leaving but didn’t say anything. As a result, Renton left Spud’s share of the cash for him in a locker. Okay; all caught up.
T2 Trainspotting picks up 20 years later. Renton comes back to Scotland because his mother passed away, he ends up reuniting with Spud, and eventually Sick Boy, who we now know by his real name, Simon. Begbie is in prison because, well… he’s Begbie, but he doesn’t stay there long. Tempers fly, old feelings flare, and not every reunited moment is met with glee. But soon enough, Renton, Simon and Spud are drawn into old habits, though not old drugs, and start to build money up to open a ‘sauna’ (read: undercover brothel) for Simon’s girlfriend, Veronika (Angela Nedyalkova). It’s not long before Begbie shows up and starts mucking things up leading to a suspenseful conclusion between Renton, Simon and Begbie.
That’s all I can say. There was an excellent use of the history from the first film, and of course we get another fantastic ‘Choose Life’ speech from Renton. The soundtrack, while not quite as good as the first, still holds its own very well. And be sure to look for the Bowie tribute, since it was he who helped Danny Boyle obtain a lot of music rights on the cheap for the first film. And, you will find Spud’s writings throughout the movie to be lifted, verbatim, from the Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh. But what’s interesting, is that there is not a lot that relates this film to the literary sequel, Porno. Much of the plot of this film is taken from, or at least inspired by, parts of the book that were not used in the first film. That combined with some new writing and storytelling from Irvine Welsh and John Hodge.
Bottom line: if you liked the Trainspotting even in the slightest, you will absolutely enjoy T2 Trainspotting. A phenomenal job by cast, crew, and writers, and an excellent soundtrack will leave you wanting a trilogy. This is only the third film I have given a perfect score to in my 7 years of reviewing films, and it is well deserved. Go see this movie.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Father Figures (2018) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Expectations, all of us have them and occasionally our expectations live up to exactly as we assume they will; other times, we are wrong. The movie Father Figures, a comedy film directed by Lawrence Sher and written by Justin Malen is not only about two brothers searching for their biological father, but the journey and the expectations that go along with the journey.
Peter Reynolds (Ed Helms) is a man who is disenchanted with his life. He’s a doctor who’s still struggling with his divorce from three years ago, and the prospects of connecting with a son who wants nothing to do with him. His fraternal twin brother Kyle, on the other hand, has the picture-perfect life. Wealthy for being nothing more than a surf bum on the beach and being at the right place at the right time; with a new baby on the way with his long-term (6 month) relationship.
An unlikely event opens Peter’s eyes to the life he has known; a life where the father he believed to be his died of colon cancer, which dictated his career and life choices. The event exposed the lies that their mother had told them and the man they believed to be their father all along, never was.
The realization sends the two brothers on a mission to discover who their real father is, and also discover a bit about themselves along the way. Their journey of discovery will take them from Florida to Massachusetts, and several places in-between. All of this, with of hopes of unraveling the mystery of who their real father is and what role, if any, he could fill in their existing lives.
Ed Helms, portrays his character brilliantly. A man who is kind, good-hearted and responsible. The one who even with all his good intentions, never feels like he is able to get ahead. Owen Wilson plays what I feel is one of his best roles to date, as the ying to Ed Helms yang, the happy-go-lucky, never have a care in the world character. The two have a chemistry on the screen that draws you into their personal struggles with lots of laughter along the way.
The cast of “fathers”, are all brilliantly portrayed, whether it’s Terry Bradshaw portraying himself; J. K. Simons, as the lovable “jerk”; and the always talented Christopher Walken as the family veterinarian Dr. Walter Tinkler. Glenn Close does an absolutely amazing performance as the brother’s mother Helen Baxter.
There are plenty of laughs to be had through the movie, but it’s the amount of heart that the movie shows that really drew me in. As I spoke in the beginning, about expectations, I myself had expectations that the movie would be just another slap-stick comedy, with the characters getting into one hilarious situation after another. While this certainly did happen (it is still a comedy after-all), none of the bits seemed outrageous or done for the sake of shock value. As with most movies that fall into this genre, there are scenes which some may feel provided nothing to the story, and were there simply for adolescent humor or to justify the R rating, but none of these detracted from the film as a whole. I didn’t expect to come out of this movie not only quoting some of the very memorable lines, but also reflecting on where their journey began and where it ended.
Father Figures is much more than a simple comedy, and it’s far more than simply a “who’s your daddy” adventure. It’s a movie about self-discovery and more importantly, the journey to get you there. The folks at Warner Bros. Pictures should be commended on not only the casting of the roles, but for producing a story they can be proud of.
Peter Reynolds (Ed Helms) is a man who is disenchanted with his life. He’s a doctor who’s still struggling with his divorce from three years ago, and the prospects of connecting with a son who wants nothing to do with him. His fraternal twin brother Kyle, on the other hand, has the picture-perfect life. Wealthy for being nothing more than a surf bum on the beach and being at the right place at the right time; with a new baby on the way with his long-term (6 month) relationship.
An unlikely event opens Peter’s eyes to the life he has known; a life where the father he believed to be his died of colon cancer, which dictated his career and life choices. The event exposed the lies that their mother had told them and the man they believed to be their father all along, never was.
The realization sends the two brothers on a mission to discover who their real father is, and also discover a bit about themselves along the way. Their journey of discovery will take them from Florida to Massachusetts, and several places in-between. All of this, with of hopes of unraveling the mystery of who their real father is and what role, if any, he could fill in their existing lives.
Ed Helms, portrays his character brilliantly. A man who is kind, good-hearted and responsible. The one who even with all his good intentions, never feels like he is able to get ahead. Owen Wilson plays what I feel is one of his best roles to date, as the ying to Ed Helms yang, the happy-go-lucky, never have a care in the world character. The two have a chemistry on the screen that draws you into their personal struggles with lots of laughter along the way.
The cast of “fathers”, are all brilliantly portrayed, whether it’s Terry Bradshaw portraying himself; J. K. Simons, as the lovable “jerk”; and the always talented Christopher Walken as the family veterinarian Dr. Walter Tinkler. Glenn Close does an absolutely amazing performance as the brother’s mother Helen Baxter.
There are plenty of laughs to be had through the movie, but it’s the amount of heart that the movie shows that really drew me in. As I spoke in the beginning, about expectations, I myself had expectations that the movie would be just another slap-stick comedy, with the characters getting into one hilarious situation after another. While this certainly did happen (it is still a comedy after-all), none of the bits seemed outrageous or done for the sake of shock value. As with most movies that fall into this genre, there are scenes which some may feel provided nothing to the story, and were there simply for adolescent humor or to justify the R rating, but none of these detracted from the film as a whole. I didn’t expect to come out of this movie not only quoting some of the very memorable lines, but also reflecting on where their journey began and where it ended.
Father Figures is much more than a simple comedy, and it’s far more than simply a “who’s your daddy” adventure. It’s a movie about self-discovery and more importantly, the journey to get you there. The folks at Warner Bros. Pictures should be commended on not only the casting of the roles, but for producing a story they can be proud of.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Greyhound (2020) in Movies
Aug 9, 2020
Hanks and Stephen Graham. (1 more)
Tense cat and mouse hunting
Grey but exciting.
Here's a great movie trivia question for you.... which 2020 movies link Claire Duburcq and Elizabeth Shue, and why? The answer is at the end of this review!
The battle of the Atlantic, which ran from 1939 to the end of the war, was a key battleground of World War 2. Failure to supply the European battlefront with fresh supplies and troops from the States would spell certain failure. (The wiki page addressing this is here.) But it's a field of combat that has been relatively overlooked at the movies. Of the handful of feature films, the most famous are that famously stiff-upper-lipped British offering "The Cruel Sea" from 1953 and Wolfgang Petersen's original 1981 U-boat film, "Das Boot", seeing it from the German's side.
Here, the subject gets the full Tom Hanks treatment. Not only does he star in the movie, but he also wrote it, based on the C.S. Forester novel "The Good Shepherd".
We join Captain Krause (Tom Hanks, with a strangely German-sounding name!) on dry land awaiting his beloved Evelyn (Elizabeth Shue) for a proposal. But that's the last dry land we see in the movie, since Krause is captaining the US destroyer "Greyhound" on its maiden voyage to protect a convoy of UK and US ships heading for England. But danger lurks beneath the waves as a pack of U-boats attempt to sink as many vessels as possible.
The issue with a movie about a war-time transatlantic crossing is that the ships are grey, the sky is grey and the sea is grey. It's a monochromatic and rather depressing context for a movie. To combat that, the CGI used to recreate the action needs to be good, and thankfully the film delivers in that department.
Where I had quibbles - and I'm not sure whether this was in Hank's original screenplay or the result of director Aaron Schneider's attempts at "added flair" - was in stopping the action mid-scene for a zoom up above the clouds to see the Aurora Borealis. Unnecessary and distracting.
Where the film really scores is in the tense action sequences. As a viewer, I found myself straining forwards in my seat for the "ping" of the sonar! The cat and mouse games being played out with the hidden foe are certainly well done.... albeit a colleague of mine refuses to watch it because "torpedoes don't bounce off the sides of ships" as shown in the trailer!
Perhaps what might have made the film richer still would have been the view from the German side. Another star name as the 'heard but never seen' mocking U-boat commander might have turned this into even more of a Shakespearean battle-royale.
Overall, this is an enthralling and enjoyable watch that I would recommend. Tom Hanks delivers YET another compelling captain role. It seems to be the rank that he naturally gravitates to.... having the gravitas to command, but not being too far removed from the common man. Here he is supported by the omnipresent Stephen Graham, also equally good.
It's a great shame that this never got the wide-screen cinematic release, because Greyhound deserved it. Who knows, perhaps with cinemas spasmodically opening up, there's still time for a national release. That would be good, and I'd certainly go and see it again on the big screen.
And, by the way, the answer to my trivia question is this film - Greyhound - and 1917. The reason being that in both movies the actresses named were the sole female players within the whole cast.
(For the full graphical review, please visit https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/01/one-manns-movies-film-review-greyhound-2020/ .)
The battle of the Atlantic, which ran from 1939 to the end of the war, was a key battleground of World War 2. Failure to supply the European battlefront with fresh supplies and troops from the States would spell certain failure. (The wiki page addressing this is here.) But it's a field of combat that has been relatively overlooked at the movies. Of the handful of feature films, the most famous are that famously stiff-upper-lipped British offering "The Cruel Sea" from 1953 and Wolfgang Petersen's original 1981 U-boat film, "Das Boot", seeing it from the German's side.
Here, the subject gets the full Tom Hanks treatment. Not only does he star in the movie, but he also wrote it, based on the C.S. Forester novel "The Good Shepherd".
We join Captain Krause (Tom Hanks, with a strangely German-sounding name!) on dry land awaiting his beloved Evelyn (Elizabeth Shue) for a proposal. But that's the last dry land we see in the movie, since Krause is captaining the US destroyer "Greyhound" on its maiden voyage to protect a convoy of UK and US ships heading for England. But danger lurks beneath the waves as a pack of U-boats attempt to sink as many vessels as possible.
The issue with a movie about a war-time transatlantic crossing is that the ships are grey, the sky is grey and the sea is grey. It's a monochromatic and rather depressing context for a movie. To combat that, the CGI used to recreate the action needs to be good, and thankfully the film delivers in that department.
Where I had quibbles - and I'm not sure whether this was in Hank's original screenplay or the result of director Aaron Schneider's attempts at "added flair" - was in stopping the action mid-scene for a zoom up above the clouds to see the Aurora Borealis. Unnecessary and distracting.
Where the film really scores is in the tense action sequences. As a viewer, I found myself straining forwards in my seat for the "ping" of the sonar! The cat and mouse games being played out with the hidden foe are certainly well done.... albeit a colleague of mine refuses to watch it because "torpedoes don't bounce off the sides of ships" as shown in the trailer!
Perhaps what might have made the film richer still would have been the view from the German side. Another star name as the 'heard but never seen' mocking U-boat commander might have turned this into even more of a Shakespearean battle-royale.
Overall, this is an enthralling and enjoyable watch that I would recommend. Tom Hanks delivers YET another compelling captain role. It seems to be the rank that he naturally gravitates to.... having the gravitas to command, but not being too far removed from the common man. Here he is supported by the omnipresent Stephen Graham, also equally good.
It's a great shame that this never got the wide-screen cinematic release, because Greyhound deserved it. Who knows, perhaps with cinemas spasmodically opening up, there's still time for a national release. That would be good, and I'd certainly go and see it again on the big screen.
And, by the way, the answer to my trivia question is this film - Greyhound - and 1917. The reason being that in both movies the actresses named were the sole female players within the whole cast.
(For the full graphical review, please visit https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/01/one-manns-movies-film-review-greyhound-2020/ .)
