Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020 (Updated Jan 26, 2020)
Fantastic performances from two old acting pros.
Being inaugurated as a new pope in the last century must have been a source of enormous pride. But there must also have been a nagging thought... at some point you are going to be paraded, stiff as a board, around your work courtyard before being taken back inside to your place of work and buried there!
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
The Lord of the Rings Sketchbook: Portfolio
Book
A sumptuous large-format hardback containing sketches and paintings from the illustrated Lord of the...
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Jul 19, 2017
Some of the lighting is well implemented (1 more)
Colin Farrell
Bad CGI (2 more)
The movies 3 leads are extremely annoying
Johnny 'oooh' Depp
Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them - Or JK Rowling and the Never Ending Quest for More Money
Contains spoilers, click to show
First off, full disclosure, I have never been a fan of the Harry Potter franchise. I’ve read a few of the books and seen a few of the movies and it just isn’t my thing. Honestly, I’m not even a fan of fantasy in general, I think Lord Of The Rings is nonsense and Game Of Thrones is vastly overrated and the last Harry Potter movie I saw was the fourth one. However, I was willing to go into this movie with a clean slate and hopefully have it win me over and unfortunately it didn’t. Also this review will contain spoilers if you care about that sort of thing.
This film is a prequel to the other Harry Potter movies, this time set in America rather than Britain and telling the story of the events that led to the great wizarding war between Dumbledore and Grindlewald. The film did have potential, to see what would have essentially been WWII fought with magic could be really cool but unfortunately all we get here is setup and that actual event we want to see will probably take place 4 or 5 movies down the line. The film opens with Eddie Redmayne’s character, Newt Scamander going to New York from London to set free one of the beasts that he keeps inside his Tardis-like brief case. Then he ends up in a bank and meets a ‘Nomaj,’ which is this film’s lazy version of a ‘muggle,’ who we learn is a simple lonely guy that just wants to open his own bakery and that’s another character cliché ticked off the list. We now have the double act of the nerdy, sniveling protagonist and the overweight sympathetic sidekick. Also, for the rest of this review I will be referring to the baker character as fat bloke and this isn’t to be derogatory, but is purely because the script relies on the, ‘fat, jolly, sympathetic, pathetic loner’ stereotype and passes it off as a character arc. If the script isn’t treating the character with any respect, then why should I? So fat bloke it is then.
So the two of them of course have the exact same briefcase and after some cartoony looking CGI animals escape from Redmayne’s case in the bank the suitcases predictably get mixed up and then the fat bloke gets his bakery loan declined and returns home with Redmayne’s suitcase, then more bad CGI animals open the case and attack the fat bloke. Redmayne’s character then gets arrested by some wizarding inspector for letting the, ‘Nomaj,’ (urgh) get away after seeing the animals in the case and is taken to the New York Wizards base, I guess? Then it’s revealed that the wizarding inspector that arrested Redmayne is a bit of a shit inspector and she is trying to redeem herself in the eyes of her superiors, so in front of this high wizard council, she confiscates the case from Redmayne and opens it only to reveal a bunch of cakes inside. Yes, really… Who writes this shit? Rowling is doing to Harry Potter what Lucas did to Star Wars during the prequels at this point.
So Redmayne gets set free and he goes to fat bloke’s house to find him lying on the floor, then some more bad CGI later the inspector turns up and they take him back to her house to meet her sister? Friend? Does it matter? She ends up becoming the love interest for fat bloke. Then for no apparent reason Redmayne and fat bloke enter the case and he shows fat bloke all this crazy shit that apparently humans aren’t supposed to see and then Redmayne does some more sniveling and decides they have to sneak out of the girls’ apartment and recapture the animals that escaped in the bank and from fat bloke’s apartment. They get a couple of the beasts back then they go to central park to find Redmayne’s horny rhino and they dress fat bloke up in a leather rhino costume and use him as rape bait then they ice skate for a bit and capture the rhino. Again, really… I am not making this shit up for satirical reasons.
Then we see a real life prick Ezra Miller playing some sort of weird emo child who is beat by his mother and we see he is working with Colin Farrell to find a big bad dark spirit that is killing people around New York. Colin Farrell is definitely the best thing about the film at this point. After this a bunch of other stupid shit happens, like Ron Perlman and John Voight coming into the movie, showing a ray of potential then being totally wasted. The movie drags in the middle, but eventually after some more fat jokes, bad CGI and sniveling, all of the creatures are captured and Ezra Miller turns into a black death cloud or some such nonsense. Then he is boosting around New York, fucking up shit as he goes and so Redmayne and Farrell follow him down to the subway to stop him. Redmayne seems to be talking him down and then Farrell shows up and essentially tells him to join the dark side. Then there is a CGI wand battle and the council from earlier show up out of nowhere and kill the black cloud of death. Then Colin Farrell gets pissed off and in the best scene in the movie murders half of the council members before he gets arrested by Eddie Redmayne with some magic handcuffs.
Then the worst part in the movie takes place. It is revealed that Colin Farrell is actually Johnny Depp in disguise. I mean he is Grindlewald in disguise but the important part for me is the replacement of Colin Farrell with Johnny Depp. Now I’m not the world’s biggest Colin Farrell fan, he is great in, ‘In Bruges,’ but other than that he is pretty meh, but he was definitely the best thing that this movie had going for it and they fucking swapped him out! With fucking Johnny-‘ooh’-Depp. As if this movie wasn’t shit enough they swapped out the best thing about it for Johnny Depp, the biggest joke in Hollywood. I’m done, fuck this movie, fuck Johnny Depp, fuck JK Rowling, fuck Harry Potter, I’m out.
Okay, let’s briefly talk about the technical side of the film before I score this thing. The whole cast of this movie is phoning it in, so the acting is fine but nothing to write home about, Farrell is the best thing in this movie, but I feel that in the sequels it will just be an ‘ooh,’ off between Depp and Redmayne. The direction is okay as the movie plods along sufficiently, but the writing is wildly inconsistent and the plot as stated above is all over the place. The lighting and cinematography in one scene are fantastic, when Farrell and Miller are conversing in a dark alleyway but other than that they are pretty mundane too. The score is suitably Harry Potter like and the CGI is also to a similar standard of the Harry Potter films. The problem with that is that the CGI was ropey and of a fairly poor standard in the Harry Potter movies 10 years ago and it doesn’t seem like it has improved much since then. This movie isn’t for me, but even from an objective standpoint, based solely from a moviemaking perspective this movie is poor.
This film is a prequel to the other Harry Potter movies, this time set in America rather than Britain and telling the story of the events that led to the great wizarding war between Dumbledore and Grindlewald. The film did have potential, to see what would have essentially been WWII fought with magic could be really cool but unfortunately all we get here is setup and that actual event we want to see will probably take place 4 or 5 movies down the line. The film opens with Eddie Redmayne’s character, Newt Scamander going to New York from London to set free one of the beasts that he keeps inside his Tardis-like brief case. Then he ends up in a bank and meets a ‘Nomaj,’ which is this film’s lazy version of a ‘muggle,’ who we learn is a simple lonely guy that just wants to open his own bakery and that’s another character cliché ticked off the list. We now have the double act of the nerdy, sniveling protagonist and the overweight sympathetic sidekick. Also, for the rest of this review I will be referring to the baker character as fat bloke and this isn’t to be derogatory, but is purely because the script relies on the, ‘fat, jolly, sympathetic, pathetic loner’ stereotype and passes it off as a character arc. If the script isn’t treating the character with any respect, then why should I? So fat bloke it is then.
So the two of them of course have the exact same briefcase and after some cartoony looking CGI animals escape from Redmayne’s case in the bank the suitcases predictably get mixed up and then the fat bloke gets his bakery loan declined and returns home with Redmayne’s suitcase, then more bad CGI animals open the case and attack the fat bloke. Redmayne’s character then gets arrested by some wizarding inspector for letting the, ‘Nomaj,’ (urgh) get away after seeing the animals in the case and is taken to the New York Wizards base, I guess? Then it’s revealed that the wizarding inspector that arrested Redmayne is a bit of a shit inspector and she is trying to redeem herself in the eyes of her superiors, so in front of this high wizard council, she confiscates the case from Redmayne and opens it only to reveal a bunch of cakes inside. Yes, really… Who writes this shit? Rowling is doing to Harry Potter what Lucas did to Star Wars during the prequels at this point.
So Redmayne gets set free and he goes to fat bloke’s house to find him lying on the floor, then some more bad CGI later the inspector turns up and they take him back to her house to meet her sister? Friend? Does it matter? She ends up becoming the love interest for fat bloke. Then for no apparent reason Redmayne and fat bloke enter the case and he shows fat bloke all this crazy shit that apparently humans aren’t supposed to see and then Redmayne does some more sniveling and decides they have to sneak out of the girls’ apartment and recapture the animals that escaped in the bank and from fat bloke’s apartment. They get a couple of the beasts back then they go to central park to find Redmayne’s horny rhino and they dress fat bloke up in a leather rhino costume and use him as rape bait then they ice skate for a bit and capture the rhino. Again, really… I am not making this shit up for satirical reasons.
Then we see a real life prick Ezra Miller playing some sort of weird emo child who is beat by his mother and we see he is working with Colin Farrell to find a big bad dark spirit that is killing people around New York. Colin Farrell is definitely the best thing about the film at this point. After this a bunch of other stupid shit happens, like Ron Perlman and John Voight coming into the movie, showing a ray of potential then being totally wasted. The movie drags in the middle, but eventually after some more fat jokes, bad CGI and sniveling, all of the creatures are captured and Ezra Miller turns into a black death cloud or some such nonsense. Then he is boosting around New York, fucking up shit as he goes and so Redmayne and Farrell follow him down to the subway to stop him. Redmayne seems to be talking him down and then Farrell shows up and essentially tells him to join the dark side. Then there is a CGI wand battle and the council from earlier show up out of nowhere and kill the black cloud of death. Then Colin Farrell gets pissed off and in the best scene in the movie murders half of the council members before he gets arrested by Eddie Redmayne with some magic handcuffs.
Then the worst part in the movie takes place. It is revealed that Colin Farrell is actually Johnny Depp in disguise. I mean he is Grindlewald in disguise but the important part for me is the replacement of Colin Farrell with Johnny Depp. Now I’m not the world’s biggest Colin Farrell fan, he is great in, ‘In Bruges,’ but other than that he is pretty meh, but he was definitely the best thing that this movie had going for it and they fucking swapped him out! With fucking Johnny-‘ooh’-Depp. As if this movie wasn’t shit enough they swapped out the best thing about it for Johnny Depp, the biggest joke in Hollywood. I’m done, fuck this movie, fuck Johnny Depp, fuck JK Rowling, fuck Harry Potter, I’m out.
Okay, let’s briefly talk about the technical side of the film before I score this thing. The whole cast of this movie is phoning it in, so the acting is fine but nothing to write home about, Farrell is the best thing in this movie, but I feel that in the sequels it will just be an ‘ooh,’ off between Depp and Redmayne. The direction is okay as the movie plods along sufficiently, but the writing is wildly inconsistent and the plot as stated above is all over the place. The lighting and cinematography in one scene are fantastic, when Farrell and Miller are conversing in a dark alleyway but other than that they are pretty mundane too. The score is suitably Harry Potter like and the CGI is also to a similar standard of the Harry Potter films. The problem with that is that the CGI was ropey and of a fairly poor standard in the Harry Potter movies 10 years ago and it doesn’t seem like it has improved much since then. This movie isn’t for me, but even from an objective standpoint, based solely from a moviemaking perspective this movie is poor.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Casablanca (1942) in Movies
Mar 12, 2018 (Updated Mar 12, 2018)
Enduringly popular wartime romantic drama is also sparklingly quotable and (not often mentioned) works as an allegory about the Second World War - Western Europe (Henreid and Bergman) would really like the help of America (Bogart) to escape from the clutches of Nazi Germany (Veidt); France (Rains) is in two minds about the whole thing.
Despite the fact this is regularly studied as an example of a perfectly-constructed story, it's probably best not to look too closely at some elements of the plot. The performances and dialogue are so winning that you give the movie a pass on this anyway. Everyone has their favourite Casablanca moment, whether it's one of the romantic bits, one of the jokes, a song, or whatever. Beyond simply being made with skill and sincerity, it's quite hard to determine what makes this film quite so special, but the fact remains that it is deservedly a legend.
Despite the fact this is regularly studied as an example of a perfectly-constructed story, it's probably best not to look too closely at some elements of the plot. The performances and dialogue are so winning that you give the movie a pass on this anyway. Everyone has their favourite Casablanca moment, whether it's one of the romantic bits, one of the jokes, a song, or whatever. Beyond simply being made with skill and sincerity, it's quite hard to determine what makes this film quite so special, but the fact remains that it is deservedly a legend.
David McK (3562 KP) rated Extinction in Books
Aug 11, 2024 (Updated Aug 11, 2024)
I remember, back in the mid to late 90s, reading both 'Relic' and it's sequel 'Reliquary', and quite enjoying the both of them.
(The movie 'Relic', on the other hand, was a bit of a dud).
They're the only 2 novels by Douglas Preston I'd ever read, until I decided to give this one a go based on both the premise (extinct animals being brought back to life) and the blurb.
I knew it wouldn't be a 'Jurassic Park' (which is name-checked) scenario; wasn't quite sure what it would be. What I got was an enjoyable enough read that put me in mind of something from the late Michael Crichton: I also have to say that, whilst I didn't get either the specifics nor who was behind it (or the reason), I did see what was coming from just over roughly the halfway mark!
(The movie 'Relic', on the other hand, was a bit of a dud).
They're the only 2 novels by Douglas Preston I'd ever read, until I decided to give this one a go based on both the premise (extinct animals being brought back to life) and the blurb.
I knew it wouldn't be a 'Jurassic Park' (which is name-checked) scenario; wasn't quite sure what it would be. What I got was an enjoyable enough read that put me in mind of something from the late Michael Crichton: I also have to say that, whilst I didn't get either the specifics nor who was behind it (or the reason), I did see what was coming from just over roughly the halfway mark!
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Hate U Give (2018) in Movies
Feb 11, 2019
Masterpiece, One of the Best of 2018
After witnessing a murder, black high school student Starr Carter (Amandla Stenberg) decides to stand up against racism while dealing with her own internal conflict of self-identity.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
The toughest part about critiquing is having to say something isn’t perfect, but not really having any ideas as to how to fix it. The beginning was…good. Characters are introduced as you meet the Carter family for the first time. It definitely could have been better, however. I felt it dragged on for slightly too long, but at the same time I understand director George Tillman Jr. was going for an emotional connection. While it could’ve been better, it is solid enough of a start to get you into the movie.
Characters: 10
The film revolves around Starr and her family. Each family member contributes to the overall dynamic of the story. You can see how Starr is shaped by her strong father Maverick (Russell Hornsby) who is all about standing up for what’s right and protecting the family at all costs. Her mother Lisa (Regina Hall) just wants Starr to have a better life than herself growing up. Starr recognizes that and tries to embrace it, but also feels guilty while doing so. It was therapeutic watching Starr evolve into a woman after feeling so powerless in the earlygoings of the film. All of these characters, even those outside of the Carter family, have depth and add value to the story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 8
Memorability: 10
The Hate U Give is packed with twists and turns that you don’t expect or see coming. It really is a small world that we live in, too small to go around hating each other. The film succeeds by showing us just how small this world is. There are a number of memorable scenes that remain etched in my brain long after watching the movie. It’s one of those films that stays with you, leaving you with cause for much thought.
Pace: 9
There were a few spots where the build-up was a bit slow, but it’s not a major issue that impacts the movie as a whole. This goes back to what I was mentioning in the beginning. Not perfect, but I’m not sure how much I would have done differently than Tillman Jr. For the most part, the movie is highly entertaining and has a consistent flow.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Ended just the way it should, not with some fairytale conclusion, but reality. Thank God for justice, but the movie leaves us with the full understanding that there is still work yet to be done. Very strong messaging.
Overall: 95
The Hate U Give is not your typical race war movie as it pushes for peace in coexistence and challenges the ideas of self-identification. The dynamics involved here are truly interesting as you see a black vs. white vs. hood life going on and what happens when lines cross. With a solid cast and story, it is not a surprise that this is one of my favorite films of 2018.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
The toughest part about critiquing is having to say something isn’t perfect, but not really having any ideas as to how to fix it. The beginning was…good. Characters are introduced as you meet the Carter family for the first time. It definitely could have been better, however. I felt it dragged on for slightly too long, but at the same time I understand director George Tillman Jr. was going for an emotional connection. While it could’ve been better, it is solid enough of a start to get you into the movie.
Characters: 10
The film revolves around Starr and her family. Each family member contributes to the overall dynamic of the story. You can see how Starr is shaped by her strong father Maverick (Russell Hornsby) who is all about standing up for what’s right and protecting the family at all costs. Her mother Lisa (Regina Hall) just wants Starr to have a better life than herself growing up. Starr recognizes that and tries to embrace it, but also feels guilty while doing so. It was therapeutic watching Starr evolve into a woman after feeling so powerless in the earlygoings of the film. All of these characters, even those outside of the Carter family, have depth and add value to the story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 8
Memorability: 10
The Hate U Give is packed with twists and turns that you don’t expect or see coming. It really is a small world that we live in, too small to go around hating each other. The film succeeds by showing us just how small this world is. There are a number of memorable scenes that remain etched in my brain long after watching the movie. It’s one of those films that stays with you, leaving you with cause for much thought.
Pace: 9
There were a few spots where the build-up was a bit slow, but it’s not a major issue that impacts the movie as a whole. This goes back to what I was mentioning in the beginning. Not perfect, but I’m not sure how much I would have done differently than Tillman Jr. For the most part, the movie is highly entertaining and has a consistent flow.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Ended just the way it should, not with some fairytale conclusion, but reality. Thank God for justice, but the movie leaves us with the full understanding that there is still work yet to be done. Very strong messaging.
Overall: 95
The Hate U Give is not your typical race war movie as it pushes for peace in coexistence and challenges the ideas of self-identification. The dynamics involved here are truly interesting as you see a black vs. white vs. hood life going on and what happens when lines cross. With a solid cast and story, it is not a surprise that this is one of my favorite films of 2018.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Lego Batman Movie (2017) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
All Hail the Bricks
LEGO may have just single-handedly saved the DC Universe. Yep, you heard me right; the construction toy has come to the aid of one of the comic-book heavyweights in spectacular fashion.
Of course, this is not the first time the world’s biggest toy company has released a film. 2014’s LEGO Movie catapulted the popular bricks into the minds of more people than ever before, it was an astounding success, and deserved every inch.
Now, they’re back with The LEGO Batman Movie, a film with so many side jokes and movie references, it’s impossible to spot them all the first time around.
There are some big changes brewing in the city of Gotham, but if Batman (Will Arnett) wants to save the city from the Joker’s (Zach Galifianakis) hostile takeover, he may have to drop the lone vigilante shtick, try to work with others and perhaps, learn to lighten up; if that’s humanly possible. Maybe his superhero sidekick Robin (voiced by Michael Cera) and loyal butler Alfred (played by Ralph Fiennes) can show him a thing or two?
After depressing cinema-goers with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and the studio interference that caused Suicide Squad to be a hideous mess (which is referenced in the flick marvellously), DC was in serious trouble – its universe was unravelling before it had even got going. Marvel certainly had nothing to worry about from its biggest rival, but that may have changed after this.
Everything from the voice acting to the ridiculously dry script and exceptional animation makes The LEGO Batman Movie a treat for children and adults. There are references to: get ready… Jurassic Park, Harry Potter, Doctor Who, Gremlins, The Lord of the Rings and every single Batman film to name but a few, all expertly placed within a story that betters any DC film before it.
The cast gels together perfectly. Will Arnett clearly had a ball playing the caped crusader, channelling Ben Affleck and Christian Bale flawlessly. Michael Cera gives his best performance in years and Ralph Fiennes is great as Alfred. Would you believe me if I said Mariah Carey even got in on the action? Well, she does. There are small roles for Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill and Eddie Izzard too.
Elsewhere, the animation is of course, blocky. Beautifully so in fact. It’s always exciting seeing individual locations transformed into LEGO and Gotham is no exception. It’s rendered to an exquisite standard with each and every frame stuffed to the brim with colour and detail. The music is also a highlight throughout with Lorne Balfe’s faithful score juxtaposed with some original songs and classic pop hits.
Overall, The LEGO Batman Movie was always going to be a gamble, but perhaps less of a risk considering the low quality of DC’s current crop of films. With some great animation, a genuinely funny and at times heart-warming story and a cast that works together incredibly well, it’s a cracking addition to the ever-expanding superhero genre.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/02/11/all-hail-the-bricks-the-lego-batman-movie-review/
Of course, this is not the first time the world’s biggest toy company has released a film. 2014’s LEGO Movie catapulted the popular bricks into the minds of more people than ever before, it was an astounding success, and deserved every inch.
Now, they’re back with The LEGO Batman Movie, a film with so many side jokes and movie references, it’s impossible to spot them all the first time around.
There are some big changes brewing in the city of Gotham, but if Batman (Will Arnett) wants to save the city from the Joker’s (Zach Galifianakis) hostile takeover, he may have to drop the lone vigilante shtick, try to work with others and perhaps, learn to lighten up; if that’s humanly possible. Maybe his superhero sidekick Robin (voiced by Michael Cera) and loyal butler Alfred (played by Ralph Fiennes) can show him a thing or two?
After depressing cinema-goers with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and the studio interference that caused Suicide Squad to be a hideous mess (which is referenced in the flick marvellously), DC was in serious trouble – its universe was unravelling before it had even got going. Marvel certainly had nothing to worry about from its biggest rival, but that may have changed after this.
Everything from the voice acting to the ridiculously dry script and exceptional animation makes The LEGO Batman Movie a treat for children and adults. There are references to: get ready… Jurassic Park, Harry Potter, Doctor Who, Gremlins, The Lord of the Rings and every single Batman film to name but a few, all expertly placed within a story that betters any DC film before it.
The cast gels together perfectly. Will Arnett clearly had a ball playing the caped crusader, channelling Ben Affleck and Christian Bale flawlessly. Michael Cera gives his best performance in years and Ralph Fiennes is great as Alfred. Would you believe me if I said Mariah Carey even got in on the action? Well, she does. There are small roles for Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill and Eddie Izzard too.
Elsewhere, the animation is of course, blocky. Beautifully so in fact. It’s always exciting seeing individual locations transformed into LEGO and Gotham is no exception. It’s rendered to an exquisite standard with each and every frame stuffed to the brim with colour and detail. The music is also a highlight throughout with Lorne Balfe’s faithful score juxtaposed with some original songs and classic pop hits.
Overall, The LEGO Batman Movie was always going to be a gamble, but perhaps less of a risk considering the low quality of DC’s current crop of films. With some great animation, a genuinely funny and at times heart-warming story and a cast that works together incredibly well, it’s a cracking addition to the ever-expanding superhero genre.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/02/11/all-hail-the-bricks-the-lego-batman-movie-review/
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Sons of Anarchy - Season 1 in TV
Jul 21, 2017
The Sins of The Father Are Visited On The Sons…
When this show initially premiered I dismissed it entirely. I instantly assumed that it was just some manly, cheesy rubbish that wasn’t worth my time. How small minded of me. It was only after the caretaker in my work recommended that I give it a go that I went back to it. For the first few episodes, it seemed as though I was right. A bunch of leather clad manly bikers shooting up rival gangs and blowing stuff up, but stick with this show and you will see just how deep the rabbit hole really goes. The writing here is phenomenal, the show was created and co-written by Kurt Sutter, who also plays Otto in the show. He is clearly a literary genius, as he also penned The Shield, as well as the recent, brilliantly written Jake Gyllenhall boxing movie, Southpaw. The show follows a gang of bikers called SAMCRO, (the Sons of Anarchy Motorcycle Club Redwood Original,) loosely based on the real life biker gang, The Hell’s Angels, (a few of which’s members actually have cameo roles in the show,) our protagonist is a young man named Jackson Teller, he is the son of John Teller, the original founder of the biker gang. Soon after Jax was born, his father was killed in a traffic collision, although it is suspected that there is more to his death than just that. Since then his mother Gemma has remarried to the current President of the gang, a man called Clay Morrow, who was also John Teller’s best friend and who co-founded the gang along with JT. When the show begins Jax is Clay’s Vice president, or VP and when Clay begins to lead the club on what Jax sees as a more violent, destructive path, he opposes him and he seeks a way to maintain the club, without having to kill anyone or take part in any shady business. Clay sees Jax as an idealist and tells him so, but Jax is persistent in his ideals, as he believes that this is the way that his Father would have wanted the club to be ran. The supporting cast of characters also add a lot to the overarching plot and each have their own respective back stories. There is Tara, Jax’s ex girlfriend, whom he falls back in love with, Gemma, who is Jax’s mother and the matriarch of the club, then there is Tig, Clay’s triggerman initially, but as the show goes on we see that he has a softer side, then there is Opie, Jax’s best friend from a young age who initially wants to leave the biker life behind, but after certain events in the first season of the show unfold, circumstances force him to stay by Jax’s side. There is also Chibs, the Scotsman who doesn’t mess about when it comes to dealing with a problem, there is also Happy, an emotional psychopath who is also played brilliantly by a real life ex Hell’s Angel member. Then there is Juice, a young Latino man who struggles with his personal demons throughout the show and lastly there is Bobby Elvis, another older member of the group who may be a big softie on the cover, but can also handle himself if anyone tries to cross him. From after the first season, the plot begins to twist and turn as we witness several double crosses and multiple agendas come into play and one of my favourite things about this show is that even though Jax is clearly the protagonist, he isn’t always the good guy and he makes some questionable decisions when he is put under pressure. I don’t want to say much else as I’m worried that I will spoil the show, but it definitely is worth your time and I would definitely recommend this show to anyone who is interested in a good crime saga.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Zombie Tidal Wave (2019) in Movies
Jun 3, 2020
A zombie film made for the SyFy Channel starring Ian Ziering you say? Sign me up.
While out fishing a group of friends catch something sinister. They haul a putrid looking dead body out of the water and very quickly realise that it isn't quite as dead as they'd have hoped. That body is the first in an army of the undead that takes over the town as an unexpected tidal wave gives them a helping hand.
Is this film bad? Yes. Is it an entertaining watch? Also yes, but on that SyFy Original movie level of yes.
Bless Ian Ziering and his movie decision. In Zombie Tidal Wave (I really love saying the whole title) he plays Hunter, a fisherman who's about to leave town for a fresh start. Hunter is everything you hope he will be. I also noticed on IMDb that Ziering has a story credit... well colour me surprised... it's a super-duper amazing tale about zombies by the sea.
I'm not going to insult you by saying that this would win any awards, we all know it wouldn't even without watching it. It wouldn't even win a Razzie, that's how good it is! Everything about this is in fact distinctly average, apart from the following...
That story... it's got a great idea with twists and turns that "make sense". It could almost have been a serious zombie film if someone at some point hadn't gone "You know what? We need more." "More what?" "Everything."
Those special effects... are terrible. I have never seen such badly CGId water, and that's something you should take seriously coming from someone who has seen as many made for TV movies as I have.
The consistency... there are facts about locations and objects that the film just throws out the window, there are some continuity errors as well... but while that sounds like a bad thing it's really an essential part of the enjoyment/
This couldn't be a typical review so to complete it I just want to share with you some of my notes/interactions with the film, I'll include some cryptic highlights to look out for too.
- The zombie that must have unnaturally long legs or be standing on a zombie pyramid.
- Synchronised swimming zombies.
- I snort laughed so hard at a big reveal point that I nearly choked on my breakfast.
- A stunning Bond girl moment that might have been the best shot of the film.
- The different densities of glass.
- The Sharknado reference.
- ... and the result of that reference.
- Douchebag and his girlfriend.
- Family banter with a zombie.
- "Reinforcements".
- Zombie's styling flip flops.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/zombie-tidal-wave-movie-review.html
While out fishing a group of friends catch something sinister. They haul a putrid looking dead body out of the water and very quickly realise that it isn't quite as dead as they'd have hoped. That body is the first in an army of the undead that takes over the town as an unexpected tidal wave gives them a helping hand.
Is this film bad? Yes. Is it an entertaining watch? Also yes, but on that SyFy Original movie level of yes.
Bless Ian Ziering and his movie decision. In Zombie Tidal Wave (I really love saying the whole title) he plays Hunter, a fisherman who's about to leave town for a fresh start. Hunter is everything you hope he will be. I also noticed on IMDb that Ziering has a story credit... well colour me surprised... it's a super-duper amazing tale about zombies by the sea.
I'm not going to insult you by saying that this would win any awards, we all know it wouldn't even without watching it. It wouldn't even win a Razzie, that's how good it is! Everything about this is in fact distinctly average, apart from the following...
That story... it's got a great idea with twists and turns that "make sense". It could almost have been a serious zombie film if someone at some point hadn't gone "You know what? We need more." "More what?" "Everything."
Those special effects... are terrible. I have never seen such badly CGId water, and that's something you should take seriously coming from someone who has seen as many made for TV movies as I have.
The consistency... there are facts about locations and objects that the film just throws out the window, there are some continuity errors as well... but while that sounds like a bad thing it's really an essential part of the enjoyment/
This couldn't be a typical review so to complete it I just want to share with you some of my notes/interactions with the film, I'll include some cryptic highlights to look out for too.
- The zombie that must have unnaturally long legs or be standing on a zombie pyramid.
- Synchronised swimming zombies.
- I snort laughed so hard at a big reveal point that I nearly choked on my breakfast.
- A stunning Bond girl moment that might have been the best shot of the film.
- The different densities of glass.
- The Sharknado reference.
- ... and the result of that reference.
- Douchebag and his girlfriend.
- Family banter with a zombie.
- "Reinforcements".
- Zombie's styling flip flops.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/zombie-tidal-wave-movie-review.html
Nickg24 (492 KP) rated Dolemite Is My Name (2019) in Movies
Oct 29, 2019
Murphy back to his best
Based on the true story of comedy and rap pioneer rudy ray moore,this is a delightful film that should launch eddie murphy back into the big time.
Murphy plays Moore,an entertainer desperately seeking that one break through moment that will lead to him becoming famous.That break eventually comes to him in the form of his outlandish and adult only records and stand up routine to the making and eventually success of his dolemite movie.
Murphy is at his very best here,delivering the hilarity and warmth of moore but also letting his other co-stars shine around him as well.A special mention has to go to wesley snipes as well who is hilarious as the co star and director of the dolemite movie who is always drunk off his ass and prone to the occasional temper tantrum.
Murphy plays Moore,an entertainer desperately seeking that one break through moment that will lead to him becoming famous.That break eventually comes to him in the form of his outlandish and adult only records and stand up routine to the making and eventually success of his dolemite movie.
Murphy is at his very best here,delivering the hilarity and warmth of moore but also letting his other co-stars shine around him as well.A special mention has to go to wesley snipes as well who is hilarious as the co star and director of the dolemite movie who is always drunk off his ass and prone to the occasional temper tantrum.