Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Military Wives (2020) in Movies
Feb 25, 2020
The story perfectly balances between melodrama and feel good comedy (1 more)
Kristin Scott-Thomas and Sharon Horgan work fabulously together
Bound to grab the grey pound and be a huge UK success
I must admit that I was a bit of a drag-along to this one. The trailer excited me not.... one.... bit. Sentimental film. Dull story. Wrong demographic. No, no, no. But... in this case I am very happy to be proved wrong, wrong, wrong.
True that I didn't sit in the ideal demographic for this movie. 90% of the audience at the UK premiere showing I attended last night were female and older that me. This is a movie to turn the blue-rinse crowd out in DROVES! Because the - inherently British - story is engaging and rewarding from start to finish.
Loosely based on the true story, it's 2010 and a regiment of husbands (and at least one wife.... nice to see an all female marriage featured) are dispatched from the fictional "Flitcroft Barracks" to Afghanistan on a tour of duty. Thereafter every ring at the door by a friend spells mild panic ; every thoughtless call from an accident-chaser induces hypertension.
Trying to take their minds off there loved ones, Colonel's wife Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) muscles in on the insipid entertainment plans of Lisa (Sharon Horgan) in organising a singing group. Lisa thinks "girls just wanna have fun"; Kate thinks they should be training as a proper choir. Sparks fly.
But against all the odds, the women progressively improve until they get the chance to present their talents to an unaware nation.
My wife summed up in one word why this movie is so good...... "balance". The movie covers topics of fear, grief, social conflict, family conflict and uplifting joy. One step off the tightrope could have spelled disaster. But director Peter Cattaneo, of "Full Monty" fame, through the expert script of Roseanne Flynn and Rachel Tunnard, walks that line with perfect balance. It never feels overly melodramatic; never feels a light piece of superficial fluff either.
And when "the performance" happens, you will be hard pushed not to need a tissue or two..... I certainly succumbed to the emotion of the moment.
At the core of the story are the perfectly cast duo of Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan. With just a handful of introductory lines, you quickly get the measure of Kate's character, without ever knowing the story behind the icy and brittle facade. The conflict between her and the fun-loving egalitarian Lisa is writ large. What's nice here is that you are never totally sure who's side of the argument you are on. It is easy to side with Lisa at the start of the film, but as you learn more and particularly after a particularly careless act by Lisa towards the end of the film, your sympathies change.
The rest of the excellent ensemble cast also work naturally together, with Emma Lowndes as Annie and Amy James-Kelly as the newly married Sarah being particularly impressive.This feels like a group of actors who were brought together to film a story and bonded as friends in the process. You end up caring a great deal for what happens to them
Although the script is based on the true story of the military wives it diverges significantly from what actually happens in the interests of an engaging story. Choirmaster Gareth Malone was, of course, actively involved in the true story as a part of a TV programme, but none of that is referenced in the movie. But that doesn't remotely impinge on your enjoyment of the movie for one second.
In particular, a sub-story about the long-term effects of grief is particularly well handled, with 'Dave' turning from being a passive to an active participant in the story at a key moment.
It's that depressing time of the year when everyone is fed up of rain, wind and dripping noses. It's a time of year when you look for some uplifting entertainment.... people surely watch "Death in Paradise" for the sun rather than the stories? Ladies - and the odd gentleman - I give you "Military Wives". It's not bloody Shakespeare. But if this doesn't make you feel uplifted and better about the world, then I will dutifully kiss the regimental goat.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-military-wives-2020/. Thanks).
True that I didn't sit in the ideal demographic for this movie. 90% of the audience at the UK premiere showing I attended last night were female and older that me. This is a movie to turn the blue-rinse crowd out in DROVES! Because the - inherently British - story is engaging and rewarding from start to finish.
Loosely based on the true story, it's 2010 and a regiment of husbands (and at least one wife.... nice to see an all female marriage featured) are dispatched from the fictional "Flitcroft Barracks" to Afghanistan on a tour of duty. Thereafter every ring at the door by a friend spells mild panic ; every thoughtless call from an accident-chaser induces hypertension.
Trying to take their minds off there loved ones, Colonel's wife Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) muscles in on the insipid entertainment plans of Lisa (Sharon Horgan) in organising a singing group. Lisa thinks "girls just wanna have fun"; Kate thinks they should be training as a proper choir. Sparks fly.
But against all the odds, the women progressively improve until they get the chance to present their talents to an unaware nation.
My wife summed up in one word why this movie is so good...... "balance". The movie covers topics of fear, grief, social conflict, family conflict and uplifting joy. One step off the tightrope could have spelled disaster. But director Peter Cattaneo, of "Full Monty" fame, through the expert script of Roseanne Flynn and Rachel Tunnard, walks that line with perfect balance. It never feels overly melodramatic; never feels a light piece of superficial fluff either.
And when "the performance" happens, you will be hard pushed not to need a tissue or two..... I certainly succumbed to the emotion of the moment.
At the core of the story are the perfectly cast duo of Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan. With just a handful of introductory lines, you quickly get the measure of Kate's character, without ever knowing the story behind the icy and brittle facade. The conflict between her and the fun-loving egalitarian Lisa is writ large. What's nice here is that you are never totally sure who's side of the argument you are on. It is easy to side with Lisa at the start of the film, but as you learn more and particularly after a particularly careless act by Lisa towards the end of the film, your sympathies change.
The rest of the excellent ensemble cast also work naturally together, with Emma Lowndes as Annie and Amy James-Kelly as the newly married Sarah being particularly impressive.This feels like a group of actors who were brought together to film a story and bonded as friends in the process. You end up caring a great deal for what happens to them
Although the script is based on the true story of the military wives it diverges significantly from what actually happens in the interests of an engaging story. Choirmaster Gareth Malone was, of course, actively involved in the true story as a part of a TV programme, but none of that is referenced in the movie. But that doesn't remotely impinge on your enjoyment of the movie for one second.
In particular, a sub-story about the long-term effects of grief is particularly well handled, with 'Dave' turning from being a passive to an active participant in the story at a key moment.
It's that depressing time of the year when everyone is fed up of rain, wind and dripping noses. It's a time of year when you look for some uplifting entertainment.... people surely watch "Death in Paradise" for the sun rather than the stories? Ladies - and the odd gentleman - I give you "Military Wives". It's not bloody Shakespeare. But if this doesn't make you feel uplifted and better about the world, then I will dutifully kiss the regimental goat.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-military-wives-2020/. Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated On the Rocks (2020) in Movies
Oct 23, 2020
Bill Murray being Bill Murray, but in sparkling form
Bill Murray is astonishing. Not just in "On the Rocks", but generally in life. Some actors - Johnny Depp, Mark Rylance, Gary Oldman, for instance - disappear completely into their characters so it takes a while to "see" who they are. Whereas with others - Bill Nighy, Tom Cruise, John Wayne, for instance - it's "Oh, there's the famous actor xxxx in a new movie". If we were grading on a scale, Bill Murray would be at the far right of the latter category. In every movie, he IS Bill Murray! In "Ghostbusters" he was the dry, laconic, wisecracking ghost hunter. In "Groundhog Day" he was the dry, laconic, wisecracking weatherman. In "The Monuments Men" he was the dry, laconic, wisecracking art historian. (In the "Zombieland" movies, he excelled himself by playing the dry, laconic, wisecracking Bill Murray!)
For many actors, that would be a problem. But Bill Murray gets away with it, because - - he's Bill freakin' Murray!! And being him is so awesome that however many times you've seen the character, you always want more.
Here's a case in point. In "On the Rocks", a chaffeured car with tinted windows rolls up. You brace yourself as the window winds slowly down. And there he is... the star. This happens quite a way into Sofia Coppola's new film. First up, we get a leisurely, but intelligent, set-up to the plot. The "Parks and Recreation" actress, Rashida Jones, plays Laura; a successful writer (currently with writer's block) married to successful businessman Dean (Marlon Wayans). The couple seem to have it all: high income; large New York apartment; two lovely young children. But Dean is always away, travelling on business - and always with his attractive co-worker "with the legs" Fiona (Jessica Henwick). Is Dean scratching the seven-year itch?
Laura's rich, art-dealing father Felix (Bill Murray) arrives, and won't take no for an answer in sniffing out the truth.
Love, love, love this movie! The pacing, the humour, the witty dialogue (it's Sofia Coppola's script) and - above all - Murray's triumphant performance all fire this well and truly into my Top 10 for the year.
Bill Murray's acting is astounding... is there an actor who spends more time in his "deep in thought" mode, with eyeballs looking at the ceiling? You could quite well believe that none of it is scripted, and he's pausing in deep thought because he really is trying to compose the next best line! A scene where, through appropriate name-dropping, he charms his way out of a traffic infringement with two New York cops is utterly absorbing.
Behind every embarrassing father is a grown-up daughter rolling her eyes. (I should know!) And Rashida Jones is perfect in the role. I'm not familiar with Jones's previous work, but she was just perfect as the foil for Murray's humour.
There's dry comedy to be had throughout "On the Rocks" which I found delightful. A running joke is Laura's drop-off and pick-ups from the local kindergarten, where she is repeatedly pinned against the wall by single-mum Vanessa (Jenny Slate) and bored to death with her moans about boyfriend-hunting on the New York scene! It's an insight that the project is led by a female writer/director, reminiscing about personal experiences!
Coppola's script also buzzes with politically incorrect views of the playboy Felix. (He reminds me strongly of an ex-work colleague: the life and soul of any party and with a charisma that is naturally attractive to women!)
For me, there was just one misstep in the movie. There's a sub-plot about the estranged relationship between Felix and Laura's mother, and the unspoken tension that lies there. This all comes to a head in a hotel bedroom, and for me personally it brought the mood of the movie down and wasn't necessary. It's a relatively minor thing. But the result was that it just took the edge off things for me in declaring it a classic.
This is one of those flicks produced for Apple, in cinemas only while en-route to their streaming service to make it eligible for Oscar consideration. And it's actually available now. This is Coppola's third outing with Murray, with the most famous being the Oscar winner "Lost in Translation". I'm actually not a mad fan of that film. But this one comes with a "Highly recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/23/love-on-the-rocks-aint-no-surprise/ . Thanks)
For many actors, that would be a problem. But Bill Murray gets away with it, because - - he's Bill freakin' Murray!! And being him is so awesome that however many times you've seen the character, you always want more.
Here's a case in point. In "On the Rocks", a chaffeured car with tinted windows rolls up. You brace yourself as the window winds slowly down. And there he is... the star. This happens quite a way into Sofia Coppola's new film. First up, we get a leisurely, but intelligent, set-up to the plot. The "Parks and Recreation" actress, Rashida Jones, plays Laura; a successful writer (currently with writer's block) married to successful businessman Dean (Marlon Wayans). The couple seem to have it all: high income; large New York apartment; two lovely young children. But Dean is always away, travelling on business - and always with his attractive co-worker "with the legs" Fiona (Jessica Henwick). Is Dean scratching the seven-year itch?
Laura's rich, art-dealing father Felix (Bill Murray) arrives, and won't take no for an answer in sniffing out the truth.
Love, love, love this movie! The pacing, the humour, the witty dialogue (it's Sofia Coppola's script) and - above all - Murray's triumphant performance all fire this well and truly into my Top 10 for the year.
Bill Murray's acting is astounding... is there an actor who spends more time in his "deep in thought" mode, with eyeballs looking at the ceiling? You could quite well believe that none of it is scripted, and he's pausing in deep thought because he really is trying to compose the next best line! A scene where, through appropriate name-dropping, he charms his way out of a traffic infringement with two New York cops is utterly absorbing.
Behind every embarrassing father is a grown-up daughter rolling her eyes. (I should know!) And Rashida Jones is perfect in the role. I'm not familiar with Jones's previous work, but she was just perfect as the foil for Murray's humour.
There's dry comedy to be had throughout "On the Rocks" which I found delightful. A running joke is Laura's drop-off and pick-ups from the local kindergarten, where she is repeatedly pinned against the wall by single-mum Vanessa (Jenny Slate) and bored to death with her moans about boyfriend-hunting on the New York scene! It's an insight that the project is led by a female writer/director, reminiscing about personal experiences!
Coppola's script also buzzes with politically incorrect views of the playboy Felix. (He reminds me strongly of an ex-work colleague: the life and soul of any party and with a charisma that is naturally attractive to women!)
For me, there was just one misstep in the movie. There's a sub-plot about the estranged relationship between Felix and Laura's mother, and the unspoken tension that lies there. This all comes to a head in a hotel bedroom, and for me personally it brought the mood of the movie down and wasn't necessary. It's a relatively minor thing. But the result was that it just took the edge off things for me in declaring it a classic.
This is one of those flicks produced for Apple, in cinemas only while en-route to their streaming service to make it eligible for Oscar consideration. And it's actually available now. This is Coppola's third outing with Murray, with the most famous being the Oscar winner "Lost in Translation". I'm actually not a mad fan of that film. But this one comes with a "Highly recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/23/love-on-the-rocks-aint-no-surprise/ . Thanks)
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Nun (2018) in Movies
Sep 6, 2018 (Updated Sep 7, 2018)
Disappointing
I'm a big fan of The Conjuring movies. The original is one of my favourite scary movies, and while I enjoyed the sequel, for me it just didn't live up to the very high bar set by the first. Creepy doll Annabelle from the first movie landed her own disappointing outing, followed by a surprisingly enjoyable sequel/prequel in Annabelle: Creation. Now, next up in The Conjuring Universe is the turn of The Nun. After a brief, but very effective appearance in The Conjuring 2, The Nun movie looks to expand the universe even further, providing us with an insight into how the demon nun came to be.
We're in Romania, 1952. A large, remote, creepy looking convent is having trouble trying to contain something dark and evil, resulting in one of the nuns hanging herself. The body is discovered by Frenchie, a local farmer bringing supplies from the nearby village. When word gets back to the Vatican, priest Father Burke (Demián Bichir) is sent, along with Sister Irene (Taissa Farmiga) to investigate.
They learn that the convent was built in the middle ages by the Duke of St Carta who, while being possessed, also created a gateway from hell somewhere within its basement. Religious figures were able to seal the gateway using the blood of Christ, but during the second world war bombings resulted in the seal being broken, releasing the demon Valak. Since then, the nuns have engaged in constant prayer in an attempt to keep evil at bay.
As you'd expect, the whole tone of this movie is very dark, and very gloomy. It takes a while to get going, and there is nothing of interest to keep you hooked. Aside from Sister Irene, the characters are dull, and occasional attempts at humour fall flat. The tense expectation of chills and scares soon fizzles out when you're realise that there really aren't any. Just plenty of prolonged periods of quietness, followed by LOUD NOISE!! Which may work for some people, but I just found it annoying.
The characters wander around dark corridors, playing on the whole creepy castle vibe, and shadowy nuns are everywhere. Valak himself occasionally appears, but it's nothing more than an attempt at a jump scare. The whole thing just seems like such a wasted opportunity and I found myself looking at my watch even during the climactic scenes where they're trying to seal the gateway once more. Not good for a movie that's only 96 minutes long.
The one thing I did like is how they managed to link everything back to The Conjuring movies, in particular the opening scenes of the original movie where the Warrens are giving their lecture, and the consequences that brings for the rest of the movies. Aside from that I just found the whole thing disappointing.
We're in Romania, 1952. A large, remote, creepy looking convent is having trouble trying to contain something dark and evil, resulting in one of the nuns hanging herself. The body is discovered by Frenchie, a local farmer bringing supplies from the nearby village. When word gets back to the Vatican, priest Father Burke (Demián Bichir) is sent, along with Sister Irene (Taissa Farmiga) to investigate.
They learn that the convent was built in the middle ages by the Duke of St Carta who, while being possessed, also created a gateway from hell somewhere within its basement. Religious figures were able to seal the gateway using the blood of Christ, but during the second world war bombings resulted in the seal being broken, releasing the demon Valak. Since then, the nuns have engaged in constant prayer in an attempt to keep evil at bay.
As you'd expect, the whole tone of this movie is very dark, and very gloomy. It takes a while to get going, and there is nothing of interest to keep you hooked. Aside from Sister Irene, the characters are dull, and occasional attempts at humour fall flat. The tense expectation of chills and scares soon fizzles out when you're realise that there really aren't any. Just plenty of prolonged periods of quietness, followed by LOUD NOISE!! Which may work for some people, but I just found it annoying.
The characters wander around dark corridors, playing on the whole creepy castle vibe, and shadowy nuns are everywhere. Valak himself occasionally appears, but it's nothing more than an attempt at a jump scare. The whole thing just seems like such a wasted opportunity and I found myself looking at my watch even during the climactic scenes where they're trying to seal the gateway once more. Not good for a movie that's only 96 minutes long.
The one thing I did like is how they managed to link everything back to The Conjuring movies, in particular the opening scenes of the original movie where the Warrens are giving their lecture, and the consequences that brings for the rest of the movies. Aside from that I just found the whole thing disappointing.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Jul 31, 2021
Firstly, let it be known that The Suicide Squad is a far, far, superior movie to 2016's Suicide Squad (although, that's not exactly a tall order...)
It's fun, frantic, sweary, gory, and is, above all, unmistakably a James Gunn film.
The remants of the 2016 version that remain are improved, namely Rick Flag and Harley Quinn. Both characters are well fleshed out and likable. Stand them side by side with all the newcomers and you have a wonderfully weird line up of D-list DC villains. Amongst the massive ensemble, the meatier roles are given to Bloodsport (Idris Elba), Peacemaker (John Cena), Ratcatcher 2 (Daniela Melchior), Polka-Dot Man (David Dastmalchian), Thinker (Peter Capaldi) and of course, the show stealer King Shark (Sylvester Stallone). I would happily kill for him, and Sebastian the rat....
All of these characters are simply a pleasure to watch. Their interactions with eachother are frequently hilarious and the combined team give this movie a huge fricking heart that was so lacking back in 2016.
My main criticism is the pacing. After an amusingly brutal opening gambit, the whole thing takes a bit of a dive. The humour isn't quite enough to hold the slow-paced first hour together, and I found myself drifting on more than one occasion. I also wasn't a fan of the arty title cards that crop up throughout (with the exception of one during the films final act, which is quite possibly one of my favourite moments in the history of comic book movies...)
Sure, this whole part drags the experience down as a whole, but the last hour is an absolute riot. A fantastic scene involving Harley Quinn, a long hallway, and a javelin, marks a triumphant turn in proceedings, and the build up and resulting climax is batshit insane, with a villain I genuinely thought I'd never get to see in the big screen. It's horrifically entertaining and doesn't let up until the credits roll.
Ultimately, The Suicide Squad is heaps of gory fun, and a welcome addition to the mixed bag that is the DCEU. Personally, I would love to see Gunn return to the franchise in some form. Hell, give him the keys to the whole kingdom and see what happens.
It's fun, frantic, sweary, gory, and is, above all, unmistakably a James Gunn film.
The remants of the 2016 version that remain are improved, namely Rick Flag and Harley Quinn. Both characters are well fleshed out and likable. Stand them side by side with all the newcomers and you have a wonderfully weird line up of D-list DC villains. Amongst the massive ensemble, the meatier roles are given to Bloodsport (Idris Elba), Peacemaker (John Cena), Ratcatcher 2 (Daniela Melchior), Polka-Dot Man (David Dastmalchian), Thinker (Peter Capaldi) and of course, the show stealer King Shark (Sylvester Stallone). I would happily kill for him, and Sebastian the rat....
All of these characters are simply a pleasure to watch. Their interactions with eachother are frequently hilarious and the combined team give this movie a huge fricking heart that was so lacking back in 2016.
My main criticism is the pacing. After an amusingly brutal opening gambit, the whole thing takes a bit of a dive. The humour isn't quite enough to hold the slow-paced first hour together, and I found myself drifting on more than one occasion. I also wasn't a fan of the arty title cards that crop up throughout (with the exception of one during the films final act, which is quite possibly one of my favourite moments in the history of comic book movies...)
Sure, this whole part drags the experience down as a whole, but the last hour is an absolute riot. A fantastic scene involving Harley Quinn, a long hallway, and a javelin, marks a triumphant turn in proceedings, and the build up and resulting climax is batshit insane, with a villain I genuinely thought I'd never get to see in the big screen. It's horrifically entertaining and doesn't let up until the credits roll.
Ultimately, The Suicide Squad is heaps of gory fun, and a welcome addition to the mixed bag that is the DCEU. Personally, I would love to see Gunn return to the franchise in some form. Hell, give him the keys to the whole kingdom and see what happens.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Slumber Party Massacre II (1987) in Movies
Oct 14, 2020
I, and I can't stress this enough, fucking love Slumber Party Massacre II. It may not be as cinematically mature as the first one, but it's 100% more entertaining and batshit crazy.
The lead characters, as per usual, are walking, talking, cliché slasher victims, but much like the first, they benefit from a decent slab of development, and feel like a believable group of friends. One could argue that the amount of times we get to see their band play is a little over the top but it sort of works.
Some of the shooting style is completely bizarre. A lot of characters talking directly to the camera which is a little cringey, but mainly uncomfortable. This style is also adopted for an extended dance sequence about half way through. Honestly, it's all a bit bizarre but kind of in keeping with the sheer absurdity that is eventually thrust upon the audience.
That absurdity is of course, this movies antagonist, simply credited as The Driller Killer. This dude is dressed head to toe in leather, with a rockabilly style quiff, and sports a huge drill as his weapon of choice, that happens to be mounted upon a demonic looking electric guitar, a guitar he likes to rip solos on whilst simultaneously piling up bodies. I can't truly describe how ridulous this villain is, but he's certainly memorable, full of one liners (surely a direct reaction to the popularity of Freddy Krueger), and you guessed it, even gets himself a musical number (whilst still drilling people to death of course)
This completely off the rails approach to the slasher sub genre is what sets the movie apart from a lot of its peers, and is the reason why it's become such a cult classic.
Slumber Party Massacre II is a movie that was never going to win academy awards, and is considered by many to be another trashy slasher. Personally, I think it's a blast. It doesn't take itself too seriously, the killer is low-key hilarious, it has some decent practical gore, and encompasses everything cheesy but magnificent about 80s horror. It deserves unconditional love.
The lead characters, as per usual, are walking, talking, cliché slasher victims, but much like the first, they benefit from a decent slab of development, and feel like a believable group of friends. One could argue that the amount of times we get to see their band play is a little over the top but it sort of works.
Some of the shooting style is completely bizarre. A lot of characters talking directly to the camera which is a little cringey, but mainly uncomfortable. This style is also adopted for an extended dance sequence about half way through. Honestly, it's all a bit bizarre but kind of in keeping with the sheer absurdity that is eventually thrust upon the audience.
That absurdity is of course, this movies antagonist, simply credited as The Driller Killer. This dude is dressed head to toe in leather, with a rockabilly style quiff, and sports a huge drill as his weapon of choice, that happens to be mounted upon a demonic looking electric guitar, a guitar he likes to rip solos on whilst simultaneously piling up bodies. I can't truly describe how ridulous this villain is, but he's certainly memorable, full of one liners (surely a direct reaction to the popularity of Freddy Krueger), and you guessed it, even gets himself a musical number (whilst still drilling people to death of course)
This completely off the rails approach to the slasher sub genre is what sets the movie apart from a lot of its peers, and is the reason why it's become such a cult classic.
Slumber Party Massacre II is a movie that was never going to win academy awards, and is considered by many to be another trashy slasher. Personally, I think it's a blast. It doesn't take itself too seriously, the killer is low-key hilarious, it has some decent practical gore, and encompasses everything cheesy but magnificent about 80s horror. It deserves unconditional love.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Upside (2019) in Movies
May 8, 2019 (Updated May 8, 2019)
On The Up and Up
This movie had a bit of a strange release, at least in my area. It was one of those movies that only had two showings a day on it's opening weekend and they were both at really obscure times like 10:30am and 2:40pm, - times that would suggest that this movie was being put out to die. This was disappointing as, after seeing the trailers, I was looking forward to seeing it and never got the chance while it was in cinemas. Anyway, I finally got around to seeing it upon it's home release and I really enjoyed it.
Although I did like the look of this project from the trailer and I am a big fan of Bryan Cranston, I was wary of Kevin Hart starring opposite him in this role. It looked like a role that would require a more serious actor than Kevin Hart and I was concerned that Hart had been miscast and only chosen because of the recognition of his name rather than whether or not he was the right actor for the part.
Surprisingly and thankfully, I was proven entirely wrong. Hart shows here that he is in fact very capable in a more serious role such as this and doesn't just have to resort to screaming in every film he is in. I hope that he takes on more serious stuff following this as I much prefer it to any of his 'comedic,' roles. The rest of the cast are also great, Cranston gives a sublime performance as he always does and Nicole Kidman works well as Cranston's character's secretary/ potential love interest.
This film is a remake of a French film called The Intouchables and there are other elements of it that bear similarities to other movies that we have seen before, but it is a well told story that has various worthwhile messages littered throughout it. The script is witty and snappy enough that the film never feels slow or boring.
Overall, I really enjoyed my time with this one. It isn't the most original thing I have ever seen, but it was entertaining and it had heart. The script was well written and the direction was solid. The performances from the entire cast also help elevate the already funny script even further.
Although I did like the look of this project from the trailer and I am a big fan of Bryan Cranston, I was wary of Kevin Hart starring opposite him in this role. It looked like a role that would require a more serious actor than Kevin Hart and I was concerned that Hart had been miscast and only chosen because of the recognition of his name rather than whether or not he was the right actor for the part.
Surprisingly and thankfully, I was proven entirely wrong. Hart shows here that he is in fact very capable in a more serious role such as this and doesn't just have to resort to screaming in every film he is in. I hope that he takes on more serious stuff following this as I much prefer it to any of his 'comedic,' roles. The rest of the cast are also great, Cranston gives a sublime performance as he always does and Nicole Kidman works well as Cranston's character's secretary/ potential love interest.
This film is a remake of a French film called The Intouchables and there are other elements of it that bear similarities to other movies that we have seen before, but it is a well told story that has various worthwhile messages littered throughout it. The script is witty and snappy enough that the film never feels slow or boring.
Overall, I really enjoyed my time with this one. It isn't the most original thing I have ever seen, but it was entertaining and it had heart. The script was well written and the direction was solid. The performances from the entire cast also help elevate the already funny script even further.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Brightburn (2019) in Movies
Jan 9, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Brightburn is a mostly solid 'superhero' horror that sets out what it means to do. The narrative plays out a bit like an issue of Marvel's What If? - in this case, what if an alien baby crashed to earth, much like Superman, but grew up to be a danger to mankind.
One of the main issues I had with Brightburn rears it head pretty early on - it doesn't spend a huge amount of time establishing 12 year old Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn) before hurtling straight into his turn to evil. It's not the biggest deal I guess, the movie does enough to set up the main bulk of the plot, but I can't help but feel that the execution would have been more effective if the set up had been a bit more drawn out.
We're also introduced to Brandon's parents, the people who found him when he was a baby and raised him as their own, Tori and Kyle, played by Elizabeth Banks and David Denman. Both actors are great throughout, but their characters are a bit iffy. There's a lot silliness going on - Tori takes an abnormally long time to accept that Brandon in dangerous, even when loved ones are being murdered around her - she purposefully keeps information from Kyle about Brandon nearly stumbling across the spaceship he arrived in, even though that should really be something shared considering how Brandon is an alien and all that - at one point, Kyle tries to get one over on Brandon by shooting him in the head when he's not looking, despite clearly stating earlier on in the movie that Brandon has never even bled throughout his whole life...
It sounds like nitpicking, but it's just silliness that is very obviously included to easily advance the plot, and it's a little distracting.
The special effects used are mostly good, but they are purposely done quickly to avoid much room for scrutiny, however, there are some really great shots throughout Brightburn, especially in the third act. Brandon's costume design is suitably creepy, his mask looks almost Mothman-esque, and his glowing red eyes make him a genuinely sinister looking villain.
The violence in Brightburn really packs a punch as well... It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it's creative, and brutal. The movie leans a little into jump scare territory, but just about toes the line, and provides a decent enough unsettling atmosphere to justify it.
On a final note, it always refreshing when a Hollywood film like this has the balls to end in the way it does. The movie sets up Brandon for defeat and failure, and it just doesn't happen. The bad guys win and that's that. The ending credits feature news reports showing Brandon in the following weeks wreaking havoc all over the place, and it sets up a sequel which I don't think will happen due to box office reasons. Which is a shame, because even though Brightburn has its flaws, it still kept me involved.
Worth checking out for superhero and horror fans alike.
One of the main issues I had with Brightburn rears it head pretty early on - it doesn't spend a huge amount of time establishing 12 year old Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn) before hurtling straight into his turn to evil. It's not the biggest deal I guess, the movie does enough to set up the main bulk of the plot, but I can't help but feel that the execution would have been more effective if the set up had been a bit more drawn out.
We're also introduced to Brandon's parents, the people who found him when he was a baby and raised him as their own, Tori and Kyle, played by Elizabeth Banks and David Denman. Both actors are great throughout, but their characters are a bit iffy. There's a lot silliness going on - Tori takes an abnormally long time to accept that Brandon in dangerous, even when loved ones are being murdered around her - she purposefully keeps information from Kyle about Brandon nearly stumbling across the spaceship he arrived in, even though that should really be something shared considering how Brandon is an alien and all that - at one point, Kyle tries to get one over on Brandon by shooting him in the head when he's not looking, despite clearly stating earlier on in the movie that Brandon has never even bled throughout his whole life...
It sounds like nitpicking, but it's just silliness that is very obviously included to easily advance the plot, and it's a little distracting.
The special effects used are mostly good, but they are purposely done quickly to avoid much room for scrutiny, however, there are some really great shots throughout Brightburn, especially in the third act. Brandon's costume design is suitably creepy, his mask looks almost Mothman-esque, and his glowing red eyes make him a genuinely sinister looking villain.
The violence in Brightburn really packs a punch as well... It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it's creative, and brutal. The movie leans a little into jump scare territory, but just about toes the line, and provides a decent enough unsettling atmosphere to justify it.
On a final note, it always refreshing when a Hollywood film like this has the balls to end in the way it does. The movie sets up Brandon for defeat and failure, and it just doesn't happen. The bad guys win and that's that. The ending credits feature news reports showing Brandon in the following weeks wreaking havoc all over the place, and it sets up a sequel which I don't think will happen due to box office reasons. Which is a shame, because even though Brightburn has its flaws, it still kept me involved.
Worth checking out for superhero and horror fans alike.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Limitless (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
After years of hearing women saying this I can now agree that Bradley Cooper does indeed have beautiful eyes. If you don’t believe me go see his new movie Limitless based on the 2001 novel The Dark Fields by Alan Glynn. The movie has so many close-ups of Bradley’s face that you find yourself staring into these blue orbs of beauty, approximately 6 feet across, that utterly mesmerize you and take you to a peaceful place where mice, cats and dogs get along.
But enough about his incredibly enchanting eyes let’s talk about the movie.
The thriller Limitless is about an unemployed struggling writer Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper) who, after being dumped by his girlfriend Lindy (Abbie Cornish), bumps into his ex-brother-in-law Vernon (Johnny Whitworth). After talking over a few beers, Vernon realizes that Eddie needs help and gives him one pill of a supposedly FDA-approved, soon-to-be-released brain boosting drug called NZT. Eddie is skeptical but upon returning to his apartment building he tries the pill. And. It. Is. Awesome!
The drug allows a person to access every bit of information locked away in their brain. It gets all the neurons in their brain kicked into high gear, allows them to learn anything very quickly, makes a person more focused, perceptive, confident, driven and gives them a boost of energy. So when Eddie takes the NZT pill (close up) he helps his landlord’s attractive wife write her term paper, sleeps with her, cleans his apartment (close up) and writes a good chunk of his book for his publisher (close up). The next morning he is back to his normal self, so he goes to Vernon for more pills, events happen and Eddie ends up with a lot more pills plus a large sum of money.
With the help of NZT he begins to turn his life around. He finishes his book, gets in shape, gets a haircut, still not clean-shaven though (don’t look at the stubble, look at his eyes), learns new things, makes new friends, has lots of nooky (because women dig smart guys), travels and multiple close ups. But soon he realizes that he wants to do something meaningful with his life. As he works to achieve his dream and also get back with his ex-girlfriend, he crosses paths with a mysterious man, Russian mobster Gennady (Andrew Howard), shifty lawyers, police, corporate fat cats like Carl Van Loon (Robert De Niro), gets more random close ups and soon starts running out of pills. Will he do something meaningful with his life? Will he jump off of a building? Can his dreamy eyes get any bluer?
Right from the start the movie grabs your attention by throwing you into the action (and blue eyes) and it gently holds it in a soft blue embrace until the end. The movie has an intelligent and, at the appropriate times, humorous dialogue that flowed very smoothly and naturally. Robert De Niro and Bradley Cooper definitely brought their A game (Bradley’s eyes A+) and their on-screen chemistry is one of the best I have seen. Both Abbie Cornish and Andrew Howard were great throughout the film but each of them had their own individual scenes where they really shined. There are some plot holes but they do not detract from this very enjoyable film.
But enough about his incredibly enchanting eyes let’s talk about the movie.
The thriller Limitless is about an unemployed struggling writer Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper) who, after being dumped by his girlfriend Lindy (Abbie Cornish), bumps into his ex-brother-in-law Vernon (Johnny Whitworth). After talking over a few beers, Vernon realizes that Eddie needs help and gives him one pill of a supposedly FDA-approved, soon-to-be-released brain boosting drug called NZT. Eddie is skeptical but upon returning to his apartment building he tries the pill. And. It. Is. Awesome!
The drug allows a person to access every bit of information locked away in their brain. It gets all the neurons in their brain kicked into high gear, allows them to learn anything very quickly, makes a person more focused, perceptive, confident, driven and gives them a boost of energy. So when Eddie takes the NZT pill (close up) he helps his landlord’s attractive wife write her term paper, sleeps with her, cleans his apartment (close up) and writes a good chunk of his book for his publisher (close up). The next morning he is back to his normal self, so he goes to Vernon for more pills, events happen and Eddie ends up with a lot more pills plus a large sum of money.
With the help of NZT he begins to turn his life around. He finishes his book, gets in shape, gets a haircut, still not clean-shaven though (don’t look at the stubble, look at his eyes), learns new things, makes new friends, has lots of nooky (because women dig smart guys), travels and multiple close ups. But soon he realizes that he wants to do something meaningful with his life. As he works to achieve his dream and also get back with his ex-girlfriend, he crosses paths with a mysterious man, Russian mobster Gennady (Andrew Howard), shifty lawyers, police, corporate fat cats like Carl Van Loon (Robert De Niro), gets more random close ups and soon starts running out of pills. Will he do something meaningful with his life? Will he jump off of a building? Can his dreamy eyes get any bluer?
Right from the start the movie grabs your attention by throwing you into the action (and blue eyes) and it gently holds it in a soft blue embrace until the end. The movie has an intelligent and, at the appropriate times, humorous dialogue that flowed very smoothly and naturally. Robert De Niro and Bradley Cooper definitely brought their A game (Bradley’s eyes A+) and their on-screen chemistry is one of the best I have seen. Both Abbie Cornish and Andrew Howard were great throughout the film but each of them had their own individual scenes where they really shined. There are some plot holes but they do not detract from this very enjoyable film.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) in Movies
Dec 26, 2021
Big Parker Energy
The trilogy of Tom Holland’s Spider-Man, has all been leading to this: An all-out battle resulting from a broken spell that Dr. Strange tried to cast. Let’s get this out of the way now: There will be zero spoilers in this review. Let’s also get this out of the way: You are going to love this movie.
Acting: 10
Stakes are extremely high here which could fall short on screen with weaker performances from the cast. The crew doesn’t disappoint here, both new and old. Tom Holland and Zendaya give you absolute gold, both during the high times and especially the low. I haven’t gotten this emotional over a Spider-Man movie since 2004’s Spider-Man 2.
But Willem Dafoe. Willem Dafoe, Willem Dafoe, Willem Dafoe. It felt like he was playing with an entirely different set of cards, all Aces. His performance was hands-down one of the best I’ve seen in a superhero film and one of the best I’ve seen all year. I absolutely couldn’t get enough of the impact he brought to this movie. Definitely brings the emotion out of you.
Beginning: 8
The movie picks up right where Far From Home leaves off. If you remember what happened at the end of that one, you will recognize that the third allows them to jump right into the conflict. Things start quickly, but not quite perfectly. I know this can be a challenge to do, but I’m wondering if they could have used the first ten minutes to cut to the meat of the story quicker. As it stands, it did take a bit of time for things to pick up.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
I haven’t been this satisfied with superhero action scenes since Avengers: Endgame. Man oh man, I wish I could say more but just know this: If you came to see some hardcore webslinging action, you will not be disappointed in the slightest. Everything is high stakes when you have a multitude of baddies involved. If the action wasn’t enough, you get taken on an emotional rollercoaster as Peter Parker is faced with a number of tough decisions throughout the movie.
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 10
Pace: 8
Plot: 7
Perhaps the only thing that could have used just a tad bit of a brushup here. Mind you, this is off of one watch, so I could feel a bit differently if I go back and watch again. Then again, my motto is always, “If I can’t understand it the first time…” Yes, there is a lot to take in here and there are some things the film will ask you to take on face value. To me, the characters got on board with the craziness of what was happening a little too easily for my taste. Definitely could have been a bit more development there. For what it’s worth, the story was mostly solid and moved in fluid fashion.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 92
I don’t always enjoy writing reviews, even when it’s a good one. Here I am at the end of my Spider-Man: No Way Home review and there is so much more that I want to say. Some movies are impactful, others iconic. This one is damn near legendary. Phenomenal job by director Jon Watts who is quickly becoming a legend in my eyes.
Acting: 10
Stakes are extremely high here which could fall short on screen with weaker performances from the cast. The crew doesn’t disappoint here, both new and old. Tom Holland and Zendaya give you absolute gold, both during the high times and especially the low. I haven’t gotten this emotional over a Spider-Man movie since 2004’s Spider-Man 2.
But Willem Dafoe. Willem Dafoe, Willem Dafoe, Willem Dafoe. It felt like he was playing with an entirely different set of cards, all Aces. His performance was hands-down one of the best I’ve seen in a superhero film and one of the best I’ve seen all year. I absolutely couldn’t get enough of the impact he brought to this movie. Definitely brings the emotion out of you.
Beginning: 8
The movie picks up right where Far From Home leaves off. If you remember what happened at the end of that one, you will recognize that the third allows them to jump right into the conflict. Things start quickly, but not quite perfectly. I know this can be a challenge to do, but I’m wondering if they could have used the first ten minutes to cut to the meat of the story quicker. As it stands, it did take a bit of time for things to pick up.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
I haven’t been this satisfied with superhero action scenes since Avengers: Endgame. Man oh man, I wish I could say more but just know this: If you came to see some hardcore webslinging action, you will not be disappointed in the slightest. Everything is high stakes when you have a multitude of baddies involved. If the action wasn’t enough, you get taken on an emotional rollercoaster as Peter Parker is faced with a number of tough decisions throughout the movie.
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 10
Pace: 8
Plot: 7
Perhaps the only thing that could have used just a tad bit of a brushup here. Mind you, this is off of one watch, so I could feel a bit differently if I go back and watch again. Then again, my motto is always, “If I can’t understand it the first time…” Yes, there is a lot to take in here and there are some things the film will ask you to take on face value. To me, the characters got on board with the craziness of what was happening a little too easily for my taste. Definitely could have been a bit more development there. For what it’s worth, the story was mostly solid and moved in fluid fashion.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 92
I don’t always enjoy writing reviews, even when it’s a good one. Here I am at the end of my Spider-Man: No Way Home review and there is so much more that I want to say. Some movies are impactful, others iconic. This one is damn near legendary. Phenomenal job by director Jon Watts who is quickly becoming a legend in my eyes.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Casper (1995) in Movies
Oct 27, 2020
Bill Pullman (1 more)
Christina Ricci
Friendly Ghost
Casper- is a hallloween classic. Its funny, spooky, entertaining and above all a great movie.
The plot: Casper (voiced by Malachi Pearson) is a kind young ghost who peacefully haunts a mansion in Maine. When specialist James Harvey (Bill Pullman) arrives to communicate with Casper and his fellow spirits, he brings along his teenage daughter, Kat (Christina Ricci). Casper quickly falls in love with Kat, but their budding relationship is complicated not only by his transparent state, but also by his troublemaking apparition uncles and their mischievous antics.
The film makes extensive use of computer-generated imagery to create the ghosts, and it is the first feature film to have a fully CGI character in the lead role. It goes for a much darker interpretation of the Friendly Ghost in comparison to the comics, cartoons, and films of the previous years, especially with its theme of death, most notably providing the character a tragic backstory that addresses his death.
In the mirror scene, Dr. Harvey was also supposed to transform into Spielberg. According to director Silberling, the cameo was filmed, but was cut for pacing reasons. Spielberg was relieved, feeling that he is not much of an actor himself and was quite nervous in front of the camera.
It was just strange to see all of those cameos, i felt like thier were just a wink to the audience of whom ever was watching. Like ohh their Dan Aykroyd and ohh their is Mel Gibson and ohh look Cilent Eastwood. The problem is this is films audience is for children, so children wouldnt even know who those people are.
Other than that its a great film.
The plot: Casper (voiced by Malachi Pearson) is a kind young ghost who peacefully haunts a mansion in Maine. When specialist James Harvey (Bill Pullman) arrives to communicate with Casper and his fellow spirits, he brings along his teenage daughter, Kat (Christina Ricci). Casper quickly falls in love with Kat, but their budding relationship is complicated not only by his transparent state, but also by his troublemaking apparition uncles and their mischievous antics.
The film makes extensive use of computer-generated imagery to create the ghosts, and it is the first feature film to have a fully CGI character in the lead role. It goes for a much darker interpretation of the Friendly Ghost in comparison to the comics, cartoons, and films of the previous years, especially with its theme of death, most notably providing the character a tragic backstory that addresses his death.
In the mirror scene, Dr. Harvey was also supposed to transform into Spielberg. According to director Silberling, the cameo was filmed, but was cut for pacing reasons. Spielberg was relieved, feeling that he is not much of an actor himself and was quite nervous in front of the camera.
It was just strange to see all of those cameos, i felt like thier were just a wink to the audience of whom ever was watching. Like ohh their Dan Aykroyd and ohh their is Mel Gibson and ohh look Cilent Eastwood. The problem is this is films audience is for children, so children wouldnt even know who those people are.
Other than that its a great film.