Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 22, 2020 (Updated Jul 5, 2021)
In this sequel to the so far best film of the DCEU, Patty Jenkins dares to ask, what if Wishmaster was a family friendly superhero movie?
Wonder Woman 1984 is an overall mixed experience, but let's begin with some positives. For a start, Gal Gadot is Wonder Woman through and through. She shined in the first movie, and is just as bright the second time around. What ever plans are afoot for the future of the DCEU, she should rightly be at the forefront.
Another cast highlight is Kristen Wiig. Her character is designed to be the sympathetic good guy who yearns for more acceptance and influence on the people around her, the relatable type, who inevitably turns into the tragic antagonist. Her arc is handled so-so, and is plagued with cliché "nerdy-girl-becomes-attractive" moments, but Wiig is clearly having a blast in this role, and the movie is better for having her around.
Pedro Pascal is also here as classic DC villain Maxwell Lord. He camps it up to the max, and does well in the seedy businessman type role, but again, his arc is handled in a so-so manner.
It has some genuinely decent set pieces. Highlights include a fun (if a little drawn out) opening scene, and then the big desert car chase glimpsed in the trailers. The CGI is also pretty good (for the most part, I'll get to that in a second) and a few more out-there details (no spoilers here) lifted straight from the comics that add that extra sweet spot of nerdy delight.
This all being said, WW84 does unfortunately suffer from a few pitfalls. The big glaring problem is the pacing. This film is 2.5 hours long, and boy does it drag in places. It could have easily lost 30 minutes without impacting the story, and the end results feels bloated and a bit directionless.
As mentioned above, the effects are great for the most part, but as the trailers show, Cheetah looks a little...off when she eventually turns up. She sort of looks like a colourless CGI blob when engaged in battle, and it's a shame, because some of the close ups look great, as is the overall design of her character.
Some of the narrative beats are a bit choppy, I get the feeling that some parts were cut that could have better explained some things, and then there are some plot beats that just straight up don't make a lick of sense.
And then there's Steve Trevor... Chris Pine is enjoyable enough as per usual, but honestly, his inclusion just feels a little forced. There's an obvious morally tearing plot point as to why he's here, but I felt that overall he just added to the bloatedness. And that's without addressing weird, kind of rapey body possession thing that's going on.
I had an ok time with WW84, but it's held back by a shit tonne of unnecessary clutter that seals it's status as an inferior sequel.
Wonder Woman 1984 is an overall mixed experience, but let's begin with some positives. For a start, Gal Gadot is Wonder Woman through and through. She shined in the first movie, and is just as bright the second time around. What ever plans are afoot for the future of the DCEU, she should rightly be at the forefront.
Another cast highlight is Kristen Wiig. Her character is designed to be the sympathetic good guy who yearns for more acceptance and influence on the people around her, the relatable type, who inevitably turns into the tragic antagonist. Her arc is handled so-so, and is plagued with cliché "nerdy-girl-becomes-attractive" moments, but Wiig is clearly having a blast in this role, and the movie is better for having her around.
Pedro Pascal is also here as classic DC villain Maxwell Lord. He camps it up to the max, and does well in the seedy businessman type role, but again, his arc is handled in a so-so manner.
It has some genuinely decent set pieces. Highlights include a fun (if a little drawn out) opening scene, and then the big desert car chase glimpsed in the trailers. The CGI is also pretty good (for the most part, I'll get to that in a second) and a few more out-there details (no spoilers here) lifted straight from the comics that add that extra sweet spot of nerdy delight.
This all being said, WW84 does unfortunately suffer from a few pitfalls. The big glaring problem is the pacing. This film is 2.5 hours long, and boy does it drag in places. It could have easily lost 30 minutes without impacting the story, and the end results feels bloated and a bit directionless.
As mentioned above, the effects are great for the most part, but as the trailers show, Cheetah looks a little...off when she eventually turns up. She sort of looks like a colourless CGI blob when engaged in battle, and it's a shame, because some of the close ups look great, as is the overall design of her character.
Some of the narrative beats are a bit choppy, I get the feeling that some parts were cut that could have better explained some things, and then there are some plot beats that just straight up don't make a lick of sense.
And then there's Steve Trevor... Chris Pine is enjoyable enough as per usual, but honestly, his inclusion just feels a little forced. There's an obvious morally tearing plot point as to why he's here, but I felt that overall he just added to the bloatedness. And that's without addressing weird, kind of rapey body possession thing that's going on.
I had an ok time with WW84, but it's held back by a shit tonne of unnecessary clutter that seals it's status as an inferior sequel.
Crystal (148 KP) rated Ready Player One in Books
Jun 4, 2018 (Updated Jun 8, 2018)
Gaming references (3 more)
80s Easter eggs
Immersive
Not your typical dystopia
Don't judge a book by its movie
I still have not seen the movie and I have heard mixed reviews. However, I very much enjoyed this book. If you are into young adult dystopia then this book is for you. Ready Player One is one of the few books I've read multiple times. It is one of those books where you can really catch on to little details you may have missed the first time around. This book is chock full of 80s pop culture references.
I say this book is a bit of a slow starter and that is because of the world building. We get to know the main character and his in real life daily issues and also the craftsmanship of the fully immersive VR world that is the Oasis. I felt like I was plugging in along with the other players.
Synopsis: The story takes place in the very near future. Sky rocketing gas prices have forced people to give up driving. Most people now actually work in a VR office rather than commuting. The economy has fallen apart and people depend on the Oasis for everything. The big baddie is a mega corporation that wants to control the Oasis, and in turn control the country/world. Regular kids raised by the Oasis take on this corporation simply by trying to win an Easter egg hunt set up by the games founder. The stakes are high. What starts off as a contest quickly becomes a matter of life and death as our heroes get closer to solving the quest and winning it all.
I say this book is a bit of a slow starter and that is because of the world building. We get to know the main character and his in real life daily issues and also the craftsmanship of the fully immersive VR world that is the Oasis. I felt like I was plugging in along with the other players.
Synopsis: The story takes place in the very near future. Sky rocketing gas prices have forced people to give up driving. Most people now actually work in a VR office rather than commuting. The economy has fallen apart and people depend on the Oasis for everything. The big baddie is a mega corporation that wants to control the Oasis, and in turn control the country/world. Regular kids raised by the Oasis take on this corporation simply by trying to win an Easter egg hunt set up by the games founder. The stakes are high. What starts off as a contest quickly becomes a matter of life and death as our heroes get closer to solving the quest and winning it all.
KyleQ (267 KP) rated Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989) in Movies
Jul 19, 2020
The fall of the franchise.
Jamie Lloyd (Danielle Harris) now has a psychic connection with Michael Myers, she has visions showing who and where he is going to kill next.
If that sounds dumb to you, then trust me, the movie will feel dumb too.
Halloween 5 feels more like a Friday the 13th movie, filled with dumb teens getting picked off one by one, featuring some unrealistic subplot to distinguish it from other entries.
Gone is the eerie suspense, the music is a shadow of the original's score. Gone too is the tension of asking "where is Michael?" As Jamie's visions literally show us where he is.
There is also a weird change, in Halloween 4 Leslie L. Rohland played the part of Lindsey Wallace, shown as a friend to both Jamie and Rachel (Ellie Cornell), Leslie did not return for H5. In Halloween 5, they cast Wendy Foxworth as Tina Williams. What's confusing is Leslie and Tina are very similar to one another, they look alike and their characters were similar. In H5 they played off like Tina had known Jamie from before. So it begs the question, if you had to recast why not keep the same character? And if you had to change character, why not cast someone unlike Leslie? I don't know but it's always bugged me.
There are a couple of good things to say about it. Some death scenes are intense and brutal, the ending is good, intense with a decent twist.
Overall though, Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers is the first entry in the series that really truly disappointed me, mostly due to its dumb story.
If that sounds dumb to you, then trust me, the movie will feel dumb too.
Halloween 5 feels more like a Friday the 13th movie, filled with dumb teens getting picked off one by one, featuring some unrealistic subplot to distinguish it from other entries.
Gone is the eerie suspense, the music is a shadow of the original's score. Gone too is the tension of asking "where is Michael?" As Jamie's visions literally show us where he is.
There is also a weird change, in Halloween 4 Leslie L. Rohland played the part of Lindsey Wallace, shown as a friend to both Jamie and Rachel (Ellie Cornell), Leslie did not return for H5. In Halloween 5, they cast Wendy Foxworth as Tina Williams. What's confusing is Leslie and Tina are very similar to one another, they look alike and their characters were similar. In H5 they played off like Tina had known Jamie from before. So it begs the question, if you had to recast why not keep the same character? And if you had to change character, why not cast someone unlike Leslie? I don't know but it's always bugged me.
There are a couple of good things to say about it. Some death scenes are intense and brutal, the ending is good, intense with a decent twist.
Overall though, Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers is the first entry in the series that really truly disappointed me, mostly due to its dumb story.
Loz Hughes (80 KP) rated The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty (2013) in Movies
Jul 15, 2018
The panoramas (3 more)
The soundtrack
The movie's tone and message
The humour
My Antidepressant movie.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I rated this movie as a ten not because I am a Ben stiller fan per se but because of this movie's message and how I identify with the lead character.
Whilst most people will mark this movie lower, they are not wrong in their opinions, for many it may not seem anything special as such.
However I always watch this film whenever I am feeling low or life feels a bit much, because to me, it portrays that its never too late to achieve your dreams and start your adventure.
The film itself opens to an introduction of Walter (Ben stiller), an employee of Life magazine whose job has very much taken over his life, it shows his passion for his work and how he wishes very much, to be more like the adventurous photographer he chronicles. Walter is ridiculed and undermined by his work colleagues for his "spaced out" episodes where he dreams of what he would do or achieve if he were braver, smarter, more confident etc, like an alter ego of sorts.
Walter is then faced with a choice to accept failure and ridicule when he loses a negative in his care or embrace the unknown and not forsake his pride in a journey to hunt down its original owner.
Throughout the film you follow Walter in his quest to search for the missing negative and also his journey on the path of becoming the man he always hoped he would be as a teenager.
Along the way, stunning vistas and scenery set the scene and the humour keeps it from being boring.
Sure the film is a little fanciful but anyone with a good imagination and an element of Walter in them will appreciate it.
My favourite scene is when he is nearly attacked by a shark.."okay. That is not a porpoise" cracks me up every time.
I know a lot of people will mark this film lower and they wont be wrong in their opinions, it doesnt really contain many special effects, it does have a really awkward romance (but lets face it, reality is full of those moments you wish you had been more charming and less of a babbling idiot) and the storyline is a bit far fetched.
However I find it fun, uplifting, charming in its own way and enjoy the travel aspect of it.
Whilst most people will mark this movie lower, they are not wrong in their opinions, for many it may not seem anything special as such.
However I always watch this film whenever I am feeling low or life feels a bit much, because to me, it portrays that its never too late to achieve your dreams and start your adventure.
The film itself opens to an introduction of Walter (Ben stiller), an employee of Life magazine whose job has very much taken over his life, it shows his passion for his work and how he wishes very much, to be more like the adventurous photographer he chronicles. Walter is ridiculed and undermined by his work colleagues for his "spaced out" episodes where he dreams of what he would do or achieve if he were braver, smarter, more confident etc, like an alter ego of sorts.
Walter is then faced with a choice to accept failure and ridicule when he loses a negative in his care or embrace the unknown and not forsake his pride in a journey to hunt down its original owner.
Throughout the film you follow Walter in his quest to search for the missing negative and also his journey on the path of becoming the man he always hoped he would be as a teenager.
Along the way, stunning vistas and scenery set the scene and the humour keeps it from being boring.
Sure the film is a little fanciful but anyone with a good imagination and an element of Walter in them will appreciate it.
My favourite scene is when he is nearly attacked by a shark.."okay. That is not a porpoise" cracks me up every time.
I know a lot of people will mark this film lower and they wont be wrong in their opinions, it doesnt really contain many special effects, it does have a really awkward romance (but lets face it, reality is full of those moments you wish you had been more charming and less of a babbling idiot) and the storyline is a bit far fetched.
However I find it fun, uplifting, charming in its own way and enjoy the travel aspect of it.
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.
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 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.