Search
Search results
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated I, Tonya (2017) in Movies
May 1, 2020
I found this movie to be good, but also kind of boring. The best part of it was Sebastian Stan and it's really because he looks hot in literally everything he does - even with a super creepy mustache. I also really loved Allison Janney. I think she's a phenomenal actress and I've been loving watching her work lately.
It's not that I didn't like Margot Robbie, it's more that I didn't love her. I think she's talented and she very obviously gives 100% to her work, I just wasn't obsessed with her. I don't know. The other thing that I didn't like was the CGI. I'm not sure if it could've been done better because I'm not in the industry (obviously), but I don't think it was as seamless as they wanted it to be. I liked that they tried to give you the close-ups because we don't often get that with stunts or things that the actors don't know how to do, but I almost would've preferred not seeing her face and it being seamless than seeing her face and it being what it was.
Overall, I think this film is a good watch. It's not a favorite but it's definitely not the worst thing I've seen. I could've gone without watching it and I was right to wait until it was available on digital instead of seeing it in theaters.
It's not that I didn't like Margot Robbie, it's more that I didn't love her. I think she's talented and she very obviously gives 100% to her work, I just wasn't obsessed with her. I don't know. The other thing that I didn't like was the CGI. I'm not sure if it could've been done better because I'm not in the industry (obviously), but I don't think it was as seamless as they wanted it to be. I liked that they tried to give you the close-ups because we don't often get that with stunts or things that the actors don't know how to do, but I almost would've preferred not seeing her face and it being seamless than seeing her face and it being what it was.
Overall, I think this film is a good watch. It's not a favorite but it's definitely not the worst thing I've seen. I could've gone without watching it and I was right to wait until it was available on digital instead of seeing it in theaters.
Alice (117 KP) rated The Switch in Books
Mar 3, 2021
Thank you to NetGalley and Macmillan Audio and Flatiron Books for early access to this audiobook
I wholeheartedly adored this book! After reading and loving The Flat Share I knew I wanted to read this book as well so when I saw it was available as an audiobook on NetGalley I jumped at the chance to get to read it. Also, the fact that it was narrated by the absolute ICON that is Alison Steadman and Normal People's Daisy Edgar-Jones really sold it to me! I love when audiobooks have multiple perspectives narrated by different actors as I feel like it adds a lot to the story that you don't always get from a single narrator. This was just so charmingly Beth O'Leary and I loved this one just as much - if not more than I loved The Flat Share. I loved all of the characters and this was such a fun read but it also deals with very serious topics as well such as death, grief and abuse but all rolled up in a charming little tale of love, friendship and family. It gave me major Hallmark Christmas movie vibes as in I kind of knew how it was going to end right at the start but it was so fun and sweet and it was nice just to do life with the characters. I couldn't recommend this book enough!
I wholeheartedly adored this book! After reading and loving The Flat Share I knew I wanted to read this book as well so when I saw it was available as an audiobook on NetGalley I jumped at the chance to get to read it. Also, the fact that it was narrated by the absolute ICON that is Alison Steadman and Normal People's Daisy Edgar-Jones really sold it to me! I love when audiobooks have multiple perspectives narrated by different actors as I feel like it adds a lot to the story that you don't always get from a single narrator. This was just so charmingly Beth O'Leary and I loved this one just as much - if not more than I loved The Flat Share. I loved all of the characters and this was such a fun read but it also deals with very serious topics as well such as death, grief and abuse but all rolled up in a charming little tale of love, friendship and family. It gave me major Hallmark Christmas movie vibes as in I kind of knew how it was going to end right at the start but it was so fun and sweet and it was nice just to do life with the characters. I couldn't recommend this book enough!
Ronyell (38 KP) rated How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000) in Movies
Jul 24, 2020
The Jim Carrey Grinch!
In the town of Whoville, all the Whos were getting ready it celebrate Christmas, but there was one Who that was curious about the true meaning of Christmas and that was Cindy Lou Who herself. Not only was Cindy Lou wondering about the true meaning of Christmas, but she was curious about one person who doesn't live in Whoville and that's the Grinch himself. The Whos almost never talk about the Grinch or want to be reminded of him, but Cindy Lou wanted to be friends with the Grinch and tried to invite him to the Whoville celebration. But, when the Grinch is humiliated at the celebration, he decided that he will steal all the Whos' presents on Christmas Eve.
Wow! I was actually pretty surprised that I enjoyed this movie! I never would have thought that Jim Carrey would do a great job at portraying the Grinch! Jim Carrey made the Grinch's character much more humorous and hammy, which made the film much funnier in tone and the Grinchs' jokes easily land at the right times. Taylor Momsen was fantastic as Cindy Lou Who as Cindy is shown as being a friendly and determined girl who only wanted to be friends with the Grinch and I liked the fact that she truly cares for the Grinch and only wanted to make him happy. James Horner's music was probably the highlight of this film as it surprisingly goes well with the emotional scenes in the movie, such as during the scene where we learn about the Grinch's tragic backstory. The special effects were surprisingly well done for the year 2000 and the film did a fantastic job at showcasing the bizarre yet beautiful world of Whoville and greatly captured the creative style from the original Dr. Seuss book.
My biggest issue with this movie is that the Whos seem to be portrayed in a negative way as they are much more cruel towards the Grinch in this version than in the original book and the 1960s cartoon special. Also, there were times where Jim Carrey's performance as the Grinch got so hammy that I couldn't take his more emotional scenes seriously, like he constantly gets upset whenever the Whos teased him. I also didn't like the fact that Martha, the Grinch's love interest, didn't have much of a role in the film other than just standing around and looking at the scenery and being a love interest.
I always have a problem with certain love interests not having much to do in the film other than just being defined as a love interest to the protagonist and not having a personality of their own. It would have been great if Martha had more scenes with the Grinch so that their relationship would be much more believable to me.
Overall, "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" is one of the most hilarious interpretations of the Grinch ever made on film and it is definitely worth the watch!
Originally posted on: https://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/movie-review-how-grinch-stole-christmas.html
Wow! I was actually pretty surprised that I enjoyed this movie! I never would have thought that Jim Carrey would do a great job at portraying the Grinch! Jim Carrey made the Grinch's character much more humorous and hammy, which made the film much funnier in tone and the Grinchs' jokes easily land at the right times. Taylor Momsen was fantastic as Cindy Lou Who as Cindy is shown as being a friendly and determined girl who only wanted to be friends with the Grinch and I liked the fact that she truly cares for the Grinch and only wanted to make him happy. James Horner's music was probably the highlight of this film as it surprisingly goes well with the emotional scenes in the movie, such as during the scene where we learn about the Grinch's tragic backstory. The special effects were surprisingly well done for the year 2000 and the film did a fantastic job at showcasing the bizarre yet beautiful world of Whoville and greatly captured the creative style from the original Dr. Seuss book.
My biggest issue with this movie is that the Whos seem to be portrayed in a negative way as they are much more cruel towards the Grinch in this version than in the original book and the 1960s cartoon special. Also, there were times where Jim Carrey's performance as the Grinch got so hammy that I couldn't take his more emotional scenes seriously, like he constantly gets upset whenever the Whos teased him. I also didn't like the fact that Martha, the Grinch's love interest, didn't have much of a role in the film other than just standing around and looking at the scenery and being a love interest.
I always have a problem with certain love interests not having much to do in the film other than just being defined as a love interest to the protagonist and not having a personality of their own. It would have been great if Martha had more scenes with the Grinch so that their relationship would be much more believable to me.
Overall, "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" is one of the most hilarious interpretations of the Grinch ever made on film and it is definitely worth the watch!
Originally posted on: https://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/movie-review-how-grinch-stole-christmas.html
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Sep 24, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
When their mobster husbands are all sent to prison, three women decide that the only way they can survive is to take over their criminal enterprise’s, the quest is can their friendship last.
The Kitchen is based on comics released by DC Vertigo and is set in ‘Hell’s Kitchen’, New York during the 1970’s and focus’ on the lives of the wives of an Irish/American mob and their struggle to maintain a basic life style once their husbands have been arrested. Each of the women have a different type of relationship with their husbands; Kathy is in a seemingly normal, loving relationship, Claire is in an abusive relationship and Ruby is in a mixed marriage which is looked down on by alto for the other characters. One of the threads of the film is how each woman reacts to their husbands being away and what will happen when they return.
First off, this is not a comedy, I have seen some reviews where people seem to have been expecting a few laughs, mainly because of the casting of Melissa McCarthy and Tiffany Haddish. The Kitchen has violence, abuse, attempted rape, bad language, lots of guns, prostitutes and shootings but no humour. I think there was only one time anyone laughed (in the cinema audience) and that was when the characters were being shown how to dispose of a dead body.
I have to say that this is a good, well written female lead film, the premise is not forced and there is a reason the characters are female and in a situation that women would not normally be in, especially for the time it is set. Even though the characters are slightly stereotyped (The beaten woman trying to get stronger, the loving wife trying to keep things together) they are not turned into a joke or overly exaggerated and is a big step up from the Ghostbuster’s remake which also had McCarthy as part of an all-female team. Like Ghostbusters there is also a male character who helps the team, Gabriel, but the Kitchen avoids turning him into a joke unlike Chris Hemsworth in ghostbusters.
It could be said that the way the male characters are portrayed is bad, most of them are either thugs, stupid or crazy but this not due to any kind of feminism agenda but is a slightly stereotyped view of how a segment of people were seen, most of the people they deal with are the Irish/American mobsters. This is also shown by the Italians; they are not portrayed in the same way.
I do get the feeling that The Kitchen will be remembered more for scenes and its characters than for the overall movie as there are some bits that seem to drag but, overall it is a film worth watching.
The Kitchen is based on comics released by DC Vertigo and is set in ‘Hell’s Kitchen’, New York during the 1970’s and focus’ on the lives of the wives of an Irish/American mob and their struggle to maintain a basic life style once their husbands have been arrested. Each of the women have a different type of relationship with their husbands; Kathy is in a seemingly normal, loving relationship, Claire is in an abusive relationship and Ruby is in a mixed marriage which is looked down on by alto for the other characters. One of the threads of the film is how each woman reacts to their husbands being away and what will happen when they return.
First off, this is not a comedy, I have seen some reviews where people seem to have been expecting a few laughs, mainly because of the casting of Melissa McCarthy and Tiffany Haddish. The Kitchen has violence, abuse, attempted rape, bad language, lots of guns, prostitutes and shootings but no humour. I think there was only one time anyone laughed (in the cinema audience) and that was when the characters were being shown how to dispose of a dead body.
I have to say that this is a good, well written female lead film, the premise is not forced and there is a reason the characters are female and in a situation that women would not normally be in, especially for the time it is set. Even though the characters are slightly stereotyped (The beaten woman trying to get stronger, the loving wife trying to keep things together) they are not turned into a joke or overly exaggerated and is a big step up from the Ghostbuster’s remake which also had McCarthy as part of an all-female team. Like Ghostbusters there is also a male character who helps the team, Gabriel, but the Kitchen avoids turning him into a joke unlike Chris Hemsworth in ghostbusters.
It could be said that the way the male characters are portrayed is bad, most of them are either thugs, stupid or crazy but this not due to any kind of feminism agenda but is a slightly stereotyped view of how a segment of people were seen, most of the people they deal with are the Irish/American mobsters. This is also shown by the Italians; they are not portrayed in the same way.
I do get the feeling that The Kitchen will be remembered more for scenes and its characters than for the overall movie as there are some bits that seem to drag but, overall it is a film worth watching.
New Street Art
Book
Street art is part of every cityscape. By street art, we mean the crazy and wonderful stencils,...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014) in Movies
Jun 29, 2019
There's a lot of good, fun, over-the-top, explosive action! (2 more)
Age of Extinction features an incredible showcase of special effects.
Great acting from Tucci and Grammar, and a solid new star for the franchise with Mark Wahlberg.
With a 2 hour and 45 minute run-time, the movie goes on far too long and loses steam before the finale. (1 more)
The plot is completely overloaded with enough content to easily cover two films.
Transformers: Age of Extinction is a fun summer movie that sticks to Michael Bay's usual mode of operation, but it's jam-packed and overly ambitious, stretching the run time far longer than it ever should.
After the events of Transformers: Dark of the Moon, referred to in the film as The Battle of Chicago, the surviving Autobots are being hunted to extinction. The United States government is bent on exterminating all Transformers, good and bad, believing them to be an unwelcome global threat. All the while, the hypocritical government has simultaneously partnered with a wealthy inventor who is trying to create his own superior, man-made variations of Transformers. Furthermore, they’re working with the help of the Transformer bounty hunter Lockdown to search out and annihilate Optimus Prime, the famed leader of the Autobots. Prime has been forced into hiding and has sent out a distress call encouraging his comrades to follow suit. When amateur inventor Cade Yeager inadvertently stumbles upon a disguised Optimus Prime, he helps to repair the damaged Transformer who must reunite with his remaining allies to fight for their right to live.
Before I dive into this review, I think I should inform you that I have not seen any of the previous Transformers movies. I should also note that I’m something of a Transformers hater. Despite pressure from family and friends who have praised the movie series, I have deliberately avoided every single one of the films. I never liked the cartoon as a kid, and while Transformers’ amalgamation of cars and robots may be a dream combination for most guys, I have very little interest in either. However, as a critic, I cannot let my own biases get in the way of giving fair judgment. After having watched Transformers: Age of Extinction, I can thankfully report that the film actually wasn’t half bad. While it’s not going to make a Transformers fan out of me, it was an entertaining, albeit overly-long, movie-going experience.
Age of Extinction is an action-packed ride, filled with the kind of over-the-top entertainment you would expect from a Michael Bay film. While Bay has developed something of a bad rap, there’s no denying his knack for fun and ridiculous action sequences. He’s a man who spares no expense when it comes to explosions and special effects, and this is where Bay is at his best. Love him or hate him, it’s hard to argue with his results as he’s surely one of the most successful directors of all time. However, clocking in at two hours and forty-five minutes, the high-speed action of Age of Extinction is exhausting and becomes tiresome long before the finale. Even when Bay slows things down, he keeps the camera overly busy with particle effects and constant movement. While all of that looks great in IMAX 3D, it feels like an endless visual barrage that is frankly a lot to take in. How many lens flares must a man endure in one movie? I understand the desire to make every shot exciting and visually striking, but I think Bay is trying to tackle too much on camera.
Similarly, Age of Extinction is trying to squeeze too much into its plot, which could almost be broken up into two entirely separate movies. We have the hunt for Optimus Prime and the Transformers by Lockdown and the CIA; Cade Yeager’s discovery of Prime and their ensuing alliance; the love story between Cade’s daughter and her boyfriend; the emergence of the Dinobots; as well as the man-made construction of new Transformers. The result is a fast-paced action movie that is convoluted and far too long. That’s not to say that what is there is bad, though. Awful love story aside, all of the other components of the story are solid and even pretty interesting. Kelsey Grammer puts in a good performance as the head of the CIA who is responsible for the extermination of the Transformers. Similarly, Stanley Tucci is great as Joshua Joyce, the brilliant inventor who is recreating human-controlled Transformers for military use. Yet I can’t help but think that Joyce’s plot would have been perhaps been better to save for a sequel. Sure, it offers a nice parallel between the two inventors and it also creates an opportunity for them to introduce some all-new Transformers, but aren’t the Dinobots enough? There’s so much going on in the film that the eagerly-anticipated Dinobots aren’t given much screen time at all. There is just an unreasonable amount of narratives going on in this movie, to the point where it’s hard to follow, and even harder to stay interested in. Instead of sitting on the edge of your seat during the climactic showdown, you’re probably going to be looking at your watch and wondering how much longer this movie can possibly go on.
While I’m no expert on Transformers, I think the film does an admirable job in bringing the robotic characters to life. Their appearance and animation are both impressive, and they’re typically a pretty fun bunch. I have to admit, though, that I was a bit jarred by the angry and violent demeanor of Optimus Prime. I thought he was supposed to be the good guy everyone looked up to? In Age of Extinction, he clearly has some anger management issues. While he might be the most skilled warrior out there, he sure doesn’t seem like much of a role model. Peter Cullen, the original voice of Optimus Prime, has one again returned to voice the character. John Goodman gives a stand-out voice performance as Hound, in a role he seemed to have a lot of fun with, and Ken Watanabe voices the Samurai-like Transformer known as Drift. All in all, there are a lot of Transformers in the movie, but there is hardly ample time to get to know most of them. I imagine many of them have been introduced in previous films, but for a newcomer like myself, I had a hard time distinguishing between quite a few of them. Then there are the Dinobots, which look awesome, but we’re not given a chance to know much of anything about them. It’s a shame that they’re reduced to feeling like unnecessary bookends to an already overly-crammed movie.
On the human side of things, Mark Wahlberg is enjoyable as the struggling inventor who scavengers through whatever he can to try to create a breakthrough invention. He brings a charming and heroic presence to his role, making him a character we can identify with and root for as he tries to assist the highly-targeted Transformers. T.J. Miller’s Lucas makes for a mildly humorous companion to Cade, although much of the film’s attempts at comedy feel forced and aren’t very funny. Then there’s Nicola Peltz as the skimpily-dressed, rebellious but brainy and innocent, party girl daughter Tessa. She fits right into Bay’s stereotypical sexist female lead who serves as little more than a damsel in distress and eye candy. Still, I don’t know who is worse; Tessa, or her rally car racing boyfriend Shane, played by Jack Reynor. I felt just as frustrated by them as Wahlberg does playing Tessa’s disgruntled and disapproving father. These two lovebirds are an annoying and unwanted addition that only further drag out the plot. While it was at first vaguely amusing to watch Cade freak out as the over-protective father, that shtick ended up getting old real quick. While Wahlberg makes a good new face for the franchise, I hope to God that he comes alone for the next one.
Transformers: Age of Extinction is a fun summer movie. Director Michael Bay sticks to his usual mode of operation with ridiculous action sequences, top of the line special effects, and a whole lot of explosions. If you’re looking for a movie with more flash than substance, Age of Extinction should be right up your alley. It’s jam-packed and overly ambitious, stretching the run time far longer than it ever should, but if offers plenty of dumb, fun entertainment. Transformers fans should be pleased, although the series still has yet to make a fan out of me.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.22.14.)
Before I dive into this review, I think I should inform you that I have not seen any of the previous Transformers movies. I should also note that I’m something of a Transformers hater. Despite pressure from family and friends who have praised the movie series, I have deliberately avoided every single one of the films. I never liked the cartoon as a kid, and while Transformers’ amalgamation of cars and robots may be a dream combination for most guys, I have very little interest in either. However, as a critic, I cannot let my own biases get in the way of giving fair judgment. After having watched Transformers: Age of Extinction, I can thankfully report that the film actually wasn’t half bad. While it’s not going to make a Transformers fan out of me, it was an entertaining, albeit overly-long, movie-going experience.
Age of Extinction is an action-packed ride, filled with the kind of over-the-top entertainment you would expect from a Michael Bay film. While Bay has developed something of a bad rap, there’s no denying his knack for fun and ridiculous action sequences. He’s a man who spares no expense when it comes to explosions and special effects, and this is where Bay is at his best. Love him or hate him, it’s hard to argue with his results as he’s surely one of the most successful directors of all time. However, clocking in at two hours and forty-five minutes, the high-speed action of Age of Extinction is exhausting and becomes tiresome long before the finale. Even when Bay slows things down, he keeps the camera overly busy with particle effects and constant movement. While all of that looks great in IMAX 3D, it feels like an endless visual barrage that is frankly a lot to take in. How many lens flares must a man endure in one movie? I understand the desire to make every shot exciting and visually striking, but I think Bay is trying to tackle too much on camera.
Similarly, Age of Extinction is trying to squeeze too much into its plot, which could almost be broken up into two entirely separate movies. We have the hunt for Optimus Prime and the Transformers by Lockdown and the CIA; Cade Yeager’s discovery of Prime and their ensuing alliance; the love story between Cade’s daughter and her boyfriend; the emergence of the Dinobots; as well as the man-made construction of new Transformers. The result is a fast-paced action movie that is convoluted and far too long. That’s not to say that what is there is bad, though. Awful love story aside, all of the other components of the story are solid and even pretty interesting. Kelsey Grammer puts in a good performance as the head of the CIA who is responsible for the extermination of the Transformers. Similarly, Stanley Tucci is great as Joshua Joyce, the brilliant inventor who is recreating human-controlled Transformers for military use. Yet I can’t help but think that Joyce’s plot would have been perhaps been better to save for a sequel. Sure, it offers a nice parallel between the two inventors and it also creates an opportunity for them to introduce some all-new Transformers, but aren’t the Dinobots enough? There’s so much going on in the film that the eagerly-anticipated Dinobots aren’t given much screen time at all. There is just an unreasonable amount of narratives going on in this movie, to the point where it’s hard to follow, and even harder to stay interested in. Instead of sitting on the edge of your seat during the climactic showdown, you’re probably going to be looking at your watch and wondering how much longer this movie can possibly go on.
While I’m no expert on Transformers, I think the film does an admirable job in bringing the robotic characters to life. Their appearance and animation are both impressive, and they’re typically a pretty fun bunch. I have to admit, though, that I was a bit jarred by the angry and violent demeanor of Optimus Prime. I thought he was supposed to be the good guy everyone looked up to? In Age of Extinction, he clearly has some anger management issues. While he might be the most skilled warrior out there, he sure doesn’t seem like much of a role model. Peter Cullen, the original voice of Optimus Prime, has one again returned to voice the character. John Goodman gives a stand-out voice performance as Hound, in a role he seemed to have a lot of fun with, and Ken Watanabe voices the Samurai-like Transformer known as Drift. All in all, there are a lot of Transformers in the movie, but there is hardly ample time to get to know most of them. I imagine many of them have been introduced in previous films, but for a newcomer like myself, I had a hard time distinguishing between quite a few of them. Then there are the Dinobots, which look awesome, but we’re not given a chance to know much of anything about them. It’s a shame that they’re reduced to feeling like unnecessary bookends to an already overly-crammed movie.
On the human side of things, Mark Wahlberg is enjoyable as the struggling inventor who scavengers through whatever he can to try to create a breakthrough invention. He brings a charming and heroic presence to his role, making him a character we can identify with and root for as he tries to assist the highly-targeted Transformers. T.J. Miller’s Lucas makes for a mildly humorous companion to Cade, although much of the film’s attempts at comedy feel forced and aren’t very funny. Then there’s Nicola Peltz as the skimpily-dressed, rebellious but brainy and innocent, party girl daughter Tessa. She fits right into Bay’s stereotypical sexist female lead who serves as little more than a damsel in distress and eye candy. Still, I don’t know who is worse; Tessa, or her rally car racing boyfriend Shane, played by Jack Reynor. I felt just as frustrated by them as Wahlberg does playing Tessa’s disgruntled and disapproving father. These two lovebirds are an annoying and unwanted addition that only further drag out the plot. While it was at first vaguely amusing to watch Cade freak out as the over-protective father, that shtick ended up getting old real quick. While Wahlberg makes a good new face for the franchise, I hope to God that he comes alone for the next one.
Transformers: Age of Extinction is a fun summer movie. Director Michael Bay sticks to his usual mode of operation with ridiculous action sequences, top of the line special effects, and a whole lot of explosions. If you’re looking for a movie with more flash than substance, Age of Extinction should be right up your alley. It’s jam-packed and overly ambitious, stretching the run time far longer than it ever should, but if offers plenty of dumb, fun entertainment. Transformers fans should be pleased, although the series still has yet to make a fan out of me.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.22.14.)
Stephen (210 KP) rated Isn't It Romantic (2019) in Movies
Mar 18, 2019 (Updated Mar 18, 2019)
The good thing about a rom com is that even if it’s not that good, there’s still always something to like in there somewhere.
‘Isn’t It Romantic’ sets out to lovingly spoof the rom com formula, and does this perfectly, but still ends up delivering everything a good rom com should do.
It’s lovely to see the wonderful Rebel Wilson getting a starring role, normally she just gets to inject a bit of her talents here and there, but she really gets her teeth into this role. She comes across as a really lovely person, her natural self shining through the character she plays.
There are lots of references to other much loved rom coms (e.g. Bridget Jones and 13 Going On 30), all done with an obvious passion.
One touch of genius was the way Rebel Wilson’s character’s expletives were drowned out by an assortment of background noises - a really simple idea but so refreshing and also hilarious.
The karaoke scene, in which the cast sing along to Whitney Houston’s ‘I Wanna Dance With Somebody’ is superb, and equals the magic of ‘13 Going On 30’s outstanding ‘Thriller’ scene.
Overall, I adored this movie, great cast, great music, and loads of love poured into the film by all those involved.
‘Isn’t It Romantic’ sets out to lovingly spoof the rom com formula, and does this perfectly, but still ends up delivering everything a good rom com should do.
It’s lovely to see the wonderful Rebel Wilson getting a starring role, normally she just gets to inject a bit of her talents here and there, but she really gets her teeth into this role. She comes across as a really lovely person, her natural self shining through the character she plays.
There are lots of references to other much loved rom coms (e.g. Bridget Jones and 13 Going On 30), all done with an obvious passion.
One touch of genius was the way Rebel Wilson’s character’s expletives were drowned out by an assortment of background noises - a really simple idea but so refreshing and also hilarious.
The karaoke scene, in which the cast sing along to Whitney Houston’s ‘I Wanna Dance With Somebody’ is superb, and equals the magic of ‘13 Going On 30’s outstanding ‘Thriller’ scene.
Overall, I adored this movie, great cast, great music, and loads of love poured into the film by all those involved.
David McK (3632 KP) rated Assassin's Creed (2016) in Movies
Jun 9, 2019 (Updated Jan 18, 2020)
What. On. Earth.
Another (IMO) failed attempt to bring a video game - in this case, Ubisofts long-running Assassin's Creeds series - to the big screen.
For those not in the know (anyone?), those games sees the player taking the part of a character reliving the memories of one of their ancestors through a device known as the animus, with a whole alt-past mysticism behind it all, and with a centuries-long war between the Templars (the bad guys, in all bit one game) and the Assassin's bubbling along in the background.
And, right there's, is why I think most of these video-game-to-movies adaptations fail: in the game, you're (as the player) are an active participant whereas in the movie theatre you're passive.
It probably also doesn't help that the film seems largely based on one of the more universally-disliked portions of the source material (i.e. the present day parts, which have more or less been completely dropped in the games that came out after this film) rather than the more-interesting past! On the plus side, however, at least they went for a new period of history to visit instead of something already covered by the games.
Another (IMO) failed attempt to bring a video game - in this case, Ubisofts long-running Assassin's Creeds series - to the big screen.
For those not in the know (anyone?), those games sees the player taking the part of a character reliving the memories of one of their ancestors through a device known as the animus, with a whole alt-past mysticism behind it all, and with a centuries-long war between the Templars (the bad guys, in all bit one game) and the Assassin's bubbling along in the background.
And, right there's, is why I think most of these video-game-to-movies adaptations fail: in the game, you're (as the player) are an active participant whereas in the movie theatre you're passive.
It probably also doesn't help that the film seems largely based on one of the more universally-disliked portions of the source material (i.e. the present day parts, which have more or less been completely dropped in the games that came out after this film) rather than the more-interesting past! On the plus side, however, at least they went for a new period of history to visit instead of something already covered by the games.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Way of the Dragon (1972) in Movies
Jun 23, 2019
This film is a bit more lighthearted in comparison to other Bruce Lee films as there is a lot more humor and silliness than I expected during my first viewing. That's not necessarily a bad thing either. Most Bruce Lee movies have that 70s action movie cheese anyway and the weird thing is that it feels like that cheesiness is used to its maximum potential in any film Lee's a part of. Lee also doesn't actually fight in this film until about thirty minutes in, but it makes that first fight sequence and everything after so much better since you have to wait a bit for it. The payoff really doesn't get any sweeter than in this film either. Chuck Norris and Bruce Lee squaring off against each other to the death. Stop reading here if you want to avoid spoilers, but from the information gathered online Chuck Norris has only played a villain two times in his career and this is the only time his character has died. Besides where would the world be without Chuck Norris jokes? The man can blow bubbles with beef jerky, but we're getting off-topic. The Way of the Dragon is definitely worth seeing and/or owning for Bruce Lee and martial arts film fans.