Search
Search results
Erika (17789 KP) rated Peter Rabbit 2: The Runaway (2021) in Movies
Jun 15, 2021
Full disclosure, I absolutely loved the first Peter Rabbit film. I found it completely hilarious and cackled numerous times. The sequel did not make me laugh.
I typically don’t watch straight-up kid movies anymore, because they’re not funny, and they are as annoying as the kids in the audience. This movie completely reminded me of that.
The film begins with the wedding of Bea and Thomas, the rabbits and other members of McGregor’s Garden are all present. The animals are mixed in with the humans, and it looked very odd. I can’t figure out why. Bea and Thomas enter married bliss (?), running a shop in town, and tending the garden. Bea’s first Peter Rabbit book has been published by Thomas himself. Bea receives an offer from a publisher, Nigel Basil-Jones, played by David Oyelowo, to have her book republished so it can reach a wider audience. Bea begins to compromise her integrity to please Nigel and make the rabbits hipper to boost sales. Meanwhile, Peter embraces his bad boy/ mischievous image and makes friends with this super creepy rabbit from the city, participating in food heists.
The two main plotlines really didn’t make sense together and seemed to only be related because they were both about family. Yawn.
James Corden, who I can tolerate most of the time, was so completely annoying. His performance killed any motivation I had to see a possible third movie. This movie was just dumb, but I guess it probably entertained children.
There were a few positives. Oyelowo was hilarious, and one of the best parts of the film. He is the only reason I’m giving this film two-stars His comedy skills are on point and his interactions with Domhnall Gleeson were the best source of adult laughs. I also loved the voice acting of Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail. Though, I was a little bummed that Daisy Ridley did not return as Cottontail.
The recent marketing stated, “In Theaters. Finally”. I’m not sure this film should have been released in theaters, they should have released it on VOD at Easter-time either in 2020, or 2021.
I typically don’t watch straight-up kid movies anymore, because they’re not funny, and they are as annoying as the kids in the audience. This movie completely reminded me of that.
The film begins with the wedding of Bea and Thomas, the rabbits and other members of McGregor’s Garden are all present. The animals are mixed in with the humans, and it looked very odd. I can’t figure out why. Bea and Thomas enter married bliss (?), running a shop in town, and tending the garden. Bea’s first Peter Rabbit book has been published by Thomas himself. Bea receives an offer from a publisher, Nigel Basil-Jones, played by David Oyelowo, to have her book republished so it can reach a wider audience. Bea begins to compromise her integrity to please Nigel and make the rabbits hipper to boost sales. Meanwhile, Peter embraces his bad boy/ mischievous image and makes friends with this super creepy rabbit from the city, participating in food heists.
The two main plotlines really didn’t make sense together and seemed to only be related because they were both about family. Yawn.
James Corden, who I can tolerate most of the time, was so completely annoying. His performance killed any motivation I had to see a possible third movie. This movie was just dumb, but I guess it probably entertained children.
There were a few positives. Oyelowo was hilarious, and one of the best parts of the film. He is the only reason I’m giving this film two-stars His comedy skills are on point and his interactions with Domhnall Gleeson were the best source of adult laughs. I also loved the voice acting of Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail. Though, I was a little bummed that Daisy Ridley did not return as Cottontail.
The recent marketing stated, “In Theaters. Finally”. I’m not sure this film should have been released in theaters, they should have released it on VOD at Easter-time either in 2020, or 2021.
Erika (17789 KP) rated Mission: Impossible (1996) in Movies
May 13, 2018
Disclaimer: I hadn't seen this movie prior to watching it this evening. Maybe I saw pieces of it at some point, but not all of it. The only MI film I'd watched (in full) prior to this was the last one.
This film was predictable to me, though, to be fair, a lot of films have copied it, so I'm sure if I'd have seen it when it initially came out, I may have been surprised.
Some of the action scenes weren't completely believable, and the visual fx were very strange looking on bluray. Paramount should probably get around to remastering these here pretty soon.
The one scene I was impressed with was the whole hanging in the safe in Langley. It's also the scene that's been mimicked in other films the most.
This film was predictable to me, though, to be fair, a lot of films have copied it, so I'm sure if I'd have seen it when it initially came out, I may have been surprised.
Some of the action scenes weren't completely believable, and the visual fx were very strange looking on bluray. Paramount should probably get around to remastering these here pretty soon.
The one scene I was impressed with was the whole hanging in the safe in Langley. It's also the scene that's been mimicked in other films the most.
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Raven (1963) in Movies
Feb 9, 2018 (Updated Feb 9, 2018)
Vincent Price Broods Over His Dead Wife's Portrait (Yet Again)
Roger Corman's cycle of Poe-inspired movies goes into full-on comedy mode with this tale of squabbling magicians (played by Vincent Price, Peter Lorre and Boris Karloff). It is, obviously, only very loosely inspired by Poe's poem, but then you can only stretch 108 lines of verse so far.
The fun is in the performances, with the veteran cast members competing to ham it up more extravagantly. Also knocking about the lower reaches of the cast list is Jack Nicholson, really showing not much sign of the talent that would earn him so many Oscar nominations in later years.
Knockabout stuff, but well played and often very funny. Not actually much of a horror movie, though, certainly by modern standards.
The fun is in the performances, with the veteran cast members competing to ham it up more extravagantly. Also knocking about the lower reaches of the cast list is Jack Nicholson, really showing not much sign of the talent that would earn him so many Oscar nominations in later years.
Knockabout stuff, but well played and often very funny. Not actually much of a horror movie, though, certainly by modern standards.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2019)
Childs Play is a strange & maybe unnecessary reboot of a cult classic series of films that are still going strong. That being said this new film does manage to hold its own as a solo slasher & throws in enough new ideas to keep things feeling fresh & fun while most importantly of all staying faithful to the original formula. Lets get one thing out the way here the doll design of chucky in this film is horrendous & down right hideous looking (not in a good way) I get they needed to change the way he looked slightly but this doll side on especially has one ugly & bulky side profile. Its not so bad when he's face on or half shadowed in darkness & there are some genuinely creepy scenes involving the glowing eyes. Mark Hamill is the perfect choice voice wise & really does bring life, comedy & creepiness to an other wise soulless character. Plot is quite basic & characters are also fairly paint by numbers too but the cast do bring the movie to life with believable acting & fun interactions with each other. Atmosphere is built up nicely especially in the first half as its tense, unnerving & slowly paced making the viewer earn its kills & scares. These a big sense of nostalgia here too & the film does over all feel like it was made in the 80s despite its squeaky clean look at times. References, nods & inspirations litter the film too & genuinely feel clever rather than like a cheap 'remember this'. Delivering on gore this instalment has some nasty death scenes & the finally is deliciously over the top. I did however much prefer the first half over the second half as I found the slower pacing way more tense & creepy especially seeing this doll gradually learn to kill with almost a sense of naivety, innocence & good intention to it. You could also argue the creation of the doll is our fault as consumers & our desire to want more/connect more. Chucky could also be metaphor for how soulless & desensitized we have become too. Childs Play doesnt need to exist at all but manages to stand on its own two feet as a ridiculous, creepy, devilishly funny & extremely entertaining just dont expect anything ground breaking or intelligent & you will be sure to have a blast Buddi.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Freeheld (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Based on a true story about Detective Lauren Hester (Julianne Moore) who is dying of cancer and her life-partner Stacie Andree (Ellen Page, who “came out” herself last year), and their fight for their civil rights against the “Freeholders Committee” in Ocean City, NJ.
After more than 20 years of being on the force and highly decorated, Lauren Hester is seeking to give her pension to her domestic partner just like any straight married county employee has been able to do. The Freeholders, are a committee who governs the county, decided that Hester’s pension would not be given to Andree because they are lesbians and the fight begins. They are contacted by a gay rights activist, Steve Goldstein (Steve Carell), who with the help of Hester’s detective partner Dane Wells (Michael Shannon), try to get the Freeholders to change their opinion. Only with help from the community and police force, who are rallied by Goldstein and Wells,will anything be changed.
Right from the start the movie grabs hold of the viewer, and keeps them engrossed in their struggle to the end. Being so close to being a biography I was surprised at how well it was done and my interest was kept throughout. It is not just an account of a gay couple, more a depiction of a battle for everyone’s civil rights. Freeheld skillfully depicts the struggles of gay professionals to keep their identity a secret from society while still being successful in their field, having a fulfilling relationship and how society discriminated LGBTQ domestic partnerships which became fuel for the Marriage Equality movement.
The actors and director (Peter Sollett) keep the pace fluid and easy to follow without losing any of the important details of their lives or bogging it down with the legalities of the fight. The screenplay could easily have turned this into an exploitation just for the tear-jerking factor, but instead keep it realistic, even adding a bit of humor alleviate the dreariness the story, just like most people will do when facing the death of a loved one. I found Freeheld to be somewhat upbeat, even in the darkest scenes dealing with the misuse of the laws due to bigotry and how close to reality Moore simulates a person dying of cancer, instead turning it into another gloom and doom cancer or civil rights movie. Having been through it myself, I could fully connect with Page’s depiction how it feels to watch loved one dying of cancer and I know so many others will also.
I honestly loved Freeheld, I would suggest to anyone who prefers a matter of fact movie mixed with humor, compassion, and heartbreak that ends with you feeling like you were fully immersed in their life and closure with the finale.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/09/freeheld/
After more than 20 years of being on the force and highly decorated, Lauren Hester is seeking to give her pension to her domestic partner just like any straight married county employee has been able to do. The Freeholders, are a committee who governs the county, decided that Hester’s pension would not be given to Andree because they are lesbians and the fight begins. They are contacted by a gay rights activist, Steve Goldstein (Steve Carell), who with the help of Hester’s detective partner Dane Wells (Michael Shannon), try to get the Freeholders to change their opinion. Only with help from the community and police force, who are rallied by Goldstein and Wells,will anything be changed.
Right from the start the movie grabs hold of the viewer, and keeps them engrossed in their struggle to the end. Being so close to being a biography I was surprised at how well it was done and my interest was kept throughout. It is not just an account of a gay couple, more a depiction of a battle for everyone’s civil rights. Freeheld skillfully depicts the struggles of gay professionals to keep their identity a secret from society while still being successful in their field, having a fulfilling relationship and how society discriminated LGBTQ domestic partnerships which became fuel for the Marriage Equality movement.
The actors and director (Peter Sollett) keep the pace fluid and easy to follow without losing any of the important details of their lives or bogging it down with the legalities of the fight. The screenplay could easily have turned this into an exploitation just for the tear-jerking factor, but instead keep it realistic, even adding a bit of humor alleviate the dreariness the story, just like most people will do when facing the death of a loved one. I found Freeheld to be somewhat upbeat, even in the darkest scenes dealing with the misuse of the laws due to bigotry and how close to reality Moore simulates a person dying of cancer, instead turning it into another gloom and doom cancer or civil rights movie. Having been through it myself, I could fully connect with Page’s depiction how it feels to watch loved one dying of cancer and I know so many others will also.
I honestly loved Freeheld, I would suggest to anyone who prefers a matter of fact movie mixed with humor, compassion, and heartbreak that ends with you feeling like you were fully immersed in their life and closure with the finale.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/09/freeheld/
Kelly (279 KP) rated Bird Box (2018) in Movies
Jan 7, 2019
Enjoyable
Contains spoilers, click to show
I had been eager to watch this for some time after reading reviews, and was not disappointed. Having never read the book in which the film is based, I did not know what to expect. I knew that the film was a horror, but am not easily shocked or scared, so was not expecting much from this point of view, however I did find the film enjoyable in terms of the storyline.
The story is based around a reluctant mother, played by Sandra Bullock, who finds she has to raise the child she never wanted as a result of an apocalyptic event. The general premise of the story is that there are creature, which if you see, result in impending insanity and suicidal thoughts. Malorie, the main character seeks refuge in a house with other survivors (who predictably don’t make it to the end of the story) in order to ride out the apocalypse. Realising that her position is not stable, the story also flashes to the future, showing Malories escape towards a safe haven with her son and the child of one of the other survivors. The path to the safe haven is taken blind folded (to avoid looking at the invisible threat), aided by a small box which contains birds, who can sense the presence of the evil. Having seen a fair few horrors, I am pretty desensitised to the use of fear in the movie - basically, I didn’t find it too scary, however I did feel that the story was intriguing.
One of the most interesting aspects of the film was the story of the relationship between Malorie and her children. The reluctant mother never named the children formally until the end, and we see the relationship and her feelings towards them both evolve over the course of the movie.
I felt that this was one of the better roles Sandra Bullock has played, and she acted well throughout the movie, her scenes that portrayed uncertainty and fear were believable and she evolved the character well as the story line develops.
Would I lose sleep after watching this, no- the film was not that scary, but ultimately I found it an enjoyable story with a sweet twist at the end. I look forward to reading the book next.
The story is based around a reluctant mother, played by Sandra Bullock, who finds she has to raise the child she never wanted as a result of an apocalyptic event. The general premise of the story is that there are creature, which if you see, result in impending insanity and suicidal thoughts. Malorie, the main character seeks refuge in a house with other survivors (who predictably don’t make it to the end of the story) in order to ride out the apocalypse. Realising that her position is not stable, the story also flashes to the future, showing Malories escape towards a safe haven with her son and the child of one of the other survivors. The path to the safe haven is taken blind folded (to avoid looking at the invisible threat), aided by a small box which contains birds, who can sense the presence of the evil. Having seen a fair few horrors, I am pretty desensitised to the use of fear in the movie - basically, I didn’t find it too scary, however I did feel that the story was intriguing.
One of the most interesting aspects of the film was the story of the relationship between Malorie and her children. The reluctant mother never named the children formally until the end, and we see the relationship and her feelings towards them both evolve over the course of the movie.
I felt that this was one of the better roles Sandra Bullock has played, and she acted well throughout the movie, her scenes that portrayed uncertainty and fear were believable and she evolved the character well as the story line develops.
Would I lose sleep after watching this, no- the film was not that scary, but ultimately I found it an enjoyable story with a sweet twist at the end. I look forward to reading the book next.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Out of the Furnace (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The holiday season is upon us and with that the end of the movie season for 2013. This is the point where studios release
The last blockbusters of the year. It’s also the time when they release what I like to call ‘hidden gems’ of the year. The ones you never see coming or fly under the radar and don’t get the credit they deserve.
Today’s selection for your consideration, definitely qualifies as one of those films the ‘flies under the radar’ but is definitely one worthy of recognition and more than worthy to be seen.
The thriller “Out Of The Furnace” will hit theaters on Friday December 6th. Starring Christian Bale, Woody Harrelson, Zoe Saldana, Willem Dafoe, Forrest Whitaker, Casey Affleck, Sam Shepard and directed by Scoot Cooper ‘Out Of The Furnace’ tells the story of Russell Blaze (Bale) and Rodney (Affleck).
Two blue collar brothers from Pennsylvania who, along with their Uncle Red (Shepard), care for their sick father. Russell works at the local steel mill until an impossible string of random events sends him to prison. Meanwhile, Rodney, a recently returned Iraqi war veteran unable to find work is lured into less than legal means of earning income in order to help provide for the family. Upon his release, Russell’s life takes an even more dramatic turn as he is forced to choose between justice for his brother or his freedom.
‘Out Of The Furnace’ is not exactly a holiday film. It’s a tale of revenge. It’s a story that follows a hard-working American family who by no fault of their own, were overcome come by outside elements that they could not be prepared for or never anticipate.
It’s a tragedy reminiscent of Shakespeare combined with a powerful cast.
It’s methodical, shocking, and heartbreaking. Not for the faint of heart. It shows that even in the end, no matter what choices you have standing in the shoes of Russell Blaze you can still lose. The movie starts off slow and certain aspects like the fate of Uncle Red get lost in the mix but all in all I’d say this movie is definitely one worth seeing and I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if it doesn’t get talked up for a few awards.
The last blockbusters of the year. It’s also the time when they release what I like to call ‘hidden gems’ of the year. The ones you never see coming or fly under the radar and don’t get the credit they deserve.
Today’s selection for your consideration, definitely qualifies as one of those films the ‘flies under the radar’ but is definitely one worthy of recognition and more than worthy to be seen.
The thriller “Out Of The Furnace” will hit theaters on Friday December 6th. Starring Christian Bale, Woody Harrelson, Zoe Saldana, Willem Dafoe, Forrest Whitaker, Casey Affleck, Sam Shepard and directed by Scoot Cooper ‘Out Of The Furnace’ tells the story of Russell Blaze (Bale) and Rodney (Affleck).
Two blue collar brothers from Pennsylvania who, along with their Uncle Red (Shepard), care for their sick father. Russell works at the local steel mill until an impossible string of random events sends him to prison. Meanwhile, Rodney, a recently returned Iraqi war veteran unable to find work is lured into less than legal means of earning income in order to help provide for the family. Upon his release, Russell’s life takes an even more dramatic turn as he is forced to choose between justice for his brother or his freedom.
‘Out Of The Furnace’ is not exactly a holiday film. It’s a tale of revenge. It’s a story that follows a hard-working American family who by no fault of their own, were overcome come by outside elements that they could not be prepared for or never anticipate.
It’s a tragedy reminiscent of Shakespeare combined with a powerful cast.
It’s methodical, shocking, and heartbreaking. Not for the faint of heart. It shows that even in the end, no matter what choices you have standing in the shoes of Russell Blaze you can still lose. The movie starts off slow and certain aspects like the fate of Uncle Red get lost in the mix but all in all I’d say this movie is definitely one worth seeing and I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if it doesn’t get talked up for a few awards.
iStopMotion for iPad
Photo & Video and Education
App
*** Winner Macworld Best of Show 2013 *** *** Winner Macworld Best of Show 2012 and Mac Observer...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Murder on the Orient Express is a mystery drama directed by, and starring, Kenneth Branagh and is based on the 1934 Agatha Christie novel of the same name. The film brings in a spectacular cast alongside Branagh, including Penelope Cruz, Willem Dafoe, Judi Dench, Johnny Depp, Josh Gad, Michelle Pfeiffer and Daisy Ridley. Also part of the main cast, while not well known, but equally as talented, are Tom Bateman, Derek Jacobi, Leslie Odom Jr. and Lucy Boynton.
For those unfamiliar with the novel, or the 1974 and 2001 adaptations, Murder tells the story of, well… a murder. On a train. It’s really a lot more than that. Branagh portrays Hercule Poirot, a famed Belgian detective who is looking forward to some time off. But during his travels, a most unfortunate thing happens. Two things actually. Someone is murdered aboard the train he is traveling on, the Orient Express (naturally). And the murderer would’ve gotten away free and clear had storm not caused an avalanche, which thanks to a derailed engine, caused the train to become stuck and the body to be discovered. Poirot’s friend, Bouc (Bateman), runs the train and requested that Poirot solve the mystery before the police arrive in fear of someone innocent being accused, and to save himself from a heyday with his father. Can Poirot find out who is the killer between the star-studded cast?
I’ve read the novel. Seen both adaptations. This film blows those earlier adaptations out of the water. There is no contest here. Now clearly, nothing can beat the book. But Murder is about as great a film you can get in the murky land of Hollywood these days. As mentioned, Branagh directed and starred in the film, which he shot on 65 mm. The last time he did this was with Hamlet in 1996. It looked good then, and it looks even better now. With eye-popping visuals throughout the entirety of the film, and a masterful soundtrack that seamlessly blended with the tones and themes of each scene, the film is a modern masterpiece.
It wasn’t without its faults. (Most) every film has them. And there are a lot of people who are upset with Branagh’s portrayal of Poirot, particularly the representation of his eccentric facial hair. I am not one of those people. I believe it, along with other amazing moments, lent a bit of humor to the movie to break up what should otherwise be, and is, a serious whodunit mystery. Also, I felt they changed a few things in the adaptation that didn’t necessarily need to be changed.
I found it hard to sit and write about the film though. Given the nature of a great mystery, I can’t tell you too much about it without risk of giving out crucial details to the plot and outcome. So I will leave you with this, boys, girls, and everything in between and beyond… with a great and talented cast (bravo to Michelle Pfeiffer in particular) who nailed home their characters, to great visuals, and a great score, this movie is definitely one you want to catch.
For those unfamiliar with the novel, or the 1974 and 2001 adaptations, Murder tells the story of, well… a murder. On a train. It’s really a lot more than that. Branagh portrays Hercule Poirot, a famed Belgian detective who is looking forward to some time off. But during his travels, a most unfortunate thing happens. Two things actually. Someone is murdered aboard the train he is traveling on, the Orient Express (naturally). And the murderer would’ve gotten away free and clear had storm not caused an avalanche, which thanks to a derailed engine, caused the train to become stuck and the body to be discovered. Poirot’s friend, Bouc (Bateman), runs the train and requested that Poirot solve the mystery before the police arrive in fear of someone innocent being accused, and to save himself from a heyday with his father. Can Poirot find out who is the killer between the star-studded cast?
I’ve read the novel. Seen both adaptations. This film blows those earlier adaptations out of the water. There is no contest here. Now clearly, nothing can beat the book. But Murder is about as great a film you can get in the murky land of Hollywood these days. As mentioned, Branagh directed and starred in the film, which he shot on 65 mm. The last time he did this was with Hamlet in 1996. It looked good then, and it looks even better now. With eye-popping visuals throughout the entirety of the film, and a masterful soundtrack that seamlessly blended with the tones and themes of each scene, the film is a modern masterpiece.
It wasn’t without its faults. (Most) every film has them. And there are a lot of people who are upset with Branagh’s portrayal of Poirot, particularly the representation of his eccentric facial hair. I am not one of those people. I believe it, along with other amazing moments, lent a bit of humor to the movie to break up what should otherwise be, and is, a serious whodunit mystery. Also, I felt they changed a few things in the adaptation that didn’t necessarily need to be changed.
I found it hard to sit and write about the film though. Given the nature of a great mystery, I can’t tell you too much about it without risk of giving out crucial details to the plot and outcome. So I will leave you with this, boys, girls, and everything in between and beyond… with a great and talented cast (bravo to Michelle Pfeiffer in particular) who nailed home their characters, to great visuals, and a great score, this movie is definitely one you want to catch.
Andrea (28 KP) rated Vampire Academy in Books
Aug 18, 2017
Passes the Bechdel test on the first page. (2 more)
Primary relationship is a friendship
Strong female protagonist
Other books in the series are stronger, so keep reading (1 more)
Don't judge a book by its movie
Not about vampires, and that's a good thing.
This series represents some of Mead's strongest writing. While this isn't the best book in the series (I save that distinction for #2, #3, and especially #6) it does give the necessary set up for everything.
The primary relationship with the friendship and devotion between Rose and Lissa. Both women have their own stories through the series and the book easily passes the bechdel test and many others. That isn't to say that the male lead isn't worthwhile; he will most likely become one of your fav "book boyfriends" but his role become bigger later in the books.
While the series contains vampires and is set in a vampiric world (practically no humans in the series) I wouldn't call it a typical vampire book. The vampire setting serves more as a way to introduce a discussion on class structure and politics. We seem more and more of this later in the series.
One thing of note: the primary romantics relationship in this book is between a student and her mentor/instructor. Also, while she is above the age of consent in Montana (where this is set) she is under 18 for half the series.
The primary relationship with the friendship and devotion between Rose and Lissa. Both women have their own stories through the series and the book easily passes the bechdel test and many others. That isn't to say that the male lead isn't worthwhile; he will most likely become one of your fav "book boyfriends" but his role become bigger later in the books.
While the series contains vampires and is set in a vampiric world (practically no humans in the series) I wouldn't call it a typical vampire book. The vampire setting serves more as a way to introduce a discussion on class structure and politics. We seem more and more of this later in the series.
One thing of note: the primary romantics relationship in this book is between a student and her mentor/instructor. Also, while she is above the age of consent in Montana (where this is set) she is under 18 for half the series.