Search
Search results
Dakotah Salazar (12 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
Good Kills (1 more)
Good Doll Design
Slasher Cliches (1 more)
Predictable
A.I. Chucky reborn in a tech savvy world.
As Chucky embarks into a new century, the filmmakers realize that it was time to make Chucky into artificial intelligence. In previous films, there was always a sense of witchcraft going on where it made Chucky come to life. This makes more sense of making Chucky as a Amazon Alexa type of technology. A Buddi of sorts.
They cleverly weave that into the depth of where Chucky's madness is taking over him. In how it started was a little far fetched. A guy decided to break the rules at his job because of poor working conditions and a over the top douche of a boss. It was mishandled how it happened.
I think that Aubrey Plaza, Gabriel Bateman, and Brian Tyree Howard are amazing in this movie. They really sell the world that was created for them, especially Bateman who is tortured by Chucky's antics.
As for the doll design, I think it looked really good. There are moments where rendering in the CGI was needed, but overall, it looked amazing in some scenes. I specifically remember the moment where Bateman is walking Chucky into his room and the way his facial expressions are used makes him weirdly human, and that increases the creepy factor within Chucky.
As for the negatives, it follows the typical ground plan of every slasher, especially Child's Play movies. Mom's boyfriend is a douche. Mom doesn't believe her son. Friends believe Andy. Nice cop who lives with mother may be the knight in shining armor. We can see where this is going, and it also takes a while for Chucky to actually kill something. It panders too much and I think they could've had more potential with the horror.
They cleverly weave that into the depth of where Chucky's madness is taking over him. In how it started was a little far fetched. A guy decided to break the rules at his job because of poor working conditions and a over the top douche of a boss. It was mishandled how it happened.
I think that Aubrey Plaza, Gabriel Bateman, and Brian Tyree Howard are amazing in this movie. They really sell the world that was created for them, especially Bateman who is tortured by Chucky's antics.
As for the doll design, I think it looked really good. There are moments where rendering in the CGI was needed, but overall, it looked amazing in some scenes. I specifically remember the moment where Bateman is walking Chucky into his room and the way his facial expressions are used makes him weirdly human, and that increases the creepy factor within Chucky.
As for the negatives, it follows the typical ground plan of every slasher, especially Child's Play movies. Mom's boyfriend is a douche. Mom doesn't believe her son. Friends believe Andy. Nice cop who lives with mother may be the knight in shining armor. We can see where this is going, and it also takes a while for Chucky to actually kill something. It panders too much and I think they could've had more potential with the horror.
Bong Mines Entertainment (15 KP) rated FRiENDS - Single by Derek Simpson in Music
Jul 10, 2019
Derek Simpson is an artist, producer, songwriter, and multi-instrumentalist based in Long Beach, CA. Not too long ago, he released a DIY music video for his camaraderie tune, entitled, “FRiENDS”.
“Smoke a doobie, have a groovy night. I’m gettin’ loopy have a movie night. Some Bud heavy and a Miller High Life! ‘Cause that’s the only sh*t I need in my life! I ain’t goin’ out, I’m feelin’ chill. Some Harry Potter and a sleepin’ pill. They said that I was just too much to deal. But Seb and Kristie said they love me still. Too many joyrides to help a buddy out. Too many talks, I don’t recall what they’re about.” – lyrics by Jack O’Brien
‘FRiENDS’ is a fun-loving ode to friendship and unbridled adult indulgence.
The likable tune features Derek Simpson alongside his closest friends and roommates—Zac Hartwell, Jack O’Brien, Sebastian Hibbert, and Linden Crumrine.
‘FRiENDS’ contains a relatable storyline and introspective rap vocals. Also, the song possesses mellow instrumentation flavored with hazy lo-fi hip-hop, bits psychedelia, and experimental pop elements.
“‘FRiENDS’ is a love letter to the first support system I was introduced to outside of my hometown. I like to believe that at that age many of us are finding people we actually connect with for the first time. So we excitedly get together regularly and begin to build our tribes on the foundation of celebration. During the close of our time together in Allston, MA, a few of my buddies luckily jumped at the opportunity to take part in this musical mirror of our lifestyle. The reflection shows us something honest, sweaty, hilarious and sweet as we look back years later from three separate corners of the United States, together.” – Derek Simpson
“Smoke a doobie, have a groovy night. I’m gettin’ loopy have a movie night. Some Bud heavy and a Miller High Life! ‘Cause that’s the only sh*t I need in my life! I ain’t goin’ out, I’m feelin’ chill. Some Harry Potter and a sleepin’ pill. They said that I was just too much to deal. But Seb and Kristie said they love me still. Too many joyrides to help a buddy out. Too many talks, I don’t recall what they’re about.” – lyrics by Jack O’Brien
‘FRiENDS’ is a fun-loving ode to friendship and unbridled adult indulgence.
The likable tune features Derek Simpson alongside his closest friends and roommates—Zac Hartwell, Jack O’Brien, Sebastian Hibbert, and Linden Crumrine.
‘FRiENDS’ contains a relatable storyline and introspective rap vocals. Also, the song possesses mellow instrumentation flavored with hazy lo-fi hip-hop, bits psychedelia, and experimental pop elements.
“‘FRiENDS’ is a love letter to the first support system I was introduced to outside of my hometown. I like to believe that at that age many of us are finding people we actually connect with for the first time. So we excitedly get together regularly and begin to build our tribes on the foundation of celebration. During the close of our time together in Allston, MA, a few of my buddies luckily jumped at the opportunity to take part in this musical mirror of our lifestyle. The reflection shows us something honest, sweaty, hilarious and sweet as we look back years later from three separate corners of the United States, together.” – Derek Simpson
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Re-Animator (1985) in Movies
Aug 29, 2020
Straight up, Re-Animator is one of my favourite horror movies of all time - there is just so much to love about this bonafide classic.
Based on an H.P. Lovecraft story, the plot revolves around trainee doctor Dan Cain, who's world is turned upside down when he crosses paths with Herbert West, a fellow trainee who has developed a serum that has the ability to reverse brain death. With some serious trial and error, it's not long before all hell breaks loose, and Dan is roped into Herbert's crazy schemes.
This film is a shining example of schlocky 80s horror done right and ticks all the right boxes. The dialogue may come across a bit B-Movie-ish at times, but that's hardly a problem with the strong cast involved.
Jeffrey Combs dominates every second he's on screen as Herbert West, giving us a truly iconic Mad Scientist of cinema. Same goes for David Gale as primary antagonist Dr. Carl Hill. God, I hate that character - a trait that makes him an excellent horror villain.
Bruce Abbot plays Dan, and his performance has you on his side for the whole runtime, even when he's reluctantly helping West in his unethical experiments. This was also a break out film for horror icon Barbara Crampton. I can't help but love her in anything she's in.
Another fantastic aspect about Re-Animator is the practical effects, which are truly incredible. It's such a visceral experience, so over the top, and just plain gross, everything you want from a gory horror flick. This all culminates in one of the most absurd final sequences in 80s horror, and that's saying something!
Re-Animator is both charming and disgusting, and manages to be funny as well. A true horror gem that should be seen by any fan of the genre.
Based on an H.P. Lovecraft story, the plot revolves around trainee doctor Dan Cain, who's world is turned upside down when he crosses paths with Herbert West, a fellow trainee who has developed a serum that has the ability to reverse brain death. With some serious trial and error, it's not long before all hell breaks loose, and Dan is roped into Herbert's crazy schemes.
This film is a shining example of schlocky 80s horror done right and ticks all the right boxes. The dialogue may come across a bit B-Movie-ish at times, but that's hardly a problem with the strong cast involved.
Jeffrey Combs dominates every second he's on screen as Herbert West, giving us a truly iconic Mad Scientist of cinema. Same goes for David Gale as primary antagonist Dr. Carl Hill. God, I hate that character - a trait that makes him an excellent horror villain.
Bruce Abbot plays Dan, and his performance has you on his side for the whole runtime, even when he's reluctantly helping West in his unethical experiments. This was also a break out film for horror icon Barbara Crampton. I can't help but love her in anything she's in.
Another fantastic aspect about Re-Animator is the practical effects, which are truly incredible. It's such a visceral experience, so over the top, and just plain gross, everything you want from a gory horror flick. This all culminates in one of the most absurd final sequences in 80s horror, and that's saying something!
Re-Animator is both charming and disgusting, and manages to be funny as well. A true horror gem that should be seen by any fan of the genre.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Ma (2019) in Movies
May 14, 2020
Ma is a relatively predictable and a would-be run of the mill horror thriller, if it wasn't for the mostly decent cast, and well realised slow build up.
Ma revolves around a group of teens inadvertently befriending a lonely older woman whilst trying to buy alcohol. The woman's sweet nature leads to her letting the teens and their friends use the basement of her house for police-free partying, and she becomes something a mother figure to them, nicknaming her 'Ma'. Things start to go a little awry when Ma becomes possessive, and a much more sinister plot unravels.
The film doesn't go full blown horror until the final act, meaning that the main chunk of runtime is a fairly slow burning thriller. It's paced pretty well for the most part, drip feeding details and hints that Ma is quite clearly unwell. It's also features flashbacks here and there, going some way to explain why she is the way she is. It's actually quite sad at times, and definitely plays the sympathy card on occasion. This wouldn't have worked nearly as well as it did without Octavia Spencer. She's the obvious highlight of the film and her friendly demeanor makes her character all the more unsettling.
The teenage characters are actually surprisingly likable as well. They're not particular fleshed out too much, and lack substance, but usually they're exclusively hateable in these kind of films.
Add in Juliette Lewis, Missy Pyles, and Luke Evans, and the cast is pretty solid.
I guess the main problem with Ma, is that's it's nothing special. It's painfully predictable at times - there's a lot of typical people-doing-obviously-dumb-shit-in-a-horror-film going on, and it's in your face enough to impact the overall movie.
It's still worth a watch though, even if it's just for Octavia Spencer.
Ma revolves around a group of teens inadvertently befriending a lonely older woman whilst trying to buy alcohol. The woman's sweet nature leads to her letting the teens and their friends use the basement of her house for police-free partying, and she becomes something a mother figure to them, nicknaming her 'Ma'. Things start to go a little awry when Ma becomes possessive, and a much more sinister plot unravels.
The film doesn't go full blown horror until the final act, meaning that the main chunk of runtime is a fairly slow burning thriller. It's paced pretty well for the most part, drip feeding details and hints that Ma is quite clearly unwell. It's also features flashbacks here and there, going some way to explain why she is the way she is. It's actually quite sad at times, and definitely plays the sympathy card on occasion. This wouldn't have worked nearly as well as it did without Octavia Spencer. She's the obvious highlight of the film and her friendly demeanor makes her character all the more unsettling.
The teenage characters are actually surprisingly likable as well. They're not particular fleshed out too much, and lack substance, but usually they're exclusively hateable in these kind of films.
Add in Juliette Lewis, Missy Pyles, and Luke Evans, and the cast is pretty solid.
I guess the main problem with Ma, is that's it's nothing special. It's painfully predictable at times - there's a lot of typical people-doing-obviously-dumb-shit-in-a-horror-film going on, and it's in your face enough to impact the overall movie.
It's still worth a watch though, even if it's just for Octavia Spencer.
authentic (2 more)
easy-to-read
funny
Fun, easy-to-read memoir
Anna Faris' memoir is based mainly on the premise of her podcast, also entitled Unqualified, in which she doles out advice to strangers whom she calls on her show. The idea is that Anna is, in fact, "unqualified" to give advice, but she'll do so anyway based on her life experiences. If you actually listen to her podcast, though, you quickly learn that she's pretty good at giving advice, and that she's also a funny and enjoyable person. The book expands on this, allowing Anna to answer some of the questions posed on her podcast (e.g., Dealbreakers), talk about her childhood and experience breaking in acting, and, yes, of course, her various relationships.
Overall, the book feels pretty real and authentic. You quickly get an idea of the kind of person Anna seems to be--kind, funny, talented, and perhaps a little insecure. I'll admit that since I started listening to Anna's podcast, I've felt a kinship to her, and my review is obviously influenced by that. She's so down-to-earth and really damn funny on her podcast. I also love the idea that she lived in her head for much of her childhood, making up stories (it sounds a little familiar, you see). If you like Anna's podcast, it will be hard not to enjoy her book, although some of the chapters and stories will sound a bit familiar if you're a faithful listener.
My love of Anna was only deepened by reading her book, which is quite readable and broken into simple, short chapters. We get glimpses into Anna's childhood, her first big relationship, a little insight into her big break with "Scary Movie," and more. I relate to her on so many levels. We're both fascinated by other people's lives; never had a big group of female friends; have no patience for small talk; are not wedding people; possess an emotional defense built up from our parents; and enjoy calling the numbers on vehicles to report about truck drivers' good driving. She just happens to be a lovely, famous, wealthy actress, and I'm um, well, yes. Otherwise, we're the same, right? ;)
Of course, the elephant in this review is Anna's recent split from her husband, Chris Pratt, who wrote the foreword to the book, which was apparently revised somewhat for publication. It's hard not to psychoanalyze Anna in light of her recent marriage breakup. You read about her self-admitted inability to admit failure and her tendency to jump from one relationship straight to the next. So much of the book is about Chris and their relationship, and it's a shame that it's a distraction from an enjoyable memoir about a really smart and talented woman, who should stand on her own merit, apart from her (soon-to-be-ex) husband. It's also heartbreaking to read these chapters where it sounds like they truly love each other--and where they got through the premature birth of their son together--and know they are no longer married.
Overall, this is a fun, easy-to-read memoir. If you like Anna, her films, or her podcast, you'll probably enjoy this one. It's a quick read, full of lists, humorous moments, and short chapters, although there are definitely serious pieces, too. It really only made me like her more. 3.5+ stars.
Overall, the book feels pretty real and authentic. You quickly get an idea of the kind of person Anna seems to be--kind, funny, talented, and perhaps a little insecure. I'll admit that since I started listening to Anna's podcast, I've felt a kinship to her, and my review is obviously influenced by that. She's so down-to-earth and really damn funny on her podcast. I also love the idea that she lived in her head for much of her childhood, making up stories (it sounds a little familiar, you see). If you like Anna's podcast, it will be hard not to enjoy her book, although some of the chapters and stories will sound a bit familiar if you're a faithful listener.
My love of Anna was only deepened by reading her book, which is quite readable and broken into simple, short chapters. We get glimpses into Anna's childhood, her first big relationship, a little insight into her big break with "Scary Movie," and more. I relate to her on so many levels. We're both fascinated by other people's lives; never had a big group of female friends; have no patience for small talk; are not wedding people; possess an emotional defense built up from our parents; and enjoy calling the numbers on vehicles to report about truck drivers' good driving. She just happens to be a lovely, famous, wealthy actress, and I'm um, well, yes. Otherwise, we're the same, right? ;)
Of course, the elephant in this review is Anna's recent split from her husband, Chris Pratt, who wrote the foreword to the book, which was apparently revised somewhat for publication. It's hard not to psychoanalyze Anna in light of her recent marriage breakup. You read about her self-admitted inability to admit failure and her tendency to jump from one relationship straight to the next. So much of the book is about Chris and their relationship, and it's a shame that it's a distraction from an enjoyable memoir about a really smart and talented woman, who should stand on her own merit, apart from her (soon-to-be-ex) husband. It's also heartbreaking to read these chapters where it sounds like they truly love each other--and where they got through the premature birth of their son together--and know they are no longer married.
Overall, this is a fun, easy-to-read memoir. If you like Anna, her films, or her podcast, you'll probably enjoy this one. It's a quick read, full of lists, humorous moments, and short chapters, although there are definitely serious pieces, too. It really only made me like her more. 3.5+ stars.
Lee (2222 KP) rated El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie (2019) in Movies
Oct 13, 2019
When we last saw Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul), he was driving away in an El Camino car, having just been freed from six months or so of captivity and slavery. It was the final moments of what is arguably one of the greatest TV shows of all time - Walter White (Bryan Cranston) had come to the aid of his long time friend, and collaborator in the meth business, freeing him from the clutches of a gang of Nazis in what turned out to be a bloodbath. Jesse, clearly a broken man, drove away from it all, into the night, fighting back tears as he let out a scream of pain and relief.
As with all great stories, whether in a book, a movie or a TV show, you do naturally wonder what might have happened next to the characters who have taken you on a journey with them. If the finale is good enough, you can feel satisfied simply by drawing your own conclusions. In the case of Breaking Bad, did Jesse turn a corner, only to be met by a bunch of cops who then lock him up for the rest of his life? Or did he manage to find well deserved peace and solace, a chance to finally live out his days with some kind of normality? Series creator and writer Vince Gilligan clearly had some ideas of his own, and the result is this 2 hour Netflix movie, titled El Camino.
We’ve not been without our fix of the Breaking Bad world since the show ended in 2013 though. Better Call Saul, about to start its fifth season, has acted as a prequel, telling the story of the rise of Saul Goodman, the seedy lawyer who helped Walter and Jesse throughout much of Breaking Bad. It shares much of the same style and tone as Breaking Bad, magnificently scripted and proving to be compulsive viewing. It has also gradually begun weaving other familiar characters from Breaking Bad into the story too, helping us to understand what brought these characters to the point they were at in Breaking Bad, but never (so far) featuring lead characters Walter and Jesse.
El Camino picks up pretty much where Breaking Bad left off. Jesse is clearly a person of interest with the law - not only for his drug crime days, but also because they know that someone fled the scene where a machine gun massacre took place, resulting in nine dead bodies. It’s neither an immediate capture, or an escape to a happy ending though. Instead, we’re treated to something that’s a little in between, and El Camino closely follows Jesse to show us just how that all plays out for him.
There was some big news recently when it was revealed that a large number of Breaking Bad characters would be appearing in El Camino and speculation was rife as to who those characters would be. They appear either in flashback form, or in present day situations, and all justifiably serve to drive the story forward, whether it be as a moment of reflection and poignancy, an aid to understanding Jesse’s current actions, or just as a cool little Easter egg for fans of the show. I must admit though, I had to resort to Google to try and remember how some of the characters fitted into the Breaking Bad show, but that could just be down to my lousy memory!
El Camino is packed full of the steady, confident, detailed pacing that we know and love from Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. Action, drama, emotion, it’s all there as a determined Jesse tries to acquire enough money to be able to start over. There’s a constant feeling throughout though that this is a story we didn’t really need, but it is certainly a welcome one, and a real joy to be back in this world and in the company of these great characters once again, if only for a short while.
As with all great stories, whether in a book, a movie or a TV show, you do naturally wonder what might have happened next to the characters who have taken you on a journey with them. If the finale is good enough, you can feel satisfied simply by drawing your own conclusions. In the case of Breaking Bad, did Jesse turn a corner, only to be met by a bunch of cops who then lock him up for the rest of his life? Or did he manage to find well deserved peace and solace, a chance to finally live out his days with some kind of normality? Series creator and writer Vince Gilligan clearly had some ideas of his own, and the result is this 2 hour Netflix movie, titled El Camino.
We’ve not been without our fix of the Breaking Bad world since the show ended in 2013 though. Better Call Saul, about to start its fifth season, has acted as a prequel, telling the story of the rise of Saul Goodman, the seedy lawyer who helped Walter and Jesse throughout much of Breaking Bad. It shares much of the same style and tone as Breaking Bad, magnificently scripted and proving to be compulsive viewing. It has also gradually begun weaving other familiar characters from Breaking Bad into the story too, helping us to understand what brought these characters to the point they were at in Breaking Bad, but never (so far) featuring lead characters Walter and Jesse.
El Camino picks up pretty much where Breaking Bad left off. Jesse is clearly a person of interest with the law - not only for his drug crime days, but also because they know that someone fled the scene where a machine gun massacre took place, resulting in nine dead bodies. It’s neither an immediate capture, or an escape to a happy ending though. Instead, we’re treated to something that’s a little in between, and El Camino closely follows Jesse to show us just how that all plays out for him.
There was some big news recently when it was revealed that a large number of Breaking Bad characters would be appearing in El Camino and speculation was rife as to who those characters would be. They appear either in flashback form, or in present day situations, and all justifiably serve to drive the story forward, whether it be as a moment of reflection and poignancy, an aid to understanding Jesse’s current actions, or just as a cool little Easter egg for fans of the show. I must admit though, I had to resort to Google to try and remember how some of the characters fitted into the Breaking Bad show, but that could just be down to my lousy memory!
El Camino is packed full of the steady, confident, detailed pacing that we know and love from Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. Action, drama, emotion, it’s all there as a determined Jesse tries to acquire enough money to be able to start over. There’s a constant feeling throughout though that this is a story we didn’t really need, but it is certainly a welcome one, and a real joy to be back in this world and in the company of these great characters once again, if only for a short while.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Beatles: Eight Days A Week - The Touring Years (2016) in Movies
Oct 24, 2017
Four Lads Who Shook The World
Last night the Ron Howard directed Beatles documentary, Eight Days A Week: The Touring Years, premiered in London. As much as I would have loved to attend the premier, I have just started a new year at university and couldn’t afford to go both financially and educationally. Therefore I had to settle for going to see it in my local cinema, but it was still an awesome experience. From six o’clock, the cinema streamed the premier in London, hosted by John Bishop and Edith Bowman and featuring interviews from Ron Howard, Paul and Ringo. Then the cinema auctioned off a poster for the film for charity, (which went for £100 if you are curious,) then finally the film started.
It is a fantastic insight into what went on during the years of Beatlemania while the Beatles were on tour and what they were like as people in those more innocent days. The music is of course fantastic, but even for someone who isn’t a massive Beatles fan I think that this documentary is still relevant and tells of an important piece of recent history in an exciting, stylish way.
There are some gripes I have with the movie though, the first one being a case of some revisionist history. The only talk about the group taking any form of drugs was a blink and you’ll miss it mention of them smoking dope on the set of Help, there was no mention of them smoking a joint in the toilets in Buckingham Palace while waiting to receive their MBE’s, there was also no mention of the fact that John returned his MBE and they didn’t even mention the amount of acid they took whilst in India and in the later days. Also, all of John’s more offensive behaviour has been vastly censored and toned down. There is footage of the Beatles first American concert at the Coliseum in Washington D.C, where Paul introduces the band and asks the audience to ‘clap their hands and stomp their feet,’ as Paul is saying this John appears to be impersonating a handicapped person doing exaggerated clapping and stomping movements, which is something he did repeatedly during their first American tour, but in the film they cut away to the audience during this to avoid showing John being offensive. We also never see the footage from their Royal Variety performance, when John told the people in the poor seats to clap their hands and the rich people, including the Royal family, to just rattle their jewellery. I don’t know why they are trying to make John look like an innocent saint when he was never like that, he was always rebellious and cheeky and was never afraid to say what was on his mind. The second gripe I have is more of a personal one in that us hardcore Beatles fans were promised a story that had never been told and while there was some footage that I hadn’t seen before, I wasn’t exactly mind blown by the story that the footage told as there was very little in the film that I didn’t already know about. However despite these minor gripes the movie is fantastic, an immense story told by a master filmmaker about the greatest band in history, what’s not to love?
It is a fantastic insight into what went on during the years of Beatlemania while the Beatles were on tour and what they were like as people in those more innocent days. The music is of course fantastic, but even for someone who isn’t a massive Beatles fan I think that this documentary is still relevant and tells of an important piece of recent history in an exciting, stylish way.
There are some gripes I have with the movie though, the first one being a case of some revisionist history. The only talk about the group taking any form of drugs was a blink and you’ll miss it mention of them smoking dope on the set of Help, there was no mention of them smoking a joint in the toilets in Buckingham Palace while waiting to receive their MBE’s, there was also no mention of the fact that John returned his MBE and they didn’t even mention the amount of acid they took whilst in India and in the later days. Also, all of John’s more offensive behaviour has been vastly censored and toned down. There is footage of the Beatles first American concert at the Coliseum in Washington D.C, where Paul introduces the band and asks the audience to ‘clap their hands and stomp their feet,’ as Paul is saying this John appears to be impersonating a handicapped person doing exaggerated clapping and stomping movements, which is something he did repeatedly during their first American tour, but in the film they cut away to the audience during this to avoid showing John being offensive. We also never see the footage from their Royal Variety performance, when John told the people in the poor seats to clap their hands and the rich people, including the Royal family, to just rattle their jewellery. I don’t know why they are trying to make John look like an innocent saint when he was never like that, he was always rebellious and cheeky and was never afraid to say what was on his mind. The second gripe I have is more of a personal one in that us hardcore Beatles fans were promised a story that had never been told and while there was some footage that I hadn’t seen before, I wasn’t exactly mind blown by the story that the footage told as there was very little in the film that I didn’t already know about. However despite these minor gripes the movie is fantastic, an immense story told by a master filmmaker about the greatest band in history, what’s not to love?
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Aug 1, 2019
A surprisingly pleasant thrill-ride!
The Fast & The Furious franchise paused to allow two of it's most memorable, larger-than-life characters to branch out on their own with this action-packed offering of explosions and humour.
I have to admit, I had my reservations about this one. Firstly, it's basically a F&F movie... we all know what they are and what to expect, which is why we love them. Except it's not a proper F&F movie, and I was worried labelling it as part of that story universe would burden it with unrealistic expectations. Secondly, I've spent the last few months trying to avoid trailers for it, when I realised they were basically showing the entire film in them. After the first three or four, I was left genuinely concerned they had nothing left to show me. I thought there was no way they could have any eye candy that I hadn't at least seen a snapshot of.
So, I entered the cinema expecting very little. Which is probably why I left the cinema feeling very happy and satisfied.
Saying this is a F&F movie is like saying Captain America and Guardians of the Galaxy are Marvel movies. Yes, they technically are, but they are two hugely different types of movie. The similarities are obviously more prevalent here, along with the formulaic and predictable buddy-cop routine, but this film manages to confidently and successfully stand on its own two feet, and not in the shadow of Vin Diesel as I first feared.
And yes, the trailers showed snippets of pretty much every major action sequence, but weirdly, they didn't give away as much you would think. There are also some nice surprises in there. I won't spoil them, but let's just say I'm very impressed at how they managed to keep the cameos under wraps!
Okay, let's get into it. The plot (such as it is) revolves around a mysterious tech firm trying to get a hold of a deadly virus, using Idris Elba's enjoyable villain, Brixton to track it down. It takes all of five minutes for things to go sideways, leaving Hattie Shaw on the run from the bad guys. The Powers That Be (the CIA and MI6) decide they need the best bad guy trackers in the business to hunt down Brixton and retrieve this virus, and the girl... thus saving the world. The former recruits Mr. Johnson; the latter, Mr. Statham. As we know from the trailers, Vanessa Kirby portrays Shaw's sister - it becomes a family affair and we're off to the races.
The on-screen chemistry between Statham and Johnson is clear to see. The comedic dialogue they have lands a lot more than it misses. There's perhaps a bit too much gung-ho stereotyping and fan-service catchphrases, but again, you have to expect that kind of thing from a film like this.
What I liked about it was that whilst they didn't re-invent the wheel, it didn't feel like a carbon-copy of every other action film, like so many others do. It had heart. It had character. Yes, some of the stunts were silly. Yes, the bad guy being genetically-enhanced was a bit weird - blending sci-fi with real-world action whilst never actually acknowledging it took some getting used to. But the film just kinda worked. It was very good without being great. It was predictable but still managed to be enjoyable. It's a good two-hour investment of your time for an afternoon/evening out with the family.
Hobbs and Shaw is proof that whatever your criticisms, whatever your reservations, anything Dwayne Johnson touches turns to gold right now. It's also what a potential future Expendables reboot will probably look like.
Meanwhile F&F9 is now filming (sans Statham and Johnson, apparently) and with an inevitable H&S sequel surely not too far away, you can't help but wonder if they're gearing this all up to be a super-charged, car-based competitor to the MCU. The ending, two mid-credits and one post-credits scene in this film clearly set up another outing and tease a sinister, overarching enemy with ties to the character's pasts... could this be a way to link it all back to Vin Diesel and Co? Could a crossover Summer blockbuster be the only way to tell this story? If early box office figures are anything to go by here, the smart money would say yes.
Go, enjoy, eat popcorn and leave your brain and the real world in the car.
I have to admit, I had my reservations about this one. Firstly, it's basically a F&F movie... we all know what they are and what to expect, which is why we love them. Except it's not a proper F&F movie, and I was worried labelling it as part of that story universe would burden it with unrealistic expectations. Secondly, I've spent the last few months trying to avoid trailers for it, when I realised they were basically showing the entire film in them. After the first three or four, I was left genuinely concerned they had nothing left to show me. I thought there was no way they could have any eye candy that I hadn't at least seen a snapshot of.
So, I entered the cinema expecting very little. Which is probably why I left the cinema feeling very happy and satisfied.
Saying this is a F&F movie is like saying Captain America and Guardians of the Galaxy are Marvel movies. Yes, they technically are, but they are two hugely different types of movie. The similarities are obviously more prevalent here, along with the formulaic and predictable buddy-cop routine, but this film manages to confidently and successfully stand on its own two feet, and not in the shadow of Vin Diesel as I first feared.
And yes, the trailers showed snippets of pretty much every major action sequence, but weirdly, they didn't give away as much you would think. There are also some nice surprises in there. I won't spoil them, but let's just say I'm very impressed at how they managed to keep the cameos under wraps!
Okay, let's get into it. The plot (such as it is) revolves around a mysterious tech firm trying to get a hold of a deadly virus, using Idris Elba's enjoyable villain, Brixton to track it down. It takes all of five minutes for things to go sideways, leaving Hattie Shaw on the run from the bad guys. The Powers That Be (the CIA and MI6) decide they need the best bad guy trackers in the business to hunt down Brixton and retrieve this virus, and the girl... thus saving the world. The former recruits Mr. Johnson; the latter, Mr. Statham. As we know from the trailers, Vanessa Kirby portrays Shaw's sister - it becomes a family affair and we're off to the races.
The on-screen chemistry between Statham and Johnson is clear to see. The comedic dialogue they have lands a lot more than it misses. There's perhaps a bit too much gung-ho stereotyping and fan-service catchphrases, but again, you have to expect that kind of thing from a film like this.
What I liked about it was that whilst they didn't re-invent the wheel, it didn't feel like a carbon-copy of every other action film, like so many others do. It had heart. It had character. Yes, some of the stunts were silly. Yes, the bad guy being genetically-enhanced was a bit weird - blending sci-fi with real-world action whilst never actually acknowledging it took some getting used to. But the film just kinda worked. It was very good without being great. It was predictable but still managed to be enjoyable. It's a good two-hour investment of your time for an afternoon/evening out with the family.
Hobbs and Shaw is proof that whatever your criticisms, whatever your reservations, anything Dwayne Johnson touches turns to gold right now. It's also what a potential future Expendables reboot will probably look like.
Meanwhile F&F9 is now filming (sans Statham and Johnson, apparently) and with an inevitable H&S sequel surely not too far away, you can't help but wonder if they're gearing this all up to be a super-charged, car-based competitor to the MCU. The ending, two mid-credits and one post-credits scene in this film clearly set up another outing and tease a sinister, overarching enemy with ties to the character's pasts... could this be a way to link it all back to Vin Diesel and Co? Could a crossover Summer blockbuster be the only way to tell this story? If early box office figures are anything to go by here, the smart money would say yes.
Go, enjoy, eat popcorn and leave your brain and the real world in the car.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fast & Furious 9 (2021) in Movies
Jun 24, 2021
Ridiculous storyline (1 more)
Improbable action
Magnetic bulls**t that will no doubt attract Fast-fans
Positives:
- Glossy locations, fast cars and beautiful women: the usual Fast stuff.
- When the stunts are "real", they are good and exciting. But it's often difficult to tell when there's been a 'computer-assist'.
Negatives:
- I complained in my review for "The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard" about it having a childish and ludicrous plot. This movie makes that look like bl***y Shakespeare! There's an attempt to add a smidgen of family tension into the mix, based on Dom's childhood trauma. But aside from that element, the 'story' (I use the term in its loosest possible sense) bounces (without any rational logic most of the time) from ludicrous situation to ludicrous situation without pause. Most of these are linked by Ramsey (the very British Nathalie Emmanuel) stating a random fact such as "Well, now he's going to need to launch a satellite". And off we go again. (That particular crazy story arc even sees them 'doing a Musk' and flying a car into space: I kid you not!)
- It's not even the 'big stuff' that's unbelievable. Everywhere you look, there are inconsistencies and things that don't make sense.
-- Tej (played by Ludicris - an appropriate name here) takes dodging a brigade worth of machine gun bullets to nonsensical limits.
-- Generally, the cast gets blasted, dropped, crashed, burned, and otherwise put through more fatal situations than you can imagine, only to walk out without a scratch.
-- And if you can show me a single delivery lorry in Edinburgh that has an automatic gearbox, I'll be amazed!
- At one point, Roman (Tyrese Gibson) mutters some line about "Trusting in the physics and the numbers". Well, let me tell you, it's like no physics that I studied on this planet. A lot of the set pieces involve huge magnets attached to trucks and cars. Now - correct me if I'm wrong - but if you turn a massive magnet on in a truck then as well as ripping the car you are chasing through the adjacent building (as if), you will also force the truck to be pulled into that building too. OK, perhaps not as much.... but the lorry ain't going to stay in its driving lane, I know that much! And magnets attract metal - they don't repel it!
- At 145 minutes, this is well over 2 hours of my life I will never get back.
Summary Thoughts on "F9": It's just such a formulaic and contrived piece of fluff that it makes me cross that they can spend $200,000 on a movie and not make it better. Part of this involves the lazy use of CGI to create obviously nonsensical stunts that devalue true action films. Yes, the stunt team was busy, and impressive, here - but always going for "one better" has led to extensive use of CGI. That's why I liked the 2014 'knock-off' film "Need for Speed" - - at least they did all their stunts old-school, in camera, and not in the computer.
But whatever I say here, this movie will unfortunately get its audience. At the time of writing, it's already made nearly $300K at the box office on its $200K budget. Which means there will inevitably be an F10, no doubt involving a driving battle on the planet Mars. Sigh.
By the way, before you dive for the exits to relieve your bladder (it is 145 minutes after all), there is a mid-credits scene that re-introduces an old favourite.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/24/f9-magnetic-bullst-that-will-no-doubt-attract-fast-fans/. Thanks).
- Glossy locations, fast cars and beautiful women: the usual Fast stuff.
- When the stunts are "real", they are good and exciting. But it's often difficult to tell when there's been a 'computer-assist'.
Negatives:
- I complained in my review for "The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard" about it having a childish and ludicrous plot. This movie makes that look like bl***y Shakespeare! There's an attempt to add a smidgen of family tension into the mix, based on Dom's childhood trauma. But aside from that element, the 'story' (I use the term in its loosest possible sense) bounces (without any rational logic most of the time) from ludicrous situation to ludicrous situation without pause. Most of these are linked by Ramsey (the very British Nathalie Emmanuel) stating a random fact such as "Well, now he's going to need to launch a satellite". And off we go again. (That particular crazy story arc even sees them 'doing a Musk' and flying a car into space: I kid you not!)
- It's not even the 'big stuff' that's unbelievable. Everywhere you look, there are inconsistencies and things that don't make sense.
-- Tej (played by Ludicris - an appropriate name here) takes dodging a brigade worth of machine gun bullets to nonsensical limits.
-- Generally, the cast gets blasted, dropped, crashed, burned, and otherwise put through more fatal situations than you can imagine, only to walk out without a scratch.
-- And if you can show me a single delivery lorry in Edinburgh that has an automatic gearbox, I'll be amazed!
- At one point, Roman (Tyrese Gibson) mutters some line about "Trusting in the physics and the numbers". Well, let me tell you, it's like no physics that I studied on this planet. A lot of the set pieces involve huge magnets attached to trucks and cars. Now - correct me if I'm wrong - but if you turn a massive magnet on in a truck then as well as ripping the car you are chasing through the adjacent building (as if), you will also force the truck to be pulled into that building too. OK, perhaps not as much.... but the lorry ain't going to stay in its driving lane, I know that much! And magnets attract metal - they don't repel it!
- At 145 minutes, this is well over 2 hours of my life I will never get back.
Summary Thoughts on "F9": It's just such a formulaic and contrived piece of fluff that it makes me cross that they can spend $200,000 on a movie and not make it better. Part of this involves the lazy use of CGI to create obviously nonsensical stunts that devalue true action films. Yes, the stunt team was busy, and impressive, here - but always going for "one better" has led to extensive use of CGI. That's why I liked the 2014 'knock-off' film "Need for Speed" - - at least they did all their stunts old-school, in camera, and not in the computer.
But whatever I say here, this movie will unfortunately get its audience. At the time of writing, it's already made nearly $300K at the box office on its $200K budget. Which means there will inevitably be an F10, no doubt involving a driving battle on the planet Mars. Sigh.
By the way, before you dive for the exits to relieve your bladder (it is 145 minutes after all), there is a mid-credits scene that re-introduces an old favourite.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/24/f9-magnetic-bullst-that-will-no-doubt-attract-fast-fans/. Thanks).
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Following the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was going to be no easy feat. The series not only made incredible amounts of cash at the box office worldwide, but also garnered an Academy award for best picture for the final film in the series. In the years since the trilogy, writer-director-producer Peter Jackson has not overwhelmed at the box office. His big-budget remake of “King Kong” performed below expectations and the high-profile collapse of the “Halo” movie to which he was attached, as well as the underwhelming box office of “The Lovely Bones” made many people question if Jackson had peaked and was better suited for the lower budgeted independent films that first gave him his start.
When it was announced that a film version of “The Hobbit” was in the works and that director Guillermo del Toro would direct the film as well as help write the screenplay and that Jackson would produce, the fans’ interest level was definitely piqued. But after a long state of pre-production, del Torro decided not to direct the film as he was unwilling to commit the next six years to living and working in New Zealand. Jackson then took over the film and soon after it was announced that it would be stretched into three movies to form a new trilogy.
For those unfamiliar with the story it was actually the first book written by J.R.R. Tolkien, which sets the stage for what was to follow in the Lord of the Rings even though it was originally conceived as a standalone story. The film opens with an older Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), writing a memoir while preparations for a party are underway. Bilbo discusses how there was one story that he had not disclosed and sets pen to paper in order to chronicle his legendary journey 60 years prior.
Gandolf Wizard (Sir Ian McKellen) visits the younger Bilbo and suggests he go on an adventure. Bilbo immediately declines, as being a Hobbit, he has no desire to leave the creature comforts and serenity of The Shire, much less face the dangers that exist in the world beyond. A group of dwarves arrive’ that evening and despite their gluttonous appetites and loud behavior, Bilbo has a change of heart the following morning and accompanies them on their quest.
The group’s goal is to travel to the dwarves’ kingdom of Erebor to reclaim their stronghold which was lost many years earlier to a vicious Dragon named Smaug. In the decades since, the dwarves existed as people without a home, forced to live as nomads taking work wherever they can find it. Along the way the group deals with all manner of threats and dangers ranging from trolls, goblins, orcs, and other supernatural elements. Of course there were some internal tensions and conflicts within the group as it marched towards a finale that sets the stage for the next film.
The movie has a runtime of nearly 3 hours and there were times that I caught a couple members in press row dozing briefly. While I enjoyed the film more than I did any of the Lord of the Rings movies, it was clearly obvious that things were being stretched out in order to justify a third film in the series. There were countless scenes of the band walking over hills and across the countryside so much so that at times I felt that I was watching the longest commercial for New Zealand tourism ever created. We get it. It’s a long journey. They travel near and far. I got it. I don’t need to see it every 10 minutes.
There were also several scenes that were done almost as if in aside that truthfully did not add much to the story but seem to exist as nothing more than time fillers. In the subsequent films it is learned that characters and scenes that did not appear in the book will be inserted into the film. Once again I have to question this as I do believe they could have easily cut an hour out of this movie and not lose much of the necessary narrative.
There’s been a lot of talk about the higher frame rate 3-D that was used to create the film. There have been claims that it was distracting, jerky, and detracted from the movie. I on the other hand found it absolutely captivating because it did not have that movie look to it, and it felt like I was watching an HD television. Even during the CGI heavy sequences, it did appear as if the performers were literally right there in front of me and I got the impression more of watching a play than of watching a movie.
The visual effects in the film were quite stunning. The live-action and computer-generated elements were absolutely amazing, especially during the latter part of the film when we meet Gollum (Andy Serkis), and during the battle and the goblin stronghold. Although the book is considered a children’s novel, I would really have to think twice about bringing young children to see this film as there is a lot of action and violence in the film as well as potential scares in the form of the monsters that abound.
The film could have definitely used some star power to it. While the cast does a solid job, they are fairly generic and almost interchangeable during certain segments of the film. That being said, the film works because despite its issues, it’s a visually spectacular masterpiece that, if you can endure the long periods of inaction, pays off especially well during the film’s battle sequences.
When it was announced that a film version of “The Hobbit” was in the works and that director Guillermo del Toro would direct the film as well as help write the screenplay and that Jackson would produce, the fans’ interest level was definitely piqued. But after a long state of pre-production, del Torro decided not to direct the film as he was unwilling to commit the next six years to living and working in New Zealand. Jackson then took over the film and soon after it was announced that it would be stretched into three movies to form a new trilogy.
For those unfamiliar with the story it was actually the first book written by J.R.R. Tolkien, which sets the stage for what was to follow in the Lord of the Rings even though it was originally conceived as a standalone story. The film opens with an older Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), writing a memoir while preparations for a party are underway. Bilbo discusses how there was one story that he had not disclosed and sets pen to paper in order to chronicle his legendary journey 60 years prior.
Gandolf Wizard (Sir Ian McKellen) visits the younger Bilbo and suggests he go on an adventure. Bilbo immediately declines, as being a Hobbit, he has no desire to leave the creature comforts and serenity of The Shire, much less face the dangers that exist in the world beyond. A group of dwarves arrive’ that evening and despite their gluttonous appetites and loud behavior, Bilbo has a change of heart the following morning and accompanies them on their quest.
The group’s goal is to travel to the dwarves’ kingdom of Erebor to reclaim their stronghold which was lost many years earlier to a vicious Dragon named Smaug. In the decades since, the dwarves existed as people without a home, forced to live as nomads taking work wherever they can find it. Along the way the group deals with all manner of threats and dangers ranging from trolls, goblins, orcs, and other supernatural elements. Of course there were some internal tensions and conflicts within the group as it marched towards a finale that sets the stage for the next film.
The movie has a runtime of nearly 3 hours and there were times that I caught a couple members in press row dozing briefly. While I enjoyed the film more than I did any of the Lord of the Rings movies, it was clearly obvious that things were being stretched out in order to justify a third film in the series. There were countless scenes of the band walking over hills and across the countryside so much so that at times I felt that I was watching the longest commercial for New Zealand tourism ever created. We get it. It’s a long journey. They travel near and far. I got it. I don’t need to see it every 10 minutes.
There were also several scenes that were done almost as if in aside that truthfully did not add much to the story but seem to exist as nothing more than time fillers. In the subsequent films it is learned that characters and scenes that did not appear in the book will be inserted into the film. Once again I have to question this as I do believe they could have easily cut an hour out of this movie and not lose much of the necessary narrative.
There’s been a lot of talk about the higher frame rate 3-D that was used to create the film. There have been claims that it was distracting, jerky, and detracted from the movie. I on the other hand found it absolutely captivating because it did not have that movie look to it, and it felt like I was watching an HD television. Even during the CGI heavy sequences, it did appear as if the performers were literally right there in front of me and I got the impression more of watching a play than of watching a movie.
The visual effects in the film were quite stunning. The live-action and computer-generated elements were absolutely amazing, especially during the latter part of the film when we meet Gollum (Andy Serkis), and during the battle and the goblin stronghold. Although the book is considered a children’s novel, I would really have to think twice about bringing young children to see this film as there is a lot of action and violence in the film as well as potential scares in the form of the monsters that abound.
The film could have definitely used some star power to it. While the cast does a solid job, they are fairly generic and almost interchangeable during certain segments of the film. That being said, the film works because despite its issues, it’s a visually spectacular masterpiece that, if you can endure the long periods of inaction, pays off especially well during the film’s battle sequences.