Search
Search results
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 4, 2019
Ice Cream
Le mans 66 aka Ford v Ferrari (the extended cut) is a blistering thrill ride equally perfect for both petrol heads and casual car lovers alike. I wont lie I was so excited to see this movie as I cant remember the last time I saw a trully great race movie and ill tell you now Le mans 66 does not disappoint. Primarily a film about pride, jealousy, ego, power and the need to be first and while the movie handles all that stuff perfectly it still manages to pack in so much more too. The art of driving, building/manufacturing, selling and owning cars is frequently and subtley liked to both war and sex in many diffrent ways but what it mostly boils down to is beating the other guy and looking good while doing it. Power is also portrayed perfectly and seeing how essentially its the little guys putting in all the work while the big men in charge reap all the rewards, fame and profit is trully disheartening but ever so relatable too. Story is constantly intresting starting slow and methodical letting you take in all the scenery and character depth before pushing you over the edge and giving you all its got, its trully exciting stuff and the attachment you gain for the main characters this way is thrilling by its self alone. Never ever predictable the film seems to swerve every time you think you know the route it will take always keeping you on the edge of your seat. Sound design is the best ive experienced all year with every tire rip, exhaust pop, speed barrier break, and narrow miss tearing though your ears and booming in your chest really putting you inside these beast machines. Visually its so god damn clean too and I kid you not I have no idea if all the effects are cgi or practical its that slick, with transitions that are immaculate making the racing scenes feel full of tension, danger and anxiety. Matt damon is solid as usual but it christian bale that really knocks it out the park here as a talented man who only strives to impress himself who would give up everything in a heart beat just to with his family (infact I think my favorite perfomance of his). Honestly this movie blew me away its thrilling, intresting, emotional, engaging, rewarding and the main characters are layerd each with thier own drive and goals. I simply can not recomend it enough and the only fault is my own for not seeing it in imax.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Dec 6, 2019
Gentle, slow-paced and full of HEART
The new "Mr. Rogers" movie, A BEAUTIFUL DAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD is gentle, warm, slow, kind and heartfelt - just the type of film that is antithetical to how life is bounding past all of us on a daily basis. It would be well worth your time to slow down, turn off the electronics, and take in this wonderfully loving film.
Tom Hanks, of course, stars as Mr. Rogers - the beloved TV Host of the beloved children's show MR. ROGERS NEIGHBORHOOD and he does a remarkable job of bringing this kind gentle soul to life. Hanks embodies all of what is good and right to this character, while still making him a real person. Hanks, no doubt, will be named an Oscar nominee for this performance - but it is in what category that might be a surprise to most.
For, it will be as Supporting (not Lead) Actor for this is NOT a movie ABOUT Mr. Rogers. It is a movie that Mr. Rogers plays a strong Supporting part.
This film is about the real, true-to-life relationship that Fred Rogers forged with troubled writer Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys). Vogel is assigned by his boss at Esquire (Christine Lahti - who it was GREAT to see in a film) to do a quick "puff piece" on Rogers. This hard-boiled reporter is hell-bent on peeling the layers back on this man. The surface of Mr. Rogers is just "too good to be true" to this writer. What happens, of course, is that Fred Rogers peels back the layers on Vogel to help him understand his troubled relationship with his father (Chris Cooper) - and it is this relationship that is at the heart of this movie.
And heart is what is at the center of this film. This film is filled with love, understanding, warmth and HEART in abundance. Fred Rogers helps Lloyd Vogel to slow down and understand - and deal with - his feelings that are impeding his relationship with his father. And it is this heart and warmth that touched me. I was brought to the edge of tears more than once during the course of the 1 hour and 49 minute length of this film (and I am not a cryer) it was that well done - and emotional - without being cloying.
Credit Writers Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster (both of TV's TRANSPARENT) for adapting Tom Junod's real life Esquire article on Rogers in such a way that it is powerful, thoughtful and effective. They accomplished this by placing the events of this film, loosely, in the format of Rogers' beloved TV show and it worked well.
What also worked well was the Direction of Marielle Heller (CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME) like her previous film (which garnered Melissa McCarthy a well deserved Oscar nomination), Heller keeps her camera relatively still and lets her actors act - relying on tight. lingering close-ups and lingering, quiet pauses for the full effect of the emotions behind the words to land on the audience and resonate.
She would not be able to do this without a strong cast - and a strong cast she has. Besides Hanks, Matthew Rhys (TV's THE AMERICANS) is a steady calm. angry presence that anchors the film in the "no way Mr. Rogers can be that nice" mindset that almost all of us have at the beginning of the film to be slowly peeled away to reveal what is really causing the anger and cynicism emitting from his character. The always reliable Chris Cooper (Oscar winner for ADAPTATION back in 2002) brings pathos and regret as Jerry Vogel, Lloyds father. The relationship between these two is the balancing point of this film and it is balanced well. They are joined by a strong list of Supporting Actors (like Enrico Colantoni, Susan Kelechi Watson and Wendy Makkena) that bring strength and warmth to the proceedings without stealing focus on the main players. They all are SUPPORTING players and they SUPPORT the events of the film wonderfully
I strongly urge you to see this film in a "closed environment" - a movie theater, in a darkened room - without distractions (turn off your phone, close the shades if you are home) and let the warmth, gentleness, humanity and slow-pace wash over you. You'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A- (Did I mention that this film is paced VERY slowly)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Tom Hanks, of course, stars as Mr. Rogers - the beloved TV Host of the beloved children's show MR. ROGERS NEIGHBORHOOD and he does a remarkable job of bringing this kind gentle soul to life. Hanks embodies all of what is good and right to this character, while still making him a real person. Hanks, no doubt, will be named an Oscar nominee for this performance - but it is in what category that might be a surprise to most.
For, it will be as Supporting (not Lead) Actor for this is NOT a movie ABOUT Mr. Rogers. It is a movie that Mr. Rogers plays a strong Supporting part.
This film is about the real, true-to-life relationship that Fred Rogers forged with troubled writer Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys). Vogel is assigned by his boss at Esquire (Christine Lahti - who it was GREAT to see in a film) to do a quick "puff piece" on Rogers. This hard-boiled reporter is hell-bent on peeling the layers back on this man. The surface of Mr. Rogers is just "too good to be true" to this writer. What happens, of course, is that Fred Rogers peels back the layers on Vogel to help him understand his troubled relationship with his father (Chris Cooper) - and it is this relationship that is at the heart of this movie.
And heart is what is at the center of this film. This film is filled with love, understanding, warmth and HEART in abundance. Fred Rogers helps Lloyd Vogel to slow down and understand - and deal with - his feelings that are impeding his relationship with his father. And it is this heart and warmth that touched me. I was brought to the edge of tears more than once during the course of the 1 hour and 49 minute length of this film (and I am not a cryer) it was that well done - and emotional - without being cloying.
Credit Writers Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster (both of TV's TRANSPARENT) for adapting Tom Junod's real life Esquire article on Rogers in such a way that it is powerful, thoughtful and effective. They accomplished this by placing the events of this film, loosely, in the format of Rogers' beloved TV show and it worked well.
What also worked well was the Direction of Marielle Heller (CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME) like her previous film (which garnered Melissa McCarthy a well deserved Oscar nomination), Heller keeps her camera relatively still and lets her actors act - relying on tight. lingering close-ups and lingering, quiet pauses for the full effect of the emotions behind the words to land on the audience and resonate.
She would not be able to do this without a strong cast - and a strong cast she has. Besides Hanks, Matthew Rhys (TV's THE AMERICANS) is a steady calm. angry presence that anchors the film in the "no way Mr. Rogers can be that nice" mindset that almost all of us have at the beginning of the film to be slowly peeled away to reveal what is really causing the anger and cynicism emitting from his character. The always reliable Chris Cooper (Oscar winner for ADAPTATION back in 2002) brings pathos and regret as Jerry Vogel, Lloyds father. The relationship between these two is the balancing point of this film and it is balanced well. They are joined by a strong list of Supporting Actors (like Enrico Colantoni, Susan Kelechi Watson and Wendy Makkena) that bring strength and warmth to the proceedings without stealing focus on the main players. They all are SUPPORTING players and they SUPPORT the events of the film wonderfully
I strongly urge you to see this film in a "closed environment" - a movie theater, in a darkened room - without distractions (turn off your phone, close the shades if you are home) and let the warmth, gentleness, humanity and slow-pace wash over you. You'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A- (Did I mention that this film is paced VERY slowly)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) in Movies
Apr 18, 2017
New, yet Nostalgic
So whenever I hear that there's going to be a new Star Wars Movie, I get so excited EVERY TIME! However, that's not to say that I don't always feel nervous about this next one could be "The Bad Star Wars Film" because whilst I can find some good aspects of the prequel trilogy (SOME! Not a lot but there is some) I don't enjoy them and prefer to ignore them when having a Star Wars Movie marathon.
So when I heard that there's this film being made that's not and 'episode' but will have some connections to the original trilogy, I was nervous that it might blow some of the lore out the window and try and make their own lore that doesn't fit in with the prequels or the sequels. On the other hand I was so excited to feel that I was getting to see new characters and more of the lore on film such as Kyber Crystals and Jedha itself.
The characters were incredible in my opinion! Felicity Jones portrayed Jyn Erso, and really brought the strong female lead to a new generation of Star Wars fans and film fans in general. Jyn Erso is the Princess Leia of this new generation and honestly she had quite a lot to live up to following Daisy Ridley's portrayal as the strong female lead character, Rey, in Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Long story short, Felicity Jones nailed it! She's strong, independent but also has a lot of history and emotion that we don't get to see a lot of.
Then there's characters like K-2SO who is hilarious in my opinion and Alan Tudyk really brought a droid to life and made him feel more human, but also 'too good to be a human character', because there are certain aspects of the film where I was sat thinking "This character is hilarious to me, but I think the fact that he's a droid and doesn't fully understand a living, breathing, being's train of thought. So if this character was written as a human he wouldn't be as funny to me."
SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
My issue with the film, whilst I did enjoy it and understand WHY they ended it with Jyn's and Cassian's death, but I would love to have seen MORE of these characters. If they wanted to do a film with those characters in the future, it would have to be a more coming of age movie for Jyn and whilst I wouldn't mind seeing more of her growing up to understand her character more, I'd have preferred to see an aftermath film, because I think they could totally write the character to be someone who still fights for the rebellion but has some reason not to be in the events that take place in the original trilogy. Maybe she's taking care of some surviving death troopers, or trying to find out what the Empire's plans are on another planet or in another system because to think that the Empire had all of their subjects in one place concentrating on one project is ridiculous. Perhaps the First Order was being formed secretly in another system, or the Empire was enslaving some planets to prepare them for the Empires master plan of ruling the galaxy.
Overall, I just wanted more of these characters because they were just well written and the film was shot beautifully. To my knowledge, from the top of my head there weren't any jumpy editing cuts, or any moments where, due to camera movement, I would think "what's going on I can't follow the action" etc. It was brilliantly made and it very quickly became not just one of my favourite movies of all time, but one of my favourite Star Wars movies! But I have to give it a 9/10 because of the reasons I stated above...I need more of these characters in future aftermath films, but it cant happen now because of the ending and that makes me sad.
Brilliant Movie, Brilliant Cast, and of course....
THE DARTH VADER CORRIDOR SCENE!
So when I heard that there's this film being made that's not and 'episode' but will have some connections to the original trilogy, I was nervous that it might blow some of the lore out the window and try and make their own lore that doesn't fit in with the prequels or the sequels. On the other hand I was so excited to feel that I was getting to see new characters and more of the lore on film such as Kyber Crystals and Jedha itself.
The characters were incredible in my opinion! Felicity Jones portrayed Jyn Erso, and really brought the strong female lead to a new generation of Star Wars fans and film fans in general. Jyn Erso is the Princess Leia of this new generation and honestly she had quite a lot to live up to following Daisy Ridley's portrayal as the strong female lead character, Rey, in Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Long story short, Felicity Jones nailed it! She's strong, independent but also has a lot of history and emotion that we don't get to see a lot of.
Then there's characters like K-2SO who is hilarious in my opinion and Alan Tudyk really brought a droid to life and made him feel more human, but also 'too good to be a human character', because there are certain aspects of the film where I was sat thinking "This character is hilarious to me, but I think the fact that he's a droid and doesn't fully understand a living, breathing, being's train of thought. So if this character was written as a human he wouldn't be as funny to me."
SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
My issue with the film, whilst I did enjoy it and understand WHY they ended it with Jyn's and Cassian's death, but I would love to have seen MORE of these characters. If they wanted to do a film with those characters in the future, it would have to be a more coming of age movie for Jyn and whilst I wouldn't mind seeing more of her growing up to understand her character more, I'd have preferred to see an aftermath film, because I think they could totally write the character to be someone who still fights for the rebellion but has some reason not to be in the events that take place in the original trilogy. Maybe she's taking care of some surviving death troopers, or trying to find out what the Empire's plans are on another planet or in another system because to think that the Empire had all of their subjects in one place concentrating on one project is ridiculous. Perhaps the First Order was being formed secretly in another system, or the Empire was enslaving some planets to prepare them for the Empires master plan of ruling the galaxy.
Overall, I just wanted more of these characters because they were just well written and the film was shot beautifully. To my knowledge, from the top of my head there weren't any jumpy editing cuts, or any moments where, due to camera movement, I would think "what's going on I can't follow the action" etc. It was brilliantly made and it very quickly became not just one of my favourite movies of all time, but one of my favourite Star Wars movies! But I have to give it a 9/10 because of the reasons I stated above...I need more of these characters in future aftermath films, but it cant happen now because of the ending and that makes me sad.
Brilliant Movie, Brilliant Cast, and of course....
THE DARTH VADER CORRIDOR SCENE!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Nov 21, 2018
For the "true" Potter fan
It is a misnomer to call FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD a "Harry Potter" movie. True, it is a film that takes place in the "Harry Potter-verse", but it should, more accurately, be called an "Albus Dumbledore" movie.
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
DFW Deco: Modernistic Architecture of Northeast Texas
Book
Vivid imagery and original research are the hallmarks of DFW Deco: Modernistic Architecture of North...