Search
Search results
David McK (3676 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Jun 23, 2019 (Updated Jul 23, 2024)
Summmer 2008: at the time of writing this, now 11 years ago (edit: now 16), and the cinematic landscape was rather different - the MCU was only just starting off (with Iron Man), and superheroes in the cinema were not as commonplace as they are today ( to the best of my memory).
While Christopher No.an had effectively rebooted perhaps DCs most famous character in Batman Begins, that film had (deliberately, IMO) kept the focus pretty much on Bruce Wayne/Batman rather than on his mos famous foes, ending with a deliberate tease of the introduction of the Joker.
And what an introduction he gets in this.
As portrayed by Heath Ledger (whose untimely death no doubt helped stoke the interest for this movie: his last full screen role), this Joker is very different than Jack Nicholson's 1989 portrayal. It's a definite magnetic tour de force from the actor, sure, although (personally) I've never really viewed the character as a Joker so much as as a genius psychopath.
"I'm an agent of chaos" he says at one point. "I'm a dog chasing a car. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it". And that, to me, is what is missing from the character-as-written.
Alongside Ledger, Aaron Eckhart also puts in a brilliant turn as Harvey Dent, completely blowing Tommy Lee Jones portrayal of the same character (in Batman Forever) out of the water. It's a far more realistic interpretation of what drives Dent to become Two-face, with some frightenly realistic effects.
And, finally, it may be a small thing: but in this Batman gets and operates (briefly) out of Gotham city, making his world seem more 'real' as a result.
While Christopher No.an had effectively rebooted perhaps DCs most famous character in Batman Begins, that film had (deliberately, IMO) kept the focus pretty much on Bruce Wayne/Batman rather than on his mos famous foes, ending with a deliberate tease of the introduction of the Joker.
And what an introduction he gets in this.
As portrayed by Heath Ledger (whose untimely death no doubt helped stoke the interest for this movie: his last full screen role), this Joker is very different than Jack Nicholson's 1989 portrayal. It's a definite magnetic tour de force from the actor, sure, although (personally) I've never really viewed the character as a Joker so much as as a genius psychopath.
"I'm an agent of chaos" he says at one point. "I'm a dog chasing a car. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it". And that, to me, is what is missing from the character-as-written.
Alongside Ledger, Aaron Eckhart also puts in a brilliant turn as Harvey Dent, completely blowing Tommy Lee Jones portrayal of the same character (in Batman Forever) out of the water. It's a far more realistic interpretation of what drives Dent to become Two-face, with some frightenly realistic effects.
And, finally, it may be a small thing: but in this Batman gets and operates (briefly) out of Gotham city, making his world seem more 'real' as a result.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Gerald's Game (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Not a very fun game
The horror film market is huge. Hundreds, if not thousands, of horror films are made every year, with only few standing out of the blood-drenched crowd. Netflix, with a penchant for outstanding horrors and thrillers, decided to hop on the horror flick train, bringing about an adaptation of Stephen King’s terrifying novel ‘Gerald’s Game’.
The film follows Jessie (Carla Gugino) and her husband, Gerald (Bruce Greenwood), as they head to a remote lake house in order to spice up their marriage. One thing leads to another, and then Gerald has a heart attack and dies, leaving Jessie handcuffed to the bed with the keys out of reach. She must then fight to survive, whilst having a few disturbing flashbacks and encounters along the way.
This movie is really disturbing. Like, really, really disturbing. It’s not particularly scary, there’s the odd jump-scare or three, but its the imagery and the situation that really get your heart going.
Carla Gugino as the shackled wife is a stand-out in this film. She basically carries it, only with a few interruptions from inside her head, and this makes for very entertaining viewing. She’s amusing, in a way that you didn’t think anyone could be whilst fighting dehydration, a hungry dog at the end of her bed and death himself. In all honesty, it’s not a very fun game.
Her husband, however, is brilliant at being horrible. Greenwood really amps up the bad husband vibes in the 20 minutes he is alive, which then are exacerbated in Jessie’s head after he has died. He’s manipulative, seedy and slimy: something that Jessie realises at the end of the film.
It could be argued that this film isn’t really a horror film in the typical sense. It’s more a horror film about what has happened to Jessie, the main character, and how she comes to terms with her past and survives. She calls on past experiences to escape her confines on the bed, and her horrible history.
That’s not to say that it doesn’t have stereotypical horror movie attributes. The Moonlight Man is their contribution to the supernatural – or more the ‘is he actually there or am I insane?’ kind of gimmick that sometimes comes with this genre. The Moonlight Man is a shadowy figure, lurking in the shadows with his box of trinkets and bones. He’s absolutely terrifying.
He’s also real. In the film and book, he’s a necrophiliac who’s waiting for Jessie to die so he can add her wedding ring and one of her bones to his box. The Moonlight Man is the kind of horror movie villain that you have nightmares about. Which is why he is one of the highlights of Gerald’s Game.
The film isn’t exactly the most complex plot in the world. It plays a bit too much on the stereotypes in some cases and the ending, in true horror film fashion, is too happy, is too well put together after such a traumatic experience. It all ends a bit too neatly after such a messy first three-quarters.
Even though this isn’t the best horror film ever, it certainly is not the worst. It has it’s flaws, but the acting and the scriptwriting make up for the few it has. In an era of horror trying too hard, this film is simple and refreshing, bringing a new feeling to the horror industry as a whole.
So, the moral of the story is: don’t handcuff yourself to the bed because your husband will die on top of you and then a stray dog will eat him and a necrophiliac will come into your house at night. Quite an easy thing to remember, right?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/06/geralds-game-review-not-a-very-fun-game/
The film follows Jessie (Carla Gugino) and her husband, Gerald (Bruce Greenwood), as they head to a remote lake house in order to spice up their marriage. One thing leads to another, and then Gerald has a heart attack and dies, leaving Jessie handcuffed to the bed with the keys out of reach. She must then fight to survive, whilst having a few disturbing flashbacks and encounters along the way.
This movie is really disturbing. Like, really, really disturbing. It’s not particularly scary, there’s the odd jump-scare or three, but its the imagery and the situation that really get your heart going.
Carla Gugino as the shackled wife is a stand-out in this film. She basically carries it, only with a few interruptions from inside her head, and this makes for very entertaining viewing. She’s amusing, in a way that you didn’t think anyone could be whilst fighting dehydration, a hungry dog at the end of her bed and death himself. In all honesty, it’s not a very fun game.
Her husband, however, is brilliant at being horrible. Greenwood really amps up the bad husband vibes in the 20 minutes he is alive, which then are exacerbated in Jessie’s head after he has died. He’s manipulative, seedy and slimy: something that Jessie realises at the end of the film.
It could be argued that this film isn’t really a horror film in the typical sense. It’s more a horror film about what has happened to Jessie, the main character, and how she comes to terms with her past and survives. She calls on past experiences to escape her confines on the bed, and her horrible history.
That’s not to say that it doesn’t have stereotypical horror movie attributes. The Moonlight Man is their contribution to the supernatural – or more the ‘is he actually there or am I insane?’ kind of gimmick that sometimes comes with this genre. The Moonlight Man is a shadowy figure, lurking in the shadows with his box of trinkets and bones. He’s absolutely terrifying.
He’s also real. In the film and book, he’s a necrophiliac who’s waiting for Jessie to die so he can add her wedding ring and one of her bones to his box. The Moonlight Man is the kind of horror movie villain that you have nightmares about. Which is why he is one of the highlights of Gerald’s Game.
The film isn’t exactly the most complex plot in the world. It plays a bit too much on the stereotypes in some cases and the ending, in true horror film fashion, is too happy, is too well put together after such a traumatic experience. It all ends a bit too neatly after such a messy first three-quarters.
Even though this isn’t the best horror film ever, it certainly is not the worst. It has it’s flaws, but the acting and the scriptwriting make up for the few it has. In an era of horror trying too hard, this film is simple and refreshing, bringing a new feeling to the horror industry as a whole.
So, the moral of the story is: don’t handcuff yourself to the bed because your husband will die on top of you and then a stray dog will eat him and a necrophiliac will come into your house at night. Quite an easy thing to remember, right?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/06/geralds-game-review-not-a-very-fun-game/
Shaun Quarterman (24 KP) rated The Transformers - The Movie (1986) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
Robots in disguise
Contains spoilers, click to show
TRANSFORMERS THE MOVIE
This movie is what I like to call a cult classic the first big screen appearance of the Autobots and Decepticons, its appeared after the first two seasons and it shook everything up Transformers as we knew it was over. It starts with a massacre on an Autobot shuttle and many characters died at the hands of Decepticon leader Megatron it shocked me when I first saw this because we had seen two seasons and it was all a bit tame. But the worst was yet to come so let me explain the whole idea of killing off these characters was to make way for future characters and new toy lines we had grown up and loved Ironhide ,and Ratchet, Prowl it definitely threw me the brutality of it shot point blank in the back of the head.
The war continues on Earth and we meet the future of the franchise Ultra Magnus and Hotrod as well as others all made to look futuristic their vehicle modes were Cybertronian which was new and I loved the more space age look about it we meet Daniel Witwicky the son of Spike but there is no sign of sparkplug or an explanation of his whereabouts Carly is Daniels mother. Now comes the part that shocked the world the death of Optimus Prime now let me explain in all versions of Transformers Optimus Prime always dies and the devastating planet Unicron always appears its Transformers lore but this movie defined it I wanted Optimus to destroy Unicron but it wasn’t to be.
Megatron also makes his last appearance with several other Decepticons which evened out the earlier Autobot deaths except they didn’t die they were reanimated by Unicron a new leader was born Galvatron and Cyclonus and Scourge and his dreaded Sweeps then came the death of Starscream it showed the brutality of the new leader, in the first two seasons Starscream would try to overthrow Megatron but he would always get away with it. Galvatron showed no mercy and blasted him straight away.
We are introduced to several new races of Transformers Junkions, Sharkticons and Quintessons all of which have would future appearances in season three and four, we see the friendship blossom between the young Autobot Hotrod and the old warrior Kup and the Dinobots get there action in as well I have always been a big fan of the Dinobots and they save the day again,
The most brilliant thing I had ever seen at the time was the transformation of Unicron a planet to robot I loved the sheer size of it and this final battle brought forth a new leader of the Autobots Rodimus Prime and a new era in Transformers entertainment despite the violence and death it did all make sense plus there are some cameo voices as well Galvatron was voiced by Doctor Spock himself Leonard Nimoy and rodimus prime voiced by Judd Nelson and Unicron was Voiced by orson Wells war of the worlds.
So I must admit this film is a guilty pleasure of mine and I highly recommend it I would advise to watch seasons one and two first just so you can feel how much the movie changed the franchise and the deaths of the characters actually mean more to you so give it a try and see what you think and there is a massive spoiler alert at the end of the movie which is narrated and got the public excited about the next season so enjoy it savour it and soak up this cult classic
This movie is what I like to call a cult classic the first big screen appearance of the Autobots and Decepticons, its appeared after the first two seasons and it shook everything up Transformers as we knew it was over. It starts with a massacre on an Autobot shuttle and many characters died at the hands of Decepticon leader Megatron it shocked me when I first saw this because we had seen two seasons and it was all a bit tame. But the worst was yet to come so let me explain the whole idea of killing off these characters was to make way for future characters and new toy lines we had grown up and loved Ironhide ,and Ratchet, Prowl it definitely threw me the brutality of it shot point blank in the back of the head.
The war continues on Earth and we meet the future of the franchise Ultra Magnus and Hotrod as well as others all made to look futuristic their vehicle modes were Cybertronian which was new and I loved the more space age look about it we meet Daniel Witwicky the son of Spike but there is no sign of sparkplug or an explanation of his whereabouts Carly is Daniels mother. Now comes the part that shocked the world the death of Optimus Prime now let me explain in all versions of Transformers Optimus Prime always dies and the devastating planet Unicron always appears its Transformers lore but this movie defined it I wanted Optimus to destroy Unicron but it wasn’t to be.
Megatron also makes his last appearance with several other Decepticons which evened out the earlier Autobot deaths except they didn’t die they were reanimated by Unicron a new leader was born Galvatron and Cyclonus and Scourge and his dreaded Sweeps then came the death of Starscream it showed the brutality of the new leader, in the first two seasons Starscream would try to overthrow Megatron but he would always get away with it. Galvatron showed no mercy and blasted him straight away.
We are introduced to several new races of Transformers Junkions, Sharkticons and Quintessons all of which have would future appearances in season three and four, we see the friendship blossom between the young Autobot Hotrod and the old warrior Kup and the Dinobots get there action in as well I have always been a big fan of the Dinobots and they save the day again,
The most brilliant thing I had ever seen at the time was the transformation of Unicron a planet to robot I loved the sheer size of it and this final battle brought forth a new leader of the Autobots Rodimus Prime and a new era in Transformers entertainment despite the violence and death it did all make sense plus there are some cameo voices as well Galvatron was voiced by Doctor Spock himself Leonard Nimoy and rodimus prime voiced by Judd Nelson and Unicron was Voiced by orson Wells war of the worlds.
So I must admit this film is a guilty pleasure of mine and I highly recommend it I would advise to watch seasons one and two first just so you can feel how much the movie changed the franchise and the deaths of the characters actually mean more to you so give it a try and see what you think and there is a massive spoiler alert at the end of the movie which is narrated and got the public excited about the next season so enjoy it savour it and soak up this cult classic
Not what I expected
I need to start off by saying that I wasnt a fan of Get Out, and I hadn't even see the trailer for Us, so I went into this with low/no expectations, and I was actually pleasantly surprised.
The first half an hour or so is a bit of a slow burn introduction to the family, almost lulling you into a false sense of security before abruptly flipping into full on horror film mode. There are a lot of things I liked about this film; it doesn't rely on obvious jump scares and instead focuses on being massively creepy and almost downright terrifying. I liked the pop culture references like Home Alone, and for me the bits of humour thrown in worked quite well to lighten up an otherwise tense film. And going against the usual horror movie tropes (I.e. victims not being so helpless after all) was refreshing. I also thought this was going to be a bog standard home invasion film, and it really isn't. The wider plot and story going on here is a great idea and the twist at the end too was brilliant, entirely unexpected and I usually pride myself on being able to spot these things coming a mile off.
However there are some things I really didn't like about this film which have led me to mark it down. The cast were great, but I could not stand the voice that Lupita Nyong'o gave Red. For me it wasn't creepy or scary, it was just silly and verging on the hysterically funny. I couldn't take her seriously every time she was speaking on screen. Also, I didn't like some of the more animalistic behaviours and vocalisms they gave the rest of the doppelgangers. It detracted from their overall creepy and terrifying appearance and I think they could have maybe made them a little quieter for a better effect. I hated the soundtrack - it seemed far too dramatic and over the top and not in keeping with the tone of the rest of the film. And I think the dancing scene in the final act, was very stylish but completely unnecessary and I found myself getting very irritated by it as it was just silly and a little confusing.
Overall this film isn't perfect by any means, but it was a lot better than I had ever expected. I feel like going into a film without having seen dozens of trailers etc beforehand actually makes for a far more enjoyable experience.
The first half an hour or so is a bit of a slow burn introduction to the family, almost lulling you into a false sense of security before abruptly flipping into full on horror film mode. There are a lot of things I liked about this film; it doesn't rely on obvious jump scares and instead focuses on being massively creepy and almost downright terrifying. I liked the pop culture references like Home Alone, and for me the bits of humour thrown in worked quite well to lighten up an otherwise tense film. And going against the usual horror movie tropes (I.e. victims not being so helpless after all) was refreshing. I also thought this was going to be a bog standard home invasion film, and it really isn't. The wider plot and story going on here is a great idea and the twist at the end too was brilliant, entirely unexpected and I usually pride myself on being able to spot these things coming a mile off.
However there are some things I really didn't like about this film which have led me to mark it down. The cast were great, but I could not stand the voice that Lupita Nyong'o gave Red. For me it wasn't creepy or scary, it was just silly and verging on the hysterically funny. I couldn't take her seriously every time she was speaking on screen. Also, I didn't like some of the more animalistic behaviours and vocalisms they gave the rest of the doppelgangers. It detracted from their overall creepy and terrifying appearance and I think they could have maybe made them a little quieter for a better effect. I hated the soundtrack - it seemed far too dramatic and over the top and not in keeping with the tone of the rest of the film. And I think the dancing scene in the final act, was very stylish but completely unnecessary and I found myself getting very irritated by it as it was just silly and a little confusing.
Overall this film isn't perfect by any means, but it was a lot better than I had ever expected. I feel like going into a film without having seen dozens of trailers etc beforehand actually makes for a far more enjoyable experience.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
#Punching.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Men in Black International (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
As a young girl Molly (Tessa Thompson) comes into contact with an alien in her back yard. When mysterious men show up and erase her parents memory of the incident it sparks a twenty year quest to find out the truth and find the Men in Black. She is smart and persistent and she becomes the first person to infiltrate the clandestine agency. After convincing Agent O (Emma Thompson) that she is worth taking a chance on, she becomes a probationary agent and sent to London. There she is tasked with helping Agent H (Chris Hemsworth) on a mission to stop some mysterious alien twins (Laurent Bourgeois and Larry Bourgeois) from getting their hands on a world destroying weapon. But they have no idea that a mole within the Men in Black could be their biggest obstacle in protecting the Earth from a destruction.
The Men in Black franchise returns with an international spin with very few familiar faces, Emma Thompson being on of very few, and a lot of new faces. F. Gary Gary (Straight Outta Compton, The Fate of the Furious) helms the fourth installment of the series as director. Tessa Thompson and Hemsworth reunite on screen after the successful Thor: Ragnarok, to head a large cast, including Kumail Nanjiani, Liam Neeson, Rebecca Ferguson and more.
If you are a fan of the previous three MiB films you are going to get the gun battles, cool new aliens and plenty of lasers. Also there are some really funny lines, most of them delivered by Nanjiani. The characters are really interesting and you get all of the action that you expect from a summer “blockbuster.” I really liked some of the CGI especially the stuff that had to do with the Alien Twins. The story really is predictable. From the start you can really tell how the entire movie will play out, for the most part. The previous films also had plenty of cheesy moments but it seems like they really ramped it up for this installment. I thought that Will Smith had really taken the Men in Black series about as far as he could and was excited for the new blood, but left feeling let down but this film. The promise of the characters washed away with the predictability and choppiness of the story.
I think this film will appeal to a younger audience and would be a good matinee watch for a family. Enough funny lines to keep the adults engaged and it moves at a fast enough pace to keep kids engaged. If you have never seen the other Men in Black films this might be a good introduction and get you to watch the first three movies. But I think fans of the previous three films may feel let down, as I did.
The Men in Black franchise returns with an international spin with very few familiar faces, Emma Thompson being on of very few, and a lot of new faces. F. Gary Gary (Straight Outta Compton, The Fate of the Furious) helms the fourth installment of the series as director. Tessa Thompson and Hemsworth reunite on screen after the successful Thor: Ragnarok, to head a large cast, including Kumail Nanjiani, Liam Neeson, Rebecca Ferguson and more.
If you are a fan of the previous three MiB films you are going to get the gun battles, cool new aliens and plenty of lasers. Also there are some really funny lines, most of them delivered by Nanjiani. The characters are really interesting and you get all of the action that you expect from a summer “blockbuster.” I really liked some of the CGI especially the stuff that had to do with the Alien Twins. The story really is predictable. From the start you can really tell how the entire movie will play out, for the most part. The previous films also had plenty of cheesy moments but it seems like they really ramped it up for this installment. I thought that Will Smith had really taken the Men in Black series about as far as he could and was excited for the new blood, but left feeling let down but this film. The promise of the characters washed away with the predictability and choppiness of the story.
I think this film will appeal to a younger audience and would be a good matinee watch for a family. Enough funny lines to keep the adults engaged and it moves at a fast enough pace to keep kids engaged. If you have never seen the other Men in Black films this might be a good introduction and get you to watch the first three movies. But I think fans of the previous three films may feel let down, as I did.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Art of Racing in the Rain (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Another crying dog movie... just what my life needs.
Denny picks up a golden retriever puppy from a farm and the two become firm friends. Enzo learns all about racing and is a constant fixture at the track, it's going to be the two of them forever feeling the wind in their faces.
Then one day Eve comes along, she's there a lot and it doesn't look like she's leaving. Can Enzo adapt to family life?
The card on the film states "scenes of emotional upset"... accurate, and right from the very start too. This was made by a savage person. Originally I had a quadruple bill planned but I wasn't sure I could do this film followed by The Sun Is Also A Star and come out the other end as anything but a gibbering wreck so I split it out. That was probably one of the most sensible things I've ever done, there was so much crying.
The way they show Enzo reacting to everything is spot on. If you've watched those dog videos on Facebook where they subtitle in what the dog's thinking, it's just like that but Enzo has a much better grasp of the English language and the sultry tones of Kevin Costner. Some of the moments are wonderful and it made me wonder if my dog did any of them, and then I cried a bit more.
Milo Ventimiglia plays out leading human, Denny, and he's very convincing with the obsession Denny has for racing. The flipside with the struggle of having to be a dad came across too and there are some poignant scenes that came off beautifully.
I wasn't overly engaged with Amanda Seyfried as Eve until the midpoint of the film. Perhaps I was indifferent about her on Enzo's behalf, we may never know, but at the point where it all turned I thought she gave a wonderful and respectful performance.
There's not a huge extended cast, but it's filled with talented actors who bring something great to their characters, Kathy Baker and Martin Donovan were particularly good as Eve's parents, though you can't help but hate them.
It's nicely done overall, nothing seems out of place, there weren't any frivolous scenes. The way we get to engage with the racing is brilliantly executed, especially the scene at the beginning where he actually races in the rain, very exciting to watch. It's a lovely crying dog film (at what point do we declare this an actual genre?), is it predictable? Yes, but it's still a nice easy watch if you've got a box of tissues handy.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-art-of-racing-in-rain-movie-review.html
Denny picks up a golden retriever puppy from a farm and the two become firm friends. Enzo learns all about racing and is a constant fixture at the track, it's going to be the two of them forever feeling the wind in their faces.
Then one day Eve comes along, she's there a lot and it doesn't look like she's leaving. Can Enzo adapt to family life?
The card on the film states "scenes of emotional upset"... accurate, and right from the very start too. This was made by a savage person. Originally I had a quadruple bill planned but I wasn't sure I could do this film followed by The Sun Is Also A Star and come out the other end as anything but a gibbering wreck so I split it out. That was probably one of the most sensible things I've ever done, there was so much crying.
The way they show Enzo reacting to everything is spot on. If you've watched those dog videos on Facebook where they subtitle in what the dog's thinking, it's just like that but Enzo has a much better grasp of the English language and the sultry tones of Kevin Costner. Some of the moments are wonderful and it made me wonder if my dog did any of them, and then I cried a bit more.
Milo Ventimiglia plays out leading human, Denny, and he's very convincing with the obsession Denny has for racing. The flipside with the struggle of having to be a dad came across too and there are some poignant scenes that came off beautifully.
I wasn't overly engaged with Amanda Seyfried as Eve until the midpoint of the film. Perhaps I was indifferent about her on Enzo's behalf, we may never know, but at the point where it all turned I thought she gave a wonderful and respectful performance.
There's not a huge extended cast, but it's filled with talented actors who bring something great to their characters, Kathy Baker and Martin Donovan were particularly good as Eve's parents, though you can't help but hate them.
It's nicely done overall, nothing seems out of place, there weren't any frivolous scenes. The way we get to engage with the racing is brilliantly executed, especially the scene at the beginning where he actually races in the rain, very exciting to watch. It's a lovely crying dog film (at what point do we declare this an actual genre?), is it predictable? Yes, but it's still a nice easy watch if you've got a box of tissues handy.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-art-of-racing-in-rain-movie-review.html
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Thor (2011) in Movies
Jul 21, 2020
The first Thor film gets a bad wrap, and I think it's due to a combination of people forgetting just how good it is, and it perhaps being tarnished by it's underwhelming sequel, when in reality, Thor marks Marvel Studios first steps into more cosmic territory, a realm that was once deemed a little too silly for the general public, and pulls it off in style.
Firstly, translating the many characters of the Thor comic series is no easy feat. They all talk in a Shakespearean dialect, and have ridiculous costumes. The script though is fantastic. The Asgardian characters are still very bombastic, but when mixed with humans from Earth, it's becomes naturally comical. It doesn't feel corny, and somehow, it works very well.
As for the costumes, everyone just looks badass truth be told so hats off to the costume department.
Chris Hemsworth is the embodiment of Thor, and it's truly difficult to see anyone else in the role. He's charming, funny, and has just the right amount of god-like angst, and it's easy to see why he's become a firm favourite as the MCU has continued to expand.
The same goes for Tom Hiddleston as Loki. His portrayal of the God of Mischief is equal parts sinister, slimy, and sympathetic. He's the villain that you can't help but love and it's a testament to his performance that Loki has remained a mainstay in the MCU, a franchise that is often guilty of the one-and-done method when it comes to villains.
The cast is rounded out by a stellar lineup, including Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Rene Russo, Jaime Alexander, Stellan Skaragård, Idris Elba and even includes a bigger role for the always excellent Clark Gregg. This film also serves as the introduction of Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, another MCU staple. It's a strong cast list without a doubt.
The action set pieces are all pretty fun, and the effects still just about hold up. I'd argue that Thor looks better than the first two Iron Man films in that respect. Asgard looks great as well.
Another thing I absolutely LOVE about Thor is the music score by Patrick Doyle. In terms of original orchestral music, it's probably by favourite within the MCU (possibly on par with Infinity War and Endgame) but it's fantastic, and gives me goosebumps every damn time I watch this movie
Thor is action packed, with a fantastic script and score, and a great cast with well fleshed out characters. Bringing Kenneth Branagh on board as director was a great choice, and overall, the film deserves way more love than it gets.
Ignoring the first Avengers movie, Thor is the crown jewel of phase one!
Firstly, translating the many characters of the Thor comic series is no easy feat. They all talk in a Shakespearean dialect, and have ridiculous costumes. The script though is fantastic. The Asgardian characters are still very bombastic, but when mixed with humans from Earth, it's becomes naturally comical. It doesn't feel corny, and somehow, it works very well.
As for the costumes, everyone just looks badass truth be told so hats off to the costume department.
Chris Hemsworth is the embodiment of Thor, and it's truly difficult to see anyone else in the role. He's charming, funny, and has just the right amount of god-like angst, and it's easy to see why he's become a firm favourite as the MCU has continued to expand.
The same goes for Tom Hiddleston as Loki. His portrayal of the God of Mischief is equal parts sinister, slimy, and sympathetic. He's the villain that you can't help but love and it's a testament to his performance that Loki has remained a mainstay in the MCU, a franchise that is often guilty of the one-and-done method when it comes to villains.
The cast is rounded out by a stellar lineup, including Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Rene Russo, Jaime Alexander, Stellan Skaragård, Idris Elba and even includes a bigger role for the always excellent Clark Gregg. This film also serves as the introduction of Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, another MCU staple. It's a strong cast list without a doubt.
The action set pieces are all pretty fun, and the effects still just about hold up. I'd argue that Thor looks better than the first two Iron Man films in that respect. Asgard looks great as well.
Another thing I absolutely LOVE about Thor is the music score by Patrick Doyle. In terms of original orchestral music, it's probably by favourite within the MCU (possibly on par with Infinity War and Endgame) but it's fantastic, and gives me goosebumps every damn time I watch this movie
Thor is action packed, with a fantastic script and score, and a great cast with well fleshed out characters. Bringing Kenneth Branagh on board as director was a great choice, and overall, the film deserves way more love than it gets.
Ignoring the first Avengers movie, Thor is the crown jewel of phase one!
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Curse of La Llorona (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
The Mexican Legend
The Curse of La Llorona is a 2019 supernatura/horror movie directed by Michael Chaves and written by Mikki Daughtry and Tobias Iaconis. The film was produced by James Wan through his Atomic Monster Productions. It is based on the Mexican folklore, is Chaves directorial debut, and is set in "The Conjuring" Universe. It stars Linda Cardellini, Raymond Cruz, and Patricia Velasquez.
While playing with his family in 1673 Mexico, a young boy closes his eyes only to re-open them and find his family missing. While searching for them he witnesses his mother drowning his brother in a stream. Frightened, he runs away but is caught and suffers the same fate.
300 years later, in 1973 Los Angeles, Anna Tate-Garcia (Linda Cardellini) works as a social worker and is investigating a well known client of hers, Patrica Alvarez (Patricia Velasquez) whose children have gone missing. Demanding to check on her children's well being, Anna goes to Patricia's home with a police of. She searches for the children and finds them locked in a room. Patricia attacks her as she locates the children and is dragged away by the officer while screaming for her not to open the door. Anna takes the boys, Carlos and Tomas out of the room, ignoring their request to stay in the room where they are safe. That night, two boys are found drowned in a nearby river and Anna is called in to investigate their deaths. At the scene Anna hears Patricia screaming that it was Anna's fault for their deaths. This draws Anna and her family into the frightening supernatural realm of "La Llorona" and her deadly wrath.
I felt like this movie was a tough mix of somewhat silly but still creepy. It was good but had too many jump scares that you could see coming from a mile a way. The acting was generally good with Linda Cardellini really selling the terror of fighting off the evil presence. The children's performances were kind of hit or miss for me.. The tone and atmosphere of the film was great but for me "La Llorona" was scarier when she had her face veiled rather than the highly CGI-ed one they gave her when it was removed. The opening was downright silly to me. I didn't find it scary/creepy at all but a little disturbing. Also for some reason I think they went for too many scares in daylight. I know everything scary doesn't have to be at night, but I felt like it undersold them or didn't do them justice. One aspect that I really liked was how they brought in a faith healer or shaman, in Spanish "Curandero" to the Conjuring Universe. He was an interesting original character addition. Astwo different critics put it, "convincing premise, sufficient drama, decent twists, and enough scares make it worth the watch", but "predictable jump scare treatment and dragging exposition take out the potential from this film despite decent performance Orverall I'd give this movie a 6/10.
While playing with his family in 1673 Mexico, a young boy closes his eyes only to re-open them and find his family missing. While searching for them he witnesses his mother drowning his brother in a stream. Frightened, he runs away but is caught and suffers the same fate.
300 years later, in 1973 Los Angeles, Anna Tate-Garcia (Linda Cardellini) works as a social worker and is investigating a well known client of hers, Patrica Alvarez (Patricia Velasquez) whose children have gone missing. Demanding to check on her children's well being, Anna goes to Patricia's home with a police of. She searches for the children and finds them locked in a room. Patricia attacks her as she locates the children and is dragged away by the officer while screaming for her not to open the door. Anna takes the boys, Carlos and Tomas out of the room, ignoring their request to stay in the room where they are safe. That night, two boys are found drowned in a nearby river and Anna is called in to investigate their deaths. At the scene Anna hears Patricia screaming that it was Anna's fault for their deaths. This draws Anna and her family into the frightening supernatural realm of "La Llorona" and her deadly wrath.
I felt like this movie was a tough mix of somewhat silly but still creepy. It was good but had too many jump scares that you could see coming from a mile a way. The acting was generally good with Linda Cardellini really selling the terror of fighting off the evil presence. The children's performances were kind of hit or miss for me.. The tone and atmosphere of the film was great but for me "La Llorona" was scarier when she had her face veiled rather than the highly CGI-ed one they gave her when it was removed. The opening was downright silly to me. I didn't find it scary/creepy at all but a little disturbing. Also for some reason I think they went for too many scares in daylight. I know everything scary doesn't have to be at night, but I felt like it undersold them or didn't do them justice. One aspect that I really liked was how they brought in a faith healer or shaman, in Spanish "Curandero" to the Conjuring Universe. He was an interesting original character addition. Astwo different critics put it, "convincing premise, sufficient drama, decent twists, and enough scares make it worth the watch", but "predictable jump scare treatment and dragging exposition take out the potential from this film despite decent performance Orverall I'd give this movie a 6/10.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bill & Ted Face the Music (2020) in Movies
Oct 7, 2020
And you thought Tenet's timey wimey stuff was confusing?
Thirty-One years after the first Bill and Ted movie, and 29 years after the slightly disappointing sequel, the dudes are back for a three-quel. Older... but not much wiser.
Bill (Alex Winter) and Ted (Keanu Reeves) are the only ones that can save reality. If they don't play the 'song that will unite humanity' at 7:17 at MP42 then the whole of time and space will unravel. It's already happening, with historical characters zapping here and there at random. There are only two problems: 1) they have no idea where MP42 is and; 2) the no-hoper wedding singers haven't written the song... yet.
Zipping forwards in time, they plan to steal the song from their future selves.
Meanwhile their daughters Thea (Samara Weaving) and Kelly (Kristen Schaal) travel backwards in time to assemble a world-class backing band. (As an aside, it is astonishing how much Weaving looks like Margot Robbie - never a bad thing in my book! If there is ever a biopic requiring a young and old version of her character, they will save a BOMB on the CGI bill!)
Meanwhile (meanwhile) Bill and Ted's princess brides (now Erinn Hayes as Elizabeth and Jayma Mays as Joanna) are unsettled with their marriages and are jumping from time to time to see if they can be happy with any version of Bill and Ted.
Death (William Sadler) quotes a Wyld Stallyns review as "A raging confused mess". And it really applies to this too! The screenplay, by original Bill and Ted writers Chris Matheson and Ed Solomon, is all over the place. With a scattergun approach to the comedy, some of the lines firmly stick to the wall - making me guffaw with laughter - and others are just plain duds.
Some of the scenes - a "couples therapy" session for example - seem to be desperately trying to be milked for all they're worth. Even the "monkey" after the end titles - with "old dudes" rocking out - isn't worth the wait.
But, contrary to that, it's also difficult not to be swept along with the anarchic joy of the concoction. The movie of course leans heavily on the nostalgic catchphrases and air guitar riffs of years gone by. But there's no shame in that. And there's a star quality cameo at one point that entertains.
Director Dean Parisot - most famous for the minor classic "Galaxy Quest" - manages to rustle all this diverse material into something that overall still manages to leave an overall stupid grin on your face. As a comedy it passes the '6-laugh' test, but - as someone who has never been a great "Bill and Ted" fan - it's not a classic. But I can see how "Bill and Ted" fans, like my daughter Jenn, would have loved it (and she did).
(For the graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies on t'internet here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/06/bill-and-ted-party-on-til-we-drop-dudes/ . Thx.)
Bill (Alex Winter) and Ted (Keanu Reeves) are the only ones that can save reality. If they don't play the 'song that will unite humanity' at 7:17 at MP42 then the whole of time and space will unravel. It's already happening, with historical characters zapping here and there at random. There are only two problems: 1) they have no idea where MP42 is and; 2) the no-hoper wedding singers haven't written the song... yet.
Zipping forwards in time, they plan to steal the song from their future selves.
Meanwhile their daughters Thea (Samara Weaving) and Kelly (Kristen Schaal) travel backwards in time to assemble a world-class backing band. (As an aside, it is astonishing how much Weaving looks like Margot Robbie - never a bad thing in my book! If there is ever a biopic requiring a young and old version of her character, they will save a BOMB on the CGI bill!)
Meanwhile (meanwhile) Bill and Ted's princess brides (now Erinn Hayes as Elizabeth and Jayma Mays as Joanna) are unsettled with their marriages and are jumping from time to time to see if they can be happy with any version of Bill and Ted.
Death (William Sadler) quotes a Wyld Stallyns review as "A raging confused mess". And it really applies to this too! The screenplay, by original Bill and Ted writers Chris Matheson and Ed Solomon, is all over the place. With a scattergun approach to the comedy, some of the lines firmly stick to the wall - making me guffaw with laughter - and others are just plain duds.
Some of the scenes - a "couples therapy" session for example - seem to be desperately trying to be milked for all they're worth. Even the "monkey" after the end titles - with "old dudes" rocking out - isn't worth the wait.
But, contrary to that, it's also difficult not to be swept along with the anarchic joy of the concoction. The movie of course leans heavily on the nostalgic catchphrases and air guitar riffs of years gone by. But there's no shame in that. And there's a star quality cameo at one point that entertains.
Director Dean Parisot - most famous for the minor classic "Galaxy Quest" - manages to rustle all this diverse material into something that overall still manages to leave an overall stupid grin on your face. As a comedy it passes the '6-laugh' test, but - as someone who has never been a great "Bill and Ted" fan - it's not a classic. But I can see how "Bill and Ted" fans, like my daughter Jenn, would have loved it (and she did).
(For the graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies on t'internet here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/06/bill-and-ted-party-on-til-we-drop-dudes/ . Thx.)
