Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Why Him? (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
When an “out of touch” Midwesterner owner of a paper factory (Bryan Cranston) decides to take his family to California to spend Christmas with his college student daughter (Zoey Deutch) and meet her new tech-millionaire, but socially inept boyfriend (James Franco), a typical father vs boyfriend faceoff ensues. For many, Why Him? will be enough to satisfy the comedy itch. Those expecting to find the next gut busting comedy will be disappointed, while those thinking it will be a dull comedy will be pleasantly surprised. This film is somewhere in the middle. A constant stream of chuckles with a few bigger laughs here or there. But ultimately forgettable at the lack of main characters to root for.
The highlights of this film include Cranston who reminds us that he has comedic timing from his years in Malcom in the Middle. His chemistry and timing is played well across Megan Mullally who perfectly delivers a few genuine laughs as a Midwestern suburban wife trying to maintain the niceties. Their son (Griffin Gluck) also adds to the humorous family affair as a teenage brother trying to be taken seriously as an adult but still being treated as a child. Lastly, the always funny Keegan-Michael Key hilariously plays Gustav, the “estate manager” to the tech-millionaire boyfriend and spices up the film every time he seems to appear.
James Franco on the other hand quickly wears out is welcome as the socially inept tech-millionaire boyfriend. At times he is funny, however after the dropping the “f-bomb” so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless “caricature” only going for the low hanging fruit of crude jokes. Still, his crude, repeated, jokes are no longer funny after the first few times we see them. The film tries to give Franco some “mysterious depth” through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Franco’s character never actually evolves past his caricature shortcomings. It is a shame, because we actually like the girlfriend character (Zoey Deutch) and want to understand what she sees in Franco’s character, however since he never really evolves, there really is no reason to like or root for them to be together.
I also want to point out that this film acknowledges its biggest flaw. At one point in the film a character points out that there is a war going on between father and boyfriend, only the boyfriend isn’t actually fighting. That’s true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Franco’s boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranston’s father character only evolves because the movie devolves into “paint by numbers” territory in the last 10 minutes. Since there is no one to root, we do not really care the outcome as we got our chuckles throughout the film but will forget about it shortly after walking out the theater.
Why Him? Has a solid cast, a few unexpected cameos and delivers constant chuckles throughout, however without giving us a likeable boyfriend or any characters to root for, the lack of memorable gut busting laughs has this film as nothing more than a typical forgettable comedy.
The highlights of this film include Cranston who reminds us that he has comedic timing from his years in Malcom in the Middle. His chemistry and timing is played well across Megan Mullally who perfectly delivers a few genuine laughs as a Midwestern suburban wife trying to maintain the niceties. Their son (Griffin Gluck) also adds to the humorous family affair as a teenage brother trying to be taken seriously as an adult but still being treated as a child. Lastly, the always funny Keegan-Michael Key hilariously plays Gustav, the “estate manager” to the tech-millionaire boyfriend and spices up the film every time he seems to appear.
James Franco on the other hand quickly wears out is welcome as the socially inept tech-millionaire boyfriend. At times he is funny, however after the dropping the “f-bomb” so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless “caricature” only going for the low hanging fruit of crude jokes. Still, his crude, repeated, jokes are no longer funny after the first few times we see them. The film tries to give Franco some “mysterious depth” through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Franco’s character never actually evolves past his caricature shortcomings. It is a shame, because we actually like the girlfriend character (Zoey Deutch) and want to understand what she sees in Franco’s character, however since he never really evolves, there really is no reason to like or root for them to be together.
I also want to point out that this film acknowledges its biggest flaw. At one point in the film a character points out that there is a war going on between father and boyfriend, only the boyfriend isn’t actually fighting. That’s true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Franco’s boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranston’s father character only evolves because the movie devolves into “paint by numbers” territory in the last 10 minutes. Since there is no one to root, we do not really care the outcome as we got our chuckles throughout the film but will forget about it shortly after walking out the theater.
Why Him? Has a solid cast, a few unexpected cameos and delivers constant chuckles throughout, however without giving us a likeable boyfriend or any characters to root for, the lack of memorable gut busting laughs has this film as nothing more than a typical forgettable comedy.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Their Finest (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Keep Calm and Carry on Writing.
In a well-mined category, “Their Finest” is a World War 2 comedy/drama telling a tale I haven’t seen told before: the story behind the British Ministry of Information and their drive to produce propaganda films that support morale and promote positive messages in a time of national crisis. For it is 1940 and London is under nightly attack by the Luftwaffe during the time known as “The Blitz”. Unfortunately the Ministry is run by a bunch of toffs, and their output is laughably misaligned with the working class population, and especially the female population: with their husbands fighting overseas, these two groups are fast becoming one and the same. For women are finding and enjoying new empowerment and freedom in being socially unshackled from the kitchen sink.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.
Luke (12 KP) rated Ghostbusters (1984) in Movies
Oct 3, 2017
Great comedic writing from Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd (4 more)
Imaginative ghost designs
Great chemistry between the stars
That iconic theme song from Ray Parker Jr.
Mostly everything is explained through science
Some special effects haven't aged all that well (2 more)
Some younger viewers may be frightened by some imagery- parental discretion is advised
Some sexual references.
Ghostbusters is a comedy horror film from 1984 directed by Ivan Reitman and written by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis who also star in the film. The film follows three ex-university professors as they go into business to catch ghosts. This was Ghost Hunters before it was cool. One of their first clients, Dana Barrett played by Sigourney Weaver, hires Dr. Peter Venkman, played by Bill Murray, to investigate a haunting in her apartment. The chemistry between Murray and Weaver here is great. Murray is clearly a womanizer and wants nothing more than to go out with Weaver. Weaver plays hard to get of course. The monster designs are very imaginative for the time, some of them being a little bit creepy. When the movie uses practical effects, it looks really good. But when it instead goes for other special effects, it really breaks the illusion that these monsters are real. You can really see it with the demon dogs if you know what to look for. There is one scene in which Dana Barrett is possessed by the demon known as Zuul where she tries to seduce Peter Venkman, but it never goes anywhere. There's another scene where a demon hand comes out of a lounge chair that Dana is sitting in. And it literally cops a feel. No joke. Go watch that scene. It really looks like Dana is getting molested there. I don't know why that is in there but there it is. Be warned. Some scenes may frighten younger children. Parents be advised. But nonetheless, Ghostbusters is still a classic to watch during Halloween. Cause I ain't afraid of no ghost.
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated Debbie Doesn't Do It Anymore in Books
May 10, 2018
Debbie Doesn't Do It Anymore is the story of a platinum blonde, African American porn star. She is someone you would recognize everywhere. When tragedy strikes, Debbie decides that she is no longer going to live this life and try for the straight and narrow. The road to get there though is long and has quite a few bumps along the way.
This was a very explicit novel by Walter Mosley. Every word imaginable to describe the male and female genitalia was used. This did not bother me at all, but I wanted to let others who may be offended by that type of language. This was a very real look into the porn industry for me. Sure I have seen some porn in my life, not an avid watcher at all, but it's interesting to know a back story. Debbie grew up as Sandra Peal in California. She met Theon Pinckney, her husband, when she was just a girl, and he changed her world forever. When Deb comes home from a most unusual movie shoot, she finds police and paramedics at her home. Her husband had been found dead in their bathtub, with another woman, or girl is more appropriate. This doesn't upset Debbie as you would think, she was used to this kind of behavior from her husband, especially being in the industry that they were in. The death of her husband also, to Debbie, meant the death of her career. She changed her whole look so that she was no longer recognizable on the streets or even to some of her "friends". She went back to using her real name instead of the stage name of Debbie Dare.
This book was quite entertaining. I found myself looking over my shoulder whenever the explicit words were announced to see if anyone around me was listening out. This book gives you a different look at porn stars and the life they lead. I recommend this book for anyone who is not easily upset by pornographic language.
This was a very explicit novel by Walter Mosley. Every word imaginable to describe the male and female genitalia was used. This did not bother me at all, but I wanted to let others who may be offended by that type of language. This was a very real look into the porn industry for me. Sure I have seen some porn in my life, not an avid watcher at all, but it's interesting to know a back story. Debbie grew up as Sandra Peal in California. She met Theon Pinckney, her husband, when she was just a girl, and he changed her world forever. When Deb comes home from a most unusual movie shoot, she finds police and paramedics at her home. Her husband had been found dead in their bathtub, with another woman, or girl is more appropriate. This doesn't upset Debbie as you would think, she was used to this kind of behavior from her husband, especially being in the industry that they were in. The death of her husband also, to Debbie, meant the death of her career. She changed her whole look so that she was no longer recognizable on the streets or even to some of her "friends". She went back to using her real name instead of the stage name of Debbie Dare.
This book was quite entertaining. I found myself looking over my shoulder whenever the explicit words were announced to see if anyone around me was listening out. This book gives you a different look at porn stars and the life they lead. I recommend this book for anyone who is not easily upset by pornographic language.
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated Something in the Water in Books
Apr 9, 2019
Erin and Mark are about to get married. Before their wedding day, they have a few things to deal with. Erin has to prepare everything for the documentary she is working on, about how inmates re-enter the real world. And Mark, loses his job as an investment banker, which was their main source of income. This forces them to change some plans of their wedding and honeymoon, but also make the break that much more needed.
While honeymooning in Bora Bora, they go on a scuba diving excursion where they find a bag floating in the water. What's inside will lead them on a journey where they will find out more about each other than they ever expected.
Thank you to NetGalley and Ballantine Books for the opportunity to read and review this book.
Someting In The Water, gives you the ending of the book first, then goes back three months for us to see what could have possibly happened. The book starts with Erin digging a grave to bury Mark in. If they are newlyweds, what could he have done in such a short time that she is now burying his body in the middle of nowhere.
This book started out really well and it was hard to put down at first. But, as the story went along, the details just became more and more implausible. To me, Erin was an idiot and the fact that she couldn't see what was happening right under her nose, and some of her actions were just ridiculous. The things that occurred in this book did not seem possible for an investment banker and a film maker to pull off (Eg. cutting the lining of their luggage to hide money). It's said this book is supposed to be a psychological thriller, but to me it was just psychotic.
This is debut novel from this author, so I'm willing to give her another chance, if she rights another book. This one reminded me of the movie Into the Blue with Paul Walker and Jessica Alba
While honeymooning in Bora Bora, they go on a scuba diving excursion where they find a bag floating in the water. What's inside will lead them on a journey where they will find out more about each other than they ever expected.
Thank you to NetGalley and Ballantine Books for the opportunity to read and review this book.
Someting In The Water, gives you the ending of the book first, then goes back three months for us to see what could have possibly happened. The book starts with Erin digging a grave to bury Mark in. If they are newlyweds, what could he have done in such a short time that she is now burying his body in the middle of nowhere.
This book started out really well and it was hard to put down at first. But, as the story went along, the details just became more and more implausible. To me, Erin was an idiot and the fact that she couldn't see what was happening right under her nose, and some of her actions were just ridiculous. The things that occurred in this book did not seem possible for an investment banker and a film maker to pull off (Eg. cutting the lining of their luggage to hide money). It's said this book is supposed to be a psychological thriller, but to me it was just psychotic.
This is debut novel from this author, so I'm willing to give her another chance, if she rights another book. This one reminded me of the movie Into the Blue with Paul Walker and Jessica Alba
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Valentine's Day (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Ashton Kutcher has put down his pranks and camera to return to the big screen leading in this star packed Los Angeles romantic comedy. This feature ties together stories of love, truth, and romance, all taking place within the span of a single Valentine’s Day. The film considers relationships from multiple angles and does a fantastic job intertwining individual stories into a single plotline. Yet before preparing for another “Love Actually” let it be know that the tone of “Valentine’s Day” is entirely its own.
As previously mentioned the cast is comprised of film and television stars including but not limited to Julia Roberts, Anne Hathaway, Hector Elizondo, Queen Latifah and not one but two Jessicas (Biel and Alba). As if that were not enough to drawn in big numbers at the box office, “Valentine’s Day” also stars Jennifer Garner, Jamie Foxx, as well as the Mc-actors from Grey’s Anatomy (Patrick Dempsey and Eric Dane). Still not convinced? Then add in Shirley MacLaine, George Lopez and both Taylors (Swift and Lautner) and you’ve got yourself a guaranteed hit, but does the film actually utilize this outstandingly one of a kind cast? Actually it does.
The film is unexpectedly scattered with all the ups and downs of Valentine’s Day from pink and red color schemes to an anti-Valentine’s piñata beat down. All of the scenes are either engaging and honest or delightful and light covering romantic scenarios that truly run the gauntlet. Seriously where else are you going to see Julia Roberts in fatigues and Anne Hathaway as an adult phone entertainer?
I honestly wish there was more to gripe about considering that this film is just a fun romantic comedy, but “Valentine’s Day” is fresh and enjoyable for every minute of the film. Much funnier than I ‘d expected and not insultingly mushy, Valentine’s Day is a perfect date movie which will be a surprise hit even for those romance cynics.
As previously mentioned the cast is comprised of film and television stars including but not limited to Julia Roberts, Anne Hathaway, Hector Elizondo, Queen Latifah and not one but two Jessicas (Biel and Alba). As if that were not enough to drawn in big numbers at the box office, “Valentine’s Day” also stars Jennifer Garner, Jamie Foxx, as well as the Mc-actors from Grey’s Anatomy (Patrick Dempsey and Eric Dane). Still not convinced? Then add in Shirley MacLaine, George Lopez and both Taylors (Swift and Lautner) and you’ve got yourself a guaranteed hit, but does the film actually utilize this outstandingly one of a kind cast? Actually it does.
The film is unexpectedly scattered with all the ups and downs of Valentine’s Day from pink and red color schemes to an anti-Valentine’s piñata beat down. All of the scenes are either engaging and honest or delightful and light covering romantic scenarios that truly run the gauntlet. Seriously where else are you going to see Julia Roberts in fatigues and Anne Hathaway as an adult phone entertainer?
I honestly wish there was more to gripe about considering that this film is just a fun romantic comedy, but “Valentine’s Day” is fresh and enjoyable for every minute of the film. Much funnier than I ‘d expected and not insultingly mushy, Valentine’s Day is a perfect date movie which will be a surprise hit even for those romance cynics.
Directors Tell the Story: Master the Craft of Television and Film Directing
Bethany Rooney and Mary Lou Belli
Book
Move over, movies: the freshest storytelling today is on television, where the multi-episodic format...
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alaska (1996) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Alaska starts as we meet the Barnes family, father Jake (Benedict) a small plane pilot and his kids Jessie (Birch) and Sean (Kartheiser), the family has started a new life in Alaska after their death of Jake’s wife and mother of Jessie and Sean. While Jessie has embraced this new life enjoying the beautiful sites, Sean is struggling with new life. We also get to meet to poachers Perry (Heston) and Koontz (Fraser) who have been hunting polar bears.
When their father goes missing, Jessie and Sean aim to go in search of him through the Alaskan wilderness discovering a captured baby polar bear cub that they release who joins them on their adventure, which only attracts the poachers attention as they find themselves chased through the wilderness by the poachers too in a race against time to find their father.
Thoughts on Alaska
Characters/Performance – Jessie is the sister of the siblings, she has embraced the change to Alaska learning to be part of the team with her father, while they both want to search for their father, she is the most prepared of the two. Sean hates his new life in Alaska and wants to move back to Chicago but you can clearly see he is grieving his mother with his behaviour, but with his father missing he will do everything he can to find him, learning to love the beautiful landscape they are part of now. Jake is the father of the family that has given up his 747-pilot job to start a new life in the small town in Alaska, he does spend most of the film trapped in his plane but his character gives Jessie and Sean the reason for going on their adventure. Perry and Koontz are two poachers hunting polar bears, they cross paths with the kids as they menacingly try to recapture the polar bear cub that they had released.
Performance wise, Thora Birch and Vincent Kartheiser are both great in the lead roles as the children in search of their father. Dirk doesn’t have much to do but does what he needs to well. Charlton Heston as the menacing poacher does seem to enjoy the role he plays in the movie.
Story – The story of two young teenagers going into the wilderness to find their missing father is a nice tried and tested formula, this style of film seemed to be the rave for family films around the time too, so to stand out you had to do something different. We get the moments of peril which are good and well-paced but we also get the moments of discovery which are just as important. Obviously, there are negatives here which include the idea the adults are clueless when searching for people in crashes and poachers being just evil people. I would also like to point out, that it is very unlikely a polar bear mother is just going to accept another cub, well that is what David Attenborough has taught me.
Adventure/Family – The adventure the kids get to go on is one I remember watching as a kid going, I wanna do that and I still would like to. The family side of this film is about the unity between a broken family doing everything to stay together and of course having a cute little polar bear helping them out.
Settings – Alaska as a setting, beautiful, stunning, peril filled and perfect for the story being told.
Effects – We only have a few effects in use here, most feels practical with the stunt work and working with a potential deadly animal in a polar bear.
Final Thoughts – This is easily one of the better kids work with animal films of the 90s, one that gives you hope in humanity and a wonderful setting.
Overall: Family night sorted.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/01/31/alaska-1996/
When their father goes missing, Jessie and Sean aim to go in search of him through the Alaskan wilderness discovering a captured baby polar bear cub that they release who joins them on their adventure, which only attracts the poachers attention as they find themselves chased through the wilderness by the poachers too in a race against time to find their father.
Thoughts on Alaska
Characters/Performance – Jessie is the sister of the siblings, she has embraced the change to Alaska learning to be part of the team with her father, while they both want to search for their father, she is the most prepared of the two. Sean hates his new life in Alaska and wants to move back to Chicago but you can clearly see he is grieving his mother with his behaviour, but with his father missing he will do everything he can to find him, learning to love the beautiful landscape they are part of now. Jake is the father of the family that has given up his 747-pilot job to start a new life in the small town in Alaska, he does spend most of the film trapped in his plane but his character gives Jessie and Sean the reason for going on their adventure. Perry and Koontz are two poachers hunting polar bears, they cross paths with the kids as they menacingly try to recapture the polar bear cub that they had released.
Performance wise, Thora Birch and Vincent Kartheiser are both great in the lead roles as the children in search of their father. Dirk doesn’t have much to do but does what he needs to well. Charlton Heston as the menacing poacher does seem to enjoy the role he plays in the movie.
Story – The story of two young teenagers going into the wilderness to find their missing father is a nice tried and tested formula, this style of film seemed to be the rave for family films around the time too, so to stand out you had to do something different. We get the moments of peril which are good and well-paced but we also get the moments of discovery which are just as important. Obviously, there are negatives here which include the idea the adults are clueless when searching for people in crashes and poachers being just evil people. I would also like to point out, that it is very unlikely a polar bear mother is just going to accept another cub, well that is what David Attenborough has taught me.
Adventure/Family – The adventure the kids get to go on is one I remember watching as a kid going, I wanna do that and I still would like to. The family side of this film is about the unity between a broken family doing everything to stay together and of course having a cute little polar bear helping them out.
Settings – Alaska as a setting, beautiful, stunning, peril filled and perfect for the story being told.
Effects – We only have a few effects in use here, most feels practical with the stunt work and working with a potential deadly animal in a polar bear.
Final Thoughts – This is easily one of the better kids work with animal films of the 90s, one that gives you hope in humanity and a wonderful setting.
Overall: Family night sorted.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/01/31/alaska-1996/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Sword of Destiny (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Story: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Sword of Destiny starts 18-years after Yu (Yeoh) saw her love die returns to safeguard the sword of destiny, after a warlord Hades Dai (Lee) goes in search for the sword believing it will give him the power to conquer the land.
Needing to protect the sword, Yu puts out a call for warriors to come and help defend it, which sees Silent Wolf (Yen) put together a five-person army, while Yu takes on a new student Snow Vase (Bordizzo) with skills advanced of her age.
Thoughts on Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Sword of Destiny
Characters – Yu has returned from her isolation and mourning after 18-years away only to stumble into the next attempt to steal the Sword of Destiny, here she must learn who to trust, reunite with an old ally and put herself in the teaching position. Silent Wolf has lived a life in isolation, where his loved ones believed him to be dead, he returns to help defend the sword for the greatest honour in his life. Wei Fang is a young warrior that is being forced into stealing the sword to protect his master, he learns about his past and along with Snow Vase who also has a decision of her own to make, provide the unsure future for Yu on who to trust. Snow Vase is the talented young fighter knowing skills beyond her age, she askes to be taught even if she isn’t as disciplined as she should be.
Performances – Michelle Yeoh returns to this role, she brings the fight skills that made the first one fantastic and must play the role with an emotionless feeling of being broken, which she does with ease. Donnie Yen takes up the mysterious fighter role which is a role that he could take any day and never look out of place. it is the new comers that impress in the fighting side of things, where they struggle in places with the emotional factors at play in their characters.
Story – The story here returns Yu back to the land she once fought for, where she must defend it from a new warlord that wants the sword which could bring power to control the land. This is a sequel that does well to return one of the favourites which also dives into her past to bring a new character, while also offer people that could become the new leads if the series was going to continue. When we break down the story it does play into tradition of being loyal and honour. It would have been nice to see more from the villain which only has a few moments which are just generic villain style, without seeing him do anything truly villainous.
Action/Fantasy – The action in the film is the martial arts material we have enjoyed for years, we have the weightless effects which were famous from the first which add the style required to be unique. This does play into the fantasy of the action which goes against the physics of fighting.
Settings – The film brings back the settings we knew and still look fantastic, with the final showdown being in a new location which is used to add to the fight.
Special Effects – The effects are used to make the fights feel like they could be real, the weightless style is the best part of the fights.
Scene of the Movie – Final fight.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Certain moments of the Wei Fang and Snow Vase does drag at times.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun sequel to a much more superior original, it will entertain without being anywhere near the level original.
Overall: Entertaining for the fans.
Needing to protect the sword, Yu puts out a call for warriors to come and help defend it, which sees Silent Wolf (Yen) put together a five-person army, while Yu takes on a new student Snow Vase (Bordizzo) with skills advanced of her age.
Thoughts on Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Sword of Destiny
Characters – Yu has returned from her isolation and mourning after 18-years away only to stumble into the next attempt to steal the Sword of Destiny, here she must learn who to trust, reunite with an old ally and put herself in the teaching position. Silent Wolf has lived a life in isolation, where his loved ones believed him to be dead, he returns to help defend the sword for the greatest honour in his life. Wei Fang is a young warrior that is being forced into stealing the sword to protect his master, he learns about his past and along with Snow Vase who also has a decision of her own to make, provide the unsure future for Yu on who to trust. Snow Vase is the talented young fighter knowing skills beyond her age, she askes to be taught even if she isn’t as disciplined as she should be.
Performances – Michelle Yeoh returns to this role, she brings the fight skills that made the first one fantastic and must play the role with an emotionless feeling of being broken, which she does with ease. Donnie Yen takes up the mysterious fighter role which is a role that he could take any day and never look out of place. it is the new comers that impress in the fighting side of things, where they struggle in places with the emotional factors at play in their characters.
Story – The story here returns Yu back to the land she once fought for, where she must defend it from a new warlord that wants the sword which could bring power to control the land. This is a sequel that does well to return one of the favourites which also dives into her past to bring a new character, while also offer people that could become the new leads if the series was going to continue. When we break down the story it does play into tradition of being loyal and honour. It would have been nice to see more from the villain which only has a few moments which are just generic villain style, without seeing him do anything truly villainous.
Action/Fantasy – The action in the film is the martial arts material we have enjoyed for years, we have the weightless effects which were famous from the first which add the style required to be unique. This does play into the fantasy of the action which goes against the physics of fighting.
Settings – The film brings back the settings we knew and still look fantastic, with the final showdown being in a new location which is used to add to the fight.
Special Effects – The effects are used to make the fights feel like they could be real, the weightless style is the best part of the fights.
Scene of the Movie – Final fight.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Certain moments of the Wei Fang and Snow Vase does drag at times.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun sequel to a much more superior original, it will entertain without being anywhere near the level original.
Overall: Entertaining for the fans.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The End Of The Tour (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The End of the Tour tells the story of the five-day interview between Rolling Stone reporter and novelist David Lipsky (Jesse Eisenberg) and acclaimed novelist David Foster Wallace (Jason Segel), which took place right after the 1996 publication of Wallace’s groundbreaking epic novel, Infinite Jest. The film is based on Lipsky’s critically acclaimed memoir about this unforgettable encounter, written following Wallace’s 2008 suicide.
So there is the summary. And it tells you what this movie is about. However what that summary does not tell you is the depth of emotion to which both Jason Segel and Jesse Eisenberg deliver in their performances.
Jesse Eisenberg gives a performance that we come to expect from the Oscar nominated actor. Not only can you feel, but you can also and understand his curiosity and jealousy towards Segel’s success. A less successful writer, he wants the notoriety that Segel has. So much so, that he is constantly trying to find the holes in Segel’s persona under the guise of an interview and yet is forced to ponder the things that Segel is saying to him.
Jason Segel’s portrayal of David Foster Wallace is not understated by the word phenomenal. I was skeptical that Segel would not be able to deliver a dramatic performance of this caliber, but I am glad to say I was wrong. He steals every scene he is in and his performance is so deep and thoughtful that Jason Segel himself disappears and we are instead left with a performance of what I will always believe David Foster Wallace was like in real life. This performance is one of the best I have seen this year and I believe he will receive an Oscar nomination for this role. I was fascinated with Segel’s performance that I actually downloaded David Foster Wallace’s book Infinite Jest on my drive home.
Performances aside, this movie is not for everyone. If you are looking for an inactive cinematic experience then this film is not for you. This film makes you think. It is like being a part of a deep conversation with friends trying to make sense of the world. It brings perspective to the society we live in and the loneliness we find ourselves trying to avoid while clinging to meaningless things that bring us simple pleasure. A simple way of living where we go from A to B to C to find meaning, only to obtain those things and then not knowing what we do next. But for those who are looking to escape the mundane summer blockbusters and want to see stellar performances, be sure to check this one out.
So there is the summary. And it tells you what this movie is about. However what that summary does not tell you is the depth of emotion to which both Jason Segel and Jesse Eisenberg deliver in their performances.
Jesse Eisenberg gives a performance that we come to expect from the Oscar nominated actor. Not only can you feel, but you can also and understand his curiosity and jealousy towards Segel’s success. A less successful writer, he wants the notoriety that Segel has. So much so, that he is constantly trying to find the holes in Segel’s persona under the guise of an interview and yet is forced to ponder the things that Segel is saying to him.
Jason Segel’s portrayal of David Foster Wallace is not understated by the word phenomenal. I was skeptical that Segel would not be able to deliver a dramatic performance of this caliber, but I am glad to say I was wrong. He steals every scene he is in and his performance is so deep and thoughtful that Jason Segel himself disappears and we are instead left with a performance of what I will always believe David Foster Wallace was like in real life. This performance is one of the best I have seen this year and I believe he will receive an Oscar nomination for this role. I was fascinated with Segel’s performance that I actually downloaded David Foster Wallace’s book Infinite Jest on my drive home.
Performances aside, this movie is not for everyone. If you are looking for an inactive cinematic experience then this film is not for you. This film makes you think. It is like being a part of a deep conversation with friends trying to make sense of the world. It brings perspective to the society we live in and the loneliness we find ourselves trying to avoid while clinging to meaningless things that bring us simple pleasure. A simple way of living where we go from A to B to C to find meaning, only to obtain those things and then not knowing what we do next. But for those who are looking to escape the mundane summer blockbusters and want to see stellar performances, be sure to check this one out.