Search
Search results
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”.
David McK (3767 KP) rated Star Wars Legends Epic Collection: The New Republic, Vol. 2 in Books
Jan 30, 2019
One of the biggest casualties to come out of Disney's acquisisiton of LucasArts back in 2012 was the abolition of the old 'Expanded Universe' content: suddenly, all those connected stories, comics and video-games were no longer considered in-canon; no longer relevant.
While understandable in light of their plans to create new movies (of which we have had one so far - 'The Force Awakens' - with another off-shoot to come this year in 'Rogue One') my sense is that there was a bit of a back-lash to this (hence the reason for these 'Legends Epic collections'): I'm even guilty of it myself a bit, in that I would quite have liked to see a movie based on either [a: Timothy Zahn|12479|Timothy Zahn|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1215545810p2/12479.jpg]'s [b: Heir to the Empire|216443|Heir to the Empire (Star Wars The Thrawn Trilogy #1)|Timothy Zahn|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1398253847s/216443.jpg|1133995] trilogy, or even on any of the X-Wing books/comics.
It's those comics that comprise this collection, which consists of the following stories:
X-Wing: Rogue Leader 1-3
X-Wing: Rogue Squadron: The Rebel Opposition (1-4)
X-Wing: Rogue Sqaudron: The Phantom Affair (1-4)
X-Wing: Rogue Sqaudron: Battleground: Tattoine (1-4)
X-Wing: Rogue Squadron: The Warrior Princess (1-4)
X-Wing: Rogue Sqaudron Special
as well as some content from 'Star Wars Tales' #12 and #23
As this is a compilation of such, the art style is not consistent throughout (although it is consistent in-story: I found some tales to have better, clearer art than others. I'm also somewhat surprised that the left out those stories connected to Baron Soontir Fel in this collection!
While understandable in light of their plans to create new movies (of which we have had one so far - 'The Force Awakens' - with another off-shoot to come this year in 'Rogue One') my sense is that there was a bit of a back-lash to this (hence the reason for these 'Legends Epic collections'): I'm even guilty of it myself a bit, in that I would quite have liked to see a movie based on either [a: Timothy Zahn|12479|Timothy Zahn|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1215545810p2/12479.jpg]'s [b: Heir to the Empire|216443|Heir to the Empire (Star Wars The Thrawn Trilogy #1)|Timothy Zahn|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1398253847s/216443.jpg|1133995] trilogy, or even on any of the X-Wing books/comics.
It's those comics that comprise this collection, which consists of the following stories:
X-Wing: Rogue Leader 1-3
X-Wing: Rogue Squadron: The Rebel Opposition (1-4)
X-Wing: Rogue Sqaudron: The Phantom Affair (1-4)
X-Wing: Rogue Sqaudron: Battleground: Tattoine (1-4)
X-Wing: Rogue Squadron: The Warrior Princess (1-4)
X-Wing: Rogue Sqaudron Special
as well as some content from 'Star Wars Tales' #12 and #23
As this is a compilation of such, the art style is not consistent throughout (although it is consistent in-story: I found some tales to have better, clearer art than others. I'm also somewhat surprised that the left out those stories connected to Baron Soontir Fel in this collection!
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Bride of Re-Animator (1990) in Movies
Oct 3, 2020
The first Re-Animator definitely ranks in my personal top horrors of all time, and it's sequel isn't that far behind in quality.
First and foremost, Bride of Re-Animator is batshit insane, arguably more so than its predecessor. My the time the climax rolls around, there is just an unholy amount of crazy shit going on at once. It's genuinely quite challenging to take it all in, and it's nothing short of marvelous.
The effects work is outstanding. Practical effects and stop motion are used to bring a plethora of rejected experiments to life, and the whole film is just caked in gore and viscera (be prepared if you get funny about veins and ligaments...)
There's one particular moment that could well be one of the finest examples of body horror ever committed to screen.
The puppeteer of this madness is of course Herbert West, a bonafide icon of horror, and once again played by the great Jeffrey Combs. It's great to see David Gale and Bruce Abbott back for another stint as well, and Kathleen Kinmont gives it her all as the titular and showstopping Bride of Re-Animator.
The only real way that Bride falls short of the first movie is really down to pacing and structure. The payoff is fantastic, but the majority of film that comes beforehand feels a bit jumbled together (much like the Bride herself) and comes across as disjointed at times. Honestly, any character that isn't mentioned above is also just kind of there, but that's a minor grumble in a film that involves Hebert West.
Not quite as brilliant as the first Re-Animator then, but a suitably absurd sequel that can stand proud on its own merits.
First and foremost, Bride of Re-Animator is batshit insane, arguably more so than its predecessor. My the time the climax rolls around, there is just an unholy amount of crazy shit going on at once. It's genuinely quite challenging to take it all in, and it's nothing short of marvelous.
The effects work is outstanding. Practical effects and stop motion are used to bring a plethora of rejected experiments to life, and the whole film is just caked in gore and viscera (be prepared if you get funny about veins and ligaments...)
There's one particular moment that could well be one of the finest examples of body horror ever committed to screen.
The puppeteer of this madness is of course Herbert West, a bonafide icon of horror, and once again played by the great Jeffrey Combs. It's great to see David Gale and Bruce Abbott back for another stint as well, and Kathleen Kinmont gives it her all as the titular and showstopping Bride of Re-Animator.
The only real way that Bride falls short of the first movie is really down to pacing and structure. The payoff is fantastic, but the majority of film that comes beforehand feels a bit jumbled together (much like the Bride herself) and comes across as disjointed at times. Honestly, any character that isn't mentioned above is also just kind of there, but that's a minor grumble in a film that involves Hebert West.
Not quite as brilliant as the first Re-Animator then, but a suitably absurd sequel that can stand proud on its own merits.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Mother/Android (2021) in Movies
Jan 14, 2022
Whilst there are a handful of positives about Mother/Android, they are woefully overshadowed by just how unoriginal the overall movie is.
Starting with said positives - Chloë Grace Moretz is always trying her best and here is no different. It's also nice to see Raúl Castillo popping up more and more at the moment and here is no different. There's a scene fairly late on, set in a house full of androids that is genuinely quite tense and is an obvious highlight.
Other than that, it's pretty dire. The dialogue is shoddy, and the writing is all over the place. None of the characters are particularly likable and there's not really anyone to root for (started rooting for the androids by the end). The opening scene is one of intrigue, promising something vaguely resembling Detroit: Become Human, but the story is rushed along so quickly that we're thrown straight into 9 months later, following a pregnant lady through some woods in America, whilst trying to stay silent. Very A Quiet Place. The android designs do nothing to differentiate from the designs seen in Terminator.
However, the most insulting moment of plagiarism comes during the climax, the events of which are quite bleak, and aim for the heartstrings. This moment is intercut with flashes of a happier time, whilst chaos unfolds in the distance, set to some somber music. All of which would have landed way better if it wasn't ripped straight from the undead hands of Train to Busan!
I'm sure that there will be plenty of people out there who find something to like when it comes to Mother/Android but for me, it just came across as plain lazy, lifting ideas from far superior movies left, right, and centre.
Starting with said positives - Chloë Grace Moretz is always trying her best and here is no different. It's also nice to see Raúl Castillo popping up more and more at the moment and here is no different. There's a scene fairly late on, set in a house full of androids that is genuinely quite tense and is an obvious highlight.
Other than that, it's pretty dire. The dialogue is shoddy, and the writing is all over the place. None of the characters are particularly likable and there's not really anyone to root for (started rooting for the androids by the end). The opening scene is one of intrigue, promising something vaguely resembling Detroit: Become Human, but the story is rushed along so quickly that we're thrown straight into 9 months later, following a pregnant lady through some woods in America, whilst trying to stay silent. Very A Quiet Place. The android designs do nothing to differentiate from the designs seen in Terminator.
However, the most insulting moment of plagiarism comes during the climax, the events of which are quite bleak, and aim for the heartstrings. This moment is intercut with flashes of a happier time, whilst chaos unfolds in the distance, set to some somber music. All of which would have landed way better if it wasn't ripped straight from the undead hands of Train to Busan!
I'm sure that there will be plenty of people out there who find something to like when it comes to Mother/Android but for me, it just came across as plain lazy, lifting ideas from far superior movies left, right, and centre.
David McK (3767 KP) rated Batman: Resurrection in Books
Apr 6, 2025
Michael Keaton's version of The Caped Crusader seems to have undergone something of a renaissance in recent years, with the publication of the Batman '89 graphic novels, and with his reappearance in the otherwise-disappointing movie 'The Flash' from 2023.
So roughly 35 or so years after the original 'Batman' film - which reimagined him from the camp flamboyant character of the '60s TV series to something altogether more serious - we get this novel, set between the events of 'Batman' And 'Batman Returns' and so set in the very-gothic Tim Burton version of Gotham instead of the more-grounded Christopher Nolan version: a Gotham that is still reeling from the after-effects of The Jokers gas attack towards the end of that film.
With said Gas, and the chemical attack earlier in the film in the form of Smylex, kickstarting the plot here by providing the reason behind the creation of what, to me, is one of the lesser-known of Batman's Rogue Gallery - a character that, without giving too much away, I only really first became aware of through playing the Arkham Asylum series of videogames, where he has a larger role in one of the later entries (and who has yet, to my knowledge, make it to the movies - ironic, when you consider his profession).
Him, and the puppeteer pulling his strings - both of whom I have encountered in said video games; neither of which have played a larger role (any?) in any of the live-action Batman films.
As an 'in-between' novel, there's also hints of things to come with cameo's from certain characters who will later play a larger role in Batman Returns, and by one character in particular who the upcoming sequel to this is going to centre on.
So roughly 35 or so years after the original 'Batman' film - which reimagined him from the camp flamboyant character of the '60s TV series to something altogether more serious - we get this novel, set between the events of 'Batman' And 'Batman Returns' and so set in the very-gothic Tim Burton version of Gotham instead of the more-grounded Christopher Nolan version: a Gotham that is still reeling from the after-effects of The Jokers gas attack towards the end of that film.
With said Gas, and the chemical attack earlier in the film in the form of Smylex, kickstarting the plot here by providing the reason behind the creation of what, to me, is one of the lesser-known of Batman's Rogue Gallery - a character that, without giving too much away, I only really first became aware of through playing the Arkham Asylum series of videogames, where he has a larger role in one of the later entries (and who has yet, to my knowledge, make it to the movies - ironic, when you consider his profession).
Him, and the puppeteer pulling his strings - both of whom I have encountered in said video games; neither of which have played a larger role (any?) in any of the live-action Batman films.
As an 'in-between' novel, there's also hints of things to come with cameo's from certain characters who will later play a larger role in Batman Returns, and by one character in particular who the upcoming sequel to this is going to centre on.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Large and Small on screen, but just ends up middling.
So, for the first time we divided last night at the cinema. I went off to watch “Ant-Man and the Wasp” and my wife – not a Marvel fan – went to see “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again” (for the THIRD time!). Incidentally, Mamma Mia 2 seems to be the movie phenomenon of the summer, taking over from “The Greatest Showman” as the movie phenomenon of the winter. It’s been out three weeks now and the shows are still selling out, with people (mostly groups of women) being turned away at the ticket desk. I can see this one running in theatres until October, when they bring out a sing-a-long edition and it carries on running ‘til Christmas. Extraordinary.
But, let’s turn from big things to small things. In a prologue we see a young Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) torn apart as Janet miniturises herself into the “quantum realm” to save the world from nuclear disaster. But in the present day Hank thinks there might be a way to find and retrieve Janet with the help of their superhero daughter Hope (“The Wasp”, played by Evangeline Lilly). (“What the f*** have you been thinking about instead for the last 30 years while I’ve been sat here avoiding neutrons”, would be the imagined response from Janet, but we don’t go there!).
But Scott Lang (aka “Ant Man”, Paul Rudd), having also been to the quantum realm, holds a key part of the puzzle. To add to their problems, a strange ghost-like girl called Ava has her own reasons for retrieving the lost soul, but in ways that will tear Janet limb from limb. Can Hank, Hope and Scott succeed, while dodging both The Ghost, the FBI and other criminal forces intent on seizing Pym’s technology?
I must admit that I’d somewhat forgotten how “Ant Man” ended three years ago, which together with the one film missing from my Marvel-watching canon being “Captain America: Civil War” left me somewhat confused by why we start the film with our hero Lang under two-year’s house arrest. But much fun is had with Lang’s curfew and the frustration of FBI agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park) in trying to catch him breaking the rules.
For we are again at the comedic end of the Marvel universe. However the comedy is extremely uneven this time and doesn’t sit particularly well with the dramatic and emotional elements of the film. It’s certainly nowhere near the consistently funny content of the surprisingly good “Thor: Ragnarok”. Some of Rudd’s lines just smell of “trying too hard”.
Adding comedic value is Michael Peña returning here as Scott’s partner Luis. His motor-mouth routine after taking a truth drug (“not a truth drug”!) was hilarious, with the rest of the cast miming his words in flashback.
It has to be said though that there are some truly great sight-gags, to rival the Thomas the Tank Engine scenes in the first film. The expanding salt-cellar; the expanding / contracting car and building moments; and the “skateboard” scenes. But all – and I mean ALL – of these scenes were universally spoiled by the trailer, such that the reaction to them was “oh, that’s that bit then”. NEVER has there been a better case for a teaser trailer that basically said “Ant Man’s back; here’s ONE wow-factor visual”. It’s just criminal. Interestingly, re the trailer, there was also at least one scene (the “you go high, I’ll go low” one, which I thought was very funny) that didn’t make the cut I saw.
Acting wise you can’t fault the cast with Lilly just great as “The Wasp”. If I was her, I would have said “OK… I’ll do the film, but I get to keep the suit!”. That would be her age monitoring device for years to come…. “Does the zip still do up at the back? Do my impossibly pert breasts still align with these impossibly well-moulded contours?”. It’s also great to see Michael Douglas and Laurence Fishburne going head-to-head in the acting stakes. Walton Goggins again crops up as a believable bad-guy, a performance I really enjoyed, but the star turn for me in the whole film was a career-making performance by Hannah John-Kamen as Ava/The Ghost: she’s previously only had small supporting roles in “Tomb Raider” and “Ready Player One”. Looking like a Star Wars sand-person in her outfit she removes her mask to reveal a stunningly piercing gaze and great screen presence. One to watch for the future.
Directed by original “Ant Man” director Peyton Reed, it’s a perfectly entertaining watch for a summer night, but it is uneven in tone, perhaps the result of the team of five credited with the writing. Ask me in two months’ time to tell you anything about it and I will probably struggle. It’s a “meh” sort of film for me.
But, let’s turn from big things to small things. In a prologue we see a young Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) torn apart as Janet miniturises herself into the “quantum realm” to save the world from nuclear disaster. But in the present day Hank thinks there might be a way to find and retrieve Janet with the help of their superhero daughter Hope (“The Wasp”, played by Evangeline Lilly). (“What the f*** have you been thinking about instead for the last 30 years while I’ve been sat here avoiding neutrons”, would be the imagined response from Janet, but we don’t go there!).
But Scott Lang (aka “Ant Man”, Paul Rudd), having also been to the quantum realm, holds a key part of the puzzle. To add to their problems, a strange ghost-like girl called Ava has her own reasons for retrieving the lost soul, but in ways that will tear Janet limb from limb. Can Hank, Hope and Scott succeed, while dodging both The Ghost, the FBI and other criminal forces intent on seizing Pym’s technology?
I must admit that I’d somewhat forgotten how “Ant Man” ended three years ago, which together with the one film missing from my Marvel-watching canon being “Captain America: Civil War” left me somewhat confused by why we start the film with our hero Lang under two-year’s house arrest. But much fun is had with Lang’s curfew and the frustration of FBI agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park) in trying to catch him breaking the rules.
For we are again at the comedic end of the Marvel universe. However the comedy is extremely uneven this time and doesn’t sit particularly well with the dramatic and emotional elements of the film. It’s certainly nowhere near the consistently funny content of the surprisingly good “Thor: Ragnarok”. Some of Rudd’s lines just smell of “trying too hard”.
Adding comedic value is Michael Peña returning here as Scott’s partner Luis. His motor-mouth routine after taking a truth drug (“not a truth drug”!) was hilarious, with the rest of the cast miming his words in flashback.
It has to be said though that there are some truly great sight-gags, to rival the Thomas the Tank Engine scenes in the first film. The expanding salt-cellar; the expanding / contracting car and building moments; and the “skateboard” scenes. But all – and I mean ALL – of these scenes were universally spoiled by the trailer, such that the reaction to them was “oh, that’s that bit then”. NEVER has there been a better case for a teaser trailer that basically said “Ant Man’s back; here’s ONE wow-factor visual”. It’s just criminal. Interestingly, re the trailer, there was also at least one scene (the “you go high, I’ll go low” one, which I thought was very funny) that didn’t make the cut I saw.
Acting wise you can’t fault the cast with Lilly just great as “The Wasp”. If I was her, I would have said “OK… I’ll do the film, but I get to keep the suit!”. That would be her age monitoring device for years to come…. “Does the zip still do up at the back? Do my impossibly pert breasts still align with these impossibly well-moulded contours?”. It’s also great to see Michael Douglas and Laurence Fishburne going head-to-head in the acting stakes. Walton Goggins again crops up as a believable bad-guy, a performance I really enjoyed, but the star turn for me in the whole film was a career-making performance by Hannah John-Kamen as Ava/The Ghost: she’s previously only had small supporting roles in “Tomb Raider” and “Ready Player One”. Looking like a Star Wars sand-person in her outfit she removes her mask to reveal a stunningly piercing gaze and great screen presence. One to watch for the future.
Directed by original “Ant Man” director Peyton Reed, it’s a perfectly entertaining watch for a summer night, but it is uneven in tone, perhaps the result of the team of five credited with the writing. Ask me in two months’ time to tell you anything about it and I will probably struggle. It’s a “meh” sort of film for me.
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Feb 7, 2018
Surprisingly Entertaining
Contains spoilers, click to show
THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN MILD SPOILERS, but honestly nothing more than I’d already gathered from Twitter and talk /reviews on various other forms of social media. Still, you have been warned. Read no further than the following first paragraph if you don’t want to risk mild spoilage.
10 Cloverfield Lane was surprisingly entertaining. I’m not really a huge fan of movies shot in an enclosed space because, in general, how often does that work out well? (Remember the Ashley Judd movie about bugs? Mmhmm.) However, it worked, and worked well in this. Part of this, no doubt, belongs to the fact that John Goodman put on a freaking amazing performance. That man just OWNED this movie. You knew something wasn’t right with him. It was obvious he had some crazy going on. The way he was able to yo-yo between affable and scary, though, was fantastic and kept you guessing as to just how crazy his crazy was. Everything was nailed, from the look in his eyes to the flexing of his hands when he was struggling to keep himself under control. Top-notch!
The other two, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and John Gallagher Jr, also brought good performances to the table and perfectly complimented Goodman’s acting. Winstead, who has one of those “I knowwww you..you’re…you were in something I’ve seen!” faces (she’s actually got quite the list of acting credits to her name), did a great job as a solid female lead. She sold her confusion, wariness, intelligence and strength to you with all the skill of Joel Olsteen convincing christians that their tithes were actually going to go for good works. Considering the man has a multi-million dollar mansion and people still buy that line – that should tell you something! Great job by Winstead. She didn’t shine like Goodman did, but she never faltered either.
This movie quite literally had me on the edge of my seat leaning forward, tips of my fingers near my ears at one point because I was expecting bad loudness. Trachtenburg delivered. From the absurd to the affable family moments, and from the crazy-scary to the Cloverfield freakouts, the only weak part of the film really seemed to be the fact that the ending they gave it wasn’t really necessary. It would have been just as strong if they’d ended it before it went full Cloverfield. It might have even been stronger. It felt like Trachtenburg gave in to ever-present “Action! ACTION! WE NEED ACTION!” push that seems to present in Hollywood now, even if its unnecessary, and then wanted to put everything in a basket with a pretty bow. But ending it right before it went BOO! would have left people walking from the theatres, feeling vaguely disturbed, and talking only about the fantastic performances by the three actors.
Overall, great job by all involved and it was definitely worth the price of the tickets, beer, popcorn, and mnms!
10 Cloverfield Lane was surprisingly entertaining. I’m not really a huge fan of movies shot in an enclosed space because, in general, how often does that work out well? (Remember the Ashley Judd movie about bugs? Mmhmm.) However, it worked, and worked well in this. Part of this, no doubt, belongs to the fact that John Goodman put on a freaking amazing performance. That man just OWNED this movie. You knew something wasn’t right with him. It was obvious he had some crazy going on. The way he was able to yo-yo between affable and scary, though, was fantastic and kept you guessing as to just how crazy his crazy was. Everything was nailed, from the look in his eyes to the flexing of his hands when he was struggling to keep himself under control. Top-notch!
The other two, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and John Gallagher Jr, also brought good performances to the table and perfectly complimented Goodman’s acting. Winstead, who has one of those “I knowwww you..you’re…you were in something I’ve seen!” faces (she’s actually got quite the list of acting credits to her name), did a great job as a solid female lead. She sold her confusion, wariness, intelligence and strength to you with all the skill of Joel Olsteen convincing christians that their tithes were actually going to go for good works. Considering the man has a multi-million dollar mansion and people still buy that line – that should tell you something! Great job by Winstead. She didn’t shine like Goodman did, but she never faltered either.
This movie quite literally had me on the edge of my seat leaning forward, tips of my fingers near my ears at one point because I was expecting bad loudness. Trachtenburg delivered. From the absurd to the affable family moments, and from the crazy-scary to the Cloverfield freakouts, the only weak part of the film really seemed to be the fact that the ending they gave it wasn’t really necessary. It would have been just as strong if they’d ended it before it went full Cloverfield. It might have even been stronger. It felt like Trachtenburg gave in to ever-present “Action! ACTION! WE NEED ACTION!” push that seems to present in Hollywood now, even if its unnecessary, and then wanted to put everything in a basket with a pretty bow. But ending it right before it went BOO! would have left people walking from the theatres, feeling vaguely disturbed, and talking only about the fantastic performances by the three actors.
Overall, great job by all involved and it was definitely worth the price of the tickets, beer, popcorn, and mnms!
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Sweeping up a few older films that I wanted to see but missed at the cinema in the last few years. My current IMDb watch list sits at 488, and, unlike this movie, never seems to shrink! There is a lot to keep up with. Bad reviews have kept me away from Alexander Payne’s Downsizing until now. I have to say, without the burden of expectation, it is a lot better than I thought it would be.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Max Winslow and the House of Secrets (2019) in Movies
Oct 13, 2020
Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is a family film, very much in the vein of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Maxine Winslow (Sydne Mikelle), or Max for short, is our Charlie Bucket, coming from a single-parent family and living with a mother who is struggling with debt. Tech-savvy Max is also a skilled hacker, demonstrating this by taking control of her neighbours video doorbell and making it ring so that he comes running outside. Kind of like a modern-day Knock-Down Ginger.
Max heads into school, where we’re introduced to some more teens who are set to join her later on, including a social-media obsessed girl, a boy addicted to gaming and a boy who enjoys trolling people online. As they settle down at their desks, the face of eccentric billionaire Atticus Virtue (Chad Michael Murray) takes over all of the TV screens throughout the school. He tells them that five students are to be selected to spend the night in his high tech mansion, and undertake a series of games, with the winner becoming the new owner of the mansion. When the confirmation text messages start coming through to the student phones later that day, we already know most of those that receive the big green tick on their screens, so they head off to the mansion, ready to spend the night.
Atticus himself isn’t at the mansion to greet the group. Instead, an AI named Haven (voiced by Marina Sirtis) opens the door for them, orders a takeaway delivery and gives them their instructions for the night. Basically, whoever solves the most puzzles and earns the highest score wins the mansion!
The puzzles start off ridiculously hard, with a locked door requiring a six-digit code to open, and only three attempts allowed. Max spots three jars of candy in the room and automatically decides that the total pieces of candy in each jar can be combined into a six-digit number, obviously. And you’re not supposed to think about how she managed to get them in the right order, or why the plate of cookies on the table wasn’t included in the code…
From there, the points come a lot easier for the team, such as simply putting on a pair of sunglasses(!), before turning slightly sinister as the group separates and everyone heads off on their own. Haven begins to go a little bit rogue, although with her monotone delivery of thinly veiled threats, she never really comes across as scary as I think she is meant to be. The games become a way of showing each individual the error of their ways - narcissistic Sophia is trapped in a bathroom talking to her mirror reflection, which has now turned into a nastier version of herself, while others are trapped in VR scenarios designed to show them where they’ve gone wrong in life.
It’s at this point that the movie struggles. The VR recreations are mostly dull, while other scenes utilise some pretty dodgy VFX and there’s never any real feeling of peril or threat. The young cast, for the most part, give some pretty good performances. However, with a mediocre script, none of them is really given very much to work with. Consequently, some of them, particularly the character of Max, feel a little wasted, not fleshed out enough.
While entertaining at times, Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is too scary for young children and not dramatic or scary enough for adults to really enjoy. Hopefully, though, the teen audience that this is squarely aimed at will pick up on the strong moral messages at the heart of the movie and will manage to gain some enjoyment from it.
Max heads into school, where we’re introduced to some more teens who are set to join her later on, including a social-media obsessed girl, a boy addicted to gaming and a boy who enjoys trolling people online. As they settle down at their desks, the face of eccentric billionaire Atticus Virtue (Chad Michael Murray) takes over all of the TV screens throughout the school. He tells them that five students are to be selected to spend the night in his high tech mansion, and undertake a series of games, with the winner becoming the new owner of the mansion. When the confirmation text messages start coming through to the student phones later that day, we already know most of those that receive the big green tick on their screens, so they head off to the mansion, ready to spend the night.
Atticus himself isn’t at the mansion to greet the group. Instead, an AI named Haven (voiced by Marina Sirtis) opens the door for them, orders a takeaway delivery and gives them their instructions for the night. Basically, whoever solves the most puzzles and earns the highest score wins the mansion!
The puzzles start off ridiculously hard, with a locked door requiring a six-digit code to open, and only three attempts allowed. Max spots three jars of candy in the room and automatically decides that the total pieces of candy in each jar can be combined into a six-digit number, obviously. And you’re not supposed to think about how she managed to get them in the right order, or why the plate of cookies on the table wasn’t included in the code…
From there, the points come a lot easier for the team, such as simply putting on a pair of sunglasses(!), before turning slightly sinister as the group separates and everyone heads off on their own. Haven begins to go a little bit rogue, although with her monotone delivery of thinly veiled threats, she never really comes across as scary as I think she is meant to be. The games become a way of showing each individual the error of their ways - narcissistic Sophia is trapped in a bathroom talking to her mirror reflection, which has now turned into a nastier version of herself, while others are trapped in VR scenarios designed to show them where they’ve gone wrong in life.
It’s at this point that the movie struggles. The VR recreations are mostly dull, while other scenes utilise some pretty dodgy VFX and there’s never any real feeling of peril or threat. The young cast, for the most part, give some pretty good performances. However, with a mediocre script, none of them is really given very much to work with. Consequently, some of them, particularly the character of Max, feel a little wasted, not fleshed out enough.
While entertaining at times, Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is too scary for young children and not dramatic or scary enough for adults to really enjoy. Hopefully, though, the teen audience that this is squarely aimed at will pick up on the strong moral messages at the heart of the movie and will manage to gain some enjoyment from it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
“Halloween” has long been considered by many to have been the film that started the “Slasher” subculture. The independent movie became a box office smash and made Michael Myers a cultural icon ever since its debut in 1978.
Although multiple sequels and a reboot followed over the years; they did not match the intensity of the original as they opted for higher body counts and gore versus suspense and story and in many ways became almost a parody of themselves as Michael would cut down cast after cast of teens and anyone else in his way.
The new film takes the approach that none of the films after the first ever happened so instead of Michael stalking Lorrie in a hospital in “Halloween 2”; he was captured and incarcerated in an mental institute for the last forty years where he has remained silent despite his Doctor (Haluk Bilginer) best efforts to get him to speak as he attempts to understand what motivates a person described as pure evil.
The forty years since “The Night He Came Home” has not been kind to Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis); as since her encounter with Michael: she has become a hard drinking isolationist who suffers from severe Post Traumatic Syndrome. Laurie has become obsessed with guns, weapons, and protection to the point that it has cost her two marriages and even had her only child Karen (Judy Greer) taken from her by the state which has resulted in her having a fractured relationship with her and her granddaughter Allyson (Andi Matichak).
When a pair of journalists attempt to interview Laurie to try to get her to agree to a face to face with Michael; it sets a chain of events into motion which leads to Michael escaping during a prison transfer.
Michael wastes no time in returning home leaving a trail of death in his path and sets him on a collision course with Laurie who has spent the last forty years preparing for his return.
The film is a true sequel to the original as aside from the second film; it is the closest in tone and theme to the original. While it does have more gore and a higher body count in keeping with the modern expectations of a film of this type, writers David Gordon Green and Danny McBride clearly understand the source material and have crafted an extension of the original versus a continuation refurbished. The fact that John Carpenter has returned as an Executive Producer also helps.
The film wisely sets the focus on the characters which makes the horror aspects more compelling as this is not a bunch of anonymous victims we are watching.
A sequel is reportedly in development and I hope this creative team returns as this was a truly worthy sequel to the classic original that was long overdue.
http://sknr.net/2018/10/17/halloween/
Although multiple sequels and a reboot followed over the years; they did not match the intensity of the original as they opted for higher body counts and gore versus suspense and story and in many ways became almost a parody of themselves as Michael would cut down cast after cast of teens and anyone else in his way.
The new film takes the approach that none of the films after the first ever happened so instead of Michael stalking Lorrie in a hospital in “Halloween 2”; he was captured and incarcerated in an mental institute for the last forty years where he has remained silent despite his Doctor (Haluk Bilginer) best efforts to get him to speak as he attempts to understand what motivates a person described as pure evil.
The forty years since “The Night He Came Home” has not been kind to Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis); as since her encounter with Michael: she has become a hard drinking isolationist who suffers from severe Post Traumatic Syndrome. Laurie has become obsessed with guns, weapons, and protection to the point that it has cost her two marriages and even had her only child Karen (Judy Greer) taken from her by the state which has resulted in her having a fractured relationship with her and her granddaughter Allyson (Andi Matichak).
When a pair of journalists attempt to interview Laurie to try to get her to agree to a face to face with Michael; it sets a chain of events into motion which leads to Michael escaping during a prison transfer.
Michael wastes no time in returning home leaving a trail of death in his path and sets him on a collision course with Laurie who has spent the last forty years preparing for his return.
The film is a true sequel to the original as aside from the second film; it is the closest in tone and theme to the original. While it does have more gore and a higher body count in keeping with the modern expectations of a film of this type, writers David Gordon Green and Danny McBride clearly understand the source material and have crafted an extension of the original versus a continuation refurbished. The fact that John Carpenter has returned as an Executive Producer also helps.
The film wisely sets the focus on the characters which makes the horror aspects more compelling as this is not a bunch of anonymous victims we are watching.
A sequel is reportedly in development and I hope this creative team returns as this was a truly worthy sequel to the classic original that was long overdue.
http://sknr.net/2018/10/17/halloween/