Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Lincoln Lawyer (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Mick Haller (Matthew McConaughey) is a criminal defense attorney who works out of his Lincoln Town Car in Los Angeles, hence the title of the movie and book “The Lincoln Lawyer” by Michael Connelly. Mickey defends all kinds of criminals and all he expects from his clients is that they pay him. While he may be a rather shifty lawyer, he is a loving father to his daughter Hayley (Mackenzie Aladjem) and he obviously still cares for her mother Maggie McPherson (Marisa Tomei).
Now although he has many clients, none are really big money clients. That changes one day when Louis Roulet (Ryan Phillippe), a rich Beverly Hills playboy, is arrested for assault & attempted rape and he wants Mick to defend him. At first Mick believes that he will be able to easily get his client acquitted, but as he and his investigator Frank Levin (William H. Macy) dig deeper, they discovery disturbing information about the case and it’s possible link to another.
In his quest to win the all mighty “Not Guilty” verdict, Mick has many obstacles (both professional and personal) placed before him that he must successfully navigate around, and treachery hiding in the shadows that he must bring into the light or else he may lose more than just a case.
While the entire cast was incredible, Matthew McConaughey and Ryan Phillippe gave equally amazing performances (this is especially true for any scene that they were both in). The characters were well-developed, believable and for the most part likable, heck I even liked the biker Eddie (Trace Adkins). The storyline was intriguing with a twist or two that I did not see coming and it also had some very nice humor sprinkled in. I did find that in a few scenes the dialogue seemed to be a bit unnatural for what was going on but it didn’t really detract from the overall scenes in question. Personally I hope this film does well enough that they make a sequel (I believe the book’s sequel is The Reversal) because I would like to see more of these characters in action.
Now although he has many clients, none are really big money clients. That changes one day when Louis Roulet (Ryan Phillippe), a rich Beverly Hills playboy, is arrested for assault & attempted rape and he wants Mick to defend him. At first Mick believes that he will be able to easily get his client acquitted, but as he and his investigator Frank Levin (William H. Macy) dig deeper, they discovery disturbing information about the case and it’s possible link to another.
In his quest to win the all mighty “Not Guilty” verdict, Mick has many obstacles (both professional and personal) placed before him that he must successfully navigate around, and treachery hiding in the shadows that he must bring into the light or else he may lose more than just a case.
While the entire cast was incredible, Matthew McConaughey and Ryan Phillippe gave equally amazing performances (this is especially true for any scene that they were both in). The characters were well-developed, believable and for the most part likable, heck I even liked the biker Eddie (Trace Adkins). The storyline was intriguing with a twist or two that I did not see coming and it also had some very nice humor sprinkled in. I did find that in a few scenes the dialogue seemed to be a bit unnatural for what was going on but it didn’t really detract from the overall scenes in question. Personally I hope this film does well enough that they make a sequel (I believe the book’s sequel is The Reversal) because I would like to see more of these characters in action.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
It is 1934, and our moustachioed detective has just solved a theft in Jerusalem. He looks forward to resting in Istanbul, but his break is interrupted with the news that he must return to London for a case. It seems like Poirot's luck is in, having just met his friend who is director of the Orient Express.
Once on board Poirot catches the attention of the businessman, Samuel Ratchett. Ratchett has received threatening letters, and wishes to hire the detective as his bodyguard during their journey, but the offer is politely declined.
That night an avalanche derails he train and the passengers are stranded. In the morning Ratchett is found dead, stabbed a dozen times. Poirot and Bouc, the train director, investigate the passengers as repairs begin. Poirot discovers a partially destroyed note connecting Ratchett to the kidnapping of Daisy Armstrong, a child who was abducted from her bedroom and held for ransom. After the ransom was paid, Daisy was found murdered. Ratchett is identified as John Cassetti, Daisy’s kidnapper and murderer.
First off, let me address the elephant in the room... that'll be Kenneth Branagh as Poirot. David Suchet will always be my Poirot, he's perfect. Branagh, for me, has an overacting issue. And that moustache, it's just ridiculous. That's not even taking into account the scene where Poirot is laying in bed and he doesn't have his night-time moustache cosy on. Crazy.
Agatha Christie's tale has definitely been given the Hollywood treatment. It's gone from the quite dark Suchet version, to something quite farcical in comparison. I can understand remaking some things, but when you have such a definitive portrayal of a character why would you recast them?
Having just rewatched the 2010 version I will say that the story line in the movie is probably easier to understand. It's also more suitable for a younger audience.
As a passing comment to everyone who was surprised to hear they were going to do Death On The Nile next... no shit, Poirot! It was dropped in at the end of the film.
Once on board Poirot catches the attention of the businessman, Samuel Ratchett. Ratchett has received threatening letters, and wishes to hire the detective as his bodyguard during their journey, but the offer is politely declined.
That night an avalanche derails he train and the passengers are stranded. In the morning Ratchett is found dead, stabbed a dozen times. Poirot and Bouc, the train director, investigate the passengers as repairs begin. Poirot discovers a partially destroyed note connecting Ratchett to the kidnapping of Daisy Armstrong, a child who was abducted from her bedroom and held for ransom. After the ransom was paid, Daisy was found murdered. Ratchett is identified as John Cassetti, Daisy’s kidnapper and murderer.
First off, let me address the elephant in the room... that'll be Kenneth Branagh as Poirot. David Suchet will always be my Poirot, he's perfect. Branagh, for me, has an overacting issue. And that moustache, it's just ridiculous. That's not even taking into account the scene where Poirot is laying in bed and he doesn't have his night-time moustache cosy on. Crazy.
Agatha Christie's tale has definitely been given the Hollywood treatment. It's gone from the quite dark Suchet version, to something quite farcical in comparison. I can understand remaking some things, but when you have such a definitive portrayal of a character why would you recast them?
Having just rewatched the 2010 version I will say that the story line in the movie is probably easier to understand. It's also more suitable for a younger audience.
As a passing comment to everyone who was surprised to hear they were going to do Death On The Nile next... no shit, Poirot! It was dropped in at the end of the film.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Electrical Life of Louis Wain (2021) in Movies
Jan 17, 2022
1/2 of a GREAT Movie
It is a fun surprise to be perusing all the streaming services available and tripping across a very entertaining film that, heretofore, was unknown.
Such was the case with THE ELECTRICAL LIFE OF LOUIS WAIN - a biography (of sorts) of the eponymous English painter, known for his fanciful portraits of cats.
Starring Benedict Cumberbatch (in the title role) and Written and Directed by Will Sharpe (BLACK POND) based on a story by Simon Stephenson (who also co-wrote the screenplay with Sharpe), THE ELECTICAL LIFE OF LOUIS WAIN is 1/2 of a very good (maybe even GREAT) film that falls apart in the 2nd half.
The first half of this film finds the eccentric Wain finding love and discovering his artistic talent. It is this 1/2 of the film that draws you in - and must have been what drew the talents of Sharpe, Claire Foy (Queen Elizabeth in the first few seasons of THE CROWN) and Cumberbatch to this film. Cumberbatch, of course, is superb as Wain (especially in this first half) and his chemistry with Foy (who plays his love interest/wife) is tremendous and IS the reason to see this film.
However, the film shifts focus, by necessity, in the 2nd half to the rising stardom of Wain and his descent into madness. Toby Jones (as his benefactor) and the always under-rated Andrea Riseborough (OBLIVION) take center stage with Cumberbatch in this part of the film and the love, fun, whimsey and depth of the first 1/2 of the film disappears. Riseborough, particularly, suffers from a poorly written role where her character - Wain’s disapproving sister - is (in essence) the “bad guy”, so Sharpe and Stephenson replace love, warmth and support with disapproval, anger and madness. While this is true to the life that Wain lived, it didn’t make for a particularly interesting 2nd half of a film.
Come for Benedict’s and Foy’s chemistry and performances, stay for the rest because…well…it’s still pretty good.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Such was the case with THE ELECTRICAL LIFE OF LOUIS WAIN - a biography (of sorts) of the eponymous English painter, known for his fanciful portraits of cats.
Starring Benedict Cumberbatch (in the title role) and Written and Directed by Will Sharpe (BLACK POND) based on a story by Simon Stephenson (who also co-wrote the screenplay with Sharpe), THE ELECTICAL LIFE OF LOUIS WAIN is 1/2 of a very good (maybe even GREAT) film that falls apart in the 2nd half.
The first half of this film finds the eccentric Wain finding love and discovering his artistic talent. It is this 1/2 of the film that draws you in - and must have been what drew the talents of Sharpe, Claire Foy (Queen Elizabeth in the first few seasons of THE CROWN) and Cumberbatch to this film. Cumberbatch, of course, is superb as Wain (especially in this first half) and his chemistry with Foy (who plays his love interest/wife) is tremendous and IS the reason to see this film.
However, the film shifts focus, by necessity, in the 2nd half to the rising stardom of Wain and his descent into madness. Toby Jones (as his benefactor) and the always under-rated Andrea Riseborough (OBLIVION) take center stage with Cumberbatch in this part of the film and the love, fun, whimsey and depth of the first 1/2 of the film disappears. Riseborough, particularly, suffers from a poorly written role where her character - Wain’s disapproving sister - is (in essence) the “bad guy”, so Sharpe and Stephenson replace love, warmth and support with disapproval, anger and madness. While this is true to the life that Wain lived, it didn’t make for a particularly interesting 2nd half of a film.
Come for Benedict’s and Foy’s chemistry and performances, stay for the rest because…well…it’s still pretty good.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Looking for Alaska in Books
Jan 25, 2018
I just finished reading Looking for Alaska, making it the fifth John Green book I've read, after Will Grayson, Will Grayson, Let It Snow, The Fault In Our Stars, and An Abundance of Katherines. I enjoyed Looking for Alaska immensely, just like I did the other three. (My favorite being Let It Snow, which he wrote with two other authors as a set of three related short stories.) I haven't made a habit out of reading young adult fiction, but for John Green I'll definitely make an exception. I should also pick up some of Maureen Johnson's books; her contribution to Let It Snow was excellent.
I have a confession to make before I go any further: I am a Nerdfighter. I was introduced to John and Hank Green about two years ago by one of my best friends, by way of Crash Course. Since then I've (almost!) caught up on their Vlogbrother videos, watched most of the Crash Course videos (sorry Hank, I'm just not into chemistry) and started watching Sci Show. John and Hank are both extremely educated, well spoken, and yet extremely entertaining and fun to watch. Watching the vlogbrothers episodes where John talks about writing the books (as he's writing them!) is what finally made me go pick up his books to read. And he's GOOD.
In Looking for Alaska, Miles Halter goes away to boarding school at Culver Creek, his father's alma mater. He's in search of his "great perhaps," his meaning for life. (The phrase comes from Francois Rabelais' last words "I go to seek a Great Perhaps." Miles doesn't want to wait until he dies to go in search of his.) Culver Creek really marks a turning point in Miles' life - from a friendless outcast in his old school to one of the closest friends of Alaska Young. Alaska is a bit of a bad girl (sneaking cigarettes and alcohol into school constantly and pulling ingenious pranks) but also an enigma. The entire school body loves her, but even to her closest friends she doesn't reveal much about herself.
The book is divided into "before" and "after" and it wasn't until within a few pages till the end of the "before" section that I realized what the event was. "After" deals with the characters of the book coming to terms with their life-altering event.
In The Fault In Our Stars, John Green dealt with the lead up to a life-altering event that the characters knew was coming - a long, drawn-out sort of grief. Looking For Alaska deals with the fallout of an event no one knew was coming, and while the emotions are just as deep, they feel sharper somehow for being so unexpected.
I definitely recommend this book, and all of John Green's books. He's a very talented writer, and isn't afraid to put "adult" themes into his "young adult" books. As if sex and alcohol and death and deep meaning-of-life questions aren't things every teenager deals with? I like that he doesn't pull his emotional punches. His books may be "young adult" but they're not fluffy or "easy to read." Easy in terms of grammar and flow perhaps, but not in content. I teared up reading parts of Looking For Alaska, and outright sobbed for a good portion of The Fault In Our Stars. (Which is now a movie!)
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com (review originally written 4 years ago.)
I have a confession to make before I go any further: I am a Nerdfighter. I was introduced to John and Hank Green about two years ago by one of my best friends, by way of Crash Course. Since then I've (almost!) caught up on their Vlogbrother videos, watched most of the Crash Course videos (sorry Hank, I'm just not into chemistry) and started watching Sci Show. John and Hank are both extremely educated, well spoken, and yet extremely entertaining and fun to watch. Watching the vlogbrothers episodes where John talks about writing the books (as he's writing them!) is what finally made me go pick up his books to read. And he's GOOD.
In Looking for Alaska, Miles Halter goes away to boarding school at Culver Creek, his father's alma mater. He's in search of his "great perhaps," his meaning for life. (The phrase comes from Francois Rabelais' last words "I go to seek a Great Perhaps." Miles doesn't want to wait until he dies to go in search of his.) Culver Creek really marks a turning point in Miles' life - from a friendless outcast in his old school to one of the closest friends of Alaska Young. Alaska is a bit of a bad girl (sneaking cigarettes and alcohol into school constantly and pulling ingenious pranks) but also an enigma. The entire school body loves her, but even to her closest friends she doesn't reveal much about herself.
The book is divided into "before" and "after" and it wasn't until within a few pages till the end of the "before" section that I realized what the event was. "After" deals with the characters of the book coming to terms with their life-altering event.
In The Fault In Our Stars, John Green dealt with the lead up to a life-altering event that the characters knew was coming - a long, drawn-out sort of grief. Looking For Alaska deals with the fallout of an event no one knew was coming, and while the emotions are just as deep, they feel sharper somehow for being so unexpected.
I definitely recommend this book, and all of John Green's books. He's a very talented writer, and isn't afraid to put "adult" themes into his "young adult" books. As if sex and alcohol and death and deep meaning-of-life questions aren't things every teenager deals with? I like that he doesn't pull his emotional punches. His books may be "young adult" but they're not fluffy or "easy to read." Easy in terms of grammar and flow perhaps, but not in content. I teared up reading parts of Looking For Alaska, and outright sobbed for a good portion of The Fault In Our Stars. (Which is now a movie!)
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com (review originally written 4 years ago.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Avengers: Infinity War (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Summer movies often hype themselves as spectacular events not to be missed and their ad campaigns use words like “epic”, “spectacle”, and “smash” as ways to build the hype to increase advanced box office sales.
The summer 2018 film season kicks off in a big way with “Avengers: Infinity War” and it is the rare summer film that exceeds is lofty expectations and delivers a crowning achievement for the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
When Thanos (Josh Brolin), embarks on a deadly campaign to find and possess the Infinity Stones, he leaves a path of death and destruction in his path. When his pursuit leading him to Earth, Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), and Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), who enlist a reluctant Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), to the cause just as the minions of Thanos arrive.
With The Avengers fractured and scattered following the events of “Captain America: Civil War” the teams find themselves dealing with the threat in various groups as fate steps in to divide many key members of the team. This allows for a great entry by the Guardians of the Galaxy and allows the film to take a very enjoyable path. Essentially the movie weaves separate storylines into one cohesive and very satisfying epic. You have a story with the Guardians as well as one with many of the key Avengers, as well as others with characters old and new. As such it is like a Guardians, Avengers, and Marvel film all rolled into one and each one supports the other very well yet has the charm and identity you would expect. While the tone is very dark as you would expect with literally half of the known universe facing destruction, there is also some solid humor in the film that never once undermines the story or pacing.
Naturally the effects are stunning as you would expect as Marvel has put a significant amount of money into the film and it shows in every eye-popping action sequence.
What really impressed me the most was that the Russo Brothers never let the FX of the film overshadow the characters and with a very large cast, it was nice to see everyone got their moment and you did not see members of the cast trying to one up each other.
There are some real surprise moments along the way and the action is easily the best of any Marvel film to date. Many fans had expressed disappointment with “Avengers: Age of Ultron” for me this film is significantly better than the prior film and is everything that a Marvel fan would want in a film.
I was also surprised by how well Thanos was portrayed as while you hopefully will not agree with his deductions and methods; you could actually understand his motivations and it help him transcend from the usual megalomaniacs which are so common in films of his type. I am really looking forward to seeing what comes next and make sure you stay through the credits for a bonus scene.
Believe the hype, “Avengers: Infinity War” is an epic not to be missed and is an example of what a summer event film should be.
http://sknr.net/2018/04/24/avengers-infinity-war/
The summer 2018 film season kicks off in a big way with “Avengers: Infinity War” and it is the rare summer film that exceeds is lofty expectations and delivers a crowning achievement for the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
When Thanos (Josh Brolin), embarks on a deadly campaign to find and possess the Infinity Stones, he leaves a path of death and destruction in his path. When his pursuit leading him to Earth, Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), and Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), who enlist a reluctant Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), to the cause just as the minions of Thanos arrive.
With The Avengers fractured and scattered following the events of “Captain America: Civil War” the teams find themselves dealing with the threat in various groups as fate steps in to divide many key members of the team. This allows for a great entry by the Guardians of the Galaxy and allows the film to take a very enjoyable path. Essentially the movie weaves separate storylines into one cohesive and very satisfying epic. You have a story with the Guardians as well as one with many of the key Avengers, as well as others with characters old and new. As such it is like a Guardians, Avengers, and Marvel film all rolled into one and each one supports the other very well yet has the charm and identity you would expect. While the tone is very dark as you would expect with literally half of the known universe facing destruction, there is also some solid humor in the film that never once undermines the story or pacing.
Naturally the effects are stunning as you would expect as Marvel has put a significant amount of money into the film and it shows in every eye-popping action sequence.
What really impressed me the most was that the Russo Brothers never let the FX of the film overshadow the characters and with a very large cast, it was nice to see everyone got their moment and you did not see members of the cast trying to one up each other.
There are some real surprise moments along the way and the action is easily the best of any Marvel film to date. Many fans had expressed disappointment with “Avengers: Age of Ultron” for me this film is significantly better than the prior film and is everything that a Marvel fan would want in a film.
I was also surprised by how well Thanos was portrayed as while you hopefully will not agree with his deductions and methods; you could actually understand his motivations and it help him transcend from the usual megalomaniacs which are so common in films of his type. I am really looking forward to seeing what comes next and make sure you stay through the credits for a bonus scene.
Believe the hype, “Avengers: Infinity War” is an epic not to be missed and is an example of what a summer event film should be.
http://sknr.net/2018/04/24/avengers-infinity-war/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Addams Family (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
Can anyone ever say the name of this film without finger snapping?
When their home life is dislodged by pitchfork-wielding townsfolk the Addams pack up their car and hit the road for a new beginning. They come across a mansion on a hill, it's creepy and it's kooky, mysterious and spooky... it's perfect for the Addams family.
Years of idyllic isolation fly by but the outside world is closer than ever. Wednesday is intrigued by the perils that lay beyond their gates and the family can no longer ignore their neighbours in the valley, their very perky neighbours who live in their little cookie cuttered dream houses below.
What's not to love about the madness of the Addams family? You can pretty much guarantee entertainment, and that's what you get from this film.
There's a gripe... there's always a gripe... so let me get it out of the way first. It annoys me more because it's accurate to the source material so I should love that, but modern adaptations have ruined me! Gomez Addams, he's not what you see when you think Gomez. I have been brainwashed by films and it annoys me. He is a perfect representation of the original cartoons by Charles Addams, he's still suave, sophisticated and playful like we know him to be, but he's no Raul Julia or John Astin.
On a similar note, when I heard Oscar Isaac and Charlize Theron were playing Gomez and Morticia I was elated, imagine my disappointment to discover they were to be animated and not live action. You couldn't get better casting for a live action couple if you tried! Anyway, moving on.
The voice cast is littered with famous faces including Elsie Fisher of Eighth Grade fame and Bette Midler... BETTE MIDLER!! We've also got Allison Janney as out saccharine sweet villain, Janney has a knack for the villain roles and I wouldn't mind seeing more of them.
There's just one role I object to, and I found it to be an incredibly lazy decision on someone's part. Nick Kroll as Uncle Fester. While I understand the nice-but-dim style voice is perfect for Fester it has basically been recycled from Big Mouth's Coach Steve. There will be no real issues with this for the intended audience as Big Mouth comes in at a 15 compared to The Addams Family's more subtle PG, but as someone who's old enough to watch both, I was annoyed.
The artwork on this really does play a great homage to the cartoons and despite their age it works really well for a modern audience. The story also brings it nicely up to date with its reality TV slant and the perfect American dream town. There are lots of great touches throughout that amuse.
I understand that each new adaptation has to do its own thing, and I like how it brought an original story (of sorts) to us but I didn't feel like it took previous iterations of the characters into consideration... this is a daft thing to complain about too, I know that, but the Addams family are iconic. Wednesday has always been my spirit animal, but to see a rather lacklustre version here made me a little sad.
But, ultimately I still enjoyed my time watching it, I just don't think I'll be placing it higher up the ranking than any of the previous ghoulish outings.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-addams-family-movie-review.html
When their home life is dislodged by pitchfork-wielding townsfolk the Addams pack up their car and hit the road for a new beginning. They come across a mansion on a hill, it's creepy and it's kooky, mysterious and spooky... it's perfect for the Addams family.
Years of idyllic isolation fly by but the outside world is closer than ever. Wednesday is intrigued by the perils that lay beyond their gates and the family can no longer ignore their neighbours in the valley, their very perky neighbours who live in their little cookie cuttered dream houses below.
What's not to love about the madness of the Addams family? You can pretty much guarantee entertainment, and that's what you get from this film.
There's a gripe... there's always a gripe... so let me get it out of the way first. It annoys me more because it's accurate to the source material so I should love that, but modern adaptations have ruined me! Gomez Addams, he's not what you see when you think Gomez. I have been brainwashed by films and it annoys me. He is a perfect representation of the original cartoons by Charles Addams, he's still suave, sophisticated and playful like we know him to be, but he's no Raul Julia or John Astin.
On a similar note, when I heard Oscar Isaac and Charlize Theron were playing Gomez and Morticia I was elated, imagine my disappointment to discover they were to be animated and not live action. You couldn't get better casting for a live action couple if you tried! Anyway, moving on.
The voice cast is littered with famous faces including Elsie Fisher of Eighth Grade fame and Bette Midler... BETTE MIDLER!! We've also got Allison Janney as out saccharine sweet villain, Janney has a knack for the villain roles and I wouldn't mind seeing more of them.
There's just one role I object to, and I found it to be an incredibly lazy decision on someone's part. Nick Kroll as Uncle Fester. While I understand the nice-but-dim style voice is perfect for Fester it has basically been recycled from Big Mouth's Coach Steve. There will be no real issues with this for the intended audience as Big Mouth comes in at a 15 compared to The Addams Family's more subtle PG, but as someone who's old enough to watch both, I was annoyed.
The artwork on this really does play a great homage to the cartoons and despite their age it works really well for a modern audience. The story also brings it nicely up to date with its reality TV slant and the perfect American dream town. There are lots of great touches throughout that amuse.
I understand that each new adaptation has to do its own thing, and I like how it brought an original story (of sorts) to us but I didn't feel like it took previous iterations of the characters into consideration... this is a daft thing to complain about too, I know that, but the Addams family are iconic. Wednesday has always been my spirit animal, but to see a rather lacklustre version here made me a little sad.
But, ultimately I still enjoyed my time watching it, I just don't think I'll be placing it higher up the ranking than any of the previous ghoulish outings.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-addams-family-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Battle of the Sexes (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tennis and sex, but without the grunting.
Here’s a good test of someone’s age…. ask the question “Billie-Jean?”. Millennials will probably come back with “Huh?”; those in their 30’s or 40’s might come back with “Michael Jackson!”; those older than that will probably reply “King!”.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
Sheridan (209 KP) rated Bird Box (2018) in Movies
Feb 4, 2019
Beautiful visuals (1 more)
Good acting
If this happened for real, you'd never make it. (1 more)
More questions than answers in the end
If you take off your blindfold you will die.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Welcome to the apocalypse bitches! Whatever this asshole is it takes over your brain and makes you off yourself. I love the idea, I love the concept. There's no way you'd achieve half the stuff they manage but lets just suspend belief for a minute because it was a good film. I like how they told the story by starting at the trip and going back to the beginning until they catch you up, it keeps the story interesting and appropriately paced. Though I enjoyed it, it does leave more questions than answers. Here's just a few that bothered me;
Why don't they come inside? Do the age old vampire rules apply, I wonder.
There is no way they could have driven blind from the house to the supermarket using just GPS and parking sensors. (Not really a question, it just annoyed me)
How were the birds in the supermarket still alive? (It's clearly been weeks since someone was there) And also on this note, Why were they there? Supermarkets don't sell birds...
Where did the girl and the blond guy go? They stole the car but you never see them again - wth happened there? Are they alive, dead? What?
How did she not run into the side of the river every five minutes? She's blindfolded and has never been there before. Have you ever tried to walk from your bedroom to the bathroom in the middle of the night? It ain't easy even when you know the place.
Why is there a blind school in the middle of nowhere? It feels end of the world cultish...
A good movie, but there are many questions that never get answers that left it a little confusing. Probably would watch it again just to see if I missed anything.
Why don't they come inside? Do the age old vampire rules apply, I wonder.
There is no way they could have driven blind from the house to the supermarket using just GPS and parking sensors. (Not really a question, it just annoyed me)
How were the birds in the supermarket still alive? (It's clearly been weeks since someone was there) And also on this note, Why were they there? Supermarkets don't sell birds...
Where did the girl and the blond guy go? They stole the car but you never see them again - wth happened there? Are they alive, dead? What?
How did she not run into the side of the river every five minutes? She's blindfolded and has never been there before. Have you ever tried to walk from your bedroom to the bathroom in the middle of the night? It ain't easy even when you know the place.
Why is there a blind school in the middle of nowhere? It feels end of the world cultish...
A good movie, but there are many questions that never get answers that left it a little confusing. Probably would watch it again just to see if I missed anything.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Cursed Films - Season 1 in TV
Oct 7, 2020
Cursed Films is a 5 part series focusing on the ins and outs of film productions that were deemed cursed for one reason or another - the 5 parts concentrate on The Exorcist, The Omen, Poltergeist, The Crow, and The Twilight Zone movie respectively.
When this series is focused on the films themselves, it's a real treat. Some of the interviews are moving as hell - in particular the conversations with Richard Sawyer, Lance Anderson, Jeff Most, and Gary Sherman. These guys are to this day still affected by some of the things that happened during their film productions.
The Twilight Zone episode includes footage of the infamous on set accident which is genuinely haunting, and is honestly a really powerful part of the documentary having Sawyer's interview running alongside it.
The Crow episode is great as well, and the look we get at Anderson's relationship with Brandon Lee is so human and raw.
These moments really shine a light on how ridiculous the curse theories are, when in fact, they are just tragic events that effected real people, people who then had to deal with a following media circus.
The big thing I really didn't like about this series is only really relevant to The Omen and Exorcist episodes. It's almost like they didn't have enough material to fill the runtime of these segments, and so opt to pad it out with interviews with real exorcists, or magicians that practice black magic. I'm sure that there are interesting stories to be told by these people, but it feels really out of place and forced here. It's even cringe inducing at times and feels like very obvious filler. It detracts somewhat from what is otherwise a pretty solid documentary series.
Cursed Films is certainly an interesting watch, and is easy to digest in the 30 minute episodes that are presented. Also, that theme music is wild (found out it's by an Italian space-prog band from the 70s called I Signori Della Galassia!)
Worth a watch for sure, just ignore the silly filler parts.
When this series is focused on the films themselves, it's a real treat. Some of the interviews are moving as hell - in particular the conversations with Richard Sawyer, Lance Anderson, Jeff Most, and Gary Sherman. These guys are to this day still affected by some of the things that happened during their film productions.
The Twilight Zone episode includes footage of the infamous on set accident which is genuinely haunting, and is honestly a really powerful part of the documentary having Sawyer's interview running alongside it.
The Crow episode is great as well, and the look we get at Anderson's relationship with Brandon Lee is so human and raw.
These moments really shine a light on how ridiculous the curse theories are, when in fact, they are just tragic events that effected real people, people who then had to deal with a following media circus.
The big thing I really didn't like about this series is only really relevant to The Omen and Exorcist episodes. It's almost like they didn't have enough material to fill the runtime of these segments, and so opt to pad it out with interviews with real exorcists, or magicians that practice black magic. I'm sure that there are interesting stories to be told by these people, but it feels really out of place and forced here. It's even cringe inducing at times and feels like very obvious filler. It detracts somewhat from what is otherwise a pretty solid documentary series.
Cursed Films is certainly an interesting watch, and is easy to digest in the 30 minute episodes that are presented. Also, that theme music is wild (found out it's by an Italian space-prog band from the 70s called I Signori Della Galassia!)
Worth a watch for sure, just ignore the silly filler parts.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Escape Room: Tournament of Champions (2021) in Movies
Mar 6, 2022
Did the first film need a sequel? Probably not.
Having found their way out of their escape room, Zoey and Ben decide to investigate the mysterious corporation behind their ordeal. In their quest for the truth, they find themselves pulled into another maze of escape rooms with other survivors of Minos.
As far as the plot goes on this, a fair bit is just new rooms to escape. And at this point we're potentially just in an eternal spiral of Escape Room films.
Though these characters all have something in common, they could not be more different. And while that's totally legitimate, it also makes the film very busy. Given the nature of the action as well, it's a lot more chaotic than I was comfortable with.
The acting is sadly, entirely average. At certain points, the ridiculous deductive powers of the group felt even more nonsensical than they would have been under normal circumstances. It was very much a snowball of acting, plot and script.
Despite the similarities, I did like the rooms that we came across. (By that I mean they're fine when you suspend several layers of belief and logic.) Some of the effects looked particularly good in them, and the transitions within the beach scene stood out for me.
What I don't like is the potential neverending spiral I mentioned. The first film was enjoyable, but I'm not sure it really warranted a second. Is there a plan? Because why would you jump straight to this point? You had four other people with stories that could have been explored before jumping back in with the same two characters from the first film, I'm a little baffled as to why, if you're going to copy and paste, you wouldn't transfer it directly, get four other films out of it before combining the world.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/03/escape-room-2-movie-review.html
Having found their way out of their escape room, Zoey and Ben decide to investigate the mysterious corporation behind their ordeal. In their quest for the truth, they find themselves pulled into another maze of escape rooms with other survivors of Minos.
As far as the plot goes on this, a fair bit is just new rooms to escape. And at this point we're potentially just in an eternal spiral of Escape Room films.
Though these characters all have something in common, they could not be more different. And while that's totally legitimate, it also makes the film very busy. Given the nature of the action as well, it's a lot more chaotic than I was comfortable with.
The acting is sadly, entirely average. At certain points, the ridiculous deductive powers of the group felt even more nonsensical than they would have been under normal circumstances. It was very much a snowball of acting, plot and script.
Despite the similarities, I did like the rooms that we came across. (By that I mean they're fine when you suspend several layers of belief and logic.) Some of the effects looked particularly good in them, and the transitions within the beach scene stood out for me.
What I don't like is the potential neverending spiral I mentioned. The first film was enjoyable, but I'm not sure it really warranted a second. Is there a plan? Because why would you jump straight to this point? You had four other people with stories that could have been explored before jumping back in with the same two characters from the first film, I'm a little baffled as to why, if you're going to copy and paste, you wouldn't transfer it directly, get four other films out of it before combining the world.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/03/escape-room-2-movie-review.html