Search
Search results
Sony AX53 4K Handycam Camcorder
8.0
Rate It
Tech Watch
The Sony AX53 4K Handycam is a powerful, feature-packed 4K Camcorder with Sony's Exmor R™ CMOS...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Ghostbusters (1984) in Movies
Apr 15, 2018
Stellar
A group of four armed with special proton packs come together to protect Manhattan from crazy supernatural forces that have taken hold of the city.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
In the opening scene, Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) is doing an ESP exercise with a couple. He's having them use their brain power to identify something from a card they can't see. He's clearly sweet on the girlfriend because he keeps giving her soft-lob answers while taking the boyfriend through hell. The scene is one of the best openers I've seen in a movie and is a clever, hilarious way to kick things off. It doesn't take long for you to fall in love with Murray's character.
Characters: 10
Without Venkman, the film doesn't exist period. He carries a lax, dry attitude while everyone else around him is freaking out and for good reason. He's not even close to being a scientist like his counterparts, but that's a strong reason for what makes the film so great. All four of the characters are unique and bring something different to the table. The supporting roles are also awesome, each providing their own quirky, unique flare.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Considering the film was made in 1984 (and special effects have greatly increased since then), I was pretty happy with the visuals throughout Ghostbusters. The ghosts are creative and original providing enough variety without being overly repetitive. This film put Slimer on the map, a disgusting green blob of a ghost that tries to devour everything in his path. Watching food pass from his mouth and through his body before exiting out the other end was a hilarious touch.
Oh, and can't forget about Stay Puft. Fun times watching that scene unfold.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Consistent blending of comedy and the paranormal helps maintain a healthy pace. The dialogue is so crisp and on point, it's hard to get bored as there is always something happening or something hilarious being said. Director Ivan Reitman even managed to take advantage of moments that would have otherwise been bland. The best example that comes to mind is the scene where they are riding up an elevator. Instead of just sitting around aimlessly, the group takes turns firing up their proton packs for the first time. One memorable scene among many.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
Ghostbusters is an unforgettable ride from start to finish. It's one of those films you can watch over and over and it never gets old. A definite classic.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
In the opening scene, Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) is doing an ESP exercise with a couple. He's having them use their brain power to identify something from a card they can't see. He's clearly sweet on the girlfriend because he keeps giving her soft-lob answers while taking the boyfriend through hell. The scene is one of the best openers I've seen in a movie and is a clever, hilarious way to kick things off. It doesn't take long for you to fall in love with Murray's character.
Characters: 10
Without Venkman, the film doesn't exist period. He carries a lax, dry attitude while everyone else around him is freaking out and for good reason. He's not even close to being a scientist like his counterparts, but that's a strong reason for what makes the film so great. All four of the characters are unique and bring something different to the table. The supporting roles are also awesome, each providing their own quirky, unique flare.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Considering the film was made in 1984 (and special effects have greatly increased since then), I was pretty happy with the visuals throughout Ghostbusters. The ghosts are creative and original providing enough variety without being overly repetitive. This film put Slimer on the map, a disgusting green blob of a ghost that tries to devour everything in his path. Watching food pass from his mouth and through his body before exiting out the other end was a hilarious touch.
Oh, and can't forget about Stay Puft. Fun times watching that scene unfold.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Consistent blending of comedy and the paranormal helps maintain a healthy pace. The dialogue is so crisp and on point, it's hard to get bored as there is always something happening or something hilarious being said. Director Ivan Reitman even managed to take advantage of moments that would have otherwise been bland. The best example that comes to mind is the scene where they are riding up an elevator. Instead of just sitting around aimlessly, the group takes turns firing up their proton packs for the first time. One memorable scene among many.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
Ghostbusters is an unforgettable ride from start to finish. It's one of those films you can watch over and over and it never gets old. A definite classic.
Eduardo Sanchez recommended Do the Right Thing (1989) in Movies (curated)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
It may have been a mistake to see the original animated version before seeing this live-action offering. It's incorrect to say it's a remake, they've taken a 64-minute movie and stripped out the principle idea and made a completely new film that's near two hours long.
I'm going to start with the moaning, but bear with me because it'll get better, I promise.
Let's address the elephant in the room, no not Dumbo, but the fact that they made something live action when it's almost entirely talking animals. (And yes, I'm already concerned for Lion King.) To actually get some human characters in there they've turned it on its head and made the story about the circus and its family. I don't have a problem with them doing this but everything I saw in the run-up to the film made me believe that it was a remake and not an adaptation. Possibly I just got caught up in all the hype of the other remakes Disney are producing. but it did colour my impression.
It's evident that Disney have tried to account for the fact that people won't be getting what they loved so much from the original, everywhere there are nods to the original. All of this is sadly far from that nostalgic fun, instead it felt like a bit of a slap in the face. "Hey look!! Remember this bit?!!" There's a quick nod to the storks, Dumbo getting drunk, and possibly the creepiest of them all, that happy-go-lucky train... you really should have left that one alone.
We're also severely lacking in those wonderful songs. I had heard the Arcade Fire version of Baby Mine in a trailer and it gave me goosebumps, but while it's a lovely scene in the film the song itself doesn't hold nearly enough weight. Disney to me is as much about the music as it is about the story and in this instance they've dropped the ball.
With Tim Burton at the helm it was going to be bleak... but geez! Mum's dead, Dad's missing an arm from war... and that mad elephant scene? "I want to go bigger than spanking an animated child." "I don't think we can have a scene where we spank a child in this day and age." "No, you're right, first thing we're going to need is a coroner." There were a lot of things in this that cut a very fine line, and I think that it's crossed over into a film that isn't really for kids anymore.
Despite these quibbles they've managed to do something magical with Dumbo. All of that magic from the animated version is still there in this little fella. I don't know how you get that much emotion out of something that isn't there, it was wonderful. Dumbo's reactions to feathers throughout, that eyes wide excitement, and when he sees Colette "flying" up to him... honestly, I don't know how to describe it. Hands down my favourite bit has to be the pink elephants bit, Dumbo watching intently and his head bobbing along was so pure.
I still don't know how I feel about the acting in Dumbo, beyond our little pachyderm I was underwhelmed by the whole thing. I wasn't particularly fond of the child characters. They seemed to decide that Milly should be a role model to other little girls, "you can be a scientist", but I don't know that making a role model out of someone who isn't exactly likeable is the way to go with this. They've also given Milly and her brother, Joe, the appointment of elephant trainers, and that frustrated me no end too, but for completely over thought reasons.
Danny Devito was a treat, his character is obviously intended to be dislikeable but is allowed to get some redemption in the end, which was nice to see. His scenes with the monkey were particularly fun.
This review has taken me so long to write, I think that's mainly because I just don't know about these human characters. Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell), V.A. Vandervere (Michae Keaton) and Colette Marchant (Eva Green) all just don't do anything for me... they seem very much like padding for a film that probably shouldn't have been made.
I don't want to run into any major spoilers, but that ending... it needs mentioning... it's ridiculous and clichéd. There was a perfectly good ending point they could have taken but sadly someone made the choice that the "happy ever after" ending needed to be spelt out for everyone.
I am torn about this film. You couldn't have remade the original exactly as it was, mild racism and a drunk minor just aren't going to cut it in a kids film. Potentially there is a new version in there somewhere, but I'm not sure that this dark human heavy one was the way to go.
What you should do
It's the Easter holidays, those kids need to be entertained somehow, Dumbo would not be the worst choice you could make.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I don't think I have room for a baby elephant, so if someone could just cut all the footage of him together and give me a DVD containing all those good feelings that would be great.
I'm going to start with the moaning, but bear with me because it'll get better, I promise.
Let's address the elephant in the room, no not Dumbo, but the fact that they made something live action when it's almost entirely talking animals. (And yes, I'm already concerned for Lion King.) To actually get some human characters in there they've turned it on its head and made the story about the circus and its family. I don't have a problem with them doing this but everything I saw in the run-up to the film made me believe that it was a remake and not an adaptation. Possibly I just got caught up in all the hype of the other remakes Disney are producing. but it did colour my impression.
It's evident that Disney have tried to account for the fact that people won't be getting what they loved so much from the original, everywhere there are nods to the original. All of this is sadly far from that nostalgic fun, instead it felt like a bit of a slap in the face. "Hey look!! Remember this bit?!!" There's a quick nod to the storks, Dumbo getting drunk, and possibly the creepiest of them all, that happy-go-lucky train... you really should have left that one alone.
We're also severely lacking in those wonderful songs. I had heard the Arcade Fire version of Baby Mine in a trailer and it gave me goosebumps, but while it's a lovely scene in the film the song itself doesn't hold nearly enough weight. Disney to me is as much about the music as it is about the story and in this instance they've dropped the ball.
With Tim Burton at the helm it was going to be bleak... but geez! Mum's dead, Dad's missing an arm from war... and that mad elephant scene? "I want to go bigger than spanking an animated child." "I don't think we can have a scene where we spank a child in this day and age." "No, you're right, first thing we're going to need is a coroner." There were a lot of things in this that cut a very fine line, and I think that it's crossed over into a film that isn't really for kids anymore.
Despite these quibbles they've managed to do something magical with Dumbo. All of that magic from the animated version is still there in this little fella. I don't know how you get that much emotion out of something that isn't there, it was wonderful. Dumbo's reactions to feathers throughout, that eyes wide excitement, and when he sees Colette "flying" up to him... honestly, I don't know how to describe it. Hands down my favourite bit has to be the pink elephants bit, Dumbo watching intently and his head bobbing along was so pure.
I still don't know how I feel about the acting in Dumbo, beyond our little pachyderm I was underwhelmed by the whole thing. I wasn't particularly fond of the child characters. They seemed to decide that Milly should be a role model to other little girls, "you can be a scientist", but I don't know that making a role model out of someone who isn't exactly likeable is the way to go with this. They've also given Milly and her brother, Joe, the appointment of elephant trainers, and that frustrated me no end too, but for completely over thought reasons.
Danny Devito was a treat, his character is obviously intended to be dislikeable but is allowed to get some redemption in the end, which was nice to see. His scenes with the monkey were particularly fun.
This review has taken me so long to write, I think that's mainly because I just don't know about these human characters. Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell), V.A. Vandervere (Michae Keaton) and Colette Marchant (Eva Green) all just don't do anything for me... they seem very much like padding for a film that probably shouldn't have been made.
I don't want to run into any major spoilers, but that ending... it needs mentioning... it's ridiculous and clichéd. There was a perfectly good ending point they could have taken but sadly someone made the choice that the "happy ever after" ending needed to be spelt out for everyone.
I am torn about this film. You couldn't have remade the original exactly as it was, mild racism and a drunk minor just aren't going to cut it in a kids film. Potentially there is a new version in there somewhere, but I'm not sure that this dark human heavy one was the way to go.
What you should do
It's the Easter holidays, those kids need to be entertained somehow, Dumbo would not be the worst choice you could make.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I don't think I have room for a baby elephant, so if someone could just cut all the footage of him together and give me a DVD containing all those good feelings that would be great.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Paddington (2015) in Movies
Jun 23, 2019
Thoughts on Paddington
Characters – Paddington is the Peruvian bear we have all gotten to know from our childhoods, he travels to London in search for an explorer that met his Uncle and Aunt, what he finds is a busy city that has no time for stranger until he meets the Brown family. Paddington is learning about a new world in London, which sees his curiosity getting him stuck in a pickle more often than not, with his love of marmalade being the cause of most of his troubles. Henry Brown is the father that has taken Paddington in reluctantly, he has been working in risk assessment which doesn’t make a bear in the house seem safe, Paddington will help unlock the wild side that Henry once had in his youth before becoming a father. Mary is the mother who wants to take Paddington in, her heart is what makes her the reason the family will let him in, always wanting to do the right thing. Millicent works at the natural history museum, she wants Paddington so she can stuff him and add him to the collection at the museum, always thinking about herself and her family’s legacy.
Performances – Hugh Bonneville as the strict father shown that he isn’t willing to take a change, he goes against everything going with Paddington, only to show just how different a man can be once hit with parenthood. Sally Hawkins brings the light to the film as the caring mother. Nicole Kidman looks like she is enjoying the villainous figure in the film, which does show terrifying moments for the family film. Ben Whishaw does make the voice of Paddington a pleasure to watch through the film, handling the comedy very well.
Story – The story brings the character of Paddington bear to modern day London, where he must learn to fit in while alluding an evil taxidermist. We did need to keep the story simple for the first part of the chapter here, bringing Paddington to a modern London is a fresh spin because the original story was a different time, different minds and now everybody is so busy in their lives they barely notice a bear at a train station. We do get to see how Paddington must adjust to life in London, getting himself into trouble both in and out the house, but shows that his good-natured side will keep the family together, while the villain does have a good motivation which does play into the history of the natural history museum and just how twisted the reality behind it actually is. We do also have a strong theme that shows us just how difficult deforestation will be on animal families around the world, with Paddington being a victim of this.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure takes Paddington around the world to a new family, new country and new culture, seeing how he learns plays into the comedy of the film which will get laughs of the pickles he finds himself involved in.
Settings – The film is mostly set in London, it shows just how big the city is for people who have never been there before, the Natural History museum is used well to show moments of fear in the film too.
Special Effects – Paddington being placed into the world looks fantastic, he never looks out of place which shows just how well the effects team worked to make this look seamless.
Scene of the Movie – Using the facilities.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – That jungle music line, seems completely out of place in this movie.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun family film that does bring to life one of the most famous childhood characters, it is filled with heart and brings the modernisation vision to the story with ease.
Overall: Family Fun Film.
Characters – Paddington is the Peruvian bear we have all gotten to know from our childhoods, he travels to London in search for an explorer that met his Uncle and Aunt, what he finds is a busy city that has no time for stranger until he meets the Brown family. Paddington is learning about a new world in London, which sees his curiosity getting him stuck in a pickle more often than not, with his love of marmalade being the cause of most of his troubles. Henry Brown is the father that has taken Paddington in reluctantly, he has been working in risk assessment which doesn’t make a bear in the house seem safe, Paddington will help unlock the wild side that Henry once had in his youth before becoming a father. Mary is the mother who wants to take Paddington in, her heart is what makes her the reason the family will let him in, always wanting to do the right thing. Millicent works at the natural history museum, she wants Paddington so she can stuff him and add him to the collection at the museum, always thinking about herself and her family’s legacy.
Performances – Hugh Bonneville as the strict father shown that he isn’t willing to take a change, he goes against everything going with Paddington, only to show just how different a man can be once hit with parenthood. Sally Hawkins brings the light to the film as the caring mother. Nicole Kidman looks like she is enjoying the villainous figure in the film, which does show terrifying moments for the family film. Ben Whishaw does make the voice of Paddington a pleasure to watch through the film, handling the comedy very well.
Story – The story brings the character of Paddington bear to modern day London, where he must learn to fit in while alluding an evil taxidermist. We did need to keep the story simple for the first part of the chapter here, bringing Paddington to a modern London is a fresh spin because the original story was a different time, different minds and now everybody is so busy in their lives they barely notice a bear at a train station. We do get to see how Paddington must adjust to life in London, getting himself into trouble both in and out the house, but shows that his good-natured side will keep the family together, while the villain does have a good motivation which does play into the history of the natural history museum and just how twisted the reality behind it actually is. We do also have a strong theme that shows us just how difficult deforestation will be on animal families around the world, with Paddington being a victim of this.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure takes Paddington around the world to a new family, new country and new culture, seeing how he learns plays into the comedy of the film which will get laughs of the pickles he finds himself involved in.
Settings – The film is mostly set in London, it shows just how big the city is for people who have never been there before, the Natural History museum is used well to show moments of fear in the film too.
Special Effects – Paddington being placed into the world looks fantastic, he never looks out of place which shows just how well the effects team worked to make this look seamless.
Scene of the Movie – Using the facilities.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – That jungle music line, seems completely out of place in this movie.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun family film that does bring to life one of the most famous childhood characters, it is filled with heart and brings the modernisation vision to the story with ease.
Overall: Family Fun Film.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Zombieland: Double Tap (2019) in Movies
Oct 21, 2019
The best Zom-com since its predecessor!
When "Zombieland (2009)" first came out, I was sceptical about it, as it looked like it would be nothing but a gore-fest packed with silly and cringe-worthy cheap laughs. But then it started and 'For Whom The Bell Tolls' began playing and I knew I was in for a treat!
Fast-forward a decade, and I entered "Zombieland: Double Tap (2019)" with similar scepticism. I was concerned the studios were going to take what had become a modern classic and simply rehash it in a poor attempt to cash in on its previous success. But then it started and 'Master of Puppets' began playing and I knew I was in for a treat!
Picking up seamlessly where the first one left off, both in terms of story and tone, Double Tap begins with the our group of heroes approaching the White House, which they decide is a good place to lay down some roots in the post-apocalyptic, zombie-infested world they find themselves in.
It isn't long before the youngest member of the group, Little Rock, tires of their attempt at normality, desperate for interaction with any survivors her own age. After Wichita and Columbus fall out, the sisters take off, prompting a road trip for Tallahassee and Columbus to bring them back.
This is a masterclass in how a comedy movie should be executed. Laughs are frequent but not forced. The script is well-written and packed with the same sharp, witty dialogue found in its predecessor. And it manages to maintain its pacing for the duration - something few films can pull off. Too often, comedy films start off with an hilarious first act, but then runs out of steam by Act 2 before ruining the final act by trying to be too serious.
Yes, I'm looking at you "Baywatch (2017)"!
But Double Tap doesn't suffer from any of that. It retains the heart that made it stand out the first time around, whilst building on the laughs and relationships between the characters.
I found this film a little more meta than I remember the first one being. Lots of references to Zombie pop culture, like "The Walking Dead" and "Dawn of the Dead" - both of which Columbus refers to as unrealistic, which is ironically funny.
Of course, being a sequel, you need to introduce some new faces. The first one is Madison, played brilliantly by the beautiful Zoey Deutch. When the airhead blonde stereotype first appears, you immediately cringe and worry she's going to be the annoying tag-along that hopefully dies... yet the character is written in such a way that she effortlessly fits into the group and quickly becomes a likeable addition.
Next is Nevada, portrayed by the ever-reliable Rosario Dawson. She's a hard-hitting, Zombie-killing, Elvis-loving beauty who is an immediate and obvious match for Tallahassee.
And speaking of him, Woody Harrelson again steals the show with his incredibly funny, heart-warming and cringe-inducing turn as the violent Redneck. His lines are hilarious, even when they're not meant to be, and they're delivered inch-perfect every time.
The soundtrack is spot-on, and the visuals fit the type of movie this is trying to be. Overall, this film is a real treat. It flies by, provides many, many laughs, and also tugs on the heart strings just a little bit. It has everything that made the first one great, and it adds just enough to make this feel like more than just a remake.
Oh, and without spoiling things, it ain't over 'til the credits stop rolling... just saying! :-)
Not to be missed!
Fast-forward a decade, and I entered "Zombieland: Double Tap (2019)" with similar scepticism. I was concerned the studios were going to take what had become a modern classic and simply rehash it in a poor attempt to cash in on its previous success. But then it started and 'Master of Puppets' began playing and I knew I was in for a treat!
Picking up seamlessly where the first one left off, both in terms of story and tone, Double Tap begins with the our group of heroes approaching the White House, which they decide is a good place to lay down some roots in the post-apocalyptic, zombie-infested world they find themselves in.
It isn't long before the youngest member of the group, Little Rock, tires of their attempt at normality, desperate for interaction with any survivors her own age. After Wichita and Columbus fall out, the sisters take off, prompting a road trip for Tallahassee and Columbus to bring them back.
This is a masterclass in how a comedy movie should be executed. Laughs are frequent but not forced. The script is well-written and packed with the same sharp, witty dialogue found in its predecessor. And it manages to maintain its pacing for the duration - something few films can pull off. Too often, comedy films start off with an hilarious first act, but then runs out of steam by Act 2 before ruining the final act by trying to be too serious.
Yes, I'm looking at you "Baywatch (2017)"!
But Double Tap doesn't suffer from any of that. It retains the heart that made it stand out the first time around, whilst building on the laughs and relationships between the characters.
I found this film a little more meta than I remember the first one being. Lots of references to Zombie pop culture, like "The Walking Dead" and "Dawn of the Dead" - both of which Columbus refers to as unrealistic, which is ironically funny.
Of course, being a sequel, you need to introduce some new faces. The first one is Madison, played brilliantly by the beautiful Zoey Deutch. When the airhead blonde stereotype first appears, you immediately cringe and worry she's going to be the annoying tag-along that hopefully dies... yet the character is written in such a way that she effortlessly fits into the group and quickly becomes a likeable addition.
Next is Nevada, portrayed by the ever-reliable Rosario Dawson. She's a hard-hitting, Zombie-killing, Elvis-loving beauty who is an immediate and obvious match for Tallahassee.
And speaking of him, Woody Harrelson again steals the show with his incredibly funny, heart-warming and cringe-inducing turn as the violent Redneck. His lines are hilarious, even when they're not meant to be, and they're delivered inch-perfect every time.
The soundtrack is spot-on, and the visuals fit the type of movie this is trying to be. Overall, this film is a real treat. It flies by, provides many, many laughs, and also tugs on the heart strings just a little bit. It has everything that made the first one great, and it adds just enough to make this feel like more than just a remake.
Oh, and without spoiling things, it ain't over 'til the credits stop rolling... just saying! :-)
Not to be missed!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated News of the World (2020) in Movies
Jan 17, 2021
Strongly Acted and Directed
Pound for pound, Tom Hanks is the best actor of this generation. From his big screen debut in SPLASH to his Oscar Nominated turn in BIG to his back-to-back Oscar wins for PHILADELPHIA and FORREST GUMP to more recent works like SULLY and THE POST, Hanks’ “everyman goodness” quality shines through the screen and makes him a screen presence that cannot be ignored.
And in his latest effort, the Paul Greengrass Directed NEWS OF THE WORLD, Hanks uses every molecule of his screen presence to keep the audience’s attention in a slow-paced, moody character study.
Based on the novel by Paulette Jiles, NEWS OF THE WORLD takes place in a post-Civil War Texas where a former Confederate Captain makes a living by going from town to town and reading the news to them. A chance encounter with a twice orphaned young girl alters the lives of both of them.
Writer/Director Paul Greengrass is most known for quick-cut action films like the BOURNE series or the criminally underrated GREEN ROOM, so he would seem - at first glance - as an unusual choice to adapt and direct this character study, but look further at Greengrass’ resume and you will find - in films such as UNITED 93 and CAPTAIN PHILLIPS - an ability to tell a story that is driven more by character than by action.
And this combination of Director and Actor works well for NEWS OF THE WORLD is a languidly paced piece that has a somber mood and look but Greengrass avoids the temptation of lingering on scenes or pictures too long (and there are some wonderful images captured by Greengrass and Cinemotgrapher Darius Wolski) to tell a story of a man who needs to rediscover and remake himself.
And Hanks is more than equal to the task of bringing the pragmatic, introspective Captain Jefferson Kyle Kidd character to life in a way that makes him intriguing and not boring. Hanks ability to show inherent decency in a look or a gesture is the stuff of legends and when he speaks, you listen. Which is good for Hanks is in every scene in this film and his performance needs to strongly capture the audience for this film to work - and he is more than equal to this task - so strong is Hanks in this role that I would not be surprised if there is another Oscar nomination in Tom’s near future.
Newcomer Helena Zegal is “just fine” in the other main role in this film - the young girl that Captain Kidd encounters, Johnna. This young girl is silent and shut down for most of the film and Zegal performs “shut down and silent” well. Also along for brief cameo roles of characters that Captain Kidd encounters on his journey is a bevy of wonderfully cast character actors that include Mare Winnigham, Ray McKinnon, Bill Camp and the always interesting to watch Elizabeth Marvel.
As is often the case in these sorts of films, the music/soundtrack becomes a vital part of the story that unfolds and 8 time Oscar nominated composer James Newton Howard (THE PRINCE OF TIDES) is more than up to the task. The music is another character in this film and helps set the mood along the journey.
But make no mistake, this is Hanks’ film - and he is VERY good in this. Like MIDNIGHT SKY (reviewed last month), this movie will not be for everyone - and many, many folks are going to tell me that they checked this movie out on my recommendation and were bored by it. But…if you click into the mood, motion and energy of what Greengrass is showing, you will be rewarded with an emotionally rich and complex character study.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And in his latest effort, the Paul Greengrass Directed NEWS OF THE WORLD, Hanks uses every molecule of his screen presence to keep the audience’s attention in a slow-paced, moody character study.
Based on the novel by Paulette Jiles, NEWS OF THE WORLD takes place in a post-Civil War Texas where a former Confederate Captain makes a living by going from town to town and reading the news to them. A chance encounter with a twice orphaned young girl alters the lives of both of them.
Writer/Director Paul Greengrass is most known for quick-cut action films like the BOURNE series or the criminally underrated GREEN ROOM, so he would seem - at first glance - as an unusual choice to adapt and direct this character study, but look further at Greengrass’ resume and you will find - in films such as UNITED 93 and CAPTAIN PHILLIPS - an ability to tell a story that is driven more by character than by action.
And this combination of Director and Actor works well for NEWS OF THE WORLD is a languidly paced piece that has a somber mood and look but Greengrass avoids the temptation of lingering on scenes or pictures too long (and there are some wonderful images captured by Greengrass and Cinemotgrapher Darius Wolski) to tell a story of a man who needs to rediscover and remake himself.
And Hanks is more than equal to the task of bringing the pragmatic, introspective Captain Jefferson Kyle Kidd character to life in a way that makes him intriguing and not boring. Hanks ability to show inherent decency in a look or a gesture is the stuff of legends and when he speaks, you listen. Which is good for Hanks is in every scene in this film and his performance needs to strongly capture the audience for this film to work - and he is more than equal to this task - so strong is Hanks in this role that I would not be surprised if there is another Oscar nomination in Tom’s near future.
Newcomer Helena Zegal is “just fine” in the other main role in this film - the young girl that Captain Kidd encounters, Johnna. This young girl is silent and shut down for most of the film and Zegal performs “shut down and silent” well. Also along for brief cameo roles of characters that Captain Kidd encounters on his journey is a bevy of wonderfully cast character actors that include Mare Winnigham, Ray McKinnon, Bill Camp and the always interesting to watch Elizabeth Marvel.
As is often the case in these sorts of films, the music/soundtrack becomes a vital part of the story that unfolds and 8 time Oscar nominated composer James Newton Howard (THE PRINCE OF TIDES) is more than up to the task. The music is another character in this film and helps set the mood along the journey.
But make no mistake, this is Hanks’ film - and he is VERY good in this. Like MIDNIGHT SKY (reviewed last month), this movie will not be for everyone - and many, many folks are going to tell me that they checked this movie out on my recommendation and were bored by it. But…if you click into the mood, motion and energy of what Greengrass is showing, you will be rewarded with an emotionally rich and complex character study.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Fantasy Island (2020) in Movies
May 5, 2020
Michael Peña and Maggie Q in a film... I'm in. This was high up my watchlist even though Blumhouse and I don't always see eye to eye.
A group of strangers arrive on an island, this experience will give them their deepest desires. Wish for it and you can live it, all you have to do is see it through to the end on Fantasy Island.
Evidently, Nic Cage turned down the role of Mr Roarke... I didn't know that he turned down any roles so that (if true) should have been a massive warning sign.
I do have to wonder how some of these stories come about. This is based on the 70's TV show of the same name which was entirely not scary as far as I know. Is there a giant bingo cage full of ping pong balls inscribed with names of old shows and films? Do they just let studios try their luck to spin whatever they get to their niche?
Twisting this tale is a pretty good idea, though I'm not really sure why an island would want to do that to people, but what do I know about malevolent black goop spirits? I was generally on board with the storyline and I thought it wove them together quite well but that ending... are you kidding me? There was some speculation thrown out about what was going on and that thread was believable. The one they gave us was laughable, the absolute worst choice. Had they done a small reshuffle they could have given a much less ridiculous conclusion.
There are a lot of different threads and each one has its moments, as daft as they might be they come together quite well even when the filler is poor.
Maggie Q's performance as Gwen felt like the most believable out of the whole ensemble, but that's not really a surprise from her. Gwen is basically the only decent person in the group and throughout her stay she is the one that's grounded and tries to deal with her situation. That should give us something good to work off... but she's kind of bland on screen compared to everything else.
Michael Peña is always a pull to a movie for me, but Roarke's story wasn't all the effective. Had he been a construct of the island then there might have been something in it, but as it was you didn't get any real struggle with his actions, I couldn't see how a character that wasn't portrayed as actively evil could go along with any of it even given his background.
While the rest of the cast is filled with faces you'd know there isn't really a great performance to be seen. From unlikeable characters to a script that's not amusing when it tries to be, what's left of the film is plain in a glossy kind of way, and by that I mean it's got the makings of something good but misses anything that could have made an impact. The effects are fine for the most part and the sets are fine when you take into consideration they're supposed to be a fantasy and don't need to fit together perfectly. The exception is Roarke's door that Maggie Q interacts with, I liked that move and I don't know whether the rest of the film might have benefitted from something similar.
Bits of the film are quite good and could have made for an exciting watch, but that ending was so frustrating that any enjoyment went straight out the window and any thrill from what I'd already seen was gone. Also, considering it is classified as horror there wasn't really enough, or anything of quality, too make that a reality. Untapped potential in abundance here.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/fantasy-island-movie-review.html
A group of strangers arrive on an island, this experience will give them their deepest desires. Wish for it and you can live it, all you have to do is see it through to the end on Fantasy Island.
Evidently, Nic Cage turned down the role of Mr Roarke... I didn't know that he turned down any roles so that (if true) should have been a massive warning sign.
I do have to wonder how some of these stories come about. This is based on the 70's TV show of the same name which was entirely not scary as far as I know. Is there a giant bingo cage full of ping pong balls inscribed with names of old shows and films? Do they just let studios try their luck to spin whatever they get to their niche?
Twisting this tale is a pretty good idea, though I'm not really sure why an island would want to do that to people, but what do I know about malevolent black goop spirits? I was generally on board with the storyline and I thought it wove them together quite well but that ending... are you kidding me? There was some speculation thrown out about what was going on and that thread was believable. The one they gave us was laughable, the absolute worst choice. Had they done a small reshuffle they could have given a much less ridiculous conclusion.
There are a lot of different threads and each one has its moments, as daft as they might be they come together quite well even when the filler is poor.
Maggie Q's performance as Gwen felt like the most believable out of the whole ensemble, but that's not really a surprise from her. Gwen is basically the only decent person in the group and throughout her stay she is the one that's grounded and tries to deal with her situation. That should give us something good to work off... but she's kind of bland on screen compared to everything else.
Michael Peña is always a pull to a movie for me, but Roarke's story wasn't all the effective. Had he been a construct of the island then there might have been something in it, but as it was you didn't get any real struggle with his actions, I couldn't see how a character that wasn't portrayed as actively evil could go along with any of it even given his background.
While the rest of the cast is filled with faces you'd know there isn't really a great performance to be seen. From unlikeable characters to a script that's not amusing when it tries to be, what's left of the film is plain in a glossy kind of way, and by that I mean it's got the makings of something good but misses anything that could have made an impact. The effects are fine for the most part and the sets are fine when you take into consideration they're supposed to be a fantasy and don't need to fit together perfectly. The exception is Roarke's door that Maggie Q interacts with, I liked that move and I don't know whether the rest of the film might have benefitted from something similar.
Bits of the film are quite good and could have made for an exciting watch, but that ending was so frustrating that any enjoyment went straight out the window and any thrill from what I'd already seen was gone. Also, considering it is classified as horror there wasn't really enough, or anything of quality, too make that a reality. Untapped potential in abundance here.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/fantasy-island-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Lee (2222 KP) rated Missing Link (2019) in Movies
Jan 21, 2020
Despite being a huge fan of Coraline and Kubo and the Two Strings, I'd managed to miss out on Missing Link, the latest movie from stop-motion masters Laika, last year when it was originally shown in cinemas. Having recently won the Golden Globe for Best Animated Feature Film, and on the receiving end of a number of other nominations, including an Oscar nom for Best Animated Feature, I was very happy to discover (by chance!) that it had now made its way onto Netflix.
Missing Link is set in Victorian England and tells the story of Sir Lionel Frost (voiced by Hugh Jackman), an adventurer with a passion for exploration and the discovery of mythical creatures. When we first meet Sir Lionel, he is on a small boat with his assistant, hoping to obtain photographic evidence of the existence of the elusive Loch Ness monster. Such evidence would hopefully grant him membership to the exclusive "Society of Great Men", which is run by Lord Piggot-Dunceby (Stephen Fry). Unfortunately, despite Nessie making an appearance to Frost, things don't quite go according to plan and he returns home without any evidence. And in need of a new assistant!
Another shot at entry into the society comes in the form of a letter, which is addressed to Frost on his return home to London. The letter describes the legendary Sasquatch and tells of sightings in the Pacific Northwest so Frost immediately makes a deal with Piggot-Dunceby that will see him accepted should he return with proof that the Sasquatch is real. But Piggot-Dunceby has no such plans to admit Frost and enlists the services of an assassin (Timothy Olyphant) to follow and eliminate him before he gets chance to make it back to England.
When Frost eventually arrives in the forest, he not only discovers the Sasquatch, but also that the Sasquatch can talk and was in fact the one who sent the letter! Sir Lionel names him "Mr. Link" and learns that he just wanted his help in finding his relatives, the Yetis who live in the Himalayas. They join forces and set off, back across America, across the Ocean and across Europe, all the while trying to avoid and outwit the deadly assassin.
Missing Link is more vibrant, more detailed and exhibits a much smoother animation style than any of the previous movies from Laika. It is an outstanding achievement from everyone involved and I am always in awe whenever I see the behind the scenes making of videos from Laika. However, despite looking amazing and featuring some very funny moments from a talented and on-form voice cast, I found Missing Link to the be the weakest in terms of story when compared to Coraline and Kubo. It's certainly not a bad movie, it just didn't grab me at any point, and I didn't feel it was particularly memorable when I'd finished it either.
Missing Link is set in Victorian England and tells the story of Sir Lionel Frost (voiced by Hugh Jackman), an adventurer with a passion for exploration and the discovery of mythical creatures. When we first meet Sir Lionel, he is on a small boat with his assistant, hoping to obtain photographic evidence of the existence of the elusive Loch Ness monster. Such evidence would hopefully grant him membership to the exclusive "Society of Great Men", which is run by Lord Piggot-Dunceby (Stephen Fry). Unfortunately, despite Nessie making an appearance to Frost, things don't quite go according to plan and he returns home without any evidence. And in need of a new assistant!
Another shot at entry into the society comes in the form of a letter, which is addressed to Frost on his return home to London. The letter describes the legendary Sasquatch and tells of sightings in the Pacific Northwest so Frost immediately makes a deal with Piggot-Dunceby that will see him accepted should he return with proof that the Sasquatch is real. But Piggot-Dunceby has no such plans to admit Frost and enlists the services of an assassin (Timothy Olyphant) to follow and eliminate him before he gets chance to make it back to England.
When Frost eventually arrives in the forest, he not only discovers the Sasquatch, but also that the Sasquatch can talk and was in fact the one who sent the letter! Sir Lionel names him "Mr. Link" and learns that he just wanted his help in finding his relatives, the Yetis who live in the Himalayas. They join forces and set off, back across America, across the Ocean and across Europe, all the while trying to avoid and outwit the deadly assassin.
Missing Link is more vibrant, more detailed and exhibits a much smoother animation style than any of the previous movies from Laika. It is an outstanding achievement from everyone involved and I am always in awe whenever I see the behind the scenes making of videos from Laika. However, despite looking amazing and featuring some very funny moments from a talented and on-form voice cast, I found Missing Link to the be the weakest in terms of story when compared to Coraline and Kubo. It's certainly not a bad movie, it just didn't grab me at any point, and I didn't feel it was particularly memorable when I'd finished it either.