Search
Search results
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.
Wonder Photo - Beaty Camera - Collage Maker - Beauty photo Makeup
Photo & Video and Lifestyle
App
● Hitting 100 million users all over 200 countries! ● The best App Camera & Photo Editor! ●...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies
Nov 30, 2018
One of the Best Courtroom Dramas of all Time
I have to admit, that (at times) the fun part of going to "SECRET MOVIE NIGHT" is the anticipation of not knowing what the film is. Sometimes the film is "good, not great" (like THE BLUES BROTHERS, BODY HEAT and A FACE IN THE CROWD) and other times it is a CLASSIC (Like CITIZEN KANE, THE APARTMENT and NETWORK). I am happy to report that this month's installment IS a classic, our old pal Jimmy Stewart in 1959's ANATOMY OF MURDER.
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Dianne Robbins (1738 KP) rated Still Alice (2015) in Movies
Mar 21, 2019
Kristin Stewart's character (3 more)
Alec Baldwin's character
Not true to the book
Watered-down Chen I read the book, I was immersed
Very disappointing
Contains spoilers, click to show
When I read the book, I was immersed with what it was like to have early onset Alzheimer's disease. It was horrifying and painful and I could understand the painful decisions Alice made and the complexity and beauty of the betrayal of her husband. None of this was portrayed in the movie. One of the most terrifying scenes in the book is when Alice mistakes a brown throw rug as a hole in the floor and is too frightened to get near it to answer her door or walk to her bathroom. She could not understand the texture of the rug and that she could simply walk across it. Instead, she curled up in fear and urinating on herself while waiting hours or days for someone to rescue her. Early onset Alzheimer's and the physical and psychological symptoms were not described as well as they were in the book so the film lacked real drama. Also, the relationships between Alice and her husband, Alice and her children, especially Kristin Stewart's character were extremely vague, so they didn't really make sense in the movie.
The only good thing in the film was Julienne Moore's performance. Even though the script was extremely watered down, Moore did the best she could with the material. If they had included more of what was in the book, Moore would have shined. She's an amazing actress and this role was meant for her. It's a shame the script didn't allow her to perform her heart out, which she would have done given the chance.
I'm disgusted by either the screenwriter or director who chose to leave out the most poignant aspects of the book and in their, and all filmmakers, choice to dumb down movies to appeal to the American public by always finishing with a happy ending. There is beauty in pain. There is beauty in death. There is beauty is release. Filmmakers should know that.
The only good thing in the film was Julienne Moore's performance. Even though the script was extremely watered down, Moore did the best she could with the material. If they had included more of what was in the book, Moore would have shined. She's an amazing actress and this role was meant for her. It's a shame the script didn't allow her to perform her heart out, which she would have done given the chance.
I'm disgusted by either the screenwriter or director who chose to leave out the most poignant aspects of the book and in their, and all filmmakers, choice to dumb down movies to appeal to the American public by always finishing with a happy ending. There is beauty in pain. There is beauty in death. There is beauty is release. Filmmakers should know that.
XFINITY Stream
Entertainment and Lifestyle
App
Only XFINITY gives you more to stream on any screen. Watch live TV and XFINITY On Demand on any...