Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated 3 Lives (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: 3 Lives starts when a therapist Emma (Calvey) gets kidnapped after years of being on the run, left trapped with Jamie (Kaps) and Ben (Ricketts) a man that went to prison for her first kidnapping, despite being considered the rescuer. The three escape, with three men Thoms (Taubman), Piggy (Alfieri) and Frotti (Riley) chasing them down.
With Emma, Jamie and Ben trying to figure out why they are kidnapped, Emma starts looking back on her previous experience, hoping to uncover more about why Ben acted the way she believes he did, as he seems to be the only one guiding them to safety.
Thoughts on 3 Lives
Characters – Emma is a therapist that has been helping victims of violent crimes, she knows what it is like to have been a victim after previously being kidnapped and raped, she finds herself getting kidnapped once again and left wondering if the right person took the blame for the crime against her. Jamie is a man that has been kidnapped too, he believes that Ben was innocent and doesn’t want Emma to trust him while they plan to escape, he doesn’t seem to have any experience of the woods though. Ben is the man who claimed to be the rescuer of Emma before, only to take the blame for the crime, he sees this as a chance to redeem himself for what she believes he might have done, he knows how the survive in the conditions and is always thinking about survival. Thoms is leading the men hunting them down, with his training to make him a brilliant tracker through the woods.
Performances – Mhairi Calvey in the leading role is strong though the film, she does make us believe that her character has been a victim, while showing the strength to face the man that did this too her. Tyron Ricketts give us a strong supporting performance as a man who remains stronger than the broken version of himself could be. Martin Kaps brings us the annoying figure trapped in the woods, he does the I’m the nice guy routine with ease, while also bring us the ‘you’re an idiot’ side to his character.
Story – The story here follows a woman that finds herself kidnapped again, going face to face with the man who went to prison for raping her years ago, now they are joined by another man from their past as they look to escape hunters in the woods looking to eliminate them. The story does tackle the serious affects of sexual assault, how the victim’s life will never be the same, we see how they can confront the person and still remain unsure of the real events of what happened because of the trauma involved such an act. The survival aspect of the story doesn’t reach the levels of peril it could do, while the constant back and forth that goes on trying to point figures between Emma, Ben and Jamie gets confusing because most of it is wondering why they have been selected. The story is saved by the final act which will put the pieces together and make sense of everything we have seen beforehand.
Thriller – The film never reaches the full level of the intensity that it could, with the being hunted side of the story being the weaker and never putting the characters in a level of peril which does feel believable.
Settings – The victims find themselves in the middle of the woods with nowhere to run that makes sense to them, it makes them feel lost and looking for answers to why they are there, creating isolation from their real world.
Scene of the Movie – Final act.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The hunters never feel like they are dangerous.
Final Thoughts – This is a strong drama with thriller on its arm, it tackles a real life problem of sexual abuse in a new way that will get a chance to see just how difficult it can be for a victim to speak up or even remember the full events of what happened to them.
Overall: Thriller with deeper meaning.
With Emma, Jamie and Ben trying to figure out why they are kidnapped, Emma starts looking back on her previous experience, hoping to uncover more about why Ben acted the way she believes he did, as he seems to be the only one guiding them to safety.
Thoughts on 3 Lives
Characters – Emma is a therapist that has been helping victims of violent crimes, she knows what it is like to have been a victim after previously being kidnapped and raped, she finds herself getting kidnapped once again and left wondering if the right person took the blame for the crime against her. Jamie is a man that has been kidnapped too, he believes that Ben was innocent and doesn’t want Emma to trust him while they plan to escape, he doesn’t seem to have any experience of the woods though. Ben is the man who claimed to be the rescuer of Emma before, only to take the blame for the crime, he sees this as a chance to redeem himself for what she believes he might have done, he knows how the survive in the conditions and is always thinking about survival. Thoms is leading the men hunting them down, with his training to make him a brilliant tracker through the woods.
Performances – Mhairi Calvey in the leading role is strong though the film, she does make us believe that her character has been a victim, while showing the strength to face the man that did this too her. Tyron Ricketts give us a strong supporting performance as a man who remains stronger than the broken version of himself could be. Martin Kaps brings us the annoying figure trapped in the woods, he does the I’m the nice guy routine with ease, while also bring us the ‘you’re an idiot’ side to his character.
Story – The story here follows a woman that finds herself kidnapped again, going face to face with the man who went to prison for raping her years ago, now they are joined by another man from their past as they look to escape hunters in the woods looking to eliminate them. The story does tackle the serious affects of sexual assault, how the victim’s life will never be the same, we see how they can confront the person and still remain unsure of the real events of what happened because of the trauma involved such an act. The survival aspect of the story doesn’t reach the levels of peril it could do, while the constant back and forth that goes on trying to point figures between Emma, Ben and Jamie gets confusing because most of it is wondering why they have been selected. The story is saved by the final act which will put the pieces together and make sense of everything we have seen beforehand.
Thriller – The film never reaches the full level of the intensity that it could, with the being hunted side of the story being the weaker and never putting the characters in a level of peril which does feel believable.
Settings – The victims find themselves in the middle of the woods with nowhere to run that makes sense to them, it makes them feel lost and looking for answers to why they are there, creating isolation from their real world.
Scene of the Movie – Final act.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The hunters never feel like they are dangerous.
Final Thoughts – This is a strong drama with thriller on its arm, it tackles a real life problem of sexual abuse in a new way that will get a chance to see just how difficult it can be for a victim to speak up or even remember the full events of what happened to them.
Overall: Thriller with deeper meaning.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Onward (2020) in Movies
Mar 15, 2020
I had very mixed feelings about Onward after seeing the trailer, it didn't feel like Pixar and if you'd shown it to me out of context I'd never have guessed it was them.
It's Ian's 16th birthday and things aren't exactly going to plan. To cheer him up his mum gives him and his brother a present left for them by their late father. In a world that has forgotten magic, their father had still believed, and he's leaving them a way that will allow them to see him again. When the only way to complete the spell means finding something long forgotten the brothers must embark on a quest, one that older brother Barley has been preparing for his whole life.
Onward starts with a great potted history of magic in their world and how it's been replaced by modern amenities. It feels like they made a very quick change but I liked it over the sped-up timeline over many years, it actually summed up a more modern way of abandoning things that aren't convenient. It also allows you to have fun little moments of thinking about how things changed when you see flashes of their past during the film.
With Pixar you know that you're going to get that sentiment and deeper meaning that induces bucketloads of tears and in Onward it's a strong message about family and how the past weighs down on what's actually happening in the present. None of that meaning really feels like it's there until very late in the film though, the beginning is more like some generic off-brand fantasy adventure, and though the two ends fit together they don't seem like they belong together.
The mix of characters is fun but we don't get a proper introduction to who, or what, many of them are. It's a shame that with such a varied selection of creatures that most are just relegated to being quirky looking with no real function. There were at least things to appreciate from some of them, Colt counting I thought was a fun touch, and I loved Corey the Manticore, her whole transition through the film was funny and very entertaining.
Chris Pratt as Barley was the only spot on bit of casting for me, his happy-go-lucky demeanour fits the character and we're treated to some of that Starlord adventure. (My favourite Barley scene was definitely the bridge). Everyone else kind of felt a little... meh? I wasn't wowed, I wasn't hooked in trying to work out who the voices were, it all felt a little bland. Partly I think that's because I never felt like I learned anything about them. Sure, some bits were fun, but through most of the film I wasn't really bothered what happened to any of them.
The journey that brothers Ian and Barley go on is full of twists and turns, they're amusing but nothing we haven't really seen before. As I mentioned, the emotional payoff doesn't appear until very late, and it did reduce me to tears, but it could have been so much more. The build-up to it had no real substance, especially when you consider how meaningful it's conclusion is.
In fact, the build-up could have offered up so many different things. For a fantasy story with magic and mythical creatures it holds little to no magical feeling. There's no real spectacle or pizzazz to anything. When I think of magic in other films I get wonder and joy, but in Onward it's done more for jokes. Even at the climax of the film it takes on so much humour that it detracts from the emotions.
Dan Scalon's story is partly based on his own experiences (I'm assuming with less mythical creature though)... and that story is peak Pixar... but the world created around it isn't strong enough for the sentiment it portrays. Taking such a powerful message about family and bundling it up in something that doesn't have the usual Pixar strength and heart feels like a travesty to me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/onward-movie-review.html
It's Ian's 16th birthday and things aren't exactly going to plan. To cheer him up his mum gives him and his brother a present left for them by their late father. In a world that has forgotten magic, their father had still believed, and he's leaving them a way that will allow them to see him again. When the only way to complete the spell means finding something long forgotten the brothers must embark on a quest, one that older brother Barley has been preparing for his whole life.
Onward starts with a great potted history of magic in their world and how it's been replaced by modern amenities. It feels like they made a very quick change but I liked it over the sped-up timeline over many years, it actually summed up a more modern way of abandoning things that aren't convenient. It also allows you to have fun little moments of thinking about how things changed when you see flashes of their past during the film.
With Pixar you know that you're going to get that sentiment and deeper meaning that induces bucketloads of tears and in Onward it's a strong message about family and how the past weighs down on what's actually happening in the present. None of that meaning really feels like it's there until very late in the film though, the beginning is more like some generic off-brand fantasy adventure, and though the two ends fit together they don't seem like they belong together.
The mix of characters is fun but we don't get a proper introduction to who, or what, many of them are. It's a shame that with such a varied selection of creatures that most are just relegated to being quirky looking with no real function. There were at least things to appreciate from some of them, Colt counting I thought was a fun touch, and I loved Corey the Manticore, her whole transition through the film was funny and very entertaining.
Chris Pratt as Barley was the only spot on bit of casting for me, his happy-go-lucky demeanour fits the character and we're treated to some of that Starlord adventure. (My favourite Barley scene was definitely the bridge). Everyone else kind of felt a little... meh? I wasn't wowed, I wasn't hooked in trying to work out who the voices were, it all felt a little bland. Partly I think that's because I never felt like I learned anything about them. Sure, some bits were fun, but through most of the film I wasn't really bothered what happened to any of them.
The journey that brothers Ian and Barley go on is full of twists and turns, they're amusing but nothing we haven't really seen before. As I mentioned, the emotional payoff doesn't appear until very late, and it did reduce me to tears, but it could have been so much more. The build-up to it had no real substance, especially when you consider how meaningful it's conclusion is.
In fact, the build-up could have offered up so many different things. For a fantasy story with magic and mythical creatures it holds little to no magical feeling. There's no real spectacle or pizzazz to anything. When I think of magic in other films I get wonder and joy, but in Onward it's done more for jokes. Even at the climax of the film it takes on so much humour that it detracts from the emotions.
Dan Scalon's story is partly based on his own experiences (I'm assuming with less mythical creature though)... and that story is peak Pixar... but the world created around it isn't strong enough for the sentiment it portrays. Taking such a powerful message about family and bundling it up in something that doesn't have the usual Pixar strength and heart feels like a travesty to me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/onward-movie-review.html
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Martyrs (2008) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2019)
As a young girl, Lucie was able to escape certain death as she was held captive and tortured onto the brink of death. Now, fifteen years later, she seeks revenge on those who hurt her emotionally, physically, and mentally. The only person she's ever been close to is, her friend, Anna. As Lucie leaves a path of destruction and mayhem on her quest for revenge, Anna is dragged along to help pick up the pieces. In an odd twist, Lucie is haunted by a woman whose sole purpose is to hurt her, but only shows up after Lucie unleashes all of her built up pain and anger. Anna begins to question Lucie's sanity as things take a turn for the worst. That is until Anna discovers the chained up woman in the basement...
Martyrs wasn't really what I was expecting at all. I was expecting something along the lines of Haute Tension and À l'intérieur since it's classified as a French horror film. I was left with something completely different as Martyrs tends to be on a level all on its own. It is extremely brutal. I've heard it is more along the lines of Irréversible, but since I haven't seen that I can't really elaborate on it. It left with me with the same feeling The Girl Next Door did. This uneasiness that made me question sitting through the movie again anytime soon. Yet, at the same time, not many horror films are capable of making me feel this way. So I'm not really sure if I should view this as a flaw or a virtue. It also reminded me of Hostel, at times, especially the closing act of the film. Before people grown or anything, let me explain. It reminds me of Hostel if it was done correctly and focused on young girls the entire time. For me, Hostel had an excellent idea but was executed the wrong way. Martyrs pretty much brought what I had in mind for that film to life and did it better. Martyrs is definitely its own film, but its influences and/or homages seem to stick out like a sore thumb to someone who watches a lot of films and/or reviews them.
On first viewing, I can't really say if I liked why this was being done to these girls. It is explained and as it makes sense on one hand, it seems a bit farfetched on the other. It may grow on me during repeat viewings, but it didn't really sit well with me this particular time. The brutality in the film isn't always what is shown on screen either. There's a scene where this bulky guy is beating the snot out of this girl; just punching her in the face repeatedly as hard as he can. You can't really see the damage he's doing to her, but you can hear it and you can tell he's giving her quite a beating. During one of the more gruesome parts, the sound almost completely fades away and the shot relies completely on the girl's facial expressions as you see her begin to shake. As disturbing as it was, it was interesting seeing anguish portrayed a bit differently as the film went on.
Martyrs definitely delivers in more than one department. Those who are looking for another sick, twisted, and brutal French horror film won't be disappointed and let's just say the film lives up to the meaning of its title. Be advised that this is on the same brutality level as High Tension and there are plenty of scenes to cringe to and scream at in this film.
Martyrs wasn't really what I was expecting at all. I was expecting something along the lines of Haute Tension and À l'intérieur since it's classified as a French horror film. I was left with something completely different as Martyrs tends to be on a level all on its own. It is extremely brutal. I've heard it is more along the lines of Irréversible, but since I haven't seen that I can't really elaborate on it. It left with me with the same feeling The Girl Next Door did. This uneasiness that made me question sitting through the movie again anytime soon. Yet, at the same time, not many horror films are capable of making me feel this way. So I'm not really sure if I should view this as a flaw or a virtue. It also reminded me of Hostel, at times, especially the closing act of the film. Before people grown or anything, let me explain. It reminds me of Hostel if it was done correctly and focused on young girls the entire time. For me, Hostel had an excellent idea but was executed the wrong way. Martyrs pretty much brought what I had in mind for that film to life and did it better. Martyrs is definitely its own film, but its influences and/or homages seem to stick out like a sore thumb to someone who watches a lot of films and/or reviews them.
On first viewing, I can't really say if I liked why this was being done to these girls. It is explained and as it makes sense on one hand, it seems a bit farfetched on the other. It may grow on me during repeat viewings, but it didn't really sit well with me this particular time. The brutality in the film isn't always what is shown on screen either. There's a scene where this bulky guy is beating the snot out of this girl; just punching her in the face repeatedly as hard as he can. You can't really see the damage he's doing to her, but you can hear it and you can tell he's giving her quite a beating. During one of the more gruesome parts, the sound almost completely fades away and the shot relies completely on the girl's facial expressions as you see her begin to shake. As disturbing as it was, it was interesting seeing anguish portrayed a bit differently as the film went on.
Martyrs definitely delivers in more than one department. Those who are looking for another sick, twisted, and brutal French horror film won't be disappointed and let's just say the film lives up to the meaning of its title. Be advised that this is on the same brutality level as High Tension and there are plenty of scenes to cringe to and scream at in this film.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Queens Corgi (2019) in Movies
Jul 13, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Queens Corgi is an animated children's movie about Rex, the Queen's favourite who, after a disastrous visit from Donald Trump, is tricked into leaving the palace and winds up in the dog pound. This is a common formula in children’s movies both animated and live action and I'm sure most of us can guess what happens next, Rex tries to get back home and, on the way makes some friends and falls in love. So when my daughter wanted to see it I though I'd be in for a funny, possibly sad film. God I was wrong. There is so much wrong with this film and it all seems to go wrong from the scene where Donald Trump visits the Queen and I really wish I could say my problems were politically motivated but unfortunately the film was just that bad.
The character of Trump was reduced to a stereotypical American tourist with Melania passing comments about the size of Donald’s (big) hands being one of the things that attracted her to him.
The problems really start when Melania and the Queen decided it will be a good idea to breed their respective corgis. Melania's Corgi, Mitzi, who is made up in heave eye shadow and lipstick is instantly judged and disliked by all the Queens corgis (both Male and female). Melania's Corgi then passes judgment on all the corgis until she comes to Rex who she decided she wants. The two dogs are then left in a room together after being told by Trump to grab him by the pups.
Now I just want to make the following clear:
1) I've seen plenty of movies where the (normally timid/nerdy) male character is hit on by the strong scary bully female and this normally for comedy value. Although these scenes could be seen as problematic they are normally played for laughs.
2) I understand that dog breeders do choose dogs and put them together to mate. However, as the animals in this film are given human personality's the situation is different.
So when the two dogs are left in the room we are treated to long scene where Mitzi tries to get Rex to mate with her, because Rex wants none of it Mitzi chases him around the room, grabs him, stops him from leaving and generally won’t take no for an answer. This is not done playfully.
Later in the film, Rex is in a dog pound, one of his cell mates starts listing the rules of the pound, rule one, there is no fight club. Now, this may have been ok if it was a one time throw away line, kids films often have little jokes for adults. However, it's not a throw away line, it's used more than once, including the first time the dogs are at a fight club. Yes, the top dog, called Butch, keeps order by making any dog he doesn't like fight. We see a dog carried off on stretcher, Rex is almost thrown into a fire and is only saved when Butch is knock out in one punch which also knocks out half his teeth.
Of course Rex and his new friends make it back to the palace and beat the main villain who is sent off with Trump and Mitzi. Remember non of the palace dogs liked Mitzi and she has all already said she doesn't understand the word no so this has implications for Charlie’s futures. It's ok though because he's the bad guy (not).
So we have a children's film with dog fights, attempted rape, implied rape, judging on appearance and a dull story, that seem find the line between children’s jokes and the adult ones the only reason I'm giving this one star is because it avoids getting political with Trump.
The character of Trump was reduced to a stereotypical American tourist with Melania passing comments about the size of Donald’s (big) hands being one of the things that attracted her to him.
The problems really start when Melania and the Queen decided it will be a good idea to breed their respective corgis. Melania's Corgi, Mitzi, who is made up in heave eye shadow and lipstick is instantly judged and disliked by all the Queens corgis (both Male and female). Melania's Corgi then passes judgment on all the corgis until she comes to Rex who she decided she wants. The two dogs are then left in a room together after being told by Trump to grab him by the pups.
Now I just want to make the following clear:
1) I've seen plenty of movies where the (normally timid/nerdy) male character is hit on by the strong scary bully female and this normally for comedy value. Although these scenes could be seen as problematic they are normally played for laughs.
2) I understand that dog breeders do choose dogs and put them together to mate. However, as the animals in this film are given human personality's the situation is different.
So when the two dogs are left in the room we are treated to long scene where Mitzi tries to get Rex to mate with her, because Rex wants none of it Mitzi chases him around the room, grabs him, stops him from leaving and generally won’t take no for an answer. This is not done playfully.
Later in the film, Rex is in a dog pound, one of his cell mates starts listing the rules of the pound, rule one, there is no fight club. Now, this may have been ok if it was a one time throw away line, kids films often have little jokes for adults. However, it's not a throw away line, it's used more than once, including the first time the dogs are at a fight club. Yes, the top dog, called Butch, keeps order by making any dog he doesn't like fight. We see a dog carried off on stretcher, Rex is almost thrown into a fire and is only saved when Butch is knock out in one punch which also knocks out half his teeth.
Of course Rex and his new friends make it back to the palace and beat the main villain who is sent off with Trump and Mitzi. Remember non of the palace dogs liked Mitzi and she has all already said she doesn't understand the word no so this has implications for Charlie’s futures. It's ok though because he's the bad guy (not).
So we have a children's film with dog fights, attempted rape, implied rape, judging on appearance and a dull story, that seem find the line between children’s jokes and the adult ones the only reason I'm giving this one star is because it avoids getting political with Trump.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Aladdin (1992) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Aladdin starts as we see the evil Jafar looking for a lamp but hi plans are put on hold when he needs to find a diamond in the rough. We move onto meet street thieve Aladdin who steals to survive and help others who are less fortunate. We also meet Princess Jasmin who needs to be married off by her Sultan father by her next birthday but wants to fall in love before marrying someone.
After Jasmine runs away she meets Aladdin who gets placed into helping Jafar retrieve the Lamp from the Cave of Wonders. Once Aladdin finds the lamp he awakens the Genie who grants him three wishes that could change his life forever.
Aladdin is one of the most popular Disney movies all time and I can see why. We have the unlikely hero that is good at heart but never given the chance to be the success he could be, we have a strong female lead and a villain tired of being in the shadows wanting power. Mixing all of these together we get a full story that does everything you need in a film taking the Disney Princess idea to a new world. This will always be considered a true classic that will forever be loved.
Character Review
Aladdin: Aladdin is the small town street thieve that does what he needs to, to survive. When he meets Jasmine he instantly falls in love but finds him the target of Jafar to steal a magic lamp. The lamp gives him three wishes that he uses to make himself a Prince to marry Jasmine but it isn’t long before his true self is discovered and he can become a hero by himself. Aladdin is a great character that shows just because he does criminal activities he is doing them for the right reason and is selfless at heart.
Genie: Genie comes from the lamp giving Aladdin three wishes having been trapped for years. He has rules but must grant wishes that don’t break these rules to his master. He loves working for Aladdin but ends up being forced into working for Jafar. Genie is one of Robin William best performance as the pure energy behind this film that you want to see every single scene he is in.
Jasmine: Jasmine is the princess that is being forced into marrying a prince but she keeps rejecting any that come her way. She escapes the kingdom and falls in love with Aladdin who is everything she shouldn’t be marrying. Jasmine is a strong princess which is unlike most of Disney’s for the time she wants love and will make sure she finds it.
Jafar: Jafar is the Sultan’s most trusted advisor but he has plans to become the Sultan himself and will look into to any means to make this happen including finding the lamp to wish for the power. Jafar is one of your typical villains you see in a Disney film that will always be one to hate.
Support Characters: Aladdin has good supporting comedy character that will make you laugh through the film.
Director Review: Ron Clements, John Musker – The pair give us one of the most memorable and stand out Disney films of all time.
Adventure: Aladdin takes us on an adventure as Aladdin goes from street thieve to worthy hand in marriage for Jasmine.
Animation: Aladdin had the brilliant animation you have come to know from Disney.
Comedy: Aladdin has great use of comedy with most coming from Robin Williams.
Family: Aladdin is one the whole family could enjoy with jokes for the whole family to understand.
Fantasy: Aladdin puts us in the middle of a fantasy world that is filled with genies that can grant wishes.
Romance: Aladdin has a romantic story that follows a princess who wants to fall in love rather than be forced into marriage.
Settings: Aladdin puts us into a world that shows the type of world that Aladdin is living in.
Suggestion: Aladdin is one that I think everyone should have watched at least once. (Watch)
Best Part: Whole New World.
Worst Part: Not one.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears:
Chances of Sequel: Has one.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won 2 Oscars
Budget: $28 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Tagline: A diamond in the rough.
Trivia: This film became the 14th (and the first animated movie) to gross more than $200,000,000.
Overall: One of the BEST Disney films of all time.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/07/06/aladdin-1992/
After Jasmine runs away she meets Aladdin who gets placed into helping Jafar retrieve the Lamp from the Cave of Wonders. Once Aladdin finds the lamp he awakens the Genie who grants him three wishes that could change his life forever.
Aladdin is one of the most popular Disney movies all time and I can see why. We have the unlikely hero that is good at heart but never given the chance to be the success he could be, we have a strong female lead and a villain tired of being in the shadows wanting power. Mixing all of these together we get a full story that does everything you need in a film taking the Disney Princess idea to a new world. This will always be considered a true classic that will forever be loved.
Character Review
Aladdin: Aladdin is the small town street thieve that does what he needs to, to survive. When he meets Jasmine he instantly falls in love but finds him the target of Jafar to steal a magic lamp. The lamp gives him three wishes that he uses to make himself a Prince to marry Jasmine but it isn’t long before his true self is discovered and he can become a hero by himself. Aladdin is a great character that shows just because he does criminal activities he is doing them for the right reason and is selfless at heart.
Genie: Genie comes from the lamp giving Aladdin three wishes having been trapped for years. He has rules but must grant wishes that don’t break these rules to his master. He loves working for Aladdin but ends up being forced into working for Jafar. Genie is one of Robin William best performance as the pure energy behind this film that you want to see every single scene he is in.
Jasmine: Jasmine is the princess that is being forced into marrying a prince but she keeps rejecting any that come her way. She escapes the kingdom and falls in love with Aladdin who is everything she shouldn’t be marrying. Jasmine is a strong princess which is unlike most of Disney’s for the time she wants love and will make sure she finds it.
Jafar: Jafar is the Sultan’s most trusted advisor but he has plans to become the Sultan himself and will look into to any means to make this happen including finding the lamp to wish for the power. Jafar is one of your typical villains you see in a Disney film that will always be one to hate.
Support Characters: Aladdin has good supporting comedy character that will make you laugh through the film.
Director Review: Ron Clements, John Musker – The pair give us one of the most memorable and stand out Disney films of all time.
Adventure: Aladdin takes us on an adventure as Aladdin goes from street thieve to worthy hand in marriage for Jasmine.
Animation: Aladdin had the brilliant animation you have come to know from Disney.
Comedy: Aladdin has great use of comedy with most coming from Robin Williams.
Family: Aladdin is one the whole family could enjoy with jokes for the whole family to understand.
Fantasy: Aladdin puts us in the middle of a fantasy world that is filled with genies that can grant wishes.
Romance: Aladdin has a romantic story that follows a princess who wants to fall in love rather than be forced into marriage.
Settings: Aladdin puts us into a world that shows the type of world that Aladdin is living in.
Suggestion: Aladdin is one that I think everyone should have watched at least once. (Watch)
Best Part: Whole New World.
Worst Part: Not one.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears:
Chances of Sequel: Has one.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won 2 Oscars
Budget: $28 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Tagline: A diamond in the rough.
Trivia: This film became the 14th (and the first animated movie) to gross more than $200,000,000.
Overall: One of the BEST Disney films of all time.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/07/06/aladdin-1992/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Carriers (2009) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Brian and Danny grew up as two brothers who were relatively close to one another. They cherish the memories they have of Turtle Beach, a beach their family vacationed to every summer. The abandoned motel in Turtle Beach may be their best bet of surviving the highly contagious disease that now plagues the entire country and possibly the world. Not much is known about the virus other than the victims coughing up blood and bleeding from the ears as their condition worsens. Brian actually came up with a few rules that will hopefully get him, his girlfriend Bobby, his brother Danny, and Danny's friend Kate through this disease ridden world to Turtle Beach clean. The rules include avoiding the infected at all costs, disinfecting anything they've touched in the past 24 hours, and that the infected are already dead as there is no cure. You may survive if you stick to the rules, but actually abiding by them is an entirely different story.
Right off the bat, people are probably going to compare Carriers to Zombieland because of the rules. Carriers was released a full month before Zombieland, but Paramount Vantage folded upon its initial release causing its wide release to be an extremely limited one at the last minute (I think it wound up playing at only two theaters in the country). Expectations rise unintentionally in situations such as this. "This is that horror film that was practically shelved earlier this year and is finally being released." The result is a horror film that is well worth watching, but may not be entirely what you're expecting.
Carriers is more about establishing an atmosphere than anything else. Everything is abandoned and rightfully so as most people were picked off handfuls at a time by this pandemic. The entire film is more like the first half hour of 28 Days Later where Jim wakes up in an abandoned hospital and realizes how empty the streets of London are. There aren't masses of the infected running around lusting for brains or wanting to tear humans apart in Carriers. The story follows these four friends as they journey across the country to this supposed sanctuary where they hope to tough it out until this disease runs its course. Carriers is more of a slow burn as things turn from bad to worse very slowly and snowball as the film goes on.
Chris Pine is really the drawing factor of the film. His role as Brian is kind of like a more intense version of his role as Kirk in Star Trek from earlier this year. Brian comes off as an inconsiderate prick the first half of the film and seems to only do things that benefit himself. The second half is where his character gets interesting though. The speech he gives Danny about their parents and telling Danny that he only told him what he wanted to hear is the turning point for Brian. Chris Pine shines as things begin to roll downhill for Brian as his emotions take center stage and his true demeanor is revealed.
Everything else in the film pretty much feels like routine manuevers when it comes to films revolving around viral outbreaks as some main characters contract the disease, they resort to drastic measures to survive, and begin to question their humanity along the way. The most disappointing part of the film is the ending as things just seem to kind of stop without much of a resolution. It seems like films like this either end this way or have a really depressing ending and that's its biggest flaw. Movie buffs who have seen films concerning pandemics already have a rough idea of how the film is going to end and it's about time to mix that up a bit. There's got to be a decent way to end the film that offers something a bit different that could wrap everything up until that point, but also leave enough room open for a sequel if need be.
Carriers may be a bit slow at first and doesn't really offer anything you probably haven't seen before in a film like this, but is still worth seeing for Chris Pine's performance. It's kind of a more serious take on Zombieland without actual zombies running or stumbling around with an atmosphere similar to the one established in Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later. If you're a fan of films involving a virus that has wiped out most of the human population, then this is still worth a watch.
Right off the bat, people are probably going to compare Carriers to Zombieland because of the rules. Carriers was released a full month before Zombieland, but Paramount Vantage folded upon its initial release causing its wide release to be an extremely limited one at the last minute (I think it wound up playing at only two theaters in the country). Expectations rise unintentionally in situations such as this. "This is that horror film that was practically shelved earlier this year and is finally being released." The result is a horror film that is well worth watching, but may not be entirely what you're expecting.
Carriers is more about establishing an atmosphere than anything else. Everything is abandoned and rightfully so as most people were picked off handfuls at a time by this pandemic. The entire film is more like the first half hour of 28 Days Later where Jim wakes up in an abandoned hospital and realizes how empty the streets of London are. There aren't masses of the infected running around lusting for brains or wanting to tear humans apart in Carriers. The story follows these four friends as they journey across the country to this supposed sanctuary where they hope to tough it out until this disease runs its course. Carriers is more of a slow burn as things turn from bad to worse very slowly and snowball as the film goes on.
Chris Pine is really the drawing factor of the film. His role as Brian is kind of like a more intense version of his role as Kirk in Star Trek from earlier this year. Brian comes off as an inconsiderate prick the first half of the film and seems to only do things that benefit himself. The second half is where his character gets interesting though. The speech he gives Danny about their parents and telling Danny that he only told him what he wanted to hear is the turning point for Brian. Chris Pine shines as things begin to roll downhill for Brian as his emotions take center stage and his true demeanor is revealed.
Everything else in the film pretty much feels like routine manuevers when it comes to films revolving around viral outbreaks as some main characters contract the disease, they resort to drastic measures to survive, and begin to question their humanity along the way. The most disappointing part of the film is the ending as things just seem to kind of stop without much of a resolution. It seems like films like this either end this way or have a really depressing ending and that's its biggest flaw. Movie buffs who have seen films concerning pandemics already have a rough idea of how the film is going to end and it's about time to mix that up a bit. There's got to be a decent way to end the film that offers something a bit different that could wrap everything up until that point, but also leave enough room open for a sequel if need be.
Carriers may be a bit slow at first and doesn't really offer anything you probably haven't seen before in a film like this, but is still worth seeing for Chris Pine's performance. It's kind of a more serious take on Zombieland without actual zombies running or stumbling around with an atmosphere similar to the one established in Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later. If you're a fan of films involving a virus that has wiped out most of the human population, then this is still worth a watch.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Yesterday (2019) in Movies
Dec 25, 2019
Verdict: Enjoyable Throughout
Story: Yesterday starts as we meet musician Jack Malik (Patel) who when he isn’t performing, works a dead-end job in a cash-n-carry. Jack gets his first festival in Latitude Festival thanks to his manager Ellie Appleton (James), which makes Jack realise he might walk away from music, until on his way home a shocking event around the world sees all power down for 12 seconds and Jack gets hit by a bus, waking up in a world where The Beatles never existed.
Jack uses the ideas that The Beatles never existed to start singing the songs, which sudden thrusts the spotlight onto the young singer, who sudden burst into international stardom, only can he live with the knowledge of the music he is singing is from the most famous band in the world.
Thoughts on Yesterday
Characters – Jack Malik is a small-time musician who only performs in his own free time, while trying to balance a part-time job in a warehouse. He does have talent, only he hasn’t been discovered yet, he is about to give up when he gets hit by a bus in a freak event around the world. He wakes up to discover he is the only person to have heard of The Beatles and decides to use this knowledge to give music on more crack, where his rise to super stardom is sudden and he must learn to adapt to this new career. Ellie Appleton has been the best friend, manager, rodeo and driver for his music career, secretly in love with him, unable to give up her teaching career to follow his new success. Rocky has been involved in music only he tends to let people down, he is however the only person that Jack can turn to for help for his new stardom. We get to meet Jack’s parents who have always supported him, Ed Sheeran playing himself discovering the new talent in Jack and the manager who takes Jack to the next level with his debut album.
Performances – Himesh Patel is brilliant in the leading role where he handles the singing with ease as well as the troubles that his character goes through in his sudden rise to fame. Lily James as the girl next door figure is wonderful to watch to, never looking out of place in the manager role. The rest of the cast do nothing wrong, you might see a couple of weakness in some of the performances in the film though.
Story – The story follows a musician that is involved in an accident only to discover that when he wakes up, The Beatles don’t exist, using this knowledge to make himself a mega star, while dealing with his own love problems. This is a story that does work if things are kept just around the idea of The Beatles not being around, where the story does seem to use as a little joke, other major products or bands also haven’t existed either, they are only used for jokes rather than being proper points in the story. Away from that weak point we do get to see the struggling to deal with sudden fame and the guilt for using the songs of somebody he idolises. This story is one that can be enjoyed even if you are not a Beatles fan too.
Comedy/Musical/Romance – The comedy in the film will get laughs where it needs to, we aren’t given constant jokes either, with the music side of the film playing into the strengths of all Beatles fans who will get to enjoy their favourites. The romance in the film does take centre stage, with how the two are left to wonder what if through their lives, showing how people are tempted to let people go or not for stardom.
Settings – The film uses the small town where Jack is from, which shows the struggle of a small town musician, LA where things move so fast and Liverpool where the inspiration can be found.
Scene of the Movie – Wembley.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The other random disappearing products, just being a joke, rather than a point in the story.
Final Thoughts – This is an enjoyable comedy musical, that will show the importance of love in the world, how music can make people famous and just how far people will go for a chance of stardom.
Overall: Enjoyable
Story: Yesterday starts as we meet musician Jack Malik (Patel) who when he isn’t performing, works a dead-end job in a cash-n-carry. Jack gets his first festival in Latitude Festival thanks to his manager Ellie Appleton (James), which makes Jack realise he might walk away from music, until on his way home a shocking event around the world sees all power down for 12 seconds and Jack gets hit by a bus, waking up in a world where The Beatles never existed.
Jack uses the ideas that The Beatles never existed to start singing the songs, which sudden thrusts the spotlight onto the young singer, who sudden burst into international stardom, only can he live with the knowledge of the music he is singing is from the most famous band in the world.
Thoughts on Yesterday
Characters – Jack Malik is a small-time musician who only performs in his own free time, while trying to balance a part-time job in a warehouse. He does have talent, only he hasn’t been discovered yet, he is about to give up when he gets hit by a bus in a freak event around the world. He wakes up to discover he is the only person to have heard of The Beatles and decides to use this knowledge to give music on more crack, where his rise to super stardom is sudden and he must learn to adapt to this new career. Ellie Appleton has been the best friend, manager, rodeo and driver for his music career, secretly in love with him, unable to give up her teaching career to follow his new success. Rocky has been involved in music only he tends to let people down, he is however the only person that Jack can turn to for help for his new stardom. We get to meet Jack’s parents who have always supported him, Ed Sheeran playing himself discovering the new talent in Jack and the manager who takes Jack to the next level with his debut album.
Performances – Himesh Patel is brilliant in the leading role where he handles the singing with ease as well as the troubles that his character goes through in his sudden rise to fame. Lily James as the girl next door figure is wonderful to watch to, never looking out of place in the manager role. The rest of the cast do nothing wrong, you might see a couple of weakness in some of the performances in the film though.
Story – The story follows a musician that is involved in an accident only to discover that when he wakes up, The Beatles don’t exist, using this knowledge to make himself a mega star, while dealing with his own love problems. This is a story that does work if things are kept just around the idea of The Beatles not being around, where the story does seem to use as a little joke, other major products or bands also haven’t existed either, they are only used for jokes rather than being proper points in the story. Away from that weak point we do get to see the struggling to deal with sudden fame and the guilt for using the songs of somebody he idolises. This story is one that can be enjoyed even if you are not a Beatles fan too.
Comedy/Musical/Romance – The comedy in the film will get laughs where it needs to, we aren’t given constant jokes either, with the music side of the film playing into the strengths of all Beatles fans who will get to enjoy their favourites. The romance in the film does take centre stage, with how the two are left to wonder what if through their lives, showing how people are tempted to let people go or not for stardom.
Settings – The film uses the small town where Jack is from, which shows the struggle of a small town musician, LA where things move so fast and Liverpool where the inspiration can be found.
Scene of the Movie – Wembley.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The other random disappearing products, just being a joke, rather than a point in the story.
Final Thoughts – This is an enjoyable comedy musical, that will show the importance of love in the world, how music can make people famous and just how far people will go for a chance of stardom.
Overall: Enjoyable
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Little Joe (2019) in Movies
Feb 6, 2020
I managed to get a ticket to see this at the London Film Festival, it had made my long shortlist, the premise looked interesting and the graphics were extremely appealing. I was very excited to see what Little Joe had in store.
Alice is developing a new breed of flower, a beautiful crimson flower that has an incredible therapeutic value to its owner. Look after it properly, speak to it nicely, and it will make you happy.
After Alice sneaks one home to her son she soon notices that rather than a happy demeanour he starts acting strangely, and he's not the only one showing odd behaviour after being around Little Joe.
Little Joe has some very strong style choices. The colour palette is beautiful, and I wish I could find the notes I made about it from the Q&A after the film. The vibrant pastels are homely and comforting while at the same time unsettling around the normal tones of life.
That's what a lot of the film is made to do though, the music is something I noted frequently. The oriental music works directly against what's happening in the story, an intentional choice by the composer. I also wrote down the word "whistling" a lot with regards to sound. While I can understand (sort of) why the composer went that way with the music I didn't feel like it worked. I didn't dislike the music itself, but my comments were mainly exclaiming that it stuck out and felt too different from everything around it that it became distracting.
Another piece of the film that didn't sit well with me was camera work. There are some very well shot scenes, when we first encounter Little Joe in Alice's home and a scene later on inside the greenhouse (that I won't go into because of spoilers), that draw the viewer in with intrigue. But then... you know when you're doing something and you get bored and realise you've drifted off looking at a point in the distance? The camera appears to get bored too and it'll zoom to the gaps between characters. Maybe I'm just programmed to expect this sort of shot to reveal something secret to the audience that the characters haven't noticed... I found it more distracting and annoying than having any artistic benefit.
Alice (Emily Beecham) has a dual mother role, firstly with her son Joe and secondly with her plants. Little Joe appears to be more like a son to her than her own flesh and blood, her scientific mind perhaps finding it easier to interact with an inanimate object that begins to defy what she knows to be possible. The film gets across her struggle quite well with her therapy sessions and the interactions with those around her as we get deeper into the story. Beecham's performance is... relaxed? Even when there's urgency nothing ever seems to be very urgent.
That's something that is common throughout, the pace plods. You would expect a somewhat subdued pace in this sort of invasion storyline, but there are no real points of climax and that makes it more of a meander... perhaps those exciting moments happened when the camera zoned out.
There are touches here and there that do make you hopeful for the film, but overall it feels like Little Joe went for subtle and took it slightly too far. Everything felt too calm, the only one that seemed to react as you'd expect was Bella, but the nature of her part of the story meant that this was over the top because it was so far from everything else.
I like the idea behind this and we know from many different films that this sort of thing can work, but the lack of a real punch anywhere made this a struggle to watch. Oddly, I think this would have worked as a limited series without a lot of changes. The slow pace wouldn't have been so evident if it was broken down into episodes, there are small peaks in there that would give just enough intrigue to hold over to the next episode, I even feel like the ending as it is would have worked more in this style. Sadly, as it was I don't feel like there was enough reward for the time invested in watching it as a film, there's a different expectation between and film and a TV series but it's very difficult to explain it here without revealing spoilers.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/little-joe-movie-review.html
Alice is developing a new breed of flower, a beautiful crimson flower that has an incredible therapeutic value to its owner. Look after it properly, speak to it nicely, and it will make you happy.
After Alice sneaks one home to her son she soon notices that rather than a happy demeanour he starts acting strangely, and he's not the only one showing odd behaviour after being around Little Joe.
Little Joe has some very strong style choices. The colour palette is beautiful, and I wish I could find the notes I made about it from the Q&A after the film. The vibrant pastels are homely and comforting while at the same time unsettling around the normal tones of life.
That's what a lot of the film is made to do though, the music is something I noted frequently. The oriental music works directly against what's happening in the story, an intentional choice by the composer. I also wrote down the word "whistling" a lot with regards to sound. While I can understand (sort of) why the composer went that way with the music I didn't feel like it worked. I didn't dislike the music itself, but my comments were mainly exclaiming that it stuck out and felt too different from everything around it that it became distracting.
Another piece of the film that didn't sit well with me was camera work. There are some very well shot scenes, when we first encounter Little Joe in Alice's home and a scene later on inside the greenhouse (that I won't go into because of spoilers), that draw the viewer in with intrigue. But then... you know when you're doing something and you get bored and realise you've drifted off looking at a point in the distance? The camera appears to get bored too and it'll zoom to the gaps between characters. Maybe I'm just programmed to expect this sort of shot to reveal something secret to the audience that the characters haven't noticed... I found it more distracting and annoying than having any artistic benefit.
Alice (Emily Beecham) has a dual mother role, firstly with her son Joe and secondly with her plants. Little Joe appears to be more like a son to her than her own flesh and blood, her scientific mind perhaps finding it easier to interact with an inanimate object that begins to defy what she knows to be possible. The film gets across her struggle quite well with her therapy sessions and the interactions with those around her as we get deeper into the story. Beecham's performance is... relaxed? Even when there's urgency nothing ever seems to be very urgent.
That's something that is common throughout, the pace plods. You would expect a somewhat subdued pace in this sort of invasion storyline, but there are no real points of climax and that makes it more of a meander... perhaps those exciting moments happened when the camera zoned out.
There are touches here and there that do make you hopeful for the film, but overall it feels like Little Joe went for subtle and took it slightly too far. Everything felt too calm, the only one that seemed to react as you'd expect was Bella, but the nature of her part of the story meant that this was over the top because it was so far from everything else.
I like the idea behind this and we know from many different films that this sort of thing can work, but the lack of a real punch anywhere made this a struggle to watch. Oddly, I think this would have worked as a limited series without a lot of changes. The slow pace wouldn't have been so evident if it was broken down into episodes, there are small peaks in there that would give just enough intrigue to hold over to the next episode, I even feel like the ending as it is would have worked more in this style. Sadly, as it was I don't feel like there was enough reward for the time invested in watching it as a film, there's a different expectation between and film and a TV series but it's very difficult to explain it here without revealing spoilers.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/little-joe-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ghostbusters (1984) in Movies
Oct 30, 2020
A Comedy Classic
My daughter was flipping channels the other day and ran across the great 1984 Supernatural comedy GHOSTBUSTERS and stopped to watch for awhile. As happens with her generation, she eventually got more interested in her phone and friends and wandered away. Me? I was drawn back into this film so much so that I went downstairs, grabbed the DVD (yes, kids, I still own DVDs) and popped the film into my Home Theater System to give it a proper viewing.
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Finding Steve McQueen (2019) in Movies
Nov 9, 2020
This heist comedy (we'll come to that later) sounds pretty good from the synopsis, I can't really elaborate much on it like I normally would because, for once, it's spot on!
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html