Search
Lee (2222 KP) rated Skyscraper (2018) in Movies
Jul 13, 2018
Surprising Enjoyable Action Movie
As I headed into Skyscraper at my local cinema, I tweeted something about disengaging my brain for a couple of hours, fully open to the prospect of some completely ridiculous action, courtesy of Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. That's exactly what I ended up with, and I actually really enjoyed it all too.
The movie opens 10 years ago, with FBI agent Will Sawyer (Johnson) and his team attending a domestic hostage situation which goes badly wrong. Back in the present, Will is now an amputee and married to the military nurse that cared for him during that incident (Neve Campbell). They've got 2 young kids and the whole family is in Hong Kong where Will has been hired as security consultant for The Pearl, a new state-of-the-art skyscraper and the tallest building in the world. A news reel montage fires off lots of impressive facts and figures about the building, hardly giving you time to digest or even question them. Let's just say, it cost billions of dollars, looks incredibly futuristic (and a bit silly) and is a scientific wonder of the world. Before The Pearl opens up its doors for people to live and work in though, Will needs to sign off on fire safety and security.
We're shown Will putting on his false leg, letting us know how that all works in preparation for later scenes in the movie. Will then fixes his wife's phone before he rushes out of the door and ushers a line so obviously important to the movie it's actually annoyingly distracting. So important is this piece of information, he actually uses two variations of it within minutes of each other too - "Remember, you can fix 90% of problems by just turning it off and on again...". Like I say, just disengage your brain, don't worry about it, and you'll be fine.
If you've seen the trailer, you'll have gathered that Wills family are the only residents in The Pearl, with the buildings owner and his team way up top in the penthouse. You'll have gathered that this is attempting to be a Die Hard / Towering Inferno crossover, and that there are bad guys involved. You'll no doubt have also seen the famous leap from a crane by Dwayne Johnsons character into the burning skyscraper. This is where the movie really kicks into action.
Now, I was watching this in 3D, so I'm not sure if it will have quite the same effect on a TV screen at home, but I was literally on the edge of my seat whenever Will was either dangling or jumping 96 floors in the air (which is a lot), while a Hong Kong crowd gasps and cheers on the streets below. The action and peril is relentless, repeatedly moving Will and his family from one dangerous set piece to another. While not quite as funny or charming as he is in his other movies, Skyscraper is still all about Dwayne Johnson though, and all other characters come out of this pretty short changed. Neve Campbell gets a couple of chances to kick some ass, but otherwise she's pretty underused. The bad guys aren't particularly effective, or memorable, neither are the police team down on the ground.
It's predictable and it's ridiculous. But I absolutely loved it.
The movie opens 10 years ago, with FBI agent Will Sawyer (Johnson) and his team attending a domestic hostage situation which goes badly wrong. Back in the present, Will is now an amputee and married to the military nurse that cared for him during that incident (Neve Campbell). They've got 2 young kids and the whole family is in Hong Kong where Will has been hired as security consultant for The Pearl, a new state-of-the-art skyscraper and the tallest building in the world. A news reel montage fires off lots of impressive facts and figures about the building, hardly giving you time to digest or even question them. Let's just say, it cost billions of dollars, looks incredibly futuristic (and a bit silly) and is a scientific wonder of the world. Before The Pearl opens up its doors for people to live and work in though, Will needs to sign off on fire safety and security.
We're shown Will putting on his false leg, letting us know how that all works in preparation for later scenes in the movie. Will then fixes his wife's phone before he rushes out of the door and ushers a line so obviously important to the movie it's actually annoyingly distracting. So important is this piece of information, he actually uses two variations of it within minutes of each other too - "Remember, you can fix 90% of problems by just turning it off and on again...". Like I say, just disengage your brain, don't worry about it, and you'll be fine.
If you've seen the trailer, you'll have gathered that Wills family are the only residents in The Pearl, with the buildings owner and his team way up top in the penthouse. You'll have gathered that this is attempting to be a Die Hard / Towering Inferno crossover, and that there are bad guys involved. You'll no doubt have also seen the famous leap from a crane by Dwayne Johnsons character into the burning skyscraper. This is where the movie really kicks into action.
Now, I was watching this in 3D, so I'm not sure if it will have quite the same effect on a TV screen at home, but I was literally on the edge of my seat whenever Will was either dangling or jumping 96 floors in the air (which is a lot), while a Hong Kong crowd gasps and cheers on the streets below. The action and peril is relentless, repeatedly moving Will and his family from one dangerous set piece to another. While not quite as funny or charming as he is in his other movies, Skyscraper is still all about Dwayne Johnson though, and all other characters come out of this pretty short changed. Neve Campbell gets a couple of chances to kick some ass, but otherwise she's pretty underused. The bad guys aren't particularly effective, or memorable, neither are the police team down on the ground.
It's predictable and it's ridiculous. But I absolutely loved it.
Mark Arm recommended Abattoir Blues/Lyre of Orpheus by Nick Cave / Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds in Music (curated)
Magic Window - Living Pictures
Health & Fitness and Lifestyle
6.0
Rate It
App
Turn your iPhone or iPad into a window with a million dollar view. Enjoy beautiful timelapse views...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Joy (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Jennifer Lawrence (Joy), Robert De Niro (Rudy, Joy’s father),
Bradley Cooper (Neil Walker, Joy’s eventual boss), Edgar Ramirez (Tony,
Joy’s ex-husband), Isabella Rossellini (Trudy, Rudy’s girlfriend), Diane
Ladd (Mimi, Joy’s grandmother), Virginia Madsen (Terry, Joys mother),
and Elisabeth Röhm (Peggy, Joys half-sister)
Also making appearances that were notable to me were Susan Lucci as
Danica, a character seen on the TV soap opera that Joys mother Terry is
constantly watching, and Melissa Rivers, playing her mother Joan Rivers
on the TV channel QVC.
David O. Russel wrote, directed and produced the film, bringing the
headliners back for yet another go ‘round, after the successes of Silver
Linings Playbook and American Hustle.
Joy is a divorced mother of 2, living in a house with her Grandmother
Mimi, who she adores, her mother, who practically never leaves her room,
her 2 kids, and her ex-husband in the basement. Shortly after the film
begins, her father Rudy also moves into the basement.
Joy struggles through her life every day, never quite able to get ahead,
and always just barely making ends meet. Her grandmother has big dreams
for her and insists that Joy will “rise above” and “make something” of
her life, but Joy struggles to have faith, and indeed, to even begin to
figure out how to go about such a seeming monumental task.
The story follows Joy and her family through somewhat ridiculous
scenarios, and while it was acted well by Jennifer Lawrence, De Niro,
and most of the rest of the cast, I had a hard time really getting into
the film.
I kept finding myself wondering why Joys family wasn’t more supportive
and why they all, with the exception of her Mimi and her ex-husband,
seemed to be more trying to bring her down and keep her down, than
giving her a boost and a push up. I always have liked Robert De Niro,
but in this film found myself seriously disliking him. I suppose that
speaks to his ability as an actor and being able to portray a role in
which he is “supposed to be” less than 100% likeable.
Jennifer Lawrence as Joy shows tenaciousness, grit and a will to succeed
and “rise above”, at least once she gets to the point in the film where
she has “HAD ENOUGH” of being walked on and disregarded, and plays the
part wonderfully.
I kept hoping to like the movie better, but sadly, also kept waiting for
it to GET better.
Bradley Cooper (Neil Walker, Joy’s eventual boss), Edgar Ramirez (Tony,
Joy’s ex-husband), Isabella Rossellini (Trudy, Rudy’s girlfriend), Diane
Ladd (Mimi, Joy’s grandmother), Virginia Madsen (Terry, Joys mother),
and Elisabeth Röhm (Peggy, Joys half-sister)
Also making appearances that were notable to me were Susan Lucci as
Danica, a character seen on the TV soap opera that Joys mother Terry is
constantly watching, and Melissa Rivers, playing her mother Joan Rivers
on the TV channel QVC.
David O. Russel wrote, directed and produced the film, bringing the
headliners back for yet another go ‘round, after the successes of Silver
Linings Playbook and American Hustle.
Joy is a divorced mother of 2, living in a house with her Grandmother
Mimi, who she adores, her mother, who practically never leaves her room,
her 2 kids, and her ex-husband in the basement. Shortly after the film
begins, her father Rudy also moves into the basement.
Joy struggles through her life every day, never quite able to get ahead,
and always just barely making ends meet. Her grandmother has big dreams
for her and insists that Joy will “rise above” and “make something” of
her life, but Joy struggles to have faith, and indeed, to even begin to
figure out how to go about such a seeming monumental task.
The story follows Joy and her family through somewhat ridiculous
scenarios, and while it was acted well by Jennifer Lawrence, De Niro,
and most of the rest of the cast, I had a hard time really getting into
the film.
I kept finding myself wondering why Joys family wasn’t more supportive
and why they all, with the exception of her Mimi and her ex-husband,
seemed to be more trying to bring her down and keep her down, than
giving her a boost and a push up. I always have liked Robert De Niro,
but in this film found myself seriously disliking him. I suppose that
speaks to his ability as an actor and being able to portray a role in
which he is “supposed to be” less than 100% likeable.
Jennifer Lawrence as Joy shows tenaciousness, grit and a will to succeed
and “rise above”, at least once she gets to the point in the film where
she has “HAD ENOUGH” of being walked on and disregarded, and plays the
part wonderfully.
I kept hoping to like the movie better, but sadly, also kept waiting for
it to GET better.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Growing up I remember watching Alfred Hitchcock Presents on USA network and catching the occasional twilight zone on the weekends. In fact, it’s hard to believe that our second TV was a small black and white 13” TV that we would watch all types of shows on when our living room TV was otherwise preoccupied. While all these shows were only available in black and white, they still portrayed a frightening imagery that likely would lose a lot of their suspense if the show had been presented in color. The Lighthouse, the second feature directed by Robert Eggers (The Witch) utilizes not only a black and white picture to build on the dread of loneliness the film wishes to convey, but also presents itself in a boxy format, to better mimic silent films of a bygone era.
The Lighthouse features Willem Dafoe as Thomas Wake, a grizzled old lighthouse keeper who begins his four-week duty on a secluded lighthouse with Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson), a man who has never worked a lighthouse in his young life. Thomas a former seaman who longs for his time back on the waves directs Ephraim around in his duties as one would expect from an experienced sea captain, teaching Ephraim the way of a lighthouse keeper. One rule that Ephraim must obey is that no one manages the light except Thomas, and no one may look upon its glory except Thomas. Reluctant to obey but not wishing to lose his pay Ephraim obliges and the two spend four weeks managing their duties as best as they can.
It’s after the four weeks, when their relief fails to arrive, that things begin to go off the rails. It is here where the secrets begin to emerge, and the audience is left to wonder whether these two will ever make it off the island. It’s here where the film begins to intensify as the struggle for survival with dwindling supplies, and the effects of loneliness and solitude begin to rear its ugly head. Where each mans sanity will be tested and the bond, they have built over the past four weeks will be put to the test.
The Lighthouse is a movie that is difficult to put into any one genre. Much of the movie plays out like a drama, where the old man and the newcomer work to overcome their differences as one mentors the other. The movie always has an underlying sense of dread, wondering what will come next. As the film progresses, the genre changes, and the suspense and horror begin to develop. What was a job where each man understood their roles becomes a race for survival. The questions begin to mount as we see the characters relationship morph and change. Why did Ephraim choose a life of solitude so far from civilization?
Why doesn’t Thomas allow anyone to man the light but him? What is each men hiding from one another?
William Dafoe does another outstanding job as the gruff, old lighthouse keeper. His accent, mannerisms and evening toasts all are performed with such authenticity that it’s hard to distinguish the actor from the character.
The real surprise was the performance of Robert Pattinson who is best known for his previous works on the Twilight series. He brings so much character to the screen that I would have had a hard time recognizing him if I didn’t know he was in the movie. He delivers a performance that is likely to garner Oscar buzz, something that wouldn’t surprise fans of William Dafoe, but might shock fans of Robert Pattinson. Robert Pattinson in this role is by far the best performance he’s ever done in his career and all, including his most devoted fans, will be pleasantly surprised by his performance in this film.
As I discussed in the opening paragraph, some films and shows play best to the medium that they are recorded on. Much like the old Alfred Hitchcock movies/shows, The Lighthouse benefits from its use of black and white and its boxy presentation. While there is certainly plenty of dialog throughout, it still takes on a very “silent movie” feel. One that you could almost expect to see placards of dialog appear instead of the actual words coming out on the screen. It is this stunning use of the above that truly brings The Lighthouse alive, and if done in color would have lost much of its personality in the process.
There is a ton of imagery and symbolism which I’m sure will be argued about on numerous Reddit posts for the next few days and weeks to come. I won’t pretend to understand much of it, and I believe that Eggers leaves many of what we see open for interpretation. Everything from the lighthouse itself, to the seagulls, to the mermaids (yes you read that correctly) all are open for discussion. After watching it I couldn’t help but wonder what the discussion of this particular film would have led to in my theater appreciation course back in college. That’s not to say that you can’t simply sit back and enjoy it for what it is, I just think its far more beneficial to think of what was seen and try to understand the meaning of it all.
The Lighthouse isn’t a movie that will appeal to everyone. For those who want a scary and suspenseful movie, it would be difficult to recommend.
While it certainly has suspense, it suspenseful in the way of an old Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock movie, as opposed to something more recent like Paranormal Activity. The black and white video and the odd boxy aspect ratio may turn off a lot of folks as well, although I certainly don’t see it being as fascinating if it was done in any other way. There is a lot to love in this movie, and the character portrayals deserve the Oscar buzz that is certainly right around the corner. It’s a movie that is far easier to experience then to explain in a review, so I encourage those with even a little bit of curiosity to take the plunge and experience it for yourself.
The Lighthouse features Willem Dafoe as Thomas Wake, a grizzled old lighthouse keeper who begins his four-week duty on a secluded lighthouse with Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson), a man who has never worked a lighthouse in his young life. Thomas a former seaman who longs for his time back on the waves directs Ephraim around in his duties as one would expect from an experienced sea captain, teaching Ephraim the way of a lighthouse keeper. One rule that Ephraim must obey is that no one manages the light except Thomas, and no one may look upon its glory except Thomas. Reluctant to obey but not wishing to lose his pay Ephraim obliges and the two spend four weeks managing their duties as best as they can.
It’s after the four weeks, when their relief fails to arrive, that things begin to go off the rails. It is here where the secrets begin to emerge, and the audience is left to wonder whether these two will ever make it off the island. It’s here where the film begins to intensify as the struggle for survival with dwindling supplies, and the effects of loneliness and solitude begin to rear its ugly head. Where each mans sanity will be tested and the bond, they have built over the past four weeks will be put to the test.
The Lighthouse is a movie that is difficult to put into any one genre. Much of the movie plays out like a drama, where the old man and the newcomer work to overcome their differences as one mentors the other. The movie always has an underlying sense of dread, wondering what will come next. As the film progresses, the genre changes, and the suspense and horror begin to develop. What was a job where each man understood their roles becomes a race for survival. The questions begin to mount as we see the characters relationship morph and change. Why did Ephraim choose a life of solitude so far from civilization?
Why doesn’t Thomas allow anyone to man the light but him? What is each men hiding from one another?
William Dafoe does another outstanding job as the gruff, old lighthouse keeper. His accent, mannerisms and evening toasts all are performed with such authenticity that it’s hard to distinguish the actor from the character.
The real surprise was the performance of Robert Pattinson who is best known for his previous works on the Twilight series. He brings so much character to the screen that I would have had a hard time recognizing him if I didn’t know he was in the movie. He delivers a performance that is likely to garner Oscar buzz, something that wouldn’t surprise fans of William Dafoe, but might shock fans of Robert Pattinson. Robert Pattinson in this role is by far the best performance he’s ever done in his career and all, including his most devoted fans, will be pleasantly surprised by his performance in this film.
As I discussed in the opening paragraph, some films and shows play best to the medium that they are recorded on. Much like the old Alfred Hitchcock movies/shows, The Lighthouse benefits from its use of black and white and its boxy presentation. While there is certainly plenty of dialog throughout, it still takes on a very “silent movie” feel. One that you could almost expect to see placards of dialog appear instead of the actual words coming out on the screen. It is this stunning use of the above that truly brings The Lighthouse alive, and if done in color would have lost much of its personality in the process.
There is a ton of imagery and symbolism which I’m sure will be argued about on numerous Reddit posts for the next few days and weeks to come. I won’t pretend to understand much of it, and I believe that Eggers leaves many of what we see open for interpretation. Everything from the lighthouse itself, to the seagulls, to the mermaids (yes you read that correctly) all are open for discussion. After watching it I couldn’t help but wonder what the discussion of this particular film would have led to in my theater appreciation course back in college. That’s not to say that you can’t simply sit back and enjoy it for what it is, I just think its far more beneficial to think of what was seen and try to understand the meaning of it all.
The Lighthouse isn’t a movie that will appeal to everyone. For those who want a scary and suspenseful movie, it would be difficult to recommend.
While it certainly has suspense, it suspenseful in the way of an old Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock movie, as opposed to something more recent like Paranormal Activity. The black and white video and the odd boxy aspect ratio may turn off a lot of folks as well, although I certainly don’t see it being as fascinating if it was done in any other way. There is a lot to love in this movie, and the character portrayals deserve the Oscar buzz that is certainly right around the corner. It’s a movie that is far easier to experience then to explain in a review, so I encourage those with even a little bit of curiosity to take the plunge and experience it for yourself.
iStethoscope Pro
Medical and Utilities
App
iStethoscope Pro turns your iPhone into a stethoscope, allowing you to listen to your (or your...
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Russian Doll in TV
Jun 20, 2019
After the success of both Parks and Recreation and Orange is the New Black, I was intrigued by a new Netflix series created by Amy Poehler and Natasha Lyonne. Many fans know them as Leslie Knope and Nicky Nichols, and I’m sure we can all agree they’d make a very interesting duo.
Immediately after seeing the promos for Russian Doll, it was clear that this was going to be a very different tone to their previous work, and felt incredibly offbeat and quirky in nature. The series follows a woman named Nadia Vulvokov (Natasha Lyonne) as she finds herself in a time-loop after she is hit by a taxi and dies. Unfortunately for Nadia, she has to relive her 36th birthday party over and over again. It’s Groundhog Day on speed, which is an utterly delightful concept.
Whilst it may sound similar to Groundhog Day, it’s actually a very unique story. At first it’s easy to worry about the repetitive nature of the series, considering Nadia spends most of her time dying and reliving the same moment. Somehow it manages to stay funny, fresh and watchable throughout all eight episodes. The pacing is spot-on and keeps you guessing, as you follow Nadia’s journey into discovering why she’s found herself in this loop. On this journey, she’s joined by a number of characters including her ex-boyfriend John (Yul Vazquez), close family friend Ruth (Elizabeth Ashley) and a stranger named Alan (Charlie Barnett) who is closer to this situation than he originally realizes.
As the series progresses, we begin to delve into some pretty heavy stuff. Without giving away spoilers, the episodes start to question morality, ethics, the past, and the future. Each character is so well fleshed out and we want to know more about them. It’s easy to become sucked into the world of Russian Doll, and trust me when I say it’s a binge worthy series. You won’t want to stop until you have answers. It’s a show that knows how to balance comedy and drama effectively, delivering laugh out loud then heart-wrenching moments in quick succession. You feel sorry for various characters and loathe others, and it’s an incredibly well fleshed out series.
In terms of its visuals, Russian Doll is a gritty, psychedelic glimpse into the lives of various New York City residents. We see rich and poor, confident and timid, good and bad characters as they go about their daily lives. It’s fascinating to watch and each location has been crafted to give you more insight into the characters in this world. From quirky high-rise apartments to homeless shelters, this series shows it all. It’s the Big Apple in all its glory, whether that’s good or bad.
My advice would be to walk into Russian Doll knowing as little as possible, allowing yourself to approach the situation in a similar way to Nadia. It’s a comedy, thriller and mystery all rolled into one, with each genre complementing the other superbly. As far as Netflix Originals go, this is one of the strongest ones I’ve seen so far. Eight episodes is just enough to keep you entertained, whilst still giving enough backstory to make it a compelling tale. Just when you think you know a character, the tables are turned and your jaw is on the floor.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/07/tv-review-my-thoughts-on-russian-doll/
Immediately after seeing the promos for Russian Doll, it was clear that this was going to be a very different tone to their previous work, and felt incredibly offbeat and quirky in nature. The series follows a woman named Nadia Vulvokov (Natasha Lyonne) as she finds herself in a time-loop after she is hit by a taxi and dies. Unfortunately for Nadia, she has to relive her 36th birthday party over and over again. It’s Groundhog Day on speed, which is an utterly delightful concept.
Whilst it may sound similar to Groundhog Day, it’s actually a very unique story. At first it’s easy to worry about the repetitive nature of the series, considering Nadia spends most of her time dying and reliving the same moment. Somehow it manages to stay funny, fresh and watchable throughout all eight episodes. The pacing is spot-on and keeps you guessing, as you follow Nadia’s journey into discovering why she’s found herself in this loop. On this journey, she’s joined by a number of characters including her ex-boyfriend John (Yul Vazquez), close family friend Ruth (Elizabeth Ashley) and a stranger named Alan (Charlie Barnett) who is closer to this situation than he originally realizes.
As the series progresses, we begin to delve into some pretty heavy stuff. Without giving away spoilers, the episodes start to question morality, ethics, the past, and the future. Each character is so well fleshed out and we want to know more about them. It’s easy to become sucked into the world of Russian Doll, and trust me when I say it’s a binge worthy series. You won’t want to stop until you have answers. It’s a show that knows how to balance comedy and drama effectively, delivering laugh out loud then heart-wrenching moments in quick succession. You feel sorry for various characters and loathe others, and it’s an incredibly well fleshed out series.
In terms of its visuals, Russian Doll is a gritty, psychedelic glimpse into the lives of various New York City residents. We see rich and poor, confident and timid, good and bad characters as they go about their daily lives. It’s fascinating to watch and each location has been crafted to give you more insight into the characters in this world. From quirky high-rise apartments to homeless shelters, this series shows it all. It’s the Big Apple in all its glory, whether that’s good or bad.
My advice would be to walk into Russian Doll knowing as little as possible, allowing yourself to approach the situation in a similar way to Nadia. It’s a comedy, thriller and mystery all rolled into one, with each genre complementing the other superbly. As far as Netflix Originals go, this is one of the strongest ones I’ve seen so far. Eight episodes is just enough to keep you entertained, whilst still giving enough backstory to make it a compelling tale. Just when you think you know a character, the tables are turned and your jaw is on the floor.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/07/tv-review-my-thoughts-on-russian-doll/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Impractical Jokers: The Movie (2020) in Movies
May 28, 2020
Fans of truTV’s Impractical Jokers should know what the show is all about. “Scenes of graphic stupidity among four lifelong friends who compete to embarrass each other.” The show first aired on truTV back in 2011 and has had 8 successful seasons so far. Now jokers Joe, Sal, Q and Murr are headed to the big screen in Funny or Die’s Impractical Jokers: The Movie.
Picture this, Staten Island 1994 at a Paula Abdul concert. The jokers at this point are cocky “youngsters”. Having always had great confidence they decide to break into the concert as security guards. While inside, Joe has the crazy idea of being a hype man for Abdul. After interrupting the show, Abdul becomes enraged and chaos breaks out. Now 25 years later after the success of their show; Abdul happens apon the group and being a big fan, offers the guys three tickets to her next show/party in Miami. Then the guys realize that there are four of them and only three tickets. What better way to settle this than to go head to head with eachother in their classic embarrassing challenges. As per usual if one refuses to do anything the other guys tell them to do or say they loose. So the four of them embark on a hilarious and chaos fueld cross country road trip.
After being a huge long time fan, it was hard to see the guys in a semi scripted project. I am by no means saying it was not enjoyable but just different. The challenges though were a step up from the regular show and were really funny. Being huge fan myself, I was able to pick up on all the easter eggs hidden throughout the film. Though I prefer the show to the movie I was happy with it none the less. Fans and newbies alike should give the film a chance to see them in a different light. If you are new to the jokers and have seen the film; hopefully now you’ll take the time to watch the TV show on truTV and laugh your ass off! Impractical Jokers: The Movie is available to own on Digital now. Go see it!
3 out of 5
Picture this, Staten Island 1994 at a Paula Abdul concert. The jokers at this point are cocky “youngsters”. Having always had great confidence they decide to break into the concert as security guards. While inside, Joe has the crazy idea of being a hype man for Abdul. After interrupting the show, Abdul becomes enraged and chaos breaks out. Now 25 years later after the success of their show; Abdul happens apon the group and being a big fan, offers the guys three tickets to her next show/party in Miami. Then the guys realize that there are four of them and only three tickets. What better way to settle this than to go head to head with eachother in their classic embarrassing challenges. As per usual if one refuses to do anything the other guys tell them to do or say they loose. So the four of them embark on a hilarious and chaos fueld cross country road trip.
After being a huge long time fan, it was hard to see the guys in a semi scripted project. I am by no means saying it was not enjoyable but just different. The challenges though were a step up from the regular show and were really funny. Being huge fan myself, I was able to pick up on all the easter eggs hidden throughout the film. Though I prefer the show to the movie I was happy with it none the less. Fans and newbies alike should give the film a chance to see them in a different light. If you are new to the jokers and have seen the film; hopefully now you’ll take the time to watch the TV show on truTV and laugh your ass off! Impractical Jokers: The Movie is available to own on Digital now. Go see it!
3 out of 5
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Death to 2020 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
The annual event of Charlie Brooker’s Yearly Wipe is the one piece of satire I have been sure not to miss over the years. But 2020 has been a bit different, and finding himself in lockdown like everyone else, Brooker re-imagines the format into a full on talking-heads mockumentary that does away with himself as host in favour of a cross Atlantic vibe and a narration from the bass tones of Laurence Fishburne, no less.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Tyler Perry's A Fall From Grace (2020) in Movies
Aug 23, 2020
Destroyed By Pacing Among Other Things
After being accused of killing her husband, Grace Waters’ (Crystal Fox) only hope is a public defender trying her first case.
Acting: 3
To say the acting is weak is an understatement. Everything is either overdone or underdone, but nothing in the middle. A shame too as there are some really stellar names on the billing. I have honestly seen better dramatizing out of six-year-olds.
Beginning: 5
Characters: 6
Cinematography/Visuals: 3
Conflict: 7
If it’s one thing I can respect Tyler Perry for, it’s finding a way to incorporate consistent drama. More than most, he gets it. What I mean by that is, he understands that drama never has to be forced, rather you put two conflicting sides in the same scene and the drama will happen naturally. The problem here is that the drama in question wasn’t always interesting or intriguing.
Entertainment Value: 3
Memorability: 0
Pace: 5
Got bored real quick and I try and hold interest in movies even when I have to force it at times. Because there were so many moving parts and a lot of what felt like means to no ends, Also way longer than it needed to be.
Plot: 4
Resolution: 2
Overall: 38
Outside of some mildly interesting conflict and decent characters that were buried by a sticky plot, this movie left a lot to be desired. I tried, I really did. But with a movie so low budget it doesn’t even look presentable on a 4K TV, I have to pass on Tyler Perry’s A Fall From Grace.
Acting: 3
To say the acting is weak is an understatement. Everything is either overdone or underdone, but nothing in the middle. A shame too as there are some really stellar names on the billing. I have honestly seen better dramatizing out of six-year-olds.
Beginning: 5
Characters: 6
Cinematography/Visuals: 3
Conflict: 7
If it’s one thing I can respect Tyler Perry for, it’s finding a way to incorporate consistent drama. More than most, he gets it. What I mean by that is, he understands that drama never has to be forced, rather you put two conflicting sides in the same scene and the drama will happen naturally. The problem here is that the drama in question wasn’t always interesting or intriguing.
Entertainment Value: 3
Memorability: 0
Pace: 5
Got bored real quick and I try and hold interest in movies even when I have to force it at times. Because there were so many moving parts and a lot of what felt like means to no ends, Also way longer than it needed to be.
Plot: 4
Resolution: 2
Overall: 38
Outside of some mildly interesting conflict and decent characters that were buried by a sticky plot, this movie left a lot to be desired. I tried, I really did. But with a movie so low budget it doesn’t even look presentable on a 4K TV, I have to pass on Tyler Perry’s A Fall From Grace.