Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bill & Ted Face the Music (2020) in Movies
Oct 7, 2020
And you thought Tenet's timey wimey stuff was confusing?
Thirty-One years after the first Bill and Ted movie, and 29 years after the slightly disappointing sequel, the dudes are back for a three-quel. Older... but not much wiser.
Bill (Alex Winter) and Ted (Keanu Reeves) are the only ones that can save reality. If they don't play the 'song that will unite humanity' at 7:17 at MP42 then the whole of time and space will unravel. It's already happening, with historical characters zapping here and there at random. There are only two problems: 1) they have no idea where MP42 is and; 2) the no-hoper wedding singers haven't written the song... yet.
Zipping forwards in time, they plan to steal the song from their future selves.
Meanwhile their daughters Thea (Samara Weaving) and Kelly (Kristen Schaal) travel backwards in time to assemble a world-class backing band. (As an aside, it is astonishing how much Weaving looks like Margot Robbie - never a bad thing in my book! If there is ever a biopic requiring a young and old version of her character, they will save a BOMB on the CGI bill!)
Meanwhile (meanwhile) Bill and Ted's princess brides (now Erinn Hayes as Elizabeth and Jayma Mays as Joanna) are unsettled with their marriages and are jumping from time to time to see if they can be happy with any version of Bill and Ted.
Death (William Sadler) quotes a Wyld Stallyns review as "A raging confused mess". And it really applies to this too! The screenplay, by original Bill and Ted writers Chris Matheson and Ed Solomon, is all over the place. With a scattergun approach to the comedy, some of the lines firmly stick to the wall - making me guffaw with laughter - and others are just plain duds.
Some of the scenes - a "couples therapy" session for example - seem to be desperately trying to be milked for all they're worth. Even the "monkey" after the end titles - with "old dudes" rocking out - isn't worth the wait.
But, contrary to that, it's also difficult not to be swept along with the anarchic joy of the concoction. The movie of course leans heavily on the nostalgic catchphrases and air guitar riffs of years gone by. But there's no shame in that. And there's a star quality cameo at one point that entertains.
Director Dean Parisot - most famous for the minor classic "Galaxy Quest" - manages to rustle all this diverse material into something that overall still manages to leave an overall stupid grin on your face. As a comedy it passes the '6-laugh' test, but - as someone who has never been a great "Bill and Ted" fan - it's not a classic. But I can see how "Bill and Ted" fans, like my daughter Jenn, would have loved it (and she did).
(For the graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies on t'internet here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/06/bill-and-ted-party-on-til-we-drop-dudes/ . Thx.)
Bill (Alex Winter) and Ted (Keanu Reeves) are the only ones that can save reality. If they don't play the 'song that will unite humanity' at 7:17 at MP42 then the whole of time and space will unravel. It's already happening, with historical characters zapping here and there at random. There are only two problems: 1) they have no idea where MP42 is and; 2) the no-hoper wedding singers haven't written the song... yet.
Zipping forwards in time, they plan to steal the song from their future selves.
Meanwhile their daughters Thea (Samara Weaving) and Kelly (Kristen Schaal) travel backwards in time to assemble a world-class backing band. (As an aside, it is astonishing how much Weaving looks like Margot Robbie - never a bad thing in my book! If there is ever a biopic requiring a young and old version of her character, they will save a BOMB on the CGI bill!)
Meanwhile (meanwhile) Bill and Ted's princess brides (now Erinn Hayes as Elizabeth and Jayma Mays as Joanna) are unsettled with their marriages and are jumping from time to time to see if they can be happy with any version of Bill and Ted.
Death (William Sadler) quotes a Wyld Stallyns review as "A raging confused mess". And it really applies to this too! The screenplay, by original Bill and Ted writers Chris Matheson and Ed Solomon, is all over the place. With a scattergun approach to the comedy, some of the lines firmly stick to the wall - making me guffaw with laughter - and others are just plain duds.
Some of the scenes - a "couples therapy" session for example - seem to be desperately trying to be milked for all they're worth. Even the "monkey" after the end titles - with "old dudes" rocking out - isn't worth the wait.
But, contrary to that, it's also difficult not to be swept along with the anarchic joy of the concoction. The movie of course leans heavily on the nostalgic catchphrases and air guitar riffs of years gone by. But there's no shame in that. And there's a star quality cameo at one point that entertains.
Director Dean Parisot - most famous for the minor classic "Galaxy Quest" - manages to rustle all this diverse material into something that overall still manages to leave an overall stupid grin on your face. As a comedy it passes the '6-laugh' test, but - as someone who has never been a great "Bill and Ted" fan - it's not a classic. But I can see how "Bill and Ted" fans, like my daughter Jenn, would have loved it (and she did).
(For the graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies on t'internet here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/06/bill-and-ted-party-on-til-we-drop-dudes/ . Thx.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Logan Lucky (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Jimmy Logan (Channing Tatum) just got fired from his job and found out that his ex-wife is moving his daughter to another state. He lives for his daughter and needs to get money fast to pay for a lawyer to fight the move. He decides that the best way to get this fast cash is to rob his previous employer, the Charlotte Motor Speedway. He enlist the help of his brother Clyde Logan (Adam Driver), his fast driving sister Millie Logan (Riley Keough), and explosives expert Joe Bang (Daniel Craig). Together they hatch a plan to rob the cash vault under the NASCAR track during the biggest race of the year. It won’t be easy for the crew as they must overcome many obstacles along the way. For one they only one of them who can blow the massive safe, Bang, is currently in prison. Bang also insists that his two inept brothers be included in the heist. There is also the matter of a large private police force patrolling the track. But the biggest hurdle may be the Logan family curse. Something bad is seemingly always happening to the family. Jimmy was destine to go to the NFL before a freak accident ruined his knee and ended his football career. Clyde was on his way back home from deployment in the Army and was hit by a roadside bomb and lost his arm. If they can overcome all of this they can walk away with a fortune.
This Steven Soderbergh (Ocean’s 11, Ocean’s 12, Ocean’s 13) directed film is a fun and fast paced heist film. It definitely fits into the Ocean’s film model, with a large cast, twists that keep the audience guessing and well thought out ending. This films stands apart from those by being more hillbilly than the sleek well put together Ocean’s crew. The film dialog is well done and written expertly by Rebecca Blunt, this is the first screen writing credit for Rebecca. There are plenty of cameos by West Virginia Natives, NASCAR drivers and commentators, and others. I had heard beforehand that there were several cameos and made for a fun exercise in spotting the NASCAR drivers in various roles. The ensemble cast is stellar led by Tatum, Driver and Craig. The cast includes fun performances by a barely recognizable Seth MacFarlane along with Dwight Yoakam, Katie Holmes, and Hilary Swank. There were times thought that the various accents that the cast were attempting to use felt forced and/or missing from particular scenes. The pace of the film is good but does get a little slow during the heist set up and the two hour run time was a tad too long for me.
Overall this is a fun film that fits the heist movie genre perfectly. One news report in the film characterized the robbery as Ocean’s 7/11 and that pretty well sums up the film. The characters are original and if you are a fan of these types of movies you will not be disappointed.
This Steven Soderbergh (Ocean’s 11, Ocean’s 12, Ocean’s 13) directed film is a fun and fast paced heist film. It definitely fits into the Ocean’s film model, with a large cast, twists that keep the audience guessing and well thought out ending. This films stands apart from those by being more hillbilly than the sleek well put together Ocean’s crew. The film dialog is well done and written expertly by Rebecca Blunt, this is the first screen writing credit for Rebecca. There are plenty of cameos by West Virginia Natives, NASCAR drivers and commentators, and others. I had heard beforehand that there were several cameos and made for a fun exercise in spotting the NASCAR drivers in various roles. The ensemble cast is stellar led by Tatum, Driver and Craig. The cast includes fun performances by a barely recognizable Seth MacFarlane along with Dwight Yoakam, Katie Holmes, and Hilary Swank. There were times thought that the various accents that the cast were attempting to use felt forced and/or missing from particular scenes. The pace of the film is good but does get a little slow during the heist set up and the two hour run time was a tad too long for me.
Overall this is a fun film that fits the heist movie genre perfectly. One news report in the film characterized the robbery as Ocean’s 7/11 and that pretty well sums up the film. The characters are original and if you are a fan of these types of movies you will not be disappointed.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Don’t let the “big anime eyes” or unusual title fool you into thinking this will be a lame film. Yes, this movie is based off a manga you’ve probably never heard of. Yes, it is easy to dismiss this film as something that will bomb like last year’s Mortal Engines. But if you place your faith in director Robert Rodriguez and writer/producer James Cameron, you will be treated to a surprisingly solid narrative and fast paced visual spectacle that is worth the price of admission to view in the theater.
The biggest praise I can give to Alita: Battle Angel is that the visually stunning world they create on screen feels “lived in” and real. I found it easy to accept and understand the rules of that world they built and explained throughout film. And while we are not given a full history of their world, we are given enough explanation to understand how or why something existed in their world. This gives us the opportunity to focus on the story of “self-discovery” that Alita ultimately is.
Rosa Salazar motion capture performance of Alita is excellent. Not only in movement but in emotionally delivery. You get the real sense of discovery with this amazing world that Alita is being exposed to. Additionally, as she begins to become more self-aware of who she is, you can understand the emotion and she struggles with love, trust and obligation. Furthermore, from a technical standpoint, by the end of the movie, I was not thinking of Alita being something that is motion captured and instead just accepted her as part of this onscreen world they delivered. This is really something that becomes make or break with this film for some people and it’s easy to dismiss it based on the trailers. However in context of the film, it works and does a good job drawing you in.
In addition to Alita, we are given strong performances from the ensemble cast of characters in the film. Christoph Waltz play’s Alita surrogate father Dr. Dyson Ido, Keean Johnson as the street smart and resourceful Hugo, Mahershala Ali as the gangster type gate keeper Vector, Jennifer Connelly as the morally ambiguous goal focused scientist and Ed Skrein as the cocky bounty hunter. Each of these characters play their roles well and help usher in the different levels of the society they live in. Perhaps the once complaint I have of this film is that the pacing of this film is so fast that we miss an opportunity to obtain a bit more backstory from some of these characters. It is not a big loss, but it makes you wonder if this film would have been better served as a 10 episode Netflix series or something of that nature.
In the end, I found myself enjoying this film more than I expected I would. Is it a perfect film? No. Nor does it invoke emotionally deep existential thought that the manga it is based on provides. But it does tell a sold story of self-discovery in a visually stunning and fully realized world. It is fun, fast paced and something that should be seen in the theaters. And if possible, do yourself a favor and watch it in 3D. This film has some of the best 3D effects since Avatar. The 3D doesn’t feel like an afterthought or gimmicky, but instead works to enhance the on screen world.
The biggest praise I can give to Alita: Battle Angel is that the visually stunning world they create on screen feels “lived in” and real. I found it easy to accept and understand the rules of that world they built and explained throughout film. And while we are not given a full history of their world, we are given enough explanation to understand how or why something existed in their world. This gives us the opportunity to focus on the story of “self-discovery” that Alita ultimately is.
Rosa Salazar motion capture performance of Alita is excellent. Not only in movement but in emotionally delivery. You get the real sense of discovery with this amazing world that Alita is being exposed to. Additionally, as she begins to become more self-aware of who she is, you can understand the emotion and she struggles with love, trust and obligation. Furthermore, from a technical standpoint, by the end of the movie, I was not thinking of Alita being something that is motion captured and instead just accepted her as part of this onscreen world they delivered. This is really something that becomes make or break with this film for some people and it’s easy to dismiss it based on the trailers. However in context of the film, it works and does a good job drawing you in.
In addition to Alita, we are given strong performances from the ensemble cast of characters in the film. Christoph Waltz play’s Alita surrogate father Dr. Dyson Ido, Keean Johnson as the street smart and resourceful Hugo, Mahershala Ali as the gangster type gate keeper Vector, Jennifer Connelly as the morally ambiguous goal focused scientist and Ed Skrein as the cocky bounty hunter. Each of these characters play their roles well and help usher in the different levels of the society they live in. Perhaps the once complaint I have of this film is that the pacing of this film is so fast that we miss an opportunity to obtain a bit more backstory from some of these characters. It is not a big loss, but it makes you wonder if this film would have been better served as a 10 episode Netflix series or something of that nature.
In the end, I found myself enjoying this film more than I expected I would. Is it a perfect film? No. Nor does it invoke emotionally deep existential thought that the manga it is based on provides. But it does tell a sold story of self-discovery in a visually stunning and fully realized world. It is fun, fast paced and something that should be seen in the theaters. And if possible, do yourself a favor and watch it in 3D. This film has some of the best 3D effects since Avatar. The 3D doesn’t feel like an afterthought or gimmicky, but instead works to enhance the on screen world.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Vivarium (2020) in Movies
Mar 8, 2020
I like the idea of these weird and wonderful takes, when I saw the synopsis I knew it needed to make my LFF shortlist.
Tom and Gemma are looking to take the next step in their relationship, getting their very own home. On a whim they visit an oddly minimal estate agents where they meet Martin. Martin is enthusiastic about the chance to show them the perfect home in the perfect community, Yonder.
When they arrive in the deserted town it's instantly strange. Every house looks like the last, every street looks like the next, and Martin's enthusiasm never waivers. They decide to "dine and dash", politely look around and then leave to laugh about the whole experience on the way home, but as they complete their tour they realise that Martin has gone.
As the couple head home in their car they realise they're somehow lost, the simply designed neighbourhood has become a labyrinth that keeps leading them back to that same house. Maybe this is home after all.
Writing that extended synopsis was an exciting reminder of the idea at the core of Vivarium. Its story would definitely fit well into the recent trends of Black Mirror, Dimension 404 and Twilight Zone, and that was something that slightly hindered my enjoyment. Those formats work well in a compact episode size chunk, the film is only 97 minutes long but the content seems to have been stretched out to fit that runtime.
Towards the end of Vivarium we're introduced to a lot of information that you don't really have enough time to process, so much so that it feels like a rather unsatisfying development. That's where the similarities to the TV show idea ends, could it have benefitted from a sharper end? I'm not sure, perhaps that is all just part of the intrigue.
Jesse Eisenberg and Imogen Poots made quite a good match in the leads, from the off you can see their nature coming through, they're in sync and happy. As the situation deepens and they get more confused and frustrated you see them pulling apart while simultaneously clinging to each other because they're all that they have in the world. It's a lot of ups and downs for the characters to go through and yet the pair manage to make it work, with so much of (basically all of) the film relying on this dynamic I'm pleased that there was such a strong performance from them both.
It's difficult to express the way I feel about this film, I love the idea, the acting was great and the design of the town and the sets were picture perfect in that agonising horror kind of way (it reminded me of the fake 1950s towns they'd set up for atomic bomb testing), where I'm on the fence is the ending. Throwing in the scene that was out of tune with the rest of the film didn't add intrigue for me, but that being said, I'm still thinking about the film months after seeing it so... did it?
While my score might not necessarily seem like a recommendation I honestly think that everyone will take something different away from this about a wide range of things. I swing wildly between remembering the film without that ending to with it, and I don't know which version of the town I prefer seeing in my head...
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/vivarium-movie-review.html
Tom and Gemma are looking to take the next step in their relationship, getting their very own home. On a whim they visit an oddly minimal estate agents where they meet Martin. Martin is enthusiastic about the chance to show them the perfect home in the perfect community, Yonder.
When they arrive in the deserted town it's instantly strange. Every house looks like the last, every street looks like the next, and Martin's enthusiasm never waivers. They decide to "dine and dash", politely look around and then leave to laugh about the whole experience on the way home, but as they complete their tour they realise that Martin has gone.
As the couple head home in their car they realise they're somehow lost, the simply designed neighbourhood has become a labyrinth that keeps leading them back to that same house. Maybe this is home after all.
Writing that extended synopsis was an exciting reminder of the idea at the core of Vivarium. Its story would definitely fit well into the recent trends of Black Mirror, Dimension 404 and Twilight Zone, and that was something that slightly hindered my enjoyment. Those formats work well in a compact episode size chunk, the film is only 97 minutes long but the content seems to have been stretched out to fit that runtime.
Towards the end of Vivarium we're introduced to a lot of information that you don't really have enough time to process, so much so that it feels like a rather unsatisfying development. That's where the similarities to the TV show idea ends, could it have benefitted from a sharper end? I'm not sure, perhaps that is all just part of the intrigue.
Jesse Eisenberg and Imogen Poots made quite a good match in the leads, from the off you can see their nature coming through, they're in sync and happy. As the situation deepens and they get more confused and frustrated you see them pulling apart while simultaneously clinging to each other because they're all that they have in the world. It's a lot of ups and downs for the characters to go through and yet the pair manage to make it work, with so much of (basically all of) the film relying on this dynamic I'm pleased that there was such a strong performance from them both.
It's difficult to express the way I feel about this film, I love the idea, the acting was great and the design of the town and the sets were picture perfect in that agonising horror kind of way (it reminded me of the fake 1950s towns they'd set up for atomic bomb testing), where I'm on the fence is the ending. Throwing in the scene that was out of tune with the rest of the film didn't add intrigue for me, but that being said, I'm still thinking about the film months after seeing it so... did it?
While my score might not necessarily seem like a recommendation I honestly think that everyone will take something different away from this about a wide range of things. I swing wildly between remembering the film without that ending to with it, and I don't know which version of the town I prefer seeing in my head...
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/vivarium-movie-review.html
Lost - Season 1
8.5
Rate It
TV Season Watch
Oceanic Air flight 815 tore apart in mid-air and crashed on a Pacific island, leaving 48 passengers...
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Ms. Marvel: Volume 3: Crushed in Books
Nov 30, 2020
This review is really for the first three volumes, including this one.
So, first let me start off by sharing a little honesty.. I read the first volume 4 or 5 months ago. I thought it fun, but not enough to pursue reading further volumes. A lot has gone down in my life since that first outing. For those of you who either a) do not know me offline, or b) have not looked at my GR profile, I was diagnosed with RRMS (relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis) in September of last year, then two months later, we said goodbye to Lily, our 14-year-old Mini Schnauzer.
Prior to all that, I used to live a relatively structured life, with plans-of-a-sort as well as a job. I have since had to step down from my job (thanks, MS!). I have also taken to trying to lead a "sloth life". I live each day as if it were the last, preferring to not plan days in advance. I also am trying to let a lot more roll off my back, giving an honest effort to having more fun with life.
One of those things which is appearing to be helpful to my mental well-being and general happiness has been G. Willow Wilson's MS. MARVEL.
GWW took a character who was once Carol Danvers (now Captain Marvel), a superhero whose costume did nothing what so ever to aid feminism or help to have less objectifying looks for our female heroes. She gave Ms. Marvel a proper reboot, presenting us with Kamala Khan, a young Pakistani-American living in NJ. Her character is one of many who were exposed to the Terrigen Mist via a Terrigen Bomb released by Black Bolt, the Inhumans' king; her powers gained gave her the ability to be polymorphic, i.e. shape-changing.
The series presents us with an imperfect hero. Kamala struggles to balance her hero life, while hiding it from her parents. She maintains her Muslim faith, offering us glimpses into her life and much of what it entails. The handling of it is both mature yet fun, giving us a palatable, more open approach to their faith, rather than what the Idiot in the WH has tried to portray it!
Like Marvel's UNBEATABLE SQUIRREL GIRL, MM is clearly a book that, at its heart, lies a good sense of fun, as well as some good life lessons along the way. In an era where the focus appears to be "Gloom Is Good" and "The Darker The Story, The Better", it is truly refreshing to read a book like this one.
As amazing as Wilson's writing is, the series' artists - Adrian Alphona, Takeshi Miyazawa and fill-in artist Jacob Wyatt (Issues 6 and 7) - all did one heckuva job providing artwork that was as fun as the writing it was supporting. All three were different, yet they shared similarities in their rendering of Kamala and her supporting cast, helping to maintain continuity rather than breaking it via wholly dissimilar art.
I know that there only few more volumes before Wilson hands the reins to Saladin Ahmed (MILES MORALES: SPIDER-MAN, BLACK BOLT), with the art being handled by with art by Minkyu Jung. I have seen Wilson's own page, where she seemed very confident in Ahmed's future handling of Kamala's adventures. That, alone, is good enough for me!
Seriously, if you have not checked out, please, please check out the adventures of MS. MARVEL. Your heart and mind, not to mention your soul, will be more the better for it! Promise!
So, first let me start off by sharing a little honesty.. I read the first volume 4 or 5 months ago. I thought it fun, but not enough to pursue reading further volumes. A lot has gone down in my life since that first outing. For those of you who either a) do not know me offline, or b) have not looked at my GR profile, I was diagnosed with RRMS (relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis) in September of last year, then two months later, we said goodbye to Lily, our 14-year-old Mini Schnauzer.
Prior to all that, I used to live a relatively structured life, with plans-of-a-sort as well as a job. I have since had to step down from my job (thanks, MS!). I have also taken to trying to lead a "sloth life". I live each day as if it were the last, preferring to not plan days in advance. I also am trying to let a lot more roll off my back, giving an honest effort to having more fun with life.
One of those things which is appearing to be helpful to my mental well-being and general happiness has been G. Willow Wilson's MS. MARVEL.
GWW took a character who was once Carol Danvers (now Captain Marvel), a superhero whose costume did nothing what so ever to aid feminism or help to have less objectifying looks for our female heroes. She gave Ms. Marvel a proper reboot, presenting us with Kamala Khan, a young Pakistani-American living in NJ. Her character is one of many who were exposed to the Terrigen Mist via a Terrigen Bomb released by Black Bolt, the Inhumans' king; her powers gained gave her the ability to be polymorphic, i.e. shape-changing.
The series presents us with an imperfect hero. Kamala struggles to balance her hero life, while hiding it from her parents. She maintains her Muslim faith, offering us glimpses into her life and much of what it entails. The handling of it is both mature yet fun, giving us a palatable, more open approach to their faith, rather than what the Idiot in the WH has tried to portray it!
Like Marvel's UNBEATABLE SQUIRREL GIRL, MM is clearly a book that, at its heart, lies a good sense of fun, as well as some good life lessons along the way. In an era where the focus appears to be "Gloom Is Good" and "The Darker The Story, The Better", it is truly refreshing to read a book like this one.
As amazing as Wilson's writing is, the series' artists - Adrian Alphona, Takeshi Miyazawa and fill-in artist Jacob Wyatt (Issues 6 and 7) - all did one heckuva job providing artwork that was as fun as the writing it was supporting. All three were different, yet they shared similarities in their rendering of Kamala and her supporting cast, helping to maintain continuity rather than breaking it via wholly dissimilar art.
I know that there only few more volumes before Wilson hands the reins to Saladin Ahmed (MILES MORALES: SPIDER-MAN, BLACK BOLT), with the art being handled by with art by Minkyu Jung. I have seen Wilson's own page, where she seemed very confident in Ahmed's future handling of Kamala's adventures. That, alone, is good enough for me!
Seriously, if you have not checked out, please, please check out the adventures of MS. MARVEL. Your heart and mind, not to mention your soul, will be more the better for it! Promise!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Why Him? (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
When an “out of touch” Midwesterner owner of a paper factory (Bryan Cranston) decides to take his family to California to spend Christmas with his college student daughter (Zoey Deutch) and meet her new tech-millionaire, but socially inept boyfriend (James Franco), a typical father vs boyfriend faceoff ensues. For many, Why Him? will be enough to satisfy the comedy itch. Those expecting to find the next gut busting comedy will be disappointed, while those thinking it will be a dull comedy will be pleasantly surprised. This film is somewhere in the middle. A constant stream of chuckles with a few bigger laughs here or there. But ultimately forgettable at the lack of main characters to root for.
The highlights of this film include Cranston who reminds us that he has comedic timing from his years in Malcom in the Middle. His chemistry and timing is played well across Megan Mullally who perfectly delivers a few genuine laughs as a Midwestern suburban wife trying to maintain the niceties. Their son (Griffin Gluck) also adds to the humorous family affair as a teenage brother trying to be taken seriously as an adult but still being treated as a child. Lastly, the always funny Keegan-Michael Key hilariously plays Gustav, the “estate manager” to the tech-millionaire boyfriend and spices up the film every time he seems to appear.
James Franco on the other hand quickly wears out is welcome as the socially inept tech-millionaire boyfriend. At times he is funny, however after the dropping the “f-bomb” so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless “caricature” only going for the low hanging fruit of crude jokes. Still, his crude, repeated, jokes are no longer funny after the first few times we see them. The film tries to give Franco some “mysterious depth” through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Franco’s character never actually evolves past his caricature shortcomings. It is a shame, because we actually like the girlfriend character (Zoey Deutch) and want to understand what she sees in Franco’s character, however since he never really evolves, there really is no reason to like or root for them to be together.
I also want to point out that this film acknowledges its biggest flaw. At one point in the film a character points out that there is a war going on between father and boyfriend, only the boyfriend isn’t actually fighting. That’s true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Franco’s boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranston’s father character only evolves because the movie devolves into “paint by numbers” territory in the last 10 minutes. Since there is no one to root, we do not really care the outcome as we got our chuckles throughout the film but will forget about it shortly after walking out the theater.
Why Him? Has a solid cast, a few unexpected cameos and delivers constant chuckles throughout, however without giving us a likeable boyfriend or any characters to root for, the lack of memorable gut busting laughs has this film as nothing more than a typical forgettable comedy.
The highlights of this film include Cranston who reminds us that he has comedic timing from his years in Malcom in the Middle. His chemistry and timing is played well across Megan Mullally who perfectly delivers a few genuine laughs as a Midwestern suburban wife trying to maintain the niceties. Their son (Griffin Gluck) also adds to the humorous family affair as a teenage brother trying to be taken seriously as an adult but still being treated as a child. Lastly, the always funny Keegan-Michael Key hilariously plays Gustav, the “estate manager” to the tech-millionaire boyfriend and spices up the film every time he seems to appear.
James Franco on the other hand quickly wears out is welcome as the socially inept tech-millionaire boyfriend. At times he is funny, however after the dropping the “f-bomb” so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless “caricature” only going for the low hanging fruit of crude jokes. Still, his crude, repeated, jokes are no longer funny after the first few times we see them. The film tries to give Franco some “mysterious depth” through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Franco’s character never actually evolves past his caricature shortcomings. It is a shame, because we actually like the girlfriend character (Zoey Deutch) and want to understand what she sees in Franco’s character, however since he never really evolves, there really is no reason to like or root for them to be together.
I also want to point out that this film acknowledges its biggest flaw. At one point in the film a character points out that there is a war going on between father and boyfriend, only the boyfriend isn’t actually fighting. That’s true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Franco’s boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranston’s father character only evolves because the movie devolves into “paint by numbers” territory in the last 10 minutes. Since there is no one to root, we do not really care the outcome as we got our chuckles throughout the film but will forget about it shortly after walking out the theater.
Why Him? Has a solid cast, a few unexpected cameos and delivers constant chuckles throughout, however without giving us a likeable boyfriend or any characters to root for, the lack of memorable gut busting laughs has this film as nothing more than a typical forgettable comedy.
The National Lottery(Official)
Lifestyle and Entertainment
App
Download the Official National Lottery App now and make magic happen! You can check your National...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Deepwater Horizon (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing” could be a summary of this modern-age disaster movie. In 2010 the “Deepwater Horizon” drilling rig off the coast of Louisiana failed in spectacular fashion, bursting into flames and spewing millions of barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico in what was the worst oil-spill in American history. Mark Wahlberg plays the well-respected electrical ‘Mr fixit’ Mike Williams on the rig, reporting to the Operations Manager Jimmy Harrell (Kurt Russell).
The exploratory project is way-behind and BP are not happy. Big-wigs from the company add support to Donald Vidrine, the BP site leader, in applying mounting pressure on Harrell to press on regardless without all the necessary and time-consuming tests by Schlumberger being completed. Rogue numbers in further tests are waved away as ‘glitches’. A familiar story of corporate greed and pressure overriding the expert’s better judgment.
When disaster strikes it strikes quickly, with some spectacular and exciting special effects that leave the audience especially hot under the collar. Female support is provided by the comely Andrea Fleytas (Gina Rodriguez), given the almost impossible job of keeping the floating bomb on station as chaos reigns about her. As an audience we are back on familiar ground here from classic Irwin Allen disaster movies such as “The Towering Inferno” and “The Poseidon Adventure”. Who will make it, and who won’t?
A more telling question here is “Do we care?” and unfortunately for the film, the answer is “Not really”. This feels a callous thing to say when this was a real and recent event and eleven people and – as touchingly illustrated at the end of the film in tribute – many of them family men with young kids, never went home again. But film-wise, we only really get bought into the fate of Williams, whose back-story, with cute wife (Kate Hudson) and cute daughter (Stella Allen) we get to meet and sympathize with.
We get a minimalist view of Fleytas’s backstory, but only enough to provide a recurring “Mustang” reference. And that’s it. All the other characters are just two-dimensional “rig crew”: cannon-fodder for the special effects team. The screenplay by Matthew Sand and Matthew Carnahan really doesn’t deliver enough heft to get us bought in.
While the special effects are good, the sound design isn’t, with much of the dialogue being incomprehensible.
All the acting is fine, with the ever-watchable John Malkovich nicely portraying the corporate head you love to hate. Wahlberg as well delivers enough range to make you forget in this “action mode” that he was also in “Ted”. And Rodriguez as a junior lead holds her own against the big guns in what is a creditable performance in a big film role for her.
While “Lone Survivor”/”Battleship” director Peter Berg neatly provides an insight into life on and around rigs, and (via subtitles) descriptions of the drilling process which I found interesting, this comes down to the sum of a tense build up, an hour of frenetic disaster, and then a whimper of an ending. Where were some of the dramatic scenes of conflict in the congressional hearing that the film’s opening implies might come? Where are the scenes of ecological disaster and local financial ruin to add emotional angles to the story? None of this is really exploited and the whole concoction comes across a bit “meh” as a result. Not a bad film by any means. But not one I will remember in a month or two’s time.
The exploratory project is way-behind and BP are not happy. Big-wigs from the company add support to Donald Vidrine, the BP site leader, in applying mounting pressure on Harrell to press on regardless without all the necessary and time-consuming tests by Schlumberger being completed. Rogue numbers in further tests are waved away as ‘glitches’. A familiar story of corporate greed and pressure overriding the expert’s better judgment.
When disaster strikes it strikes quickly, with some spectacular and exciting special effects that leave the audience especially hot under the collar. Female support is provided by the comely Andrea Fleytas (Gina Rodriguez), given the almost impossible job of keeping the floating bomb on station as chaos reigns about her. As an audience we are back on familiar ground here from classic Irwin Allen disaster movies such as “The Towering Inferno” and “The Poseidon Adventure”. Who will make it, and who won’t?
A more telling question here is “Do we care?” and unfortunately for the film, the answer is “Not really”. This feels a callous thing to say when this was a real and recent event and eleven people and – as touchingly illustrated at the end of the film in tribute – many of them family men with young kids, never went home again. But film-wise, we only really get bought into the fate of Williams, whose back-story, with cute wife (Kate Hudson) and cute daughter (Stella Allen) we get to meet and sympathize with.
We get a minimalist view of Fleytas’s backstory, but only enough to provide a recurring “Mustang” reference. And that’s it. All the other characters are just two-dimensional “rig crew”: cannon-fodder for the special effects team. The screenplay by Matthew Sand and Matthew Carnahan really doesn’t deliver enough heft to get us bought in.
While the special effects are good, the sound design isn’t, with much of the dialogue being incomprehensible.
All the acting is fine, with the ever-watchable John Malkovich nicely portraying the corporate head you love to hate. Wahlberg as well delivers enough range to make you forget in this “action mode” that he was also in “Ted”. And Rodriguez as a junior lead holds her own against the big guns in what is a creditable performance in a big film role for her.
While “Lone Survivor”/”Battleship” director Peter Berg neatly provides an insight into life on and around rigs, and (via subtitles) descriptions of the drilling process which I found interesting, this comes down to the sum of a tense build up, an hour of frenetic disaster, and then a whimper of an ending. Where were some of the dramatic scenes of conflict in the congressional hearing that the film’s opening implies might come? Where are the scenes of ecological disaster and local financial ruin to add emotional angles to the story? None of this is really exploited and the whole concoction comes across a bit “meh” as a result. Not a bad film by any means. But not one I will remember in a month or two’s time.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Oppenheimer (2023) in Movies
Jul 27, 2023
Gonna Win A Ton of Awards
Clear your shelves, Christopher Nolan and many of those involved in the making of his new movie OPPENHEIMER, you’re going to need the space for the many, many trophies you are going to receive next spring.
Based on the life of the “Father of the Atomic Bomb”, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Nolan’s latest epic is a rarity in today’s Motion Picture landscape - a prestige picture, bankrolled lavishly, filmed gorgeously and populated with a veritable who’s who of “A” list actors that tells a complex story of a complicated man who ends up remorseful of what he has unleashed in this world.
And it works very, very well.
Nolan regular, Cillian Murphy, is equal parts quirky, driven, determined and haunted in his multi-layered performance as the titular character - who is in almost every scene of this 3 hour film. He is fascinating to watch and his “more internal than external” performance draws the audience in throughout the events depicted in this film. It is the Best Performance of the career of one of the most interesting actors of this generation and one should not be surprised if his name is called during awards season next year.
Murphy is capably supported by a long list of strong performers giving strong performances in roles that are much smaller than ones they normally receive. Matt Damon, Florence Pugh, Josh Hartnett(!), Casey Affleck, Rami Malek, Matthew Modine, Kenneth Branagh (of course, it’s a Nolan film), Jason Clarke and Alden Ehrenreich bring their “A” game to roles that could have been thrown away.
Also, good ol’ Tom Conti (one of the most interesting actors from the late ‘70’s and early ‘80’s) shows up in this film as Albert Einstein and reminds us all why he is such a good performer…and…wait until you see who shows up for one scene in this film as President Harry S. Truman!
Oh…and don’t forget Emily Blunt (as Oppenheimer’s wife) and (surprisingly) Robert Downey, Jr. (as a politician using Oppenheimer for his own purposes). Both of them put in Award-winning-level uspporting performances, elevating two “A” list actors to the “A+ list”.
But this film is more than just it’s performers. Nolan demands - and receives - top notch work from the Cinematographer, the Sound Designer, the Editor, the Costume Designer and the Composer (Ludwig Goranssson, NOT Nolan regular Hans Zimmer). They (along with Nolan) craft a beautifully made and put together film that will dazzle the senses. If you get a chance, see this film in a movie theater and, if you can, see it in either iMAX or 70mm, you will be glad you did.
What holds this film back - just a little bit - is the story that is being told. Nolan (as he is want to do) plays with time and pretty frenetically cuts back and forth between about 4 different timelines to tell this story. It’s effective most of the time, but at other times, it becomes distracting and….with a 3 hour run time…does drag a bit at times.
But these are quibbles to a film that is “as good as it gets” by the BEST DIRECTOR plying his trade today. It is another triumph for Nolan and he will be making many, many acceptance speeches in just a few short months.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Based on the life of the “Father of the Atomic Bomb”, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Nolan’s latest epic is a rarity in today’s Motion Picture landscape - a prestige picture, bankrolled lavishly, filmed gorgeously and populated with a veritable who’s who of “A” list actors that tells a complex story of a complicated man who ends up remorseful of what he has unleashed in this world.
And it works very, very well.
Nolan regular, Cillian Murphy, is equal parts quirky, driven, determined and haunted in his multi-layered performance as the titular character - who is in almost every scene of this 3 hour film. He is fascinating to watch and his “more internal than external” performance draws the audience in throughout the events depicted in this film. It is the Best Performance of the career of one of the most interesting actors of this generation and one should not be surprised if his name is called during awards season next year.
Murphy is capably supported by a long list of strong performers giving strong performances in roles that are much smaller than ones they normally receive. Matt Damon, Florence Pugh, Josh Hartnett(!), Casey Affleck, Rami Malek, Matthew Modine, Kenneth Branagh (of course, it’s a Nolan film), Jason Clarke and Alden Ehrenreich bring their “A” game to roles that could have been thrown away.
Also, good ol’ Tom Conti (one of the most interesting actors from the late ‘70’s and early ‘80’s) shows up in this film as Albert Einstein and reminds us all why he is such a good performer…and…wait until you see who shows up for one scene in this film as President Harry S. Truman!
Oh…and don’t forget Emily Blunt (as Oppenheimer’s wife) and (surprisingly) Robert Downey, Jr. (as a politician using Oppenheimer for his own purposes). Both of them put in Award-winning-level uspporting performances, elevating two “A” list actors to the “A+ list”.
But this film is more than just it’s performers. Nolan demands - and receives - top notch work from the Cinematographer, the Sound Designer, the Editor, the Costume Designer and the Composer (Ludwig Goranssson, NOT Nolan regular Hans Zimmer). They (along with Nolan) craft a beautifully made and put together film that will dazzle the senses. If you get a chance, see this film in a movie theater and, if you can, see it in either iMAX or 70mm, you will be glad you did.
What holds this film back - just a little bit - is the story that is being told. Nolan (as he is want to do) plays with time and pretty frenetically cuts back and forth between about 4 different timelines to tell this story. It’s effective most of the time, but at other times, it becomes distracting and….with a 3 hour run time…does drag a bit at times.
But these are quibbles to a film that is “as good as it gets” by the BEST DIRECTOR plying his trade today. It is another triumph for Nolan and he will be making many, many acceptance speeches in just a few short months.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)